Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive253

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


John Searle

I've just noticed coverage of serious allegations within the article on the philosopher John Searle. The allegations are recent and appear to be well sourced (though I haven't clicked on any of the links to check if they actually say what it's implied that they say), but they are merely allegations. Searle is a public figure but he's not a celeb. Some more expert, dispassionate attention to the article would probably be helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed has published the complaint filed against him[1], and it is quite serious and has received a lot of coverage in other media. It would be odd to exclude it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm rather worried about undue biases in this article. Its history and talk page show that it has in the past given (and I think still gives) a surprising amount of space to an academic dispute that doesn't strike me as important to Searle's work. Though I try to AGF I have sometimes wondered if partisan editors aren't seizing on sticks with which to beat him. Do please keep the article on your watchlist and look out for excesses. -- Hoary (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: The case is a civil suit, and one not even against Searle, who thus has no ability to contest the BuzzFeed assertions. The only claim which can be made under WP:BLP appears to be "In March 2017, BuzzFeed published a report that UC Berkeley was being sued for failing to investigate charges of sexual impropriety made against Searle." As this is a brand-new civil suit, I fear that it may well be misused as an attack on Searle even though the suit is against UC Berkeley and only against UC Berkeley. Collect (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why this edit is not a case of hiding embarrassing details for the sake of it. Why exactly would the removed details, which have been widely reported by now, violate BLP? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a case where WP:BLPCRIME enters in -- the person is not facing any criminal charges, and the mention is tangential to a civil suit against the university, not any suit against the person mentioned. Thus the material is "allegation without any formal charge" at best. Collect (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME reads, in part, "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." Searle is not a relatively unknown person. He is a very prominent and well-known philosopher. So yes, your edit looks like hiding embarrassing details for the sake of it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Its a gap in BLPCRIME. Searle is not actually being accused of anything directly, there is no chance of a conviction, nor any (legal) way of him refuting the allegations except by counter-suing. Were this a court case directly against him, I would generally agree keeping it out would be odd, but this is a civil case against a university. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Cultural history of the buttocks

I need a reality check about whether I'm misreading this situation as a BLP violation. At Cultural history of the buttocks#Popular culture, there was a list of multiple people described as "The buttocks of many celebrities have become famous, including:". I removed the list as a BLP violation and protected the page for a week. That's going to expire soon. Many names were completely unsourced, or sourced to tabloids; there seems to at least be general agreement that those names are not to be re-added when protection expires. But it appears more difficult than I'd thought to get an easy, clear consensus that it is not OK to have a list of people who have had their butts mentioned even in what might normally be considered "reliable sources" like Clinics in Plastic Surgery, ESPN, Slate, USAToday, etc. Could a few people weigh in here or on the article talk page about the BLP implications? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that is a great article title. freshacconci (✉) 14:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this article a credit to Wikipedia? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If you ask me, the article is fine, but the "Popular Culture," "Pornography," and "Fetishism" sections are extraneous at best -- I'd get rid of those. Thanks.

  • Unfortunately, the "idea" of including this as a topic/section within an article such as this is not that out of the ordinary. The entire premise of the article is based on the sensationalizing of the buttocks through history; and certainly, present day celebrities have themselves drawn great attention in the media on account of their "attributes". However, although the concept may be well-intended, the formula is not: in that, one cannot trust the editing factor here at WP that would warden personal opinion and preference. It would have to be very well sourced in compliance with the subject themselves to be included; and not just by an editor who say: "Hey, I think [they] have a nice --- so I'll add their name". This just leads to a mess of edit-warring that is unnecessary for what is trying to be accomplished. OK idea, very bad formula. Maineartists (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I posted my thoughts on that talk page but this statement reflects my opinion: it is one of those lists that is going to be misused because we unfortunately have RSes commenting on famous people's rears all the time, but mostly meant to be taken as gossip, but some editors will be convinced it should be taken as real, and demand inclusion. The few isolated cases where there may be legitimate reason to include are not as valuable as avoiding BLP to a lot larger set of people, so we should avoid this list alltogether. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
What about Rear of the Year? I certainly remember Felicity Kendal receiving that. (Paging the Chuckle Brothers) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, you know what they say down in Greenbow, Alabamy .... "Life is like a box of butt-ocks!" (or something like that). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC) ... this one really has ethnically diverse legs, I feel.
Perhaps the list could be split down the middle. EEng 15:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If you had a good-ass book with a good-ass list of good asses...by... some kind of recognized ass scholar, that may be a stronger argument. But I'm pretty sure if you look hard enough you can probably find someone somewhere that said anyone's favorite celebrity has a nice butt (I'm pretty sure celebrity gossip pieces are semi-automated anyway). That's basically the ideal recipe for an indiscriminate list that has much more to do with the opinions of Wikipedia editors (in what they search for to find sources on a subject when very few celebrities would probably not have sources available), than it does about any really meaningful inclusion criteria. TimothyJosephWood 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be a manageable list if it was restricted to 1 individuals with their own biographical article, 2 where the article includes mention of their buttocks.Martinlc (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really sure it's based on a premise that is by its nature at all manageable. I mean, what is really the difference between being a "famous ass" and being an ass attached to a famous person. Presumably their face, and other body parts are also fairly famous. Maybe if their ass was famous enough that it needed its own article, but from what I can tell, you pretty much have to literally be Hitler or Jesus to get an article on part of your body that doesn't redirect to the main article on you. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
You may well be right, but it's not such a revolutionary idea. And let's not forget our Polish ecclesiastical friends. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

War Machine (mixed martial artist)

War Machine (mixed martial artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

When he was thirteen, The woman beater unsuccessfully performed CPR on his father, only to witness him die during the process.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.85.61 (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting others know about this IP 24.80.85.61. I have undid the other IP's edit and have added a warning to their user talk page. Just for future reference, any editor may remove content they feel clearly is in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as explained in WP:BLPREMOVE. So, if you notice the same thing being added again, just undo the edit and leave a clear edit sum explaining why. If the other IP continues to be disruptive, then you can add an appropriate user warning template to their user talk page; some templates have 1 through 4 levels with 4 being the final warning to stop. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr.

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

I have edited the entry because I believe it did not contain a complete history of the judge's rulings and reputation on the bench. The previous article was outdated as its primary focus was a single case out of thousands and ignored his position as the presiding judge in the In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation C.A.No. 05-4182 which encompassed 12 categories of litigation from insurance for homeowners to the liability of the federal government for the failure of the levee system in the Greater New Orleans area. Moreover, the specific narrative concerning the License Plate Case was incorrect as a matter of law. The initial reversal was not "unanimous 5th Circuit" and it was only a 3 judge panel. It was on an "en banc" rehearing that the decision was tied 8 to 8. Judge Duval has retired and the entry as now edited now represents his judicial career in toto as well as describes his reputation on the bench as stated anonymously by lawyers in the Aspen Report as cited therein.

I would add that I previously edited this article and Flyer22 Reborn's "rejections" of these edits was unsupported and ill-conceived considering the statement that he is "best known" for a case that pre-dates the Katrina litigation. See the website that contains all of those decisions http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/case-information/realtime-reporting.

Cidalise Waterman (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Cidalise Waterman

(Non-administrator comment)@Cidalise Waterman: The Wikipedia community encourages editors to be bold in making improvements to articles. If, however, the edits you make are reverted by another editor, then the thing to do is follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and discuss things on the article's talk page. The thing not to do is make an edit like this. Articles are not battlefields for trying to right some great wrong or set the record straight. Although Wikipedia takes violations of its BLP policy quite seriously, I'm not sure that's the case here. This appears to be a content dispute among editors, so I suggest you start a discussion at Talk:Stanwood Duval to try and resolve it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Paulette Leaphart

I need some additional eyes on Paulette Leaphart. Recently this person was the subject of an extensive CNN article [2]. I am not surprised the subject seems to have been mostly edited by those who adore her, or vilify her. Would someone else help to try to keep this as objective as possible? It would be good if my own objectivity were also checked. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

After reading the CNN article twice now, it is clear that the article on this subject is far from neutral. The one sentence at the end simply does not provide equal weight. If even a fraction of what this reporter is claiming is true; the article on this subject needs to be structured entirely different and the notability for her inclusion may even need to be reassessed. The story is now being picked up by other media outlets; as can be seen by simply typing in the subject's name on a Google search with the first hits all claiming "fraud", "backlash", "exaggerate", etc on account of the CNN piece. Supporters of this subject should not be editing this article if they cannot remain objective to the current claims. The notability of this subject for inclusion has drastically shifted, IMHO. Maineartists (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Henry Stone (comedian)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stone_(comedian) Hi we're from Henry's management, there's a big banner calling the neutrality of the article and its sources into question on the front but there's no further info on what would be required to fix it. We think this article was made around the time that his TV show debuted by some listener of his podcast so don't actually have direct access to the person, could someone please suggest what needs cleaning up? We'll look into finding some verifiable sources for that kind of info and if they're not available delete the problematic material.

Everything on there to our eye is correct but if the entire article is a problem or we don't hear anything back we'll likely take action to have it removed (or as much as it can be removed) because having a banner inferring that it's been written by a non-neutral subject is a problem for everyone.

The tag was added by Duffbeerforme, so I suggest you ask him or her. (Also, please review our conflict of interests policy for instructions on how to go about editing the article.) El_C 06:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
After you read up about conflict of interest you should also read about undeclared paid editing and about the misuse of sockpuppets. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we have read the COI and also can see that the original editor was a sockpuppet. Talking to client, he thinks it could be a hire out through the production company who made the show he's in (again the creation date matches the network release date so it would make sense). We don't want to edit the article as we have a clear COI but if Duffbeerforme you or another editor is willing to review and perhaps execute edit suggestions we make then we feel like this will hopefully keep the neutrality of wikipedia in check and be the right process? Again from what we can see although it's a COI/sockpuppet generated article, it doesn't seem to have too much in the way of gushing language. There are clearly some pieces of info that, while true, aren't sourced so we advocate for their removal if need be. Sorry for by proxy, bringing turmoil to the system on this, appreciate the discussion. 11.08, 4 April 2017 (AEST)

Hi El_C if Duffbeerforme is unavailable could we perhaps send our suggested edits to you for verification and checking, if you have the time? Thanks for your help. --Eternitygrubagency (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Kristina Pimenova

This strikes me as a promotional fluff piece, with questionable sources and unencyclopedic language. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated blanking of Kristina Pimenova. I'd appreciate another pair of eyes--I could just be grumpy, but if I weren't restrained by manners and responsibility I'd be tempted to delete this as promotion, and combined with Draft:The Russian Bride I'd say that Lyrda's primary purpose is not improving the encyclopedia. Oh, it's about an 11-year old girl. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the subject is notable. There are pages about her in Russian WP ru:Пименова, Кристина Руслановна and in several other WPs. For some reason they did not link automatically to this page in English WP. But it is indeed promotional. Text and sources must be improved - agree. My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I think, User:Drmies, that you might want to assume good faith instead of handing out personal attacks. If you think the text needs to be improved, then why don't you help. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and no article is ever perfect. Lyrda (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
That this is a collaborative project, I think I know that as well as you, and I think you should also realize that there is plenty of reason to think you are promoting some stuff here. This isn't a matter of good faith, and my raising this concern is not a personal attack. I do think, however, that that article can be improved, and I'll be glad to help, though I doubt you'll like it. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I offer these edits up to the judgment of the community. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Drmies Please check yourself. You have a legitimate point, but you're attitude is far from admirable at this point. Your edit summaries are teetering on insulting; and "yes", it feels a bit "personally attacking", sorry to say. I'm just a pair of fresh eyes as you asked; and I can see both sides. There was a better way to handle the "gameography" situation; and that was not collaborative. I'll start watching the page to see if edits are constructive or personally driven with subjective intent on either side. I do think the subject is notable (barely); but I think deep down you are having a struggle to accept that and this may be clouding your ability not to attack-edit presently. Improving an article does not mean: deleting. Please stop with your demeaning summary comments. Maineartists (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you should seriously refrain from doing amateur psychology. And if I have a legitimate point, then my deletions are article improvements, no? Drmies (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
No. Your laziness in not doing further research to provide reliable sources does not equal deletion for improvement. Your hastiness in deletion doesn't even allow you to clean up the mess in your wake. I'll respect when I see contribution and construction. Until then, your words speak louder than actions. Maineartists (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Youtube video WP:SELFPUB

Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Youtube as BLP source

There was a dispute as to if this video[3], can be used as a reliable source as to Stanley Goldenberg's opinions (the person the video is of). I think this easily qualifies as WP:SELFPUB, as it is a "questionable source used as sources of information about themselves." Still they wanted me to check here and confirm. -Obsidi (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with the editors' caution. Although the video could be considered as a WP:SPS as a source of his opinions, it is also WP:PRIMARY. In the context of the editorial question "does Goldenberg belong on the page listing scientists sceptical of consensus on global warming ?", we are in fact asking is this scientist notable? What are his research areas? How do his views sit with consensus? If the only source for his research is video of a conference paper then he probably isn't notable, and we have to work out for ourselves whether his views are mainstream or not. There should be good secondary sources such as scientific papers discussing his work, and if there aren't we cannot do our own research to fill the gap.Martinlc (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
We are not, in this case, asking if this scientist is notable ("notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." There is no question on if any given article needs to exist). The list has an internal requirement that all people on the list must be notable enough to have their own WP page (fairly standard list requirement to limit the size and increase the value as a navigation tool). In this case, he does already have his own WP page Stanley Goldenberg. So notability isn't the issue. The only questions are on Wikipedia:Verifiability consistent with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines. -Obsidi (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
It is a WP:PRIMARY source, which does make it more dangerous to use for fear of misinterpreting things. There were other sources I preferred initially such as the Washington Times article or the MRC article, but due to restrictions in BLP we have to be careful and other editors did not want to use these secondary sources. I figured given we have the primary sources, that should at least be enough if these secondary sources don't work, given WP:SELFPUB the restrictions on BLP are a lot less when a person is speaking about their own views. -Obsidi (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
It may not matter as much anymore (although I would still like to include the youtube video and get resolution on this for future maters), I found what I think is an undeniablly relaible source, but we will see what other people think. -Obsidi (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
In general, if you were to point to a transcript of a long-ish video, there would be a whole lot of pages, and I would probably ask you to provide a page number. Vague waves to a long vids aren't gonna convince me, but I might at least look at a link that goes to the specific time stamp that you hang your hat on. And then I'd have enough informration to make an informed response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Now that I can agree with, identifying specific timestamp and quoting language seems appropriate rather than a page number. Timestamp 3:58 "There is no reliable method yet--models, statistical or otherwise--that can reliably predict a major climate event el nino, even one or two months in advance. Dirty little secret there. Ok. They are making more strides in understanding el nino, but they cannot predict something like that one or two months in advance. And they are wanting me to believe a climate model projecting 50 years, 70 years in advance, enough said on that." -Obsidi (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Paul O'Neill (rock producer)

Is the TSO official website sufficiently reliable to cite for a recent death announcement? [4] looks legit, respectful, and appropriate... but it's a self-published source rather than a major news outlet. Google News shows nothing as of yet, but I've AGF'ed that this is legit and restored the IP edits adding this info. If I'm wrong, please revert me. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

[5] has it now. Nevermind... Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Bharat Aggarwal

People are expressing personal opinions and "no source" or poor source to write this article. The comments on talk page regarding retirement, for example by "Zefr" shows some kind of personal vendetta to defame the living person, and not coming from any source cited. Either this page has to deleted or corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CDAF:CEB0:495D:3E45:63E0:13BE (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
....Uh, I see only | one edit from you on Wikipedia under this Ip address, and none on the page of Bharat Aggarwal. Zefr | appears to be attempting to insert sourced facts into the article, and there's at least one person (who I won't name, due to potential outing ] who appears to be doing the exact opposite. Also, this appears to have been discussed before on this board in October, again, I won't post the link, (potential outing) but at that time, it was essentially the same discussion with consensus that the contested text, which appears to be the same thing, was ok because it was sourced reliably.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

In a statement, M.D. Anderson subsequently confirmed to the Chronicle that Aggarwal had retired - this ref being used to support this passage - a position from which he resigned under pressure in 2015 due to allegations of fraud in his research. - doesn't say anything about him resigning under pressure or that it was fraud.
A cancer researcher who recently retired from MD Anderson Cancer Center
This week, the Houston Chronicle covered Aggarwal’s retirement and retractions...
The now-retired Aggarwal
Bharat Aggarwal, an MD Anderson Cancer Center researcher who retired at the end of 2015.
Aggarwal is no longer working at MD Anderson, according to a statement we just received from the institution: Bharat B. Aggarwal retired from MD Anderson Cancer Center on December 31, 2015. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
[| this reference ] which states "A prominent Houston scientist under investigation by M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for alleged manipulation of research data left the center weeks before another journal found fault with the validity of his studies. (emphasis mine ) actually states as much. Houston Chronicle is valid, and backs up the claim that's being made. It's valid, Zefr's edit is fine, and we have an SPA (not you, Isaidnoway) attemptiong to wash that out of the article.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  21:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
There is actually a reference (#14) being used in the article that states it outright - officials confirmed this week that they are reviewing herb investigator Bharat Aggarwal's studies after the federal government notified them of allegations of fraud by academic whistle-blowers - This source makes it clear and would support that assertion. The part that says he resigned under pressure in 2015 is not currently supported by any reliable sources used in the article and in the career section it explicitly states - MD Anderson Cancer Center confirmed to Retraction Watch that Aggarwal retired from the institute on December 31, 2015. If there are sources that state he resigned under pressure - those should be included to support that claim. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the link to the Houston Chronicle may back up Zefr's edit, problem is, it's behind a paywall and without access, we can't see the rest of the story. Zefr may be able to shed some light on this for us, pinging him now to see if he has access behind that paywall.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

John Searle

Professor John R. Searle has recently had allegations made against him for sexual misconduct. Given the policy: WP:BLPCRIME that "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured" I don't think that it is appropriate to include the allegations in his biography. Outside of academia, Searle is "relatively unknown." Currently the article has a single paragraph and an editor stating in the talk that he intends to expand the mention. I don't think it should be a part of the article at all as he is relatively unknown. Should the case against him develop further such that he is found guilty, sure, that may be worth inclusion. As the case stands now, it is just an allegation against a relatively unknown person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixelpix (talk • contribs) 05:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Mixelpix is a user who has been editing since 2013, yet made very few edits until very recently. He apparently has little experience here, and it is thus not surprising that he would misunderstand policy. "Relatively unknown" means that someone isn't known as important for any reason and has little public profile; that is certainly not true of Searle. Mixelpix has misunderstood "relatively unknown" to mean "not known by most people", a ridiculous interpretation to place on the policy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: FreeKnowledgeCreators post is nothing more than a personal attack and also a straw man argument. My editing history is completely irrelevant, as is the inclusion of allegations in the biography which user: FreeKnowledgeCreator has yet to justify. I have asked this editor (who has a long history of making his opinion known on wikipedia) to please stop misusing wikipedia as a gossip column. It is a fact that Searle is relatively unknown outside of academia. It is a fact that the only reason Searle is mentioned in news articles where the allegations are mentioned is in relation to and the context of the institution which employs him. It is the case that the inclusion of the sexual misconduct allegations have not one iota of relevance to Searle's biography and, per the policy stated above, inclusion of the allegations without any further developments in the legal case do nothing more than cast aspersion upon the character of subject of the biography article. This aspersion seems to be the explicit intent of user as he not only does not justify the inclusion, he does not justify or demonstrate his claim that "Searle is a well known person" : FreeKnowledgeCreator. Mixelpix (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Whether Searle is "relatively unknown outside of academia" is irrelevant. WP:BLPCRIME does not suggest that being "relatively unknown outside of academia" is a reason for excluding material suggesting that someone committed a crime. Rather it states that, "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." Searle's being known in academia, as established at length in the article about him, is enough to show that he is not "relatively unknown". Mixelpix has shown repeatedly that he does not understand the policy he has invoked, and he appears to have no interest in understanding it. His assertion "It is the case that the inclusion of the sexual misconduct allegations have not one iota of relevance to Searle's biography", is a because-I-say-so type statement that is not worth arguing with. Mixelpix, you should try looking at other biographies, such as Thomas Pogge, to see how things are done on Wikipedia. You might save yourself a lot of trouble that way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
To give an example of just how confused Mixelpix is, here's one of his comments from Talk:John Searle, "He is by no means "well known" even among the ~40% of Americans who have a college degree and much less the entire world." How does Mixelpix suppose that Searle's not being well known among people in the entire world is relevant? Probably no one is well known by that standard. To think that most people in the entire world have to be aware of someone's existence for them to not be "relatively unknown" by the standards of WP:BLPCRIME is the most ludicrous interpretation that could possibly be placed on it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As a pair of fresh eyes offering a neutral POV, I must agree that regardless the subject's level of recognition, his notability is thus that his inclusion was warranted here at WP. That should stand alone for his being known. Second, the LA Times should suffice for its claim to be sourced reliably. However, what I might raise an issue with - since it is so early in the allegations / investigation - much of the content is still "hearsay"; and the sources (such as Buzzfeed) are not that reliable. In fact, as an editor, I steer away from Buzzfeed altogether for this very reason. To me, there are certain lines that seem "stacked" in a tabloid sense presently, and should only be mentioned once proven to be true (second paragraph almost doesn't belong). I would provide consensus to scale back the section - at least for now. But it should remain; as it looks as though it's not going away. However, a "current news" header on the section might be necessary. Maineartists (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Another fresh pair of eyes: I don't see how he could be considered "relatively unknown". The coverage of the accusations against him should be treated with extreme care and be verified by high-quality sources per BLP, which appears to be the case. The only thing I see is that the first section of the article after the lede is the "Biography" section that contains a very large "Politics" subsection and the "Sexual harassment allegations" subsection. This places a great deal of weight on the allegations (and his political opinions and activity), weight that's rather undue on the allegations. I was expecting to see a subsection about the allegations at the end of the article, after the many things he's notable for. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Jaromir Jagr

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

Edit warring/ongoing vandalism of Jagr's personal details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.219.203 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

luke jackson

someone has changed Luke Jackson's employment information from Northwest Christian University to Portland State University citing an article that speculates that he would be offered a position at Portland State and accept it. In fact he has not been offered or accepted a position and remains employed at Northwest Christian University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.229.224 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Louise Mensch

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

This article about the brilliant, colourful, and rather eccentric figure, a "chick lit" author and former British MP who is now writing on matters relating to cybersecurity and the Russian interference in US and Western European politics, has seen some problematic editing recently. As often happens with such figures, she appears to have attracted POV editors who have added add inadequately sourced, cherry-picked, or misrepresented content that diminishes the subject and marginalizes her work. I would appreciate it if editors would have a look at the article and talk page and help contributors to improve the article. Most recently, a thread on the talk page here [6] has attracted one editor who seems to be denying fundamental BLP protections. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this article but examining the talk page I'd ask why you brought this here instead of responding to this comment, addressed to you:
  • Just because you called them "BLP smear violations" does not mean they are. You've already had ample time to "dispute" the content. Have you have disputed that these are — as the sources say — "conspiracy theories"? No. Or have you disputed that Mensch actually said those things? No. Have argued that the sources are being misquoted? No. Have you tried to explain why this content might theoretically be contentious? No. Here's what you have done: you have deleted sourced content with a false edit summary; threatened me with DS and then refused to explain why; cried BLP without bringing up a single specific source or claim. None of these are not valid ways of challenging sourced content. Stop wasting my time — I've stopped wasting yours and mine on the "Russian Interference" article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Wherever it's discussed you'll have to identify which specific claims you believe to be BLP violations and why. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you explain why you've removed sections sourced to articles by, or interviews with, Mensch herself in reliable sources? [7]. If there's one reliable source for people's views, it's their own words. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Look back a bit further, I think it's the conspiracy theory stuff that is problematic. Specifico, You can't exclude a political commentator / authors self disclosed views. That's perfectly sourced and relevant given the books she writes. The conspiracy stuff needs a closer look but it's approaching midnight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, some of the other stuff is ... questionable, but that section is perfectly OK. I have no idea why it was pulled. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As often happens in BLPs of lesser-known figures, POV editors can cherry pick self-sourced statements or statements from what would otherwise be RS, but not mainstream-view, coverage to color the BLP in an unfavorable light. I didn't come here to continue any content disputes, nor is this BLPN the place for me to respond again to any article talk page editor who reiterates here questions that I have already addressed on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: I don't consider "the intercept" "the daily beast" and "the independent" strong RS for extraordinary claims that paint Ms. Mensch as a lunatic. Same goes for "international business times." Same goes for a 'new republic" opinion piece by an author who tweets "bat guano" with a photo of Ms. Mensch here [8]. Call me crazy folks, but if there is solid mainstream sourcing to back these extraordinary claims about Ms. Mensch, then there will be no problem for its insistent editors to find rock-solid references. That's a key part of our BLP principles here. We give that protection to every BLP subject, not just the more conventional ones with more widely-held views. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The Independent is hardly some random website, but more importantly their story quite literally has a video of Mensch on the BBC saying exactly what they claim. I dunno that one can get much more reliable than being able to watch her express precisely the views ascribed to her, and it's hard to claim it's UNDUE to repeat something she was willing to go on national television and say.
Are the rest of these "extraordinary claims" going to turn out to be just as evidently true?
Having read the edit linked above I also think you were a wee bit too keen to remove articles written by Mensch, which give the reader an insight into what the subject of the article thinks. You don't seem to feel the need to remove other articles written by Mensch such as the Telegraph article in "Writing career"; why is that? Pinkbeast (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
An encyclopedia article, and especially a BLP, is not merely a collection of facts. As I stated at the outset, this is a rather shall we say energetic woman, who's said she is ADHD and says and does all sorts of things. It's therefore especially important to rely on a balanced viewpoint as reflected in the most reliable and reasoned sources that reflect a mainstream POV. This problem comes up over and over in BLP's of figures who have lots of interviews, blog posts, self published and op-ed pieces, etc. WP editors are prone to select bits that fit their viewpoint rather than the mainstream consensus view or the central view of all independent observers. "Writing Career?" -- actually I tried to re-write the sentence about "defending chick-lit" but after looking at the cited source, it looked like such a mess I ran out of time. At any rate, I don't think that section is apt to reflect poorly on her, and I don't see a BLP issue. I think the "defending" bit is UNDUE but not a smear. SPECIFICO talk 03:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry it was late but Black Kite got what I meant - I agree the conspiracy stuff certainly needs a closer look - but the Independant is a reliable source to use in general. The Intercept, IBT etc are variable in quality depending on what they are being used for - which is why I think that whole section was questionable. What I was referring to in 'perfectly sourced' was her self-expressed views on feminism etc from the Guardian (which was the latest section you removed.) Which are both reasonable to include and relevant given her writing career - there is no policy based (BLP or sourcing) reason to exclude them, and UNDUE would be a hard sell given the subject matter. If there are other pieces on feminism that she has done that are contradictory, then by all means there is a discussion to be had about what to include. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Mensch's views on feminism are hardly being cherry-picked here to paint her in a bad light by selecting an incidental aspect to focus on; Heat Street mentions them about as often as it repeats the fatuous "no safe spaces" mantra, and failed Tory MPs aren't such regular writers for the Grauniad that two articles represents a tiny slice of her vast oeuvre. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Breitbart conspiracy theories - well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary facts. Ideally, I would like to see another person claim that he died in suspicious circumstances or a mention in an unrelated source some way down the line (ideally after Trump's left office, which may be a while, I'll admit) so we're not just citing a walled garden. However, The Independent is generally considered a good source, and it is transcribing something Mensch said on national television, so I don't have an issue with it, as long as it is given due weight in the article compared to everything else she has said, and if it actually says what the sources do - which is just she thinks it may be the case, and nothing else. BLPs are a moving target and so it is feasible in time this issue will become less important than it is now, at point we can revisit things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we need another person? All the article says is that Mensch said she thinks it happened. That's pretty well beyond dispute. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
UNDUE weight in a BLP is not OK. This is a public figure who's said and done an unusual number of things. Other such figures might be Pres. Trump, Alan Dershowitz, Madonna, et al. Wikipedia can't just cherrypick facts or incidents that are not widely demonstrated to be noteworthy and central to the narrative of such figures' lives. Content that reflects the mainstream view of Ms. Mensch, or any notable public figure, will have many first-rate RS citations for the content. Many of the citations in the dubious content in this article are marginal at best. We shouldn't need to use them for BLP narratives. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I would generally agree with Specifico (and Ritchie) regarding this point. UNDUE is not about 'is this true', its about demonstrating 'is this relevant and notable enough to be in an article?'. Plenty of notable people have odd ideas, sometimes these ideas get coverage and sometimes they just disappear. My rule of thumb is I like to see at least two reputable sources covering something, rather than just one. This is not a universal opinion, but from the above it looks like Ritchie is broadly in line with me on this one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I must say that initially, I had no knowledge or opinion at all concerning Ms. Mensch, and then after reading the article as of a week or so ago, I had the impression she was, as some bloggers and tweeters say, a lunatic. Then having done some research, I found that it was not hard to find RS that give a very different impression, that of a rather brilliant and focused individual with a quirky personality. Among other things, she appears to enjoy being provocative and will not apologize for being an assertive and flamboyant 21st-century female. In my experience, many such women's BLPs suffer the same sorts of issues that I found in this article. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
It was notable enough to be in the Independent and on the BBC. SPECIFICO themselves describes her as someone who writes on "cybersecurity and the Russian interference in US and Western European politics"; if a conspiracy theory about someone being assassinated by Putin doesn't fall into the latter topic, what does? In other words, even SPECIFICO finds themselves describing her in terms that make this conspiracy theory of hers entirely relevant, not some side issue. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Pinkbeast, we're not talking AfD and notability here. Moreover, WP articles are not just a collection of everything on a topic relating to BLP subject, even the topic of their current activity. The question is DUE WEIGHT, and you are not addressing that issue or the points previously raised by others in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I am addressing that point, you just don't like the answer. If someone who writes on "Russian interference in US and Western European politics" advances a conspiracy theory about an American political commentator being assassinated by Putin, it's entirely germane to the article. It is not giving undue weight to Mensch's views on feminism, either, when half the columns she ever wrote for a major national newspaper were about those views. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: "I found that it was not hard to find RS that give a very different impression" Then cite the facts and opinions contained in these "RS". You have not cited single source: not in the article, not on the talk page, not anywhere. Stop wasting people's time. Seriously. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

With all his misty-eyed fawning over the person in question, it's not difficult to see who the real POV editor is in this discussion. Sometimes people just have to accept that if their idol spent most of their life doing things which paint themselves in a bad light, an encyclopaedic summary of that person will struggle to do much else. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, are you talking about Mensch or Trump? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed two statements that I feel are cherrypicked disparagement from marginal sources, per other discussions on RSN over the past couple of years, and I am disappointed to see them immediately reinserted in the article at this diff. I would welcome comments just on this point. It seems to me that there would be much better, unquestionable sources if this content deserves WEIGHT in the article. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What did you honestly expect with this edit? Your vague and perpetually shifting "concerns" are completely without merit, a fact that's been pointed out to you over and over an over again. You routinely delete factual and uncontroversial content with edit summaries like "removed BLP smear", suggesting that you either don't know what a "smear" is or that you don't care. As far as notability is concerned, what sources would be required to establish it? Front page of the NYT? Cambridge Uni Press? The Holy Bible? If that's the case we should delete the entire article, because Mensch is a non important enough to receive any attention in these kinds of sources. So, The New Republic (x2), The Intercept, The Daily Best, BBC, The Independent, The International Business Times will have to do. There is no grounds for "questioning" that she said any of these these things, because everyone who believes in the existence of a physical world knows she that did. Please stop disrupting the site! Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Please present some additional Reliable Sources, more mainstream than what's been offered, to establish that these are noteworthy facts about and in the context of Ms. Mensch's life and work. If these are not cherrypicked bits from these marginal sources, it should be easy to find unimpeachable sources that discuss the significance of these snippets. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a bit of a dodge, both because of the suggestion that (say) the BBC isn't mainstream enough (eh?) and because of the demand not that reliable sources say she did say these things (which they do) or that editors tend to agree they are significant (which they do) but that reliable sources be found to analyse the relative significance of Mensch's remarks - which isn't a requirement and of course is a conveniently difficult criterion to satisfy. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not cited to BBC. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
If that bothers you, add a cite to the BBC. You know as well as anyone else that she said it _on_ the BBC. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Just did. Here is the full interview, which is highly entertaining. Mensch is sort of a Milo Yiannopoulos character: not in demand in the UK, but embraced by partisan hacks in the US (Daily Kos asserts that she's "not a nutter"). Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have tried to be clear -- the question before us is not whether Ms. Mensch said this or that. The question is whether we have RS that establish the noteworthiness of these statements and relevance to the story of her life and work. So adding the video of her saying this or that does not address the issue. What would support inclusion in the article is citing subsequent discussion to RS (such as bbc or any other mainstream journalism or notable analysts that stand up to WP RS criteria). Pulling up fringe, bloggy, and other marginal commentary -- even if overlinked with half a dozen in a row -- doesn't fit the bill. A primary source such as the BBC interview does confirm (as nobody disputed) that she said XYZ but it doesn't tell us whether these statements fit the many other tests we use to measure prospective WP and BLP content. SPECIFICO talk 12:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

And we've addressed that question, with a clear consensus between the other editors that have commented here that this material is entirely appropriate. Asking the question again won't get another answer.
You're also straying a bit off the BLPN topic here. The burning issue for BLPs is, is it _true_? There's no doubt about that. What you're now arguing is an ordinary content dispute (where the other editors who have commented seem to agree the material should be included).
I suppose I had better head the obvious response off at the pass by saying, yes, there are some cases where there could be a BLP issue with choosing to focus on an obscure view the subject holds, bringing it to unnecessary public attention. Donald Trump might hate kittens, but that's not a licence to open the lead on the page about him by describing him as a well-known kitten-hater.
... however, it is _not_ one of those cases when the subject has been willing to go onto the BBC and state the view themselves, or to write about it at length in a major national newspaper. The subject has already sought public attention for their view. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the test for a BLP is not "Is it true?" -- I will go to the BLP policy page and gather a few points that I'll bring here. No it's not an "ordinary content dispute" -- because we have a specific policy and Discretionary Sanctions on all BLP content here. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say that was "the test"; indeed I specifically mentioned another issue, which also doesn't apply here. It is an ordinary content dispute; you don't think this material is germane enough to include, everyone else does. Trying to dress it up in BLP terms ("we can't give the impression Mensch is someone who keeps coming up with unlikely conspiracy theories just because she keeps coming up with unlikely conspiracy theories") isn't convincing anyone. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Why not just let others speak for themselves, svp. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorting this out

OK. The feminism bit has been endorsed here, and it's back in the article. The rather more problematic "conspiracy theory" aspersions -- which are very weakly sourced, now includes the silly interview on BBC telly in which Andrew Nell launches into a garbled barrage of misrepresentation and tabloid-style confrontation (playing to the gallery on set and at home) that Ms. Mensch spends the entire interview correcting and debunking. So this reference has recently been reinserted in a form which, if I understand correctly, is not in a form or with citations that address my concerns, acknowledged above by @Only in death: and @Ritchie333: with respect to "conspiracy theories." The BBC link recently added to "verify" the text actually does exactly the opposite, since nearly the entire colloquy is about the fact that Mensch was stating a personal opinion and never claimed to be reporting a fact to any journalistic standard. So it appears to me that @Pinkbeast: and @Guccisamsclub: have mot differentiated and reflected the concerns stated by various editors above with respect to the conspiracy bit. Finally, yes Pinkbeast, BLP issues are content issues in a sense. But they are not "ordinary" -- they're content issues that must meet the special BLP standard. This board does deal BLP content issues, not with behavioral issues as at ANI or AE. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Specifico, in the Andrew Neil interview she does say that she believes that murder allegation. She tweeted it, and she stands by it as a belief. SarahSV (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Right, but she's differentiating her belief as a blogger from her presentation or allegation of a fact as a journalist. The host tries to catch her up on this, but she keeps clarifying the point. Editors earlier in this thread have seemed to say that the BBC source is not sufficient to suggest that she has stated this is a "fact" -- and yet the fact bit, which she specifically rebuts in the cited BBC reference, is being reinserted repeatedly in the article. So it would be helpful to have third opinions on this. I find her distinction clear and reasonable, and the attempt to assert that she is a rabid believer in unverified tales is to my mind a BLP smear. I note the in-studio sneers and smirks as the the host turns away at the end. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
"stated as fact" appears nowhere in the article. She "stated" it (based on "absolute belief") which is true enough. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a distinction without a difference. She said she believed it. Neil asked what the basis of the belief was. (Beliefs are cognitive; they have to be based on something, even if mistaken). She replied by asking him if he had a [religious] faith. He gave up at that point. If it's important to add that she simply believes it, then add that, but I can't see any reason to remove it entirely. SarahSV (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that Neil had her on his show for the purpose of disparaging her. And Neil's reputation for that kind of BLP-noncompliant infotainment is pretty well established. If this were a noteworthy part of Ms. Mensch's story, there would be numerous unimpeachable RS to verify the encyclopedic significance of it. In BLP's we don't just throw in everything a person has said, even every dumb thing someone's said. Check out the BLP's of other folks recently in the news. Do they all recount the unconfirmed views or uncorroborated opinions of Trump, Nader, or Jill Green? In fact the Trump article, just to take one that's fresh, has only one or two of his many conspiracy theories in the WP article. And it's not as if Ms. Mensch is like, e.g. G. Edward Griffin is notable primarily for conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It was an extraordinary thing to say, and Neil gave her the opportunity to repudiate it. Instead, she dug in, clearly standing by it. She then went further with the "temporary superpower" thing. There's nothing to indicate that Neil had her on solely to denigrate her. But regardless, he listened while she explained herself. She is the source here; this is an authoritative primary source. SarahSV (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I meant to add: what do you mean by "Neil's reputation for that kind of BLP-noncompliant infotainment is pretty well established"? SarahSV (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
He is known for stirring controversy, at least in his telly incarnation. But, what makes you think it's DUE WEIGHT in the context of Ms. Mensch's life and career? And what makes you reject the concerns stated by 2 editors above as to whether she is asserting fact in a journalistic role or whether she is offering conjecture in her blogging role (for which she's been acknowledged to have had good judgment in various cases where later developments have borne her out?). SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Unless things have changed drastically since I last checked, Neil is known for excellent journalism, certainly in his earlier role as editor of The Sunday Times. And no matter the interviewer, Mensch is the source. I don't accept the "journalist v blogger hat" argument. SarahSV (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. And what is your view as to DUE WEIGHT / cherrypicking issue for the Breitbart bit (not covered by any first rate secondary RS) in the context of her life and work and of the same issue with respect to others who may have voiced "conspiracy theories" but are not primarily known for that? SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The weight looks fine to me. The Andrew Neil/BBC interview is a first-rate primary and secondary source. I don't know how to compare it to other articles, and it's pointless to do that, because context is everything. She appears to want to establish herself as a journalist, and now she has said those things, so that is a pretty big deal. SarahSV (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how familiar you are with her work, but that Breitbart bit was not a significant part of her work as a journalist. There are many other aspects to her journalistic career that have been covered in secondary RS and that have been published by independent reputable publications. That Breitbart was picked by Neil to disparage her and she boomeranged him and his smirking employees on BBC. Neil's work is tabloid at best, like one of the lesser Fox News characters in the USA, imo. Serious interviews don't have a chortling studio audience to mock a woman interviewee. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] At any rate thanks for sharing. I do appreciate your responses. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, SV. I am going to work on adding better sourced content to the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

While your at it, you may want to consider that a BLP exception to edit warring is pretty clearly not a justification when the edit war concerns fairly minor grammatical changes of comparatively little consequence. There's nothing in this thread as far as I can tell to the effect that the difference between "promote" and "put forth" is of earth-shattering BLP importance. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I was harassed with an "edit war" talk thread and repeated aspersions here. There were not 4+ such "minor grammatical changes" -- I presume you don't want to sign on to the baseless aspersions, so please review the facts and reconsider your words here. Meanwhile, on a matter of more importance, we continue to see marginal sourcing added to the article, this time "Business Insider" has been added to bolster previous claims cited to "Daily Beast" and other such sources. If the text is a valid representation of the mainstream view of Ms. Mensch, there will be ample unimpeachable sourcing available. That's a better course to go, particularly where the BLP has attracted POV political overtones on this and other pages relating to Ms. Mensch. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I presume you don't want to sign on to the baseless aspersions, so please review the facts and reconsider your words here. Oh Christ. Get off it. Go open an RfC maybe. And how about we close this, and stop trying to discuss the article in so many different places no one can follow what's going on. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Edit War continues

@Timothyjosephwood, SlimVirgin, Pinkbeast, Only in death, James J. Lambden, Anthonyhcole, and SPECIFICO: edit was again reverted, this time by Anthonyhcole. Anthony asked me to justify my edit, which I did here on talk. I answered Anthonyhcoles' summary on the talk page; SPECIFICO's objection to my edit wasn't substantive IMO (I explained that also on the talk page). Given the battleground behavior on the page, I feel I have no recourse but to request a humanitarian intervention from BLPN. Please review the edit, read the [| talk page], and state your opinion about the proposed edit. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: this diff, it's best to stick closely to what Mensch herself has said, so "Mensch has said that she believes ..." and "Mensch stated that President Obama should have ..." are better.
As for "promoting" versus "putting forth", there's barely a difference, but she is (as I understand it) the original source not simply a promoter, so "putting forth" is more accurate. And it's not her political commentary that is being criticized, it's her, so "Mensch has been criticized for putting forth ...". SarahSV (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
While this editor has restarted the talk here, could some friendly soul warn him not to be making personal comments, not to call BLP reverts of misrepresentation and smears "edit war" and not to ignore all the editors here who previously explained to him their concern that the article not misrepresent the "belief" statement, per Mensch's own explanation. I mean, it's a bit odd for him to come here and think that he could enlist others to help bludgeon the two editors who are trying to improve the article by conforming it to the sources. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • SPEC says "some friendly soul warn him not to be making personal comments" and then immediately launches a personal attack. What a joke. Guccisamsclub (talk)

I take SarahSV's and User:Guccisamsclub's point on the distinction between promote and put forward.

Mensch has made it clear her view on the deaths of Breitbart and RT's founder is a belief, and statement of belief is different from statement of objective truth, so we should go with her word.

I'll return to the article's talk page for the rest. Later. I'm going out. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole:Mensch has made it clear her view on the deaths of Breitbart and RT's founder is a belief. Please read this: "Louise Mensch claims she has evidence that the founder of Breitbart was murdered by Russian agents." She said a lot of things about it, and there is no reason to stress that this is her "belief". There is nothing wrong with just saying she stated "stated" it: it's accurate, neutral, and succinct. It may seem like a non-issue and it is. The only reason we are arguing about it is that SPECIFICO made it an issue, for no good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccisamsclub (talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 April 2017(UTC)
It's great that we're down to make fairly nuanced arguments about what is a fairly nuanced epistemic distinction made by the subject of the article. But simply using the word "believe" in the article is in no way whatsoever going to convey that nuance. If it is somehow vitally important that that distinction be made, you're going to have to include the whole quote: I believe that to be the case – about the murder of Andrew Brietbart’. I believe it. You said I reported it – those are two completely different things. TimothyJosephWood 12:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This distinction arose early in this BLPN thread and then came to the fore when Guci added Andrew Neil's attempted TV takedown of Ms. Mensch to buttress the weak citation for this bit. I continue to think that the Breitbart death bit is UNDUE, because it's not received broad coverage anything near what's been got by her other work. SPECIFICO talk 12:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This is getting annoying. On what planet are Independent and the BBC "weak"? On what planet is a brief mention (literally a sentence fragment) the subject's own words, covered in numerous RS (on top of the BBC and Independent, if you can be bothered to read any of them) "UNDUE"? This is one of the more salient bits in the whole bio. If this is "undue", so is everything else in the article. Your complaint is utterly baseless and has gotten absolutely no traction, so just drop the WP:STICK will you. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. I'm not sure it's really necessary to ping all of Wikipedia repeatedly.
  2. The paragraph is getting into WP:CITATIONOVERKILL territory, which is usually a sign that an editor is trying a bit too hard, for example, to justify wording that may more easily be summarized instead of dissected in intimate detail.
  3. I have no problem with TRS as a source itself. Per the discussion on talk, we're not really evaluating the reliability of Tabbi so much as we are the reliability of TRS. Presumably there is sufficient editorial oversite that whatever it was he wrote, it's been evaluated and TRS was comfortable putting their name on it. If not, then it probably doesn't meet WP:RS anyway and the point is moot, but I don't see a serious argument that TRS is not in fact an RS.
  4. Mensch has also falsely accused... is getting a little bit into the weeds, and its not really clear it's relevant to an encyclopedic understand over and above a blanket statement on conspiracy theories. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, citekill was genuinely necessary because SPEC complained that the content was not widely-covered or notable, and has repeatedly tried to delete it on that basis. We can drop "falsely", readers can make up their own mind as to whether Bernie Sanders et al. are secret GRU agents. Repeated pinging was intended to get a consensus one way or the other,as quickly as possible. I got pretty tired of this of the back-forth with SPEC. Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Methinks this thread needs to close, and someone needs to draft an RfC. Including user talks, the article is being discussed in so many places it's impossible to follow. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
No RfC will permit BLP violations, that's just not how we work here. Here's another example of a bad source -- in which Ms. Mensch is mentioned in the most incidental an casual way by a publication with spotty editorial practices -- being piled into the article to associate Mensch with unrelated persons alleged to be nutballs and fruits. [14] SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the edit SPECIFICO deems to be a "BLP violation" (just because). Ms. Mensch is mentioned in the most incidental an casual way by a publication with spotty editorial practices -- being piled into the article to associate Mensch with unrelated persons alleged to be nutballs and fruits. I have no idea what you're talking about. Is Mensch's twitter account run by her namesakes/doubles? Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the BI source is trivial passing mention, but the Rolling Stone piece is basically an entire exposé on her. TimothyJosephWood 18:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Right. I'm trying to point out the problem here. It's the use of the BI cite to impugn Ms. Mensch. The Rolling Sotne bit is not a good BLP publication or author for that opinion piece, IMO. And the twitter cherrypicks could be done on nearly any twitter user and that kind of sourcing doesn't work for WP, certainly not for BLPs. Good content will have abundant strong sources. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Leave it in. As said above, the idea that there are BLP violations here is one that SPECIFICO has come up with (no matter how many other users agree there isn't). What we have is a content dispute; Timothyjosephwood's suggestion of an RfC is an excellent one. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Just as a random comment, this type of situation, while very complex to handle solely under BLP, seems the type of thing that WP:RECENTISM warns about doing. As the person is still living, and the events relatively recent, it should not be WP's goal to try to document all these nitty gritty details about certain views or the like at this time, even if there's clear weight of RS to support BLP inclusion; years down the road, if they are still relevant as determined by sources then, then they can be added. But to me a lot of the mess here is because "oh, it was in the news, we have to include it!!" (whether valid under BLP or not). From the long-term viewpoint, why are the comments of everything in the "Commentary on the 2016 U.S. Presidential election" section necessary? There may be a few things to note, but this overall style is violating WP:NOT#NEWS, which if removed would readily clear up the complex BLP issues. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
That's thoughtful and on-point. However enduring her intelligence-related journalism/punditry may ultimately be, this is a person who's notable for her achievements as an MP and an author, and content related to those achievements is well-sourced and presented. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Phil Cornwell

A lot of tinkering with this, with unsourced information added by multiple accounts, regarding a divorce and multiple children. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page to back it up. 2600:1000:B07B:6D68:9C90:E333:8C18:4731 (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the poorly referenced content about a former spouse and children. When there is disagreement about, for example, the number of children based on poor quality sources, the content must be removed until references to high quality sources are furnished. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Cullen328. Of course, the information has been restored, without sources. I can continue edit warring over this, but I'd prefer if someone can remove the content and protect the page. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sergiu Celibidache

Maestro Sergiu Celibidache has been dead for some time. However, an IP editor has been adding derogatory remarks about parties to a lawsuit against him who are still alive, as here. Semi-protection might be in order. William Avery (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected 3 weeks. Thanks. Neutralitytalk 20:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The IP's also adding spurious vandalism warnings to anyone who reverts them and abuse on William Avery's talk page. Not BLP but maybe worth an admin taking a look? Pinkbeast (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Andy McGuire

This article seems like it is a poorly sourced article from a non neutral POV. It is exceedingly long for the notability of the subject and lists things that seem to not add much to the article like all of her awards and boards she serves on. Ximthebest (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It does, but BLPN is primarily intended to prevent damaging material being added to BLPs. No-one is going to sue for libel over a hagiography. If I were you I'd just go ahead and remove it. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I was actually shocked when it was approved to be moved; given the sources and resume style content. Maybe a seasoned editor such as Eagleash, who has actually edited the article, could shed light as to how this could remain as such. I trust his judgment. (although, I'm shaking my head at this one, honestly). Incredible ... Maineartists (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Ximthebest I just saw that you removed the most blatant parts of the article. I hope you continue and scale back most of the unnecessary content within the other sections, too. Honestly, this subject -- for her general notability -- does not warrant the inclusion of all this information (which itself is not notable). The lede alone is excessive. Maineartists (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Maineartists: No, I can't shed any light. I seem to have just done some very minor tidying (adding a boldname, rm'g stray text and unforcing an image) immediately after it was moved by another editor. It's not an area where I habitually edit (usually pre-70s motorsport or Crystal Palace F.C.) so I've no idea how I even came by it. Eagleash (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Jodi DiPiazza

The advocates for Ms. DiPiazza are tireless--every time she preforms or is slated to perform somewhere, a WP:COI account adds the news to the bio, even if it's sourced to a slim mention from a press release. This probably doesn't constitute a need for page protection, but it does require constant oversight from unaffiliated editors. Assistance and/or suggestions welcome, but mostly I'm asking for more eyes, more watchlisting. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Terry Bean

Due to a particularly persistant IP and other editors in the past, this article is under a sustained attempt to exaggerate/over emphasise past legal issues. Some editors want to skew the article to imply the subjects criminal guilt (when charges were dropped due to the alleged 'victim' refusing to testify). The current focus being to shoehorn in reference to a $250,000 'payoff', that from reading the sources (news organisations engaging in tabloid journalism for the most part) was rejected (in order to settle the case - the 'victim' refused to testify anyway). Essentially even if we did include mention of the proposed settlement, we would also have to include all the details about it, vastly inflating what is otherwise a minor issue in someones biography. More eyes appreciated. This has also been to ANI where the IP has been told to drop the stick, however stick still seems to be firmly grasped. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Per reliable reporting, "In addition to the $225,000, Bean agreed to never contact the boy and to undergo testing for sexually transmitted diseases at a clinic chosen by the boy's attorney, Lori Deveny, and provide the results to Deveny." The judge rejected Bean's settlement offer,[15] and after the alleged victim declined to testify, the judge dismissed the case but refused Bean's request that future prosecution be barred.[16]. In view of these simple facts, it seems odd to completely exclude them from the BLP, especially given that the BLP includes an extensive quote from Bean about how exonerated he feels.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Btw, the IP was blocked for a week. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frysay/Archive for further info. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 23:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Good to know. I think we're agreed that this is a satisfactory outcome.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

content regard to information about nurcahyo haryo tejo

As wrote in

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

from the owner of the information/ the person himself, request of deletion of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.169.224.61 (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyclone Dyonne

I was researching the article because it is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclone Dyonne I amended my "delete" !vote to "Delete now" because it became clear the article title was a made up potentially libelous attack name. Please see my comments as to how I came to this conclusion. Otr500 (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert M. Franklin

Robert Michael Franklin Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please add this information to update my biography.

Robert M. Franklin is Senior Advisor to the President of Emory University and the James T. and Berta R. Laney Professor in Moral Leadership at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.84.229.114 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A reader contacted Wikimedia (OTRS ticket:2017041110014372 ) concerned that a recently added footnote (purportedly to support the birth date), also included home phone, home address and personal email address. (I am separately checking with the reliable sources noticeboard to see if the source qualifies as reliable.)

Our BLP policy makes it clear that "articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons". It goes on to permit some links — "although links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted".

It does not appear to directly address the current situation where the material is not in the article but is in a footnote in a website not maintained by the subject.

I would have guessed that this issue is so common it must've been addressed but I'm not recalling such a discussion. If it is already been addressed please point me to the discussion; if it is not can we discussed. It is my opinion that we should remove such links.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is always possible, but we should avoid such links if the information that is being supported can be obtained in other ways, but sometimes the source is completely valid for inclusion and it happens to include personal details. (For example, if we are talking about a notable court case, a person's contact address is likely to be listed in court documentation that would be valid EL or reference material). Some common sense is needed. The thing that I rarely have seen, in RSes, is the combo of birthdate and current contact info. That's in the realm of databases, not normally RSes. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Oscar Munoz (executive)

Munoz is the President and CEO of United Airlines. Following an incident today where a passenger was forcibly removed from an aircraft, Munoz commented by describing the incident as the result of "re-accommodation" of passengers. Editors have been reacting negatively to this comment on his Wikipedia article. I have reverted edits, per WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:SCAREQUOTES, and WP:NOTNEWS. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to follow your logic. WP:SCAREQUOTES deprecates use of quotation marks when not marking an actual quote; here, the quote marks were used for an actual quote. Likewise WP:IMPARTIAL isn't a blanket prohibition of information that might be considered less than favorable. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The claims by Magnolia677 that “Editors have been reacting negatively to this comment on his Wikipedia article…” are hyperbolic and needlessly alarmist. The tone seems to be that somehow Wiki-editors are engaged in some cover-up. When the reality is the rabid foaming at the mouth of the edits in question is the reason the edits are being removed; not because anyone is trying to cover-up anything. Place rational, encyclopedic content on the page—with citations—and the edits stand. Simple as that. That said, I have gone ahead and created a “Controversy” section that attempts to convey the facts in an encyclopedic tone without engaging in the bizarre alarmist nonsense a few other editors are attempting to force in place. This incident was horrible and horrific and the reactions of United’s CEO are a bit tone deaf, but let’s stick to the facts here. --SpyMagician (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I have made a slight rewrite to the section, and changed the section title, per WP:CRIT. This is indeed a valid addition to this person's article. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The addition of the incident is valid. The tone you—and other editors—are engaged in is not valid, not encyclopedic and not neutral. That is all anyone is debating. If you do not understand that, then please just post this information to a gossip blog and not attempt to add it to Wikipedia. --SpyMagician (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

raj singh

respected team wikipedia, can it be done the article which seems to have gone wayword can be ignored or removed by wikipedia?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibhas Joshi (talk • contribs) 21:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you specify what page you are referring to and why are you requesting for it to be deleted? Meatsgains (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Vibhas Joshi

Dear Wikipedia I agree with your authencity but you should also see the places I am using in my account. IMdb is the biggest and the most authentic celebrity database of the world and you guys saying is unauthentic .

My reference in accordance to IMdb.com http://www.imdb.com/name/nm8235213/?ref_=nv_sr_1

IMdb reference in accordance to wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMDb

KIndly remove these tags which have been applied on my page

thanks regards Vibhas Joshi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibhas Joshi (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The subject of the page, you, is not notable and lacks significant coverage in reliable source. Also, you should take a look through WP:COI. Meatsgains (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Hayes

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

From a 1985 Toronto-born actor[17], he has morphed into a 1989 Trinidad-born boxer[18]. To make matters worse, multiple parts of the current article are copyvios from his homesite. The man is getting younger all the time though, from 32 years old he became 28 years old, but a 2017 press release from his manager and himself state that he is 25 years old[19]. That source claims again that he is Toronto-born though. In 2010 already, he had finished his college studies apparently and had worked as a professional actor for a while, so the 1989 year of birth seems dubious but no actual year is given here[20]. It is included here though!

Looking at the article and the sources, I get the impression that a lot of myth-making is involved, and that a lot of effort will be needed to make this article verifiable and realistic. He is said to have missed "the 2016 Olympic Games because of a shoulder injury", but his first and only fight as a boxer so far seems to have been in December 2016[21], and I can't find any evidence of him being seriuosly considered as an Olympian boxer. He claims to have been the 2016 Trinidad and Tobago Middleweight boxing champion, but I can't find any evidence for this, and no evidence that he was ever qualified or nearly qualified for the Olympics (see e.g. this. He did appear on a number of podcasts and the like as such, but that of course is no evidence for any of his claims.

This page should probably be trimmed down to the undisputed facts (not a lot, it seems) and then watched carefully, but more time and knowledge is needed than I can spare for it for the moment. Fram (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I've now trimmed it down to remove the most obvious problems, but the basic issues remain and it would be good if someone else could take a look and see what is salvagebale and what isn't. Fram (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

David Dao

The page was created in the wake of the United Airlines Flight 3411 incident.

Since until yesterday Dao was a private individual & did not have an article, I wonder if the creation and the materials can be considered an attack page? 2017 April 11 version. My attempt to edit the articles have been reverted. I wonder if an experienced editor could have a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the most recent expansion of the past actions per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and started a conversation on the talk page. I'm somewhat open to the discussion the other actions, but also have concerns about it. Comment from other editors on talk is would be helpful in sorting out what should be included pending the AfD outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Just seen that the original version of this article still exists at User:BlueSalix/sandbox AusLondonder (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It was replaced with a redirect when the AfD closed today, and good riddance. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

AfD with BLP issues

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleni Antoniadou (2nd nomination); there are BLP issues that in my view should be considered in this AfD. It may end up be deleted or kept but it would be useful to have people used to considering these issues discussing them. Thx! Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Kendra Haste

Could someone have a look at the use of reference (3) on this page - it seems to me like giant overkill but it's a consequence of a recent edit war, in which I was a protagonist. Please fix - will be sincerely grateful. MarkDask 00:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not see how using that source violates BLP policy in any way, markdask. Can you please clarify? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift reply Cullen - btw I was the one supplied the ref initially. . Ironically it was the 20 uses of this ref (3) brought the war to an end. It was applied by an admin who separated me and A.N. Other who had been warring. I came here seeking an independent perspective as to whether or not the ref needed to be applied in every instance. Such use seems excessive to me - detracts from readability - how many articles have 20 uses of the same ref? I aint trying to prolong the war - that's over - I simply want to cleanup the page. Thanks again. MarkDask 01:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea how using a named reference 20 times is any sort of problem at all, assuming that the reference is comprehensive and reliable. I brought Harry Yount to Good article status, and used one reference 23 times. Granted, that is not a BLP but I see no BLP issues with using a reference 20 times. What is the readability issue? Letters of the alphabet? That is routine and standard. I fail to see any problem with it, markdask. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen - I'll leave it as is . MarkDask 13:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Everyone thinks they're the protagonist in an edit war. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Neither article being discussed here relies only on a single source to establish notability, Only in death. Both have multiple sources that establish notability quite clearly. In the case of Kendra Haste, there are 24 references in the article. Each of these articles, though, uses one comprehensive source twenty or more times, because those sources are lengthy and detailed enough to verify many specific assertions in these articles. I repeat that I see nothing at all wrong with this. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff

The president of Brazil is a public figure but even after making huge allowances for that and much effort on my part, this page is still really defamatory in my opinion. For what is is worth NPOV agreed. At the time I was trying to convince some editors that you can't call her account of events FRINGE because you don't believe it. Anyway, I came across this article as a truly truly bad machine translation and given an utter lack of willing Portugese speaker I and another editor I recruited have hammered it into something approaching English by dint of asking many many questions of a very patient Portuguese speaker -- however the article is still 90% or more prosecution case and that's after weed-whacking a bunch of weasel words. Someone was very concerned with making sure it is clear that a constitutional process was followed, which I can understand, but ... bottom line I need help, guys.

Can I please have some eyes on this article? I need to walk away for a bit because I just lost my temper over some new strange application of wikipedia policies. Thanks xoxxo Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Dear

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

This biography contains heavily subjective and opinionated items, particularly in "History" paragraph 7: "Matthew Dears latest full-length, 2012’s Beams, was both a drastic departure from and worthy successor to Black City's gothic masterwork. A suite of weird, wild, and queasily optimistic rhythm-driven pop songs, Beams became the latest chapter in the continuing evolution of one of music’s most fascinating minds. After over a decade of exploring pops outer limits, Matthew Dear now inhabits a rarified corner of the musical universe: no longer tethered to any one genre, respected by his peers, and blessed with a bottomless well of creative energy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.32.76 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

I've twice reverted, through pending changes, edits which say Nelly Furtado was divorced in 2016. In an interview on the TV show Loose Women, just a couple of days ago, Furtado said she'd split from her husband in 2016. She says she's "single" and that they "split", but there's no mention of divorce in the news articles reporting on the TV interview. None of the articles I've seen has independent reporting, they all reference the Looses Women interview. She may well be divorced, but I cannot find the word divorce, nor reference to any court proceeding, in any of the reporting. I know 3RR does not apply to BLPs, but I'm still reluctant to edit war over it. I'm going to leave a note on the talk page of the editor I've reverted and then go try to find a source that says "divorce" if one exists. I'd appreciate opinions about whether I'm being too hyper-technical about the difference between "split" and "divorced". David in DC (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you've made a sensible choice to come here. The burden is on the other editor to supply the source, and you are right there is a world of difference between simply splitting up and divorcing. I have blocked the other party for 24 hours, but will unblock as soon as I find evidence of a source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm going to look for a good source too. David in DC (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I can see a few tabloid reports today reporting a divorce, but nothing that I'd be happy to cite in a BLP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It's really quite sad that blocking happened to this editor since it looks and feels as though they were trying to do what was being asked by the subject themselves strictly from a good faith stand-point. I think a Talk Page explanation rather than just repetitious edit summaries could have aided in this miscommunication that really generated from the subject herself (specifically requesting the public to edit Wikipedia) and even the media. Regardless, this site specifically state: Nelly Furtado divorced after 8 years of marriage! "After 8 years of marriage, Nelly Furtado divorced her husband Demacio Castellon last year." (within the article) I think the problem here is, the subject herself keeps using the term "split", where she clearly means: "divorce". "Divorce confirmed": Singer Nelly Furtado confirms divorce from husband, "I"m single now" is not "separated" / "split"; Nelly Furtado divorce husband Demacio Castellon Split (more Divorce news); "The singer admitted that in order to survive the divorce, she wrote several songs"; Nelly Furtado divorce husband 8 years marriage. I think the editor was merely trying to do what they felt was correct with poor coverage and incorrect terminology. I would vote to lift the block and state that Furtado and Castellon are indeed: divorced. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Grover Covington

I am Chet Grimsley and played football and in the Sports Hall Of Fame I have known him since 1974 There is a person who put untrue hateful false facts as a daughter. She should be put on a watch list and Grover Covington son is a American Football Player for the Houston Texans Christian Covington and he also does not want this person putting unjustified facts of life events claiming to be Grover Covingtons Daughter and a sister to Christian Covington and slandering Grovers wife on Wikepidia.TheWhiteBull1956 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about that. Someone (not me) removed all the material about his family, and since none of it was referenced and it's peripheral to his notability, that's probably best. I've put the article on my watchlist, and other editors might want to also. Herostratus (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

List of LiveJournal users

David Eppstein's name was removed from the article 14 hours ago. This case is settled. Softlavender (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Psychonaut and Doniago are both refusing to remove my name from List of LiveJournal users, and have so far failed even to add an annotation that my use of that site has ceased, despite repeated requests and despite the nonexistence of reliable secondary sources for including my name in the first place; see discussion at Talk:List of LiveJournal users. Further input from editors familiar with BLP policy would be appreciated. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I wasn't refusing to do anything, rather, I was adding my two cents and waiting to see what consensus developed. I also suggested the compromise of adding an "Inactive users" sub-section which you neglected to respond to. I didn't add an annotation because I hadn't looked into the matter; is there a reason you couldn't add an annotation? DonIago (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I would have thought this was obvious, but the reason I haven't done it myself is WP:AUTOBIO. I would prefer to follow the recommendation there of using talk pages to request changes to content that is about me personally rather than making the changes directly. However, this instance shows yet again the shortcomings of that approach: in the rare case that there is someone actually paying attention to the talk page, they prefer to argue than to make the requested corrections. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Welecome to Wikipedia. Just because you request an edit, even to information regarding yourself, doesn't mean other editors are compelled to make the requested change. I consider that a strength of the project, not a weakness. DonIago (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I've weighed in on the talk page there. I don't feel it is sensible to complain about "the nonexistence of reliable secondary sources for including my name in the first place"; you know perfectly well the inclusion of your name in the first place was correctly reporting a fact. An editor's reaction to finding an uncited statement they know personally to be true should surely be to seek out a reference.
That said, it does seem sensible to address the spurious implication that you (and many others) are current users of the site and I have tried to do so. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
That complaint was a reaction to the other list editors' bizarre requests that I needed a source to get my name removed (or otherwise clearly marked as no longer an active user). It seemed hypocritical to me to demand a source for such an action when the article provides no source for the inclusion of any of its names. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I would imagine the argument for inclusion would be that the existence of the LJs was sufficient to constitute a primary source. That said, I'd be open to the argument that an LJ shouldn't be included unless a secondary source took note of it, but that hasn't been raised as an argument. I would also note that several entries already mention "deleted" and have had their LJ links removed, which seems sufficient to me. As I've noted, just because someone doesn't post on LJ now doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned as a past user, and the list as written perhaps implies but does not unequivocally state that it's intended to only reflect current usage. In fact, that several deleted accounts are on the list strongly implies the opposite is true. The issue of whether the list should or should not reflect current usage is one that should be discussed, but my feeling is that if the list was intended to only reflect current usage than the title is misleading. DonIago (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Like with any social media, the fact that any BLP is on that service under a certain tag/name should only be included on WP if secondary reliable sources have made that connect. Using LJ as the source is a primary source and fails the high requirement we use for BLP. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I'm open to that argument, though it may result in a serious trimming of the article. I'm not saying that would be a bad thing, but I do think it's a consideration. DonIago (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
In contrast to something like Twitter, where there is regular coverage of people's tweets, and thus where it makes sense to have such a list (with the additional fact that Twitter has verified user status to help), what famous people do in LJ really has very little coverage, and if you use this secondary source requirement, you may end up with a very short list that can be added to the main LJ article. But it would certainly address the key point this thread started. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Why on earth does this article even exist? It sure looks a lot like "Here's a list of famous people and their email addresses". It opens "Some users of LiveJournal, or the journals themselves, have become famous for their especially interesting content..." but then there is not one single reference for that assertion. Just a bare list of links.
At the very least, this article needs to have a ref for each entry where a reliable notable journal or similar has said "Smith's LiveJournal account has attracted lots of notice and views by people" or something. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
It's been to AfD twice, though not since 2007 now. Perhaps it's time for a third go-round? DonIago (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
David, I would appreciate your correcting your claim that I "refused" to remove your name. On the talk page you made a request to nobody in particular that your name be refused. I responded by trying to start a discussion on the selection criteria for the list; this would help determine whether your entry on that page meets the existing criteria, and if so, whether it would be possible to reformulate the selection criteria in such a way that cases such as yours can be specially marked or removed.
Similarly, nobody told you that a source was required for the removal of your entry. You asked a vague question about reliable sourcing for the entries in the list. Reliable third-party sources are generally not required for trivially verifiable facts, such as the existence or non-existence of a website. Since your question implied that they were, I responded only that under this implication of yours (which again, I do not accept) it would not be possible to change an entry.
Could you try to explain in details what the specific WP:BLP issue is here? It seems to me that this is just a run-of-the-mill issue concerning verifiability, sourcing, and the list criteria, and probably would have been resolved on the article's talk page if you'd just let the discussion play out. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is the first I have heard about this article, and looking at it (even the article title), I have no idea why it exists other than as promotion for LiveJournal. We don't have a List of _____ users for any other item/brand/website that I am aware of, and the article gives zero indication that these people's use of LiveJournal is in any way encyclopedically notable any more than any notable person's use of any product, blogsite, micro-blogsite, website, or web host is notable. I've tagged it for notability, and I actually think it should go to AfD. Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I sent it to AfD, and let the discussion of the general question go there. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion on the article's talk page. The BLP policy forbids the inclusion of contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and states that it must be removed immediately from the article. In this case, it has been pointed out that the information is not correct, and no sources have been provided to say that it is correct, so why is everyone being so pig-headed? Exemplo347 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Come again? I found and posted a link to several third-party sources in academic journals establishing that David authored that LiveJournal blog. If the article is kept then I'll gladly restore the entry and add the sources. I wasn't about to do so while the discussion was ongoing. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I would not do that, since the spirit of BLP is such that if the person has requested the material be removed, there's a strong presumption to do so, even if it is true and can be proven true. Only if it is truly necessary to our core encyclopedic mission would we feel compelled to keep it. And I can't see the argument the it will materially harm the Wikipedia to remove that one entry from that one marginal article. Herostratus (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no particular objection to an article stating that I am a former LiveJournal user (it's true after all), although at this point it looks like the whole list is going away (a foreseeable consequence that made me reluctant to come here with my complaint, but not one I'm going to argue against). What I was objecting to was that, at the time I made the objection, the list did not clearly distinguish between current and former users, and continued to maintain a link to the obsolete location of my journal. So readers could easily infer, falsely, that I was still a LiveJournal user. The editors of the list were demanding sources before making any such distinction, but not making any similar demands for inclusion in the list in the first place. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
There's that claim again about the editors in that discussion demanding sources for the non-existence of your LiveJournal. For the third time, I never did that, and as far as I can tell, nobody else did either. I was still trying to figure out what you were even asking about when you escalated the issue here. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
You may not have requested sources for any change to the active status of an entry there, but Doniago certainly did. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orlando Bloom

I have seen many false "facts" on Orlando Bloom's Wikipedia page and I took care of it but I would like to request a protection for this page because I think it is wrong for people to be able to put rumors as facts on a living person's page. Since it has happened more than a few times I would be thankful if someone made "Orlando Bloom" a protected page.

I don't know where to go for this problem so I am apalogizing if this is the wrong place to write about this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.28.84 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Generally, page protection such as you are requesting is dealt with at this link. There are instructions there for adding such a request. Thank you and good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Shajul Islam

Could editors please look this article over? --NeilN talk to me 17:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Steven Mnuchin

The article has been vandalized in at least two places, the opening line and the caption to the subject's picture.Ealtram (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Fixed. It might be worth a few more eyes on this article; the last two pieces of vandalism have stood for 30 and 20 minutes, long enough for Google to crawl them (a Google search currently still reads "Steven Terner Mnuchin is the current United States Secretary for screwing the average Joe". Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

The article and its talk are occasionally used by people wanting to poke the person who is an editor and admin. Please have a look at diff where an IP is insisting on "hopelessly unemployed" with other pointed commentary. AfD#5 and AfD#4 provide some background. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's mainly IPs and driveby accounts (and I haven't checked), perhaps longterm semi-protection is the way to remedy the situation. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Edited to add: Update: It's really only the talkpage that gets negative attention -- there have been zero problems at the article itself that I can see. Therefore I think this is simply a matter of a few dedicated editors keeping the article on their watchlists, which already seems to be the case. I don't think anything needs to be done here unless diffs can be provided of any damage to the article itself within the past 12 to 24 months. Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, and agreed. The IP's soapboxing has been removed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
And from here, as well.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Swami Nithyananda

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

3 months ago, the article used to look like this. Since that time:
  • All positive material has been deleted:
  • 1) His website does not have a store on it [28]
  • 2) How can an e-commerce site account for the Millions of $ mentioned in the Finance section?
  • "e-commerce website" cannot be true as of now and in no way represents the current state of this LP
  • There is a big joke that trollers are playing here!
  • 3) He Founded the Nithyananda Peetam [29]
  • The article states LP's name as:"Swami Nithyananda Mudaliar". I can't find a single source on the internet with this name.
  • 1) His name is Paramahamsa Nithyananda [30] Search

Summary:

  • This page has a loooooong history of tug-o-war between puffery and defamation with heavily emotionally charged people who should no longer be allowed to edit this article. Right now it's heavily tilted to defamatory which I think is inappropriate to this LP.
  • Compare this page to other much hated celebrities like Donald Trump and Asaram and it's clear that some Trollers are having a good laugh over what they've done here!DocTox (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The version from 3 months ago was pretty crappy -- not least the sources (self-published stuff, Amazon, Youtube, Goodreads, etc.). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Yup, I agree completely. As I mentioned - back and forth between puffery and defmation. It's almost constant for both sides - look at the recent edits on the page. DocTox (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

How to remove the "template message" for citations in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Mun

Hello. Could anyone kindly help me how to remove the "template message" for citations in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Mun

I'm willing to add citations if they're indeed missing but I don't know where citations need to be added. Very appreciated for any help anyone could offer so I can remove that "template message" for good.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My sunrays (talk • contribs) 00:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done--@My sunrays:--If you engage in source-code editing this is the guide.Otherwise in visual-editing mode, place the cursor at the end of the phrase/sentence you wish to attribute a source to and click on the cite button at the visual-editor taskbar.Enter the website(or manually enter the details of any off-web source) and click insert.Voila!The citation will get included.As a side note WP:HELPDESK is a better place to ask these technical questions.Winged Blades Godric 12:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Taher Shabbir Mithaiwala

  1. The shortest BLP. Do we need such short substubs?
  2. The quoted IMDB says Taher Shabbir. The authors don't care to quote a real source.
  3. Is the person notable?Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taher Shabbir Mithaiwala.Winged Blades Godric 07:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive253&oldid=1140185823"