Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive237

Onaiza Mahmud

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Marco Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In February 2013, there was discussion at this board about the grandfather of this 2016 presidential candidate. The discussion centered on the question of whether the sourcing was strong enough to allow User:MastCell to write in the BLP that the grandfather had committed a crime by remaining in the U.S. illegally.[1] The discussion did not involve whether the matter was given undue weight in the grandson's BLP, or whether it violated the letter or spirit of the BLP policy which states: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association".

In June 2015, I came across this material in the grandson's BLP and removed it. Today, MastCell inserted the following material into the grandson's BLP (citations omitted):

“

Rubio's maternal grandfather, Pedro Victor Garcia, initially immigrated legally to the U.S. in 1956, but returned to Cuba to find work in 1959. When he returned to the U.S. in 1962 without a visa, he was detained as an undocumented immigrant, and an immigration judge ordered him deported. The deportation order was not enforced, and Rubio's grandfather remained in the US illegally and re-applied for permanent resident status in 1966, following passage of the Cuban Adjustment Act, at which point his residency was approved. In 2012, The Associated Press concluded that Garcia might have been living in the U.S. illegally for four years, from 1962 to 1966.

”

I don't dispute that the material is reliably sourced, but I would like others to weigh in about whether it's undue weight, and whether it's guilt by association.

It seems a lot like the relentless efforts that occurred in 2008 to insert into the Mitt Romney article loads of detail about polygamous activities by Romney's great-grandparents, which happily was removed as that article approached featured status. I have no special affinity for Rubio; I've already voted in the 2016 primaries and voted for someone else. But I think basic fairness and BLP policy bars this kind of thing. MastCell said at the BLP talk page: "Given the central role that immigration policy has played in Rubio's career, I don't think even you believe that his grandfather's illegal status is truly irrelevant here." This is an obvious attempt to portray Rubio as somehow responsible for actions of a grandfather, just like claims about polygamy among Romney's ancestors was intended to somehow undermine his stance on marriage by pretending that he was responsible for what his great-grandparents did.

Make no mistake, this is guilt by association; it happens in China all the time. See Beitare, Rachel. "Guilty by Association", Foreign Policy (May 17, 2011): "The unlikely object of the Chinese state’s attention in this instance is Liu Xia, a painter, poet, and photographer — and the wife of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. Guilty by association, she has been under house arrest, with almost no contact with the outside world, since November 2010, when her husband’s award was announced." Just as Liu Xia is held responsible for the actions of her husband, we are now insinuating that Marco Rubio and/or his policies should be judged based on what his grandfather did. A similar issue came up in the Chris Christie BLP, but I endorsed it because Chris Christie actually commented himself about it: "The brother of Christie's uncle (his aunt's second husband), Tino Fiumara, was an organized crime figure; according to Christie, the FBI presumably knew that when they conducted his background check. Later, Christie recused himself from the case and commented about what he had learned growing up with such a relative: 'It just told me that you make bad decisions in life and you wind up paying a price.'" In contrast, there is no indication AFAIK that these actions by Rubio's grandfather had any effect on him, or that he ever discussed it publicly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:DUE weight would seem to necessitate including this content. Senator Rubio considers his his grandfather worthy of mention in the context of his own life, and views him as at least a minor political influence. [2] [3] [4] [5] "Rubio often talks about drawing inspiration from long talks on the porch with his maternal “abuelo,” or grandfather, Pedro Victor Garcia. He has been less likely to discuss Garcia’s immigration troubles."

His grandfather did not commit a major crime, so I don't buy the guilt by association argument. I also don't see many parallels with Mitt Romney's biography, or China. We are not "insinuating that Marco Rubio and/or his policies should be judged based on what his grandfather did." Our sources may be hinting at that. We are merely including biographical content in the very neutral context of the subject's early life.- MrX 04:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Liu Xiaobo committed wrongdoing but it's still properly characterized as guilt by association. Anyway, do we have any indication that the subject (Rubio) even knew about this during his early life? And instead of hints, I would like to know from a reliable source how this ever affected Rubio. Without that it just smacks of innuendo ("Rubio's a hypocrite to seek border enforcement because his own grandfather was an illegal alien") or accusation ("Rubio doesn't really care about border enforcement given his own family history").Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave a direct quote from the Washington Post that makes it clear the grandpa had at least some influence on young Rubio. That, and the fact that this biographical information is covered in numerous sources, means that it is relevant for his bio. I don't agree that this portrays Senator Rubio as a hypocrite. It might if we placed it adjacent to content related to his immigration policy.- MrX 12:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is a very well-documented item that numerous reliable sources present as important context in Rubio's biography. Keep in mind, in terms of WP:WEIGHT, that we're talking about a minor mention—3 or 4 sentences in the middle of a long biography—not about any sort of extensive coverage. This issue was litigated on this noticeboard back in 2013, with the conclusion that the material is appropriate for inclusion, and the only thing that's changed since then is that even more reliable sources are available. (Well, the other thing that's changed is that Rubio is a Presidential candidate, which might explain why we're back here).

  Anythingyouwant is seeking to forbid any mention of a well-documented fact, described by numerous reliable sources as a meaningful part of Rubio's biography. Let's acknowledge that his position is extreme, and fundamentally at odds with WP:WEIGHT. His position boils down to the idea that readers need to be protected from these facts, no matter what reliable sources say. That sort of extreme position needs to be justified by something more than confused ramblings about Chinese dissidents and polygamy in the Romney family. MastCell ^Talk 05:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  • The 2012 edition of the book titled The Rise of Marco Rubio is 307 pages long, and yet it covers only a very small fraction of the facts and factoids that have been reliably published about the BLP subject. There is no alternative but for us to be selective. All I'm asking here is that someone show me a reliable source explaining how this particular factoid may have affected Rubio. That seems like a very reasonable filter to screen out mere guilt by association and trivia. Anyway, extremism in defense of Wikipedia is no vice....or something.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
    • If you take a look at Abraham Lincoln, our biography of the first Republican to hold the office that Rubio now seeks, you will find discussion of ancestors going back over 150 years before he was born. His grandfather of the same name was killed by Indians when his father Thomas was a young child who witnessed the bloodshed. Such things are important formative biographical facts which should be included, considering due weight and how reliable biographical sources discuss them in context. We should summarize such coverage, avoiding original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
      • The Lincoln BDP is fine, Cullen. Lincoln's father was orphaned at age six, which is a major biographical fact, and it involved no guilt — or guilt by association —within the Lincoln family. I don't think it's analogous to using criminal behavior of Rubio's grandfather to vaguely imply something about Rubio's "immigration policy" (MastCell's words). I've done my duty here by bringing what I thought (and still think) is a BLP violation to this board, and will have nothing more to say about it, except to thank MastCell for keeping this crud out of the BLP for the primary season up to this point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Of course, "vaguely implying" is a vague assertion that requires a deeper explanation. But if someone proposes to add language stating an overt connection between grandpa's immigration status half a century ago, and Rubios's stance today (whatever that is), then they should cite indisputably reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
          • There are, of course, many such sources; see ABC News, NPR, Politico, the New Yorker, etc. That said, it takes a federal case to even mention these sorts of well-sourced, relevant facts in the current editing environment, so I'm not pushing that we follow reliable sources in linking Rubio's family history and his political stance on immigration. I don't want Anythingyouwant's head to explode. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm (rather weakly) inclined to let this information on Rubio's grandfather stand. Something that happened years before Rubio was born and did not effect the immigration status of his parents is not exactly compelling copy. On the other hand Rubio has made much of his Cuban roots and immigration is major presidential campaign issue. The word "illegally" after "remained" could be dropped as trying to lead the reader. It is fairly obvious that the US government at that time honored the judge's decision more in the breach than in the observance. Self-deportation?? Motsebboh (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sort of, I guess. As one of the many sources describes, in the 1960s deported individuals were not forcibly removed from the country, but rather "were told to leave the country and were expected to do so". MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already conceded that the information should stay. However, I wonder how many Cuban natives who wanted to stay in the States have ever "self deported" back to Cuba because a judge told them to. Motsebboh (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It's undue weight in my opinion and the content should be condensed to a single sentence.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, on what basis do you find three sentences (as opposed to one) to be undue weight? This topic is covered in detail by nearly a dozen independent reliable sources on Rubio, and it forms a central part of the definitive published biography (Manuel Roig-Franzia's The Rise of Marco Rubio). I think three sentences is perhaps unduly little weight, compared to the context of reliable sources, so I'd like to understand the basis for condensing the material further. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Having a paragraph dedicated to this subject is undue weight because this is a bio of Rubio, not of his maternal grandfather.CFredkin (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So your position is that a biography cannot mention the subject's family members, even briefly in 2-3 sentences, and even if they are discussed extensively in reliable sources in relation to the biography subject? That seems bizarre, to say the least. Our biography of Abraham Lincoln has several paragraphs devoted to his first- and second-degree relatives. Is it your intention to go remove those paragraphs? MastCell ^Talk 00:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I happen to think that what we now have about Rubio's grandfather is about right. Lincoln's bio is in a different category, really, because Lincoln is arguably the most famous person ever born in the Americas. "Little Marco", as Donald Trump calls him, hasn't reached that status yet. Motsebboh (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Someday, maybe, though. You're all right. As for the rest of you... sheesh. OK, let's take it down a few steps (or a lot of steps, depending on your political leanings) from Lincoln to Barack Obama. You guys do realize that we have a whole frickin' standalone article on Obama's relatives, out to his third great-grandfather and beyond? It's not a small, stubby article, either—it's truly massive. And yet you guys think 3 heavily-sourced sentences on Rubio's self-described favorite relative are "undue weight". Facepalm MastCell ^Talk 01:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A well-balanced article or section about Rubio's extended family might be okay if it's well-balanced. Instead you have obviously singled out one particular grandparent, and then singled out one particular infraction of the law by that particular grandparent, in order to make some kind of unstated point about Rubio's "immigration policy". You have acknowledged that, and you have also acknowledged that Rubio was unaware that grandparent lived in the US illegally until the publication of a 2012 biography. Singling out this information in order to make a cheap political point is preposterous. But it's par for the course in some quarters, I guess.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As we all know WP articles are summaries of many, many sources and just because something is found in a source doesn't mean it needs to be included in an article. So I find claims of censorship etc. to be often misplaced in situations like this. The general point of WP:UNDUE is: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. In this case, we are discussing the personal history of a relative which is not only a minor aspect of a biography but could even be considered off topic. I think a reduction of the current content might be a good compromise.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that would be a step in the correct direction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's an article in the NYT in which Rubio himself says that it's a "valid point."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/us/politics/marco-rubio-immigration-grandfather.html

Marco Rubio’s Policies Might Shut the Door to People Like His Grandfather

By JEREMY W. PETERS

New York Times

MARCH 5, 2016

In an interview, Mr. Rubio acknowledged that some would see a conflict between the stricter immigration and refugee policies he supports and his grandfather’s experience. Immigration records also show that other members of Mr. Rubio’s family — two aunts and an uncle — were admitted as refugees.

But Mr. Rubio said the difference between then and now is how much more sophisticated foreign infiltrators like the Islamic State have become, and how dangerous they are.

“I recognize that’s a valid point,” the senator said, “But what you didn’t have was a widespread effort on behalf of Fidel Castro to infiltrate into the United States killers who were going to detonate weapons and kill people.”

“Times have changed,” he said. “Policies have to change. If there’s a conflict there, I think that’s just a reality.”

--Nbauman (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the NYT article. Our BLP says, "Rubio's grandfather remained in the US illegally and re-applied for permanent resident status in 1966...." The NYT article shows that to be false: "Garcia was granted status as a parolee, a gray area of the law that meant he would not get a green card but could remain in the United States....For years after he was allowed back into the United States, Mr. Garcia’s legal status would remain unresolved. His designation as a parolee meant he would not have to leave. But he did not know whether he would ever get a green card. That did not come until almost exactly five years to the day after he was stopped in Miami." So right now we're conveying the false impression that the grandfather was in the US illegally from 1962 to 1966. Are we so eager to score points against Rubio that we need to select a single incident from a single grandparent, and then distort it beyond recognition? To the extent this material belongs at Wikipedia, the best place would be at Political positions of Marco Rubio, because that's what this is all about. Rubio did not even know about his maternal grandfather's parolee status until 2012, so putting this in the early life section at such great length is a very bad choice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The point is that Rubio himself says that it's a "valid point" -- that his own grandfather might have been deported under the immigration rules he is now advocating for others. Whether his grandfather was in the country illegally is a legal determination. We should follow WP:RSs and repeat what they say. The AP story says that he "may have temporarily been in U.S. illegally." The NYT story doesn't use the term "illegal" at all. For you to say that the NYT article shows that it's false is your interpretation and is WP:OR. In any case, your proper response would be to change the word "illegal" -- preferably after discussing it in Talk. You should not have blanked the entire paragraph -- especially when it's still under discussion here and in the article's Talk. Rubio himself says that it's a "valid point." So that argues for leaving it in and certainly against blanking the entire paragraph. --Nbauman (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The following WP:RS explicitly or implicitly say that Rubio's grandfather, Pedro Victor, was an "illegal" immigrant. The repeated coverage in many WP:RS gives it weight, and indicates that it is significant and belongs in the entry: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/marco-rubios-grandfather-had-difficult-transition-to-us/2012/06/17/gJQA4535jV_story.html In a way Pedro Victor’s treatment was not unlike the present-day experiences of many Mexicans and Central Americans who come to the United States legally but later run afoul of visa laws.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/ten-things-you-need-know-about-marco-rubio According to a Rubio biography due out in June by Washington Post reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, Rubio's grandfather Pedro Victor Garcia was an illegal immigrant to the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/opinion/navarrette-rubio-vp/ New report says Rubio's grandfather entered U.S. illegally from Cuba

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/07/02/nation-of-immigrants Rubio doesn’t discuss Pedro Víctor’s interlude as an illegal immigrant, however, or the police discretion that aided him; --Nbauman (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The BLP again contains false information, thanks to this revert. I will have nothing more to do with this BLP, while it is being used for such purposes. And I regret having ever given this BLP a patina of legitimacy by working to improve it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting WP:CONSENSUS.--Nbauman (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't accept anything about this. It's disgraceful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There is an RfC involving a BLP at Talk:Deepak Chopra#RfC: Is the lead, among other parts of the article, reflective of the sources and a NPOV?.BlueStove (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Adande Thorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There have been lots of edits to this page recently which change Thorne's birthday to any of multiple different years, none of which are sourced or which I could verify in a reliable source. Others' eyes would be appreciated on this page. Everymorning (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the DOB but I removed some trivia and fluff.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dan Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I came here from this story that recently appeared in Business Insider. The story claims that one user (User:Techtrek) has only edited Wagner's page and has done so in a whitewashing manner that downplays "the recent collapse of his business [Powa Technologies, which Wagner co-founded]". I would like other editors to look at this issue as well as the recent IP edits to this page that reduce Wagner's net worth by 4 orders of magnitude--this all seems rather fishy to me. Everymorning (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just templated this with the user draft template to try to keep it off Google. It's about Satanic cults and sexual abuse of children and has some really bad sourcing, eg [6][7] and here at David Icke's Forum. It probably needs deletion at least, but I'm bringing it here first.Doug Weller talk 19:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"Burn it at the stake" might be extreme here <g> but I see no promise in this intrinsically BLP-problematic minefield of a draft. Collect (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nevets20, I am going to delete this as a BLP violation, because of a lot of reason--an easy one is the use of unreliable things as sources, which serves to give broader attention and perhaps additional credence to those sources, even if the text suggests they are not reliable. Copy it quick if you want to save it; I'm deleting it after I make a cup of coffee. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We've got a person claiming to be listed under a prior name in various articles over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Help_requested_on_trans_name_change_issue. She is seeking to have the name updated or removed. We could use someone who has experience with verifying identity for Wikipedia purposes over there to help in the handling. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

At Talk:Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)#Heilman statement and Talk:Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)#Let's start afresh There is a disagreement about whether this edit[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] is a BLP violation. I would like some experienced eyes to look it over and comment about whether the statement is a BLP violation. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is referenced. And I did state something similar but stated that it was only part of the reason. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Doc James, that was the old wording. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

1. A source says "The first response appears to have been the dismissal of board member James Heilman, who was critical of the project."[16]
2. A source says "The speculation and the struggle for information culminated in the fact that the Community elected representatives James Heilman from the "Board of Trustees", the highest decision-making body of the Foundation, was released in December."[17]
3. A source says "Wikimedia’s reluctance to detail the restricted grant, from the Knight Foundation, was a factor in the departure of community-elected WMF board member James Heilman in December."[18]
4. A source says "What is more, this story resonates with the eviction for "default of trust", in December, James Heilman of "board of trustees", the Governing Body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on the Signpost, The Journal of Wikipedia, he claims to have repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. A insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his eviction."[19]

1. A source says "Late last year, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees member James Heilman was dismissed from the board. Heilman has hinted that his internal quest to make the Knight Foundation document public led to his firing."[20]

James Heilman has spoke publicly about why his removal from the board and gave reasons why he was dismissed. The claim that it is somehow a BLP violation is dubious. It is not a violation of Heilman's privacy or work history record when it is documented in reliable sources. This is no privacy concerns, especially when Heilman spoke publicly about it. Heilman documented some of the events in text published in The Signpost. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-13/Op-ed. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus.

These are not my assertions, but statements backed up by reliable sources. No evidence to the contrary has been presented. It is directly related to the topic when the source indicates it is related. For example, a source stated: "What is more, this story resonates with the eviction for "default of trust", in December, James Heilman of "board of trustees", the Governing Body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on the Signpost, The Journal of Wikipedia, he claims to have repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. A insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his eviction."[21]

Heilman wanted the grant to become public and transparent without success. The Heilman content is germane to the topic, especially when the WMF is being questioned about transparency regarding the grant and KE project. The reliable sources have connected the Heilman content with the issue of transparency with the events that happened with the KE project. Since Heilman is a former "board of trustees" with the WMF his statement carries weight. There is no reason to wait for more press coverage regarding the Heilman content, especially when there are at least 5 sources discussing it. User:Jayen466 originally added the statement regarding Heilman. User:Nocturnalnow previously stated "This may belong elsewhere but not in the "development" section, imo."[22] Rather than take sides the text was rewritten to state Heilman's opinion per WP:NPOV. The same editor now maintains it is a "possible BPL violation".[23] The current wording is "Late 2015, James Heilman suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees." Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. Translation fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. Translation fixed according to this comment by User:DracoEssentialis. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Note. Koebler 2016 (Vice) is being used to verify the claim that is being discussed here. Morgane 2016 (Le Monde) is being used to very another claim. There are different claims using different sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. Guy Macon is asking Heilman (User:Doc James) about the text on his talk page. The discussion should continue because other editors may have a concern about a possible BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Having been a BLPN regular for years, I am confident in offering a clear view that the material in question is not a BLP violation. I've had no previous involvement with this issue, no COI, no off-wiki activity about it, and I have no opinion about whether the sentence should or should not be included -- but the notion that it is a BLP violation should have no influence on those discussions, because it isn't one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is not a WP:BLP violation.- MrX 12:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP definitely applies by definition - as the claim appears to give far more weight to a single issue than the living person gave to it directly and there are no "reliable sources" used for the claim as fact. Those who say simply "it is not a violation" are whistling in the wind - it is a claim which implies that one specific issue (KE) was the primary reason for the departure of Doc James from the board, where the sources indicate it was not a primary reason thereof. "Motherboard.vice.com" is not a reliable source for claims of fact relating to living persons, as far as I can tell. (Koebler counts, as best, as an opinion blogger, and not usable for claims of fact about a living person). The Tual cite does not make the assertion that the KE was the specific and primary reason for his boardectomy. Any use of either source should present and cite the opinions properly as opinions of those holding those opinions, and not make claims of fact based thereon. This is a common occurrence, alas, in biographical articles, which is the case at hand. Collect (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources are also pretty clear that while James was the only one forced to walk the plank, this is a much wider disagreement within WMF and elsewhere. I would be inclined to avoid even naming James here. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that I have no disagreement with that view. What bugged me was the attempt to use "BLP violation" as a trump card in the discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And to note I still disagree with you -- any claim of fact about any living person which is so poorly sourced to opinion sources is, indeed, a "WP:BLP violation" - has been, is, and shall continue to be. Until you get that policy rewritten to allow opinion sources to be used as "fact." Collect (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I am still on the fence on this, but am leaning towards "BLP violation" (would we allow a claim of why anyone else was dismissed from a position based upon such sources? I think not), I would like to say that I absolutely do not believe that User:Nocturnalnow was "attempting to use 'BLP violation' as a trump card in the discussion". He clearly has a good-faith belief that this is a BLP violation -- a belief that is shared by several administrators who have commented in this thread. User:QuackGuru, on the other hand, appears to be on a spree of creating and expanding articles about internal Wikipedia disputes that he is involved in. He created The Signpost (Wikipedia) while in the middle of repeatedly citing Heilman's op-ed that was published in The Signpost. He is the major author of Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation) (he expanded it from a stub), where his editing history shows a strong tendency to make the article support the POV that he has expressed on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere, and User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia (moved to talkspace from article space against QuackGuru's strong objections) is all about internal Wikipedia disputes that QuackGuru has been involved in. Then there is his block log[24] and his many trips to ANI[25] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Update. Heilman commented about the text on his talk page. There is no longer any doubt that this is not a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure Collect will find a reason to continue thinking it is... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And the second-place WP:AGF award goes to... Nomoskedasticity! (Everyone else is tied for first.) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that talk page comment means much re: whether or not there is a BLP violation in the article. Also, even if, today, James does not mind being named in this way in this article, I'm not sure that anyone can know whether he will always feel that way. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, what Doc James said was acceptable to him on his talk page is significantly different from what QuackGuru want to say about him in the article. Are there are high-quality secondary sources supporting the claim? Or do we just have things like nonprofitquarterly.org saying "According to the Signpost..."? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The text in question says "Late 2015, James Heilman suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees."

Heilman's said I do believe that my "internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees."[26] Claiming that it is "significantly different" from what is in the article is absurd. At least five sources discussed it. That makes it notable. But the issue here is if it is a BLP violation. Asserting it is a BLP violation is very different than showing it is a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• The Le Monde source is very strong and supports the current wording above, and the weaker ones are in line with Le Monde. There is no issue here. And it doesn't matter what the subject thinks about it. Not ever (outside of courtesy and trying to resolve POV-pushing by subjects, within limits of what we can do) Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  With respect, the Lemonde article's wording, according to Google Translate (see below), not only does not support QuackGuru's text, it actually contradicts it. Lemonde says "could be linked to his ouster" whereas QuackGuru says "was a factor". Lemonde even goes further by saying there was a different reason for James's ouster, i.e. "eviction for "lack of confidence"". In addition, if Collect is correct, that, for BLP violation purposes, the sourcing should identify KE as the "specific and primary reason" for James's dismissal, Lemonde actually does the opposite. Lemonde muddies the water substantially by referencing "lack of confidence" as the reason for dismissal. Jytdog's second point about a subject's opinion not ever mattering, I'm sure he is correct about that. Translation :directly below:

French: Qui plus est, cette histoire résonne avec l’éviction pour « défaut de confiance », en décembre, de James Heilman du « board of trustees », l’instance dirigeante de la fondation Wikimedia. Dans un texte publié sur le Signpost, le journal de Wikipedia, il affirme avoir demandé à plusieurs reprises à ce que ces documents soient rendus publics, sans succès. Une insistance qui, laisse-t-il entendre, pourrait être liée à son éviction. to

English:" Furthermore, this story resonates with eviction for "lack of confidence" in December, James Heilman's "board of trustees", the governing body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on Signpost, Wikipedia of the newspaper, he said he had repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. An insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his ouster." Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nocturalnow you are bringing up all kinds of irrelevant stuff here, and passionately. Please tone it down. The article is not about James or his dismissal. It is about KE. The content said "for other reasons" and we don't have to enumerate all of them. Collect is a good egg but he has an idiosyncratic (and fierce) take on BLP. The background here is that the Board didn't give any reason for dismissing him; it just announced the dismissal. James said the conflict with the board arose over transparency over the KE (see here and here, each of which in my view are already reliable enough for the fact that he said that. In response board members have said herehere (the latter of which is the origin of "loss of trust" as far as I know) that he was dismissed b/c they found they couldn't work with him. We have a he said/she said. Any content in an article about the dismissal would need to deal with that messiness. The sources being rejected as not being of good enough quality do deal with that. Le monde deals with it. You are trying to read fine nuance via google translate, and this is not wise. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I will take your advice and tone it down, thank you. You make very good points, but I still agree with what Guy says above. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We are using one source for each statement. Koebler 2016 (Vice) is being used to verify the claim being discussed here. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• There are numerous reasons why Google Translate should not be used in an academic context, especially when dealing with unrelated languages such as English and French. Some are listed here. You can find plenty more online. Hey, you could google them. ;)

Anyhow, QuackGuru's translation is correct. In the case of "défaut de confiance," the naughty Google truc-machin chose the less common meaning, confidence. If you don't speak the lingo, you may want to remember that in most constructs, "confiance" is synonymous with "trust." But don't take my word for it: Oxford Dictionary, anyone?

For those of you who don't like Le Monde, here's another high-quality source, Le Nouvel Observateur:

"James Heilman, médecin canadien et wikipédien, élu en juin 2015 par la communauté comme représentant au conseil d’administration de la fondation, en est chassé le 28 décembre (nombreux documents dans sa page d’utilisateur de Wikipédia).

La majorité des autres administrateurs auraient jugé qu’il y a incompréhension et manque de confiance mutuelle, mais le peu d’explication à ce limogeage ouvre un débat dans la communauté.

James Heilman indique ensuite avoir poussé le conseil à la transparence sur un projet de moteur de recherche et son financement."

(Free translation, just this once)

"James Heilman, the Canadian medical professional and wikipedian elected by the community in June 2015 as its representative to the Foundation's Board of Trustees, was shown the door on December 28 (see numerous documents on his Wikipedia user page).

Most of the other Board members allegedly stated that there had been compatibility issues and a mutual lack of trust, but the paucity of information released in the wake of this sacking led to a debate within the community.

James Heilman subsequently pointed out that he had pushed the Board toward transparency regarding a search engine project and its bankrolling."

You're welcome. And, no, this translation is not up for debate. I usually get paid handsomely for this kind of work and I've become quite good at it over the past 20 years.

Lastly, this entire discussion as well as several others seems somewhat WP:frivolous, with a whiff of Eau de Bromance Gone Wrong between Guy Macon and QuackGuru. It also looks mighty embarrassing from the outside, if you get my drift, Guy Macon. This is no time for sweeping issues under the rug, personal animosities be damned. Draco^E 01:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation Draco - I was reading it that way too. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Draco, I think the middle sentence beginning with "Most" clearly shows what the better sources are saying were the primary reasons for Heilman's dismissal; "compatibility issues and a mutual lack of trust", and those 2 reasons are not connecting Heilman to Knowledge Engine at all within the sources. The third sentence, therefore, is diminished to a non-primary speculative status and those words also require synthesis and outright imagination to morph into the words connecting Heilman's views on Knowledge Engine with his dismissal. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to arrive at QuackGuru's wording from the sentences you translated. I could be wrong, but, I'd suggest reading those 2 sentences again. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Goodness, then just add that other board members contradicted that or called it "utter fucking bullshit". At any rate, there is no BLP violation here. This is an extremely well-publicised controversy by now. --Andreas JN466 04:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

If its so well publicized, there should he at least one high quality source which says "James Heilman suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees." Find that and the discussion is over. Until then, nobody has the right to get absolutist , imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

But that's what sources 4 and 5 listed at the top of this section, and the Nouvel Observateur, are saying. And if you feel they are not saying that exactly, then simply summarise what you think they are saying. Andreas JN466 13:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think source 4 says James was dismissed (eviction) for "lack of confidence", source 5 says James "hinted" that his internal quest to make the Knight Foundation document public led to his firing, and Nouvel Observateur says that Board members pointed to "compatibility issues and a mutual lack of trust" and James "had pushed the Board toward transparency regarding a search engine project and its bankrolling." Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• can I please get clarification on the exact content currently being proposed? There is too much handwavy stuff here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume QuackGuru is proposing what he has already put into the article, i.e. "James Heilman, who was dismissed from the WMF's Board of Trustees in late 2015, suggested that his push for transparency about the Knight Foundation grant public(sic) was a factor in his dismissal – a suggestion Jimmy Wales rejected as "utter fucking bullshit"." I think the sentence in its entirety is naming names and their opinions within an article which has no use for their names or their opinions, thus, inclusion of the sentence in question is just some sort of coatracking and possibly a Blp violation for frivolous usage of their names and opinions.Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Nocturnalnow, it is time to close the entire discussion and move on IMO. It is clearly not a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• QuackGuru, thank you for your patience. I have studied and thought about the various points made by yourself and other editors, including Collect, and I have come to the opinion that sometimes, as in this case, tangential connection, vagueness, and lack of importance to the article in question(e.g.Knowledge Engine) regarding a typically very personal matter, i.e., being fired, in combination, causes there to be a BLP violation where there would normally be no such violation ( in accordance with our editing parameters).

I realize this is quite esoteric reasoning but I think it is reasonable reasoning. One analogy I would offer is the Fruit of the poisonous tree, whereby evidence ( in this case "content" re: dismissal) is disallowed because of a combination of seemingly unrelated characteristics of the entity (in this case vagueness, minimum if any notability and tangential connection). The vagueness and inferiority ("hinted","suggested""one factor") is such, that by including it we cross the BLP violation line in relation to the subject's privacy, personal history, and in this case, even his Curriculum vitae. And as Jytdog says, it does not matter at all whether the subject is ok or not ok with the inclusion of this information within this or possibly a myriad of other articles that relate or may in the future relate to Knowledge Engine or Wikimedia or an almost unlimited array or future articles about various topics. The bottom line is, the content in dispute is so vague, of so little importance to this article and so personal, the combination of these 3 characteristics constitutes a BLP violation. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely relevant, particularly to the issue of transparency. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not think of looking at the Doc James BLP before now. Obviously, this disputed content about his dismissal should be/ belongs there if anywhere at all, I would think. His dismissal is discussed in the lede and body, but nothing/no connection with Knowledge Engine is mentioned, see:

LEDE:::: In June 2015, he was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, a position which he held until he was removed on December 28, 2015

BODY:::In June 2015, Heilman was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.[10] In December 2015, the Board removed Heilman from his position as a Trustee, a decision that generated controversy amongst members of the Wikipedia community.[11][22][23] A statement released by the board after Heilman was removed stated that he lacked the confidence of his fellow trustees. Heilman himself later said that he "was given the option of resigning [by the Board] over the last few weeks. As a community elected member I see my mandate as coming from the community which elected me and thus declined to do so. I saw such a move as letting down those who elected me.''

QuackGuru might want to put what he wants to put about James, over there, at least first, to see if it is accepted there as a non-Blp violation? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. User:Jayen466 and User:Everymorning added information to the James Heilman's article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did too. Maybe we can just agree that is where it belongs and not with KE as it is too tangential for the KE article and as being tangential, fits into Collect's BLP violation definition possibly. So let's just leave it out of the KE article, please. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? I never heard of the word "mused". QuackGuru (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, that explains a lot. With your vocabulary issues I suggest you stick with less demanding articles. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation. Other arguments might pertain as to whether to include it or exclude it, but "BLP violation" doesn't work in this context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Nomoskedasticity, if Collect agrees with you then I, who have less experience with BLP issues, will agree. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

My comments are intended to stand alone; I really don't care whether Collect agrees with me... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

) I understand. I just realized that I don't think any info "hinted at" belongs anywhere in an encyclopedia and in respect to such a personal matter "hinted at" info seems to me to be a Blp violation in a kind of gossipy way. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if the source said he speculated or alleged it still belongs in an online encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Nocturnalnow, the wording "hinted" is too close to the source. I think "suggested" or "indicated" is better. They are synoyms.[27] There is a discussion on the talk page over a single word. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Nocturnalnow wanted the information in the article and now claims it is not notable. What is going on here? QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Its good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, that's what is going on. Its a living, breathing exercise. It is not static. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on your edits it appears you think it is embarrassing to the Wikimedia Foundation. You claim it is not notable, but it has been repeated in multiple sources. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting; perhaps a Freudian slip by you. To spell it out, maybe you think it is embarrassing to WMF. Until you just mentioned it, I had not thought about that entity at all in connection with this topic. Quit speculating about what's in somebody else's head; its a silly waste of time. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we are done here until there may be newer sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

WMF Executive Director Tretikov resigned on February 25, 2016, as a result of the Wikimedia Foundation's controversial Knowledge Engine project.^[1][2]

Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No; those 2 sources are not good enough. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC) `

I am not going to add more sources at the end of a sentence.

There is no shortage of sources. See another new source: Mullin, Joe (February 29, 2016). "Wikimedia Foundation director resigns after uproar over "Knowledge Engine"". Ars Technica. Retrieved March 1, 2016. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Would I be politically incorrect in asking for an English language source for en.wikipedia? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Google translation can translate the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In early 2016 Wikipedia editors perceived the WMF's Knowledge Engine project as a conflict of interest for Wales, whose business Wikia might benefit from having the WMF spend a lot of money on research in respect to search.^[1] Wikia attempted to develop a search engine but it was closed in 2009.^[1]

Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, aren't you getting a bit pointy? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

We recently published a book about the architecture and art of Herb Greene (the architect)- not to be confused with the other Herb Greene, a photographer. I have pasted a link to the incorrect information (on Google) below and would request that Generations (the book title) be linked to the correct Herb Greene, if that content was generated by Wikipedia:

https://www.google.com/#q=herb+greene

Thanks!

My best to you,

Julie Anglin VP Marketing & PR USA

ORO Editions / Goff Books / AR+D Publishers of Architecture, Art, Design & Photography +1 415.883 3300 x 208 San Francisco l New York l Buenos Aires | Montreal | Singapore l Hong Kong �� | Shenzhen www.oroeditions.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.247.125.61 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Help--I've started to clean this up, and am at a loss as to how to proceed, other than remove the entire resume-like body of the biography. Unsourced and interminable lists of publications, exhibitions, edited and co-edited papers, etc. If I fillet the whole thing someone's liable to take it for vandalism, but I'm unsure as to what ought actually remain. Assistance appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite a resume. Fillet away. I would start by removing all of the bullet lists, which are unsourced and can be removed according to WP:BLPSOURCES. - MrX 21:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I've come across this as regrettably symptomatic of a wider series of biographies, which I may bring to ANI. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No, don't do that! ANI is not for fixing content. That's up to us gnomes. Feel free to fix what you find, leave good edit summaries so other editors know why you are making such edits, and consider signing up for a free account.- MrX 22:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Last paragraph should be removed.

Vandalism reverted, thanks for reporting it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ross Perot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He is listed as dying on Sept 11, 2001 in Tijuana Mexico and being married to Helen Mirren. [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8701:3F00:DD0E:464F:7BF0:522 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like some vandalism has been already been undone. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Coy Wayne Wesbrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The count of 5 killed is incorrect. I've made several attempts to get this corrected. The original police report listed 5 shot but only 4 were killed. One woman survived. As well He is being executed for 3 murders. The facts are being checked against Newspaper articles that are checking facts using Wikipedia. The original report also contained 1 minor error the rifle was a .30/.06 not a 36 caliberJoebrown1958 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

".36 caliber hunting rifle" sounds like a mistake. I've commented to that effect on the talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 16:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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

(OP notes the person might fail notability) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.89.67 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed that the article be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

2014 Youtube Abuse Scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Originally unsourced, newly created article w/lots of negative claims in violation of BLP. However, these claims seem to be at least partly true. Advice requested. (Note that I added 1 source for Montoya stuff toward the bottom, but there are no other sources in article). Everymorning (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is largely derived from the article you source, to the degree to be a WP:COPYVIO concern, even though it is not word-for-word. Additionally, there is some horrible BLP violations here (someone is said to have been "found guilty by the FBI", despite 1) the FBI does not find people guilty, they are not a court; 2) the article apparently being used as a source does not say that the FBI found him guilty; 3) the source doesn't even claim that the FBI found anything, but rather claims that some vlogger claims that the FBI found something, which makes that problematic sourcing for anything, particularly a BLP. Honestly, I would say that instead of trying to save the material, first thing would be to nuke most of it including the naming of any names, and then allow the article to be rebuilt only with care. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Mike Lombardo has his own WP article and has been convicted for child pornography. I agree with NatGertler that it should probably be nuked and started from scratch with high quality sourcing that adheres to WP:BLP.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The article has now been deleted, as the author blanked it after being pointed to WP:BLP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Immu 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User page looks like a BLP article/Advert. I mentioned this last week on their user page, here. They replied, but haven't made any changes. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can take a look and determine if any action is required or not. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 14:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• BLPN notice added. - ^theWOLFchild 14:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It takes some time I can't just change my userpage in a day!! I am currently working on it! IMЯAN™ 18:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 (talk • contribs)

Fay Hartog-Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On December 9, 2015 a paragraph was inserted in this BLP article purporting to describe a vehicle accident and ensuing litigation involving the subject of this biography, former U.S. Ambassador Fay Hartog Levin. The description of both the accident and lawsuit are disputed, and the only cited source was the self-published blog posting of the attorney who represented the party who sued Amb. Hartog Levin. The contentious material was removed from the article shortly after it was posted (apparently by an editor unconnected to Amb. Hartog Levin), but subsequently re-inserted. I am an attorney who represents Amb. Hartog Levin, although not in connection with the lawsuit described in the text at issue. Consistent with the guidlines on biographies of living persons, on behalf of Amb. Hartog Levin I have removed the contentious and improperly sourced material.

A more detailed explanation of the basis for removal follows:

The removed text purporting to describe a traffic accident and resulting lawsuit involving Ambassador Hartog Levin is factually inaccurate and inconsistent with several Wikipedia policies, including those governing the biographies of living persons and prohibitions against the use of self-published sources.

First, the entire passage describing the incident and lawsuit cites to a single self-published source. That source is a blog entry authored by Brendan Kevenides, who was the attorney for the plaintiff in the personal injury lawsuit described in the removed text. ^[1]. In that promotional blog post, Mr. Kevenides inaccurately describes key facts regarding the accident (which he did not witness), gives a first-person account of the history of the lawsuit, including depositions he took in the case, makes ad hominem attacks on Ambassador Hartog Levin and her husband, and touts the settlement that he obtained for his client. The blog itself is maintained by “Bike Law,” a self-described “network of independent lawyers and law firms who share a common approach to the law and to helping cyclists.” The blog appears to serve, at least in part, as a marketing tool for attorneys, like Mr. Kevenides ^[2], who represent bicyclists in personal injury cases. Mr. Kevenides posts regularly on the “Bike Law” blog about his cases ^[3].

Mr. Kevenides authored his blog post on the accident and lawsuit on December 8, 2015. The next day, December 9, 2015, the offending text citing to that blog post was added to Ambassador Hartog Levin’s biographical Wikipedia article. Whether the December 9 revision to the biography was done by Mr. Kevenides, his client, or a third-party, there is no question that the only cited source for that text is the self-published and inherently biased blog post of the plaintiff’s attorney in the litigation described.

The sole reliance on a self-published and biased source is particularly egregious here because the article at issue comprises the biography of Ambassador Hartog Levin, a living person. Wikipedia policy on changes to such entries provides that information about living persons “adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia’s three content Policies: neutral point of view (NPOV); verifiability (V); and no original research (NOR). ^[4] The content purporting to describe the accident and lawsuit involving Ambassador Hartog Levin violates several of those policies. The description of the accident and lawsuit taken from Mr. Kevenides’ marketing blog is not remotely neutral, relaying the self-promotional narrative of the advocate for one of the parties to the lawsuit. Additionally, it describes disputed facts that cannot be verified independently, including the false allegation that Ambassador Hartog Levin “fled the scene,” when in fact she stopped and sought to exchange information with Mr. Kevenides’ client, who declined to provide his name and told her that he was alright and that the accident was his fault. Ambassador Hartog Levin called the police the evening of the incident to report it, but was told that no report would be taken.

The policy on “Biographies of living persons” goes on to state that any contentious material about a living person that is (1) “unsourced or poorly sourced,” (2) a conjectural interpretation of a source, (3) “relies on self-published sources,” or (4) relies on sources “that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards” should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Accordingly, the removal of this paragraph is sanctioned, and in fact mandated, by Wikipedia policy.

Dmfeeney (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Times of India
2. NDTV
3. Telegraph India

Unfortunate incident, but could perhaps use some further looking into by respondents to this noticeboard.

Good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What's to look into? The offending edits have already been rev/del'd as blp/vio's and the vandals indef'd. This is just part of doing business here at the 'encyclopaedia that anyone can edit'. Nothing is gonna change from this. - ^theWOLFchild 03:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We could push to have all BLP's under semi-protection. IP vandalism being the most common method of erroneous information in BLP's. It would cut down heavily on the fly-by-vandals. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I wish we could do that to every page. I'm in favour of mandatory account creation, but unfortunately the current zeitgeist is that everyone should be able to edit everything. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 20:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Byron Cook (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Experienced eyes requested on this article, where new user Honest Abe2016 is edit-warring and complaining that it "has been hacked with false and libelous information". JohnCD (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Honest Abe2016 provided on my talk page a long list of complaints and a proposed draft, which I have moved to the article talk page. It is clear from "I will attempt to go through all of Mr Cook's concerns", that he is editing on behalf of Mr Cook. The article history shows a long list of edits in late February by an IP who is certainly not friendly to Mr Cook, but whose additions are sourced: the question is whether the sources are too partisan to be used, and whether WP:UNDUE applies. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed a couple of statements in the article that, while vaguely supported by their citations, were written with an obvious bias. With the POV removed, they were reasonably non-notable actions by Cook. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Timothy Parker (puzzle designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've got an interesting one for you guys, centering around a puzzle designer. I'm going to try to describe everything as good as possible since it's mildly complicated.

Long story short, Parker was accused of plagiarizing some of his crosswords and there's been a flurry of editing with the article, some of which was to add the content and some of which was to selectively edit it in order to remove any mention of the allegations other than a denial of the claims. There were claims that Parker was editing the article, which were somewhat persuasive, although I don't think that the IP edits are by Parker offhand. The account might have been Parker, but I've warned him against making direct edits (several times) and asked him to discuss edits on the talk page. I ended up giving the editor a temporary block (for edit warring) and semi'd the page for a few days, which kept the edits down to a minimum. The protection has lapsed and the IPs have returned. They're not as bad as they were, so I'm not going to semi it again unless it gets bad.

Anywho, I've created a subsection for this since the coverage is getting heavy-ish and this sort of thing is difficult to explain as just plagiarism since it's not exactly as cut and dry as all of that. I also wanted to include a section about Parker responding to the allegations. It's a bit lengthier than I wanted, but it's been getting quite a bit of coverage so it's mildly justified. If anyone can condense it a little without swaying it one way or another, feel free. I'm in my last week of classes right now so I'm not on as much as I otherwise would be and I'd really like to prevent this from turning into a perfect storm. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Cruciverbalism aside, I tried to reduce the section to one which is sufficiently detailed, and not overly detailed, and including his rseponse. Collect (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looks good! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Marian Kotleba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anonymous users keep adding ([29], [30]) dubiously-sourced statement about Kotleba's supposed reduction of the region's debt; this doesn't seem to be confirmed by any unaffiliated sources (all references I found either are on the Kotleba's party website, or refer to it). Is there anything that can be done with this, including rewriting said statement from NPOV or finding more sources for it?

Any help would be appreciated.

Andrew Shadura (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ravi Zacharias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article Ravi Zacharias has seen BLP-violating content added by new user Zenbanjo. The content, which accuses Zacharias of lying about his academic qualifications, is sourced to a blog, and thus clearly violates WP:BLP. I have warned the user, but he continues to add the same unacceptable content, most recently here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've watch listed Ravi Zacharias and warned Zenbanjo of edit warring on his/her talk page. Meatsgains (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Meatsgains. Unfortunately, the BLP violation has been restored here by MarkBernstein, an established user who should know better than to behave this way. The source, as noted, is a blog posting, which is obviously unacceptable. Aside from the fact that the source is unreliable for a BLP, the text added is carefully written in a way that seems to be intentionally aimed at discrediting Zacharias ("Zacharias is considered to be a leading figure of the evangelical intelligentsia movement, although he has recently been criticized for making questionable claims about his academic credentials"). The implication is that Zacharias does not deserve to be considered a leading figure of evangelical intelligentsia movement. It's totally unacceptable for a neutral encyclopedia article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it again. Its bad enough that it is sourced to a blog, but the blog post makes it clear that they are just posting a press release from a third party. Doesnt come close to fulfilling the requirements for reliable sourcing in a BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I had a closer look, the material was originally added by Steve Baughman with the same name as the author of the 'press release' used as the source of the 'controversy'. Given the author of the blog stated "The following is a guest post by attorney Steve Baughman aka “Friendly Banjo Atheist,” who asked me to post it on his behalf." - not even close to being a reliable source for controversy in a BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind that the subject’s official biography long asserted that he had been a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, though this was not precisely accurate, and referred to him as "Dr. Zacharias" although he has not earned a doctoral degree [31]. The biography just cited also reports that he is a "Senior Research Fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University in Oxford, England," though he is not listed among the theology faculty of the various Oxford colleges [32]. A previous controversy on this page, currently in abeyance, relied on these credentials to lend support to the WP:FRINGE belief that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The underlying difficulty, which will be familiar to other established editors, is the difficulty of obtaining reliable sourcing for facts which are true, concerning subjects of somewhat marginal notability. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant. You reinserted *repeatedly* a blog-sourced press release in order to justify a 'controversy' section. You know perfectly well the requirements for a BLP, and 'But its true!' is not a valid argument. If there are reliable sources documentating this supposed 'controversy' then by all means find them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Distinguishing one 501(c)3 site, which you call as a "blog", from another -- say [33] which we (apparently) consider a reliable source, sure can be perplexing. Apparently, blog-sourced press releases are only sometimes out of bounds, as in the current references #19 and #25. I do agree that there is insufficient coverage at present to call this a controversy. We ought, in any case, to clean out dead links and clarify over-general claims. (Is the a Wikipedia policy on our coverage of honorary degrees?) MarkBernstein (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If you cant tell the difference between a transcript of an interview *with* the subject from a press release by a *third party attacking* the subject, you should not be editing BLP's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Are any admins monitoring this page? I've seen a few reports that appear to be actionable but no admins acting on them. (Just a question... not criticism) - ^theWOLFchild 09:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, ideally admins don't get involved in content disputes, unless acting as an editor and not in their admin capacity. They're just volunteers like everyone else, except (for some reason) decided to take on a lot of extra work. A blatant BLP vio should be removed on sight, so if you see something you truly feel is actionable, then by all means act. This forum is more of a place to attract other impartial editors into the dispute. ANI or another forum is often better if admin action is necessary (ie: blocking or protecting an article). Zaereth (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this question could simply be asked without {{admin help}}. Unless you feel it requires "immediate admin attention", but it seems more like a poll and actually using the admin help template will most likely draw admins here who do not necessarily monitor this page -- and thereby not be able to answer your question. It's probably better just to have this discussion without it and then admins who do monitor this page will state if they do, but otherwise silence or few replies will answer your question otherwise. I know for myself that I've been here a bit lately but typically only to answer admin help tags. The previous time there was a situation as you described where after a prolonged conversation there was something actionable, and then the participants used the admin help template to seek assistance. Otherwise I would mirror Zaereth's advice about ANI and WP:AN3, etc. Mkdw^talk 02:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Scott Angelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not a neutral point of view, and clearly unsourced comments about character. Asks readers to visit politician's facebook page and reads like a campaign ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.167.236 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular in that article that you are speaking of? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sharon Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I Sharon Presley recently looked at my page on Wiki and to my horror I found that the book “Think for Yourself” was listed as one of my books. But that book was the subject of an arbitration that I won and has been withdrawn from the market. At the request of my lawyer, neither Amazon nor Barnes and Noble even carry used copies. Let me explain why I totally disavow the book and do not consider it even mine. Though there was a contract that guaranteed me final approval of the book, the publisher basically rewrote the book without my knowledge or approval even though I had told her that she no longer had my permission to even publish the book, period. She went ahead and rewrote the book, introducing literally hundreds of typos, misspellings, and grammatical mistakes. I was horrified. But even worse, she rewrote passages in ways that, in my opinion, make me look psychologically disturbed. The terms of the arbitration agreement are such that I cannot comment on why I think she did this. However, if you have any doubt about what I am saying, please contact my lawyer Allan Schwartz in San Francisco [(Redacted)] I would really appreciate it if you to take down the book as soon as possible. Thank you. P.S. You can contact me at (Redacted) --just so you know this is a legitimate request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B3D6:D8E0:D852:B85D:ACE7:88CC (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it because the authorship was inadequately sourced. Someone could re-add it to the article though, if they can locate a source that states that it is one of Sharon Presley's books.- MrX 03:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt the legitimacy of the situation but thought I'd provide some sources to stimulate some discussion. [34] [35] [36] Meatsgains (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a slight problem with this - as the author is clearly in a binding arbitration (the terms of which appear to be withdrawal of the book as long as everyone keeps their mouths shut about it) there is unlikely to be any reliable secondary sources covering why it was withdrawn. The subject is not a household name so is unlikely to garner media attention for dry and dusty legal issues. However there are reliable sources that state the book was written by Sharon Presley, published and is currently still available to buy. There isnt actually a BLP issue here. Normally we could request the author put a statement somewhere public (their website etc) however the post by the subject above seems to imply this wouldnt be possible. Perhaps a referral to OTRS? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There really is a BLP issue; it shouldn't need explaining, it's obvious from the initial post here. Under the circumstances, we won't use the links that Meatsgains gives, because they are primary sources, and it's evident that secondary sources are needed to clarify the situation in a more definitive way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Meatsgains, none of those are reliable sources. Google books merely lists books that have been published and does not do fact-checking. The information on Amazon is user provided. Per "News organizations", the review in The Skeptic is not a reliable source either. A reliable source would be a reliable biography of the subject, which AFAIK does not exist. Also, if no reliable secondary sources discuss the book, it lacks significance for mention. TFD (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If we could properly source it, including the subject's disavowal of the book in the article would actually be of value to the readers and probably to the author, so that anyone who finds her article after having read the book or seeks out her work after having read the article will be able to either put the work in context or avoid it altogether. The book is, after all, still available in the used book market, remains on the shelves of a dozen libraries, etc. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The political party Australians Against Further Immigration was formed by the parents of actor Jesse Spencer. According to his wikibio, Spencer has refused to comment on his parents' politics. Yet, he is mentioned in the second sentence of the lede of the article on this political party, which is anti-immigrant and was viewed as racist in Australia when it was operating. I can see how the party can be mentioned in his wikibio, but I don't see why he should be in the lede of the party's article. Could not his inclusion be seen as implying agreement with the views of the party? Is his inclusion in the party article a BLP violation? 60.242.25.92 (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it's a BLP violation, as he has nothing to do with this organization. Furthermore, that they are his parents is irrelevant -- if he wasn't notable himself, would he be mentioned as the child of the founders? Mentioning Jesse Spencer serves no purpose other than top identify the parents, who it seems are not notable themselves. And since notability is not inherited, mentioning Jesse Spencer is doubly wrong. freshacconci talk to me 14:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sourced and likely a "contentious claim about living persons" requiring specific strong sourcing in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yolandi Visser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a brand new editor, User:Gene ZEF who might be close to the subject of the article. All of the edits are evidently done in good faith, but the article is becoming really heavy with WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL issues. Attempts at reversion by other editors and bots are undone, not due to the new editor engaging in an edit war or attempting to own the page, but is under the assumption that his/her 'coding' is incorrect and that his/her edits are just disappearing. Notes have been left on the users talk page, but they vanish. Just wanting to see if we can get an extra pair of eyes on the article to make sure it doesn't get out of control. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Guys Im just learning the board. I have no intention in owning the page or making a mess of it. I do need help on coding issues I am having though, I could use some guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene ZEF (talk • contribs) 04:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[37] Quick comment. According to several sources, the main Wikipaedia page on Brown for example, it is stated that he flew 487 types of aircraft. Counting the entries on the subject page, there are only 486 listed. I do not have the reference handy but have seen it mentioned that his personal aircraft at the time he gave up flying was a Grumman Tiger AA5B. That aircraft is not listed at the reference page and would make up the 487. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8200:224D:4E00:1543:1910:D282:4619 (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if wikipedia had some clearer guidelines as to what constitutes notability in regards to people of the United Kingdom. Some editors are of the view that anyone who features in Who's Who (UK) is by right inherently notable. Some also believe that recipients of MBE/OBE/CBE's are by right notable enough for inclusion (the UK has a far more long winded honours system than that but this is the most common Order conferred). I on the other hand take a less inclusionist view. The first reason for this is that Who's Who (UK) contains biographies of individuals who are not necessarily at the pinnacle of their profession, for example it contains biographies on the vast majority of living Circuit judge's (c. 600), District judges (c. 400) and Queen's Counsels (c. 2800), while I would argue that only the appointment of High Court judge (England and Wales) (c.110) was de facto notable in itself. Recent successful AFDs of Gordon-Saker Liza_Gordon-Saker (Circuit judge), Laurence Marshall (Circuit judge), Peter Carr (Circuit judge), Jane McIvor (District judge), Jonathan Radway (District judge), Peter Bowsher (QC), Charles Sherrard (QC) lend support my assertion. Who's Who (UK) also includes biographies on a lot of low ranking consular and embassy staff, while I would argue that only High Commissioners and Ambassadors were de facto notable, and even my bar is not unequivocally supported by the current guidelines. The publictaion also included a large number of headteachers with another successful AFD example here. In respect of MBE/OBE/CBE's again these, and similar honours, can sometimes be awarded to cleaners, teachers and other such persons who would not normally be considered for inclusion based on their career or coverage. However time and time again I see the same arguments in AFDs, here, here, here, here, here etc. For these reasons it would be useful to have some clearer notability guidelines to work with in respect of United Kingdom related biographies. Uhooep (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Notability is not a matter of being at the peak of one's profession, importance, fame, success or the like. For example, I have written articles about homeless beggars such as Soho Pam. Per WP:GNG, notability is a matter of sources. Obituaries in The Times, entries in Who's Who, and other biographical material of that sort are fine and adequate. What isn't fine is pages such as Wangdi Norbu which has no such adequate sourcing. Uhooep should please clean up his own messes before bothering the rest of us. Andrew D. (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  Why do you mention Wangdi Norbu, Andrew Davidson, when it is crystal clear that he meets our notability guideline for politicians? What precisely is not fine about that article, and why is it a mess? Why not improve it instead of trashing it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  When I made my comment, the Wangdi Norbu page was a sub-stub. Uhooep took my point because he then improved the article to the point you now see. I commend his action which was constructive and positive. Andrew D. (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hilary Putnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm noting that there have been unverified reports of Putnam's death and a resultant near-constant stream of edits by anonymous and new editors. Without a reliable source, it's a BLP violation to claim that he's died. clpo13_(talk) 21:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Watchlisted. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:WEASEL, the part "some" is an unsupported attribution. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions. The part "some" cannot be used to describe the sources because editors cannot conduct their own review by combining different sources together to come to a new conclusion. The sources should make the claim, not the editor. Combining different sources together does not equal "some". It is a SYN violation when none of the sources makes the claim. The part "some" failed V and is not neutral. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking to get an extra pair of eyes and a outside perspective on this one.

The section included is from the "Early Political Life" section in the article.

"In 1970, he was one of six GIs who refused orders to go to Vietnam.[2] This was the largest mass refusal of orders to Vietnam during that war. Dix served two years in Leavenworth Military Penitentiary. It was during his incarceration that he became a revolutionary.[3] "

Source 2:^[1] Source 3:^[2]

The language of it seems to be NPOV, and further, would these be considered reliable sources for the subject and its content? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Niall Mellon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of IP SPA's continually attempting to skew tone. I've reverted a couple of times but don't want to get in an edit war. Additional oversight would be appreciated. 79616gr (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Put it on my watch list. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Article seems currently well balanced and I've reviewed all the sources referenced. I don't feel any of the current content is unfairly representative or biassed but the IP editors certainly seem intent on removal of certain sections of it. I'll keep watching it too, but having reverted a few times over the last few days, I feel it's better if I take a step back for a while. 79616gr (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:ParkH.Davis has created this article on the Peyton Manning sexual assault allegations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyton_Manning_sexual_assault_case. It is an absolute violation of WP:BLP. It should be deleted immediately, and ParkH.Davis should seriously reconsider continuing to edit in this area. He has been disruptive on the article, talk page, NPOV noticeboard, and WP:ANI. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

BLPs have three requirements: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Peyton Manning sexual assault case adheres to all three of these requirement. It presents all sides, it is well sourced by reliable sources and does not include any original research. The BLP policy goes on to say: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Peyton Manning's sexual assault case has been widely covered by reliable sources for two decades and is most certainly a notable event in his life. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal opinions. Just because some people may not like that the sexual assault allegation is being discussed, does not mean that it can be censored. There is precedent for having an article dedicated to the sexual assault case of a prominent professional athlete in Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a dispute at the main article. This new page appears to be a POV FORK. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that Peyton Manning sexual assault case does not violate WP:BLP. It is also clear that Peyton Manning lacks a NPOV. The allegations must be included, as they are noteworthy, relevant and well documented. Wikipedia is NOT censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed a RfC on the main page regarding the text. The new page is a POV FORK. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the RfC. The creation of the separate article has been discussed. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And the result was no consensus for the new bias page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"bias page"? Huh? Peyton Manning sexual assault case adheres to BLP policy as I previously stated. It is well sourced by reliable sources, and neutral. Wikipedia is not censored and is not based on personal opinions. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The lead is a straightfoward violation of WP:BLP. If you can't understand that, you should stop editing BLP areas, as an administrator advised you when you were on WP:ANI. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The lede does not violate BLP. It is well sourced, neutral and lacks original research. Just because you personally disagree with it, doesn't mean that it can be censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:ParkH.Davis, you did not specifically disagree with the previous statement that the new page has "no consensus". Why did you create a new page without gaining conseusus first while the discussion is still happening? QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I created the page as per WP:BOLD. Peyton Manning sexual assault case does not violate WP:BLP and is most certainly notable enough for its own article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You only write one side of the story in the lead. "She claims..." I do not see "Peyton claims..." That is a BLP violation. Anyways, it does no good to argue with you, as seen by the past 2 weeks of "discussion." Let's wait for uninvolved editors to chime in. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The entire event is based around Dr. Naughright's allegations, hence why that is included in the lede. The body discusses Manning's rebuttal to the allegations and his apology. The article does not violate BLP in any way, shape or form. The BLP policy explicitly says: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You still don't get it, or you're pretending not to. This goes well beyond a clear violation of BLP; it's an issue about content that destroys the rules of WP:UNDUE. People have explained the undue weight factor to you numerous times, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. This was an allegation for heaven's sake; there was no conviction, no trial, not even an arrest! And once again, you cite a policy but completely misunderstand it. This is not about the insertion of controversial content in an existing article, which the BLP quote you just cited is referring to, but rather about you creating a completely new article solely about the allegation. In my opinion, your creation of the new article and your endless comments in numerous discussions indicates that your mission is simply to make Manning look as bad as possible. An editor like you is a danger to Wikipedia's credibility. Tracescoops (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly not a violation of BLP though, as it is well cited by numerous reliable sources. The sexual assault scandal was a major event in Manning's life, it does not violate WP:UNDUE to discuss it. There is a ton of precedent for discussing sexual assault allegation on the articles of prominent professional athletes, Kobe Bryant's sexual assault allegation even has its own article. BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.", you can't pretend like the allegations never occurred. My mission is to make this article neutral. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page. Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions, just because you personally think the Manning is a good guy, doesn't mean that you can censor this article of all mentions of his scandals. I did not make up the allegations out of thin air, they are well documented by numerous reliable sources. It's not my fault that the allegations exist, but they do. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"My mission is to make this article neutral. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page." Oh, brother. Do you seriously want us to believe that your "mission" is neutrality when everything you've said and done over the past month shows the complete opposite? And you are correct, it's not a fan page. But it also not an attack page. You've shouted your buzzwords like "censorship", "whitewash", "Major", and numerous other words, phrases, and points dozens of times, but it doesn't do anything to strengthen your position. In fact, I think it only causes editors to stop listening to you. Tracescoops (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, ParkH.Davis is clearly unable to work cooperatively with other editors, as is evidenced by his very heavy participation on the Manning talk page over the past month. He refuses to listen to or accept the very sound explanations and proposals by other editors, and has shown no ability to reasonably compromise. It appears that his clear bias and obstructionism has been the primary reason that the matter has gone unresolved for so long. It is undisputed that the content in question relates to an allegation of misconduct, yet ParkH.Davis has chosen to ignore a complete lack of consenus to not only create a separate "sexual assualt allegation" section in the Manning article, but also, amazingly, a complete new, detailed article about the allegation. I feel his ongoing and very inappropriate actions warrant sanctions against him. I think he not only should be banned from editing the Manning article and participating in the resolution discussions, but the restrictions should also extend to similar types of "controversy" content in any other aritcles. ParkH.Davis has only been editing for five months, yet has already been blocked three times and has been very disruptive at two other noticeboards. Tracescoops (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Everybody is "picking on" User:ParkH.Davis. But the fact remains that these are important topics and they are 100% non-existent in the main Peyton Manning article. That is NPOV. And some editors are attempting to white wash the article. Anything good about Manning stays; anything bad, goes. That is the very definition of NPOV. I don't understand how these allegations (sex assault and performance drugs) are not even mentioned at all in his main article? How can that be? Yes, we can abide by BLP. But that does not mean the entire body of information is to be removed from the article. I am sure there are tons of reliable sources. And I am sure we can craft -- at the very least -- one single neutral sentence about all this. So, as much as you all rail against User:ParkH.Davis, he makes some very valid points. If it wasn't for his squeaky wheel, that article would never mention a single negative thing about Manning. And that's not what Wikipedia is about. Since these discussions are quite lengthy and have gone on for a while, I only speak to the facts that I know. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means neutral point of view, and it is desirable on Wikipedia. Judging from what you write above, you seem to be under the impression that NPOV means the opposite, i.e. that something is biased, non-neutral. That is not the case; it's the opposite. Sorry if I nitpick, but if people use opposite definitions of the same term, only general confusion will result. LjL (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh? If an article will only present positive info and affirmatively refuses to present negative info, how is that neutral? That's the very definition of violating NPOV. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Yes, the very definition of violating NPOV, not "the very definition of NPOV", which is what you said. You also said that important topic are non-existent in the article and "that is NPOV". No, that would be against NPOV. See the difference? LjL (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: Yes, you are correct. That was a typo on my part. Sorry. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Joseph, please educate yourself on WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Any editors who truly do not understand how they are blatantly being violated with regard to this dispute should not be editing. Tracescoops (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Tracescoops, educate yourself and read my post. Your reply indicates that my post went completely over your head. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And, Tracescoops, you have been editing here for -- what -- a week? A week and a half? LOL. And, within that week, you have become the expert? You, of all people, are assessing who else is qualified to be editing here? Gimme a break. Please. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Joseph, I may have only been an active editor for a short time, but I've followed Wikipedia for many years. In any case, I certainly know how to read and comprehend policies and guidelines, as well as all of your and Park's comments here and elsewhere regarding this matter. Apparently, all your "experience" over me hasn't helped you much. Writing an encylopedia is not at all about the quantity of edits, but rather the quality. So if resorting to the "I've been here longer than you" card and "LOL"ing is your way of trying to "win" a debate, we'll see how that works out for you. I see that you've been blocked four times – including one that was indefinite and lasted 15 months – for harassing editors, incivility, abuse of process, disruptive editing, personal attacks, harassment, and BLP violations. So your track record doesn't lend much credibility to your opinions of other editors. Tracescoops (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. You being here all of a week -- yes, a week -- bestows all sorts of credibility on you. LOL. You're probably a millennial. That would offer a likely explanation. No clue. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, the immature behavior you're exhibiting here is not isolated, but rather a long-term pattern. This is evidenced not only by your disturbing history of blocks, but also by comments such as this one to editors with whom you disagree. Hopefully, you'll learn how to control your temper before your editing privileges are taken away for good. Tracescoops (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So, again, you keep avoiding the substance of my posts. Yet, you expect to "dazzle us" with your technical and administrative "know how" and ability to dig through old archives. LOL. Typical self-important millennial. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributor. "You are probably a millennial" is not an appropriate dismissal of someone's points on a public forum on Wikipedia. This must stop. LjL (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:ParkH.Davis has refused to provide diffs showing consensus for the new page. The new RfC does not show consensus for the new page. See Talk:Peyton_Manning#Request_For_Comment. QuackGuru (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Coverage in reliable sources = notability + due weight.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Could we possibly get an admin to weigh in here? We have a complete lack of AGF as seen above (this comment by Joseph A. Spadaro is a head scratcher "You're probably a millennial...") What does that even mean? How is that relevant? There is complete consensus to add the contested material to the main article. However it seems to be far easier to come to the talk page to complain about the article, accuse editors of white washing, etc than to just edit collaboratively. Who cares how long someone has been an editor? Mr Ernie (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: Since you asked, I will answer. That editor above (I forget his name) has been editing on Wikipedia for a week or two. Yet, he feels that he is an "expert" on the topic of editing Wikipedia. And, as such, his "expertise" (quote unquote) allows him to offer advice to others on (a) how to read and interpret Wikipedia policies; (b) how to behave on Wikipedia; and (c) how to edit on Wikipedia. So, in other words, after being a member of Wikipedia for a week, he feels like he is the expert on the subject matter. Which is typical behavior of a millennial. As a group, they are self-important. And think that the world revolves around them. And think that they are experts in everything and that they know everything. Since this behavior matched the behavior of that editor in question, I commented that he is probably a millennial. Now do you understand my comment? Actually, it makes perfect sense. And is no head scratcher. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I just looked it up. The user name of the editor in question is Tracescoops. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The use of stereotyping, be it generational, racial, social, or otherwise, is never a good way to make a point. Zaereth (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zaereth: It has nothing to do with stereotyping. (Most stereotypes, by the way, are borne of reality. They don't just fall down from the moon, you know?) So, again, it has nothing to do with stereotyping. It's called math. It's called "probability". What I said was: he is probably a millennial. That means, if I were to play the game of chance (or probability), it is likely (i.e., "probable") that he is a millennial. Got it? My point was well-made. And I stand by it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is the definition: wikt:probably. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Censoring all content which discusses Manning's scandals is a violation of WP:NPOV. There is no way for the article to be neutral if it only presents arbitrarily positive information on a subject that is highly divisive and controversial. Wikipedia is not censored and reliable sources have determined that the scandals are notable enough for continued and in depth coverage. Why is there such a strong movement to whitewash this article? ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Before one shouts "Censorship!" in order to "win" a content dispute, one should read Wikipedia is not censored to see what is not considered censorship. The policy against censorship only involves the deletion of content because it is offensive or not suitable for children. It does state that content can be deleted because it is not appropriate, not balanced, not neutral, or violates another policy such as the BLP violation. I haven't reviewed the content in question, but objecting to its removal as "censorship" is enough to make it clear to me that the editor making that claim is misconstruing the censorship policy, and probably the BLP policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The sexual assault allegation had been part of this article for 10 years, until about a month ago when it was removed without explanation or consensus. The sexual assault allegation has been well documented by numerous reliable sources for over 10 years. There is a ton of precedent for including info on sexual assault allegations against prominent professional athletes. All I see is an effort to whitewash the Peyton Manning article of anything that makes Manning appear as anything less than a deity. Not mentioning the scandals a single time, is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and is clearly censorship. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There was consensus to remove the policy violations. I'm sorry you personally disagree with why these policies are important to Wikipedia. You are deliberately misrepresenting what happened. I have explained to you multiple times why you are wrong. Other editors have explained to you multiple times why you are wrong. Administrators have explained to you multiple times why you are wrong. You've been blocked from editing several times because you were violating Wikipedia policies. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What policy violations? Where was the consensus? Which policies? The only policy violation was the removing of all mentions of the scandals, which stripped this article of its NPOV. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis, once again you are being very disruptive and obstructing the resolution process by pretending that the answers to your questions haven't been provided countless times here, on two other noticeboards, and most extensively on the Manning talk page. Disagreeing with or misunderstanding those answers is one thing, but refusing to even acknowledge that those answers were provided is ludicrous. For the past month, numerous editors have clearly explained the problems with the content, provided links to all of the relevant policies and guidelines, and explained specifically how they apply in this case. Repeatedly shouting "censorship" and "whitewash" only damages your credibility further, particularly since you obviously don't even understand what it means with regard to writing this encylopedia. As WP:CENSORED makes clear, "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view)". Please summarize for everyone your understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, so that everyone can see how you're interpreting them with regard to the Manning article. Tracescoops (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not "undue" to discuss major life events. You can't arbitrarily downplay negative life events. The content in question does not violate either BLP or NPOV policies. Whitewashing this article to promote a POV which is indiscriminately positive of the subject is the real violation of WP:NPOV. The main objection to including the content seems to be the perception that it violates WP:UNDUE. This makes no sense as the scandals have been widely covered by numerous reliable sources and are Major events in Peyton Manning's life. Reliable sources have determined the scandals to be notable, therefore it is censorship to not include content discussing the scandals. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal opinions. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

According to what source, it was "major life events"? QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

For example according to the sources that allege that Manning spent significant efforts trying to handle the accusations by damaging the reputation of the accuser. And in general it seems very odd to suggest that having significant media coverage seeking to damage ones reputation is not "a major life event" for any public personality. Really as an outsider to this debate I cannot see how not mentioning the accusations (as well as Mannings response to them) can be justified under our content policy. BLP is not here to shield biography subjects from criticism or accusations that are as widely circulated in the media as it clearly is in this case. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the main article. See Peyton_Manning#College_career. QuackGuru (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The defamation lawsuit is not mentioned a single time, nor is the illegal drug scandal. Also, the sexual assault allegation has literally nothing to do with his football career. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is the amount of undue attention that seems to have been given to the case, but which at the end of the day, that Manning was not found guilty of. It should be included, because it did happen, there's RSes that document the situation. But the level of detail that I've seen being put into this (both when it was originally part of the Manning and now on the separate accusation page) is far greater than I would expect when Manning was not charged with anything. The whole situation seems to be something that can be suitably described at the encyclopedic level within one or two paragraphs at most (barring what is happening recently about the larger situation from that school). We are not a tabloid, looking for all the juice details to shame a person. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

My entire proposal would have made up less than 5% of the entire article and came at the very end. My proposal for the sexual assault allegation was less than 500 words. The scandals were both Major events in Peyton Manning's life and have both been extensively documented by numerous reliable sources. It is not "undue" to discuss major life events. My goal is not to "shame" anyone, my goal is for this article to present all relevant POVs. Peyton Manning does not control this article and does not get to decide whether or not the negative aspects of his life get included in it or not. Both scandals have been extensively covered by esteemed reliable sources such as The Washington Post, the New York Times, Al Jazeera, The Nation, The Denver Post, the USA Today, etc. It is censorship, plain and clear, to pretend like these scandals didn't happen or to downplay their significance. Also, Manning most certainly was NOT found "not guilty". In fact, there is evidence that UT may have helped him cover the incident up. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The only way, under BLP, we determine if a person is guilty is by court of law. you can't make presumptions like this last statement at all under BLP. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said that anyone was guilty of anything, I said that Manning was never found "not guilty", as he was never criminally charged. There is evidence that UT helped cover up Manning's incident and other similar incidents. Please read my comments, before responding. You can't pretend like the allegations never occurred, because, as it extensively documented by numerous reliable sources, they did in fact occur. As is precedent with other prominent athletes, it is common practice on Wikipedia to include content concerning sexual assault and other criminal allegations, see Kobe Bryant, Cristiano Ronaldo, Ben Roethlisberger, Brian Banks, Adrian Peterson, Wilt Chamberlain, Ray Rice, etc. Peyton Manning does not get any special treatment; if sexual assault and criminal allegations are to be included in other athlete's articles, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be included in his article as well. Kobe Bryant's sexual assault allegation has its own freaking page and yet there is barely a sentence on Peyton Manning's sexual assault allegation. Both scandals were Major life events for Manning as is evidenced by the large amount of coverage concerning them by reliable sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I like to play football but never could stand to watch it. I never heard of this man before seeing this post, but the rounds of filibustering and circular arguments provoked me to look into this. The big issue is weight, and in the scope of someone's entire career, how much weight should be given to an unfounded allegation and conspiracy? The next issue is synthesis, and a clear inference is being made that an accusation equals guilt. (Even worse than stating a conclusion is trying to lead reader to one.) The third is neutrality, as the connotations of the language and structure both show an emotional involvement that is not encyclopedic in tone. This was very clear in the spin-off article, as the lede failed to cover all points, but only one side.

As an uninvolved and uninterested editor, those are my observations. It is very clear that this is something that the author is very passionate about, but it might be helpful to stop repeating the same arguments and address the real issues that people are making. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be better than the sources we use, and the editorial judgment of all is necessary for that. (For tips on how to write in a balanced, neutral way, see User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer.) Zaereth (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said anyone was guilty of anything. The accusations occurred, we can't pretend like they didn't. My only interest in making this article neutral and for it not to be a Peyton Manning circle jerk. I will continue to fight the whitewashing of this page. It seems that some editors want to censor the article of any content which they perceive to be critical of Manning or describe the less flattering aspects of his life. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis, I see no point in editors continuing to discuss this matter with you because you are simply unable to listen to anyone, and have either misrepresented or misunderstood all the policies, guidelines, and issues involved. Even the few who have agreed with some of your points have demonstrated their willingness to reasonably compromise. Your overwhelming bias seems to cloud everything you think and say. Therefore, to other editors I would suggest discontinuing this discussion unless and until sanctions against Park are issued that would either ban or limit his participation in this matter (and any other disputes about "controversy" content in articles). I believe that a timely resolution can easily be achieved if Park isn't involved. Tracescoops (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. ParkH.Davis is either unwilling or unable to edit collaboratively. I don't see a way forward at this point. I'm hoping more experienced editors or admins can lead the way. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have listened. What I heard is that many of you are whitewashing this article. I am 100% allowed to edit on Wikipedia. You will not silence me. This page will have a NPOV eventually. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit at [38] made a specific "claim of fact": "In 1996, while attending the University of Tennessee, Manning, while being examined by a female trainer, pulled down his shorts as she bent over behind him to examine his foot to determine why it was hurting." You have repeatedly removed ("redacted") the word "mooning" from the BLP talk page - "There is no evidence that a "mooning" ever occurred and therefore saying one did, violates BLP policy. Wikipedia is based on facts and reliable sources, not on conjecture and speculation. Also, as was made clear to me, BLP policy is still in effect on talk pages. Censoring this page of all mentions to the scandals is by definition, POV pushing. You cannot have a neutral article here without mentioning the scandals." and " There is a ton of evidence that Mike Rollo fabricated the "mooning" story as per [6]. The "mooning" hypothesis has been widely discredited and it is false to say that it happened." Which appear, alas, to indicate that your preferred edit does, in fact, assert guilt of deliberate sexual assault. Allegations and rumours make for very poor biographies of living persons. Collect (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

My edit there only stated the facts. Did you even read it? There was never any "mooning", this a fact. There is evidence showing that Mike Rollo invented the "mooning" story to help Manning cover up the incident, this is well documented in the case facts from the 2003 defamation case.[39] I never said that anyone was "guilty", deliberately or otherwise of anything. I am only trying to point out that Peyton Manning was accused of sexual assault in 1996, which is a fact. BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". It violates BLP, not to mention the allegations. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The allegations are mentioned, just the high level overview. When you say "There is evidence that..." Wikipedia is absolutely in no place to make any type of judgement based on just existence of evidence. We absolutely must wait for a court decision to work on that. This is the fundamental problem with your argument - your arguments seem to be trying to go beyond just asking for acknowledgement that there was an allegation, but to include that these allegations were possibly true and were covered up by UT and others, which we 100% cannot include per BLP until a court of law finds this to be the case. We can mention that this situation with Manning is part of a current ongoing review of UT as one of several cases, but that doesn't make the allegation true just because it is under investigation. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero mention of the defamation lawsuit or the HGH allegations. There is absolutely no reason to not include both of these. I will repeat this as long is it takes, BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal opinion. Why are you trying to whitewash this article? ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You state on the talk page as a claim of fact that Manning is a "sex offender" and you state here that the incident was proven to be not mooning, and you remove that word ("mooning") with a "redacted" template - and assert that it was absolutely not "mooning". It is possible that you are exhibiting exactly the same apparent view about biographies of living persons that I quote in User:Collect/BLP. Collect (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not what I said. Stop putting words into my mouth. The "mooning" hypothesis has been widely discredited as per court documents and numerous reliable sources. There simply was never a "mooning" and it would be blatantly false to say that there ever was. BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [40]. The allegations MUST be included in the article, there is no way around it. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Without a judge's ruling on it, evidence and testimony submitted in a trial cannot be considered "fact". (It is a fact it was given, but whether that evidence is valid or testimony is true, and what that implies to the case at large, we are in no position to make that assessment.) You're insistent that there's evidence and the like that refute Manning's statements, but that is not fact that we can report. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps now would be a good time for a straw poll to gauge consensus on the matter? Perhaps something like;

• Option 'A' - Leave the article as is, with the current paragraph mentioning the sexual assault incident placed in the "College career" section.
• Option 'B' - Remove all mention of the incident.
• Option 'C' - Add even more info and place it all in a "Controversy" section.
• Option 'D' - Go with the separate Peyton Manning sexual assault case article.

Sometimes when a discussion has hit a wall, these polls are a useful way of pushing through. - ^theWOLFchild 00:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Option A without the badge of shame tag. QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option A and agree with QuackGuru that the tag should be removed. One or two editors should not be able to hold an article hostage. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option A and remove the nonsense tag. A strong no to B, C and D. Tracescoops (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option A with no POV tag. Meatsgains (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option A this is a soft choice, I also have leanings towards "Option C". - ^theWOLFchild 03:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC) (poll creator)
• Modified A - right now we have a strange image of Manning being able to place his genitals close to his own foot (presuming that an examination of feet generally requires the examiner to get somewhat close to that foot). I suggest "exposed himself" (which fits the use of "assault" in a legal sense) is the normal "term of art" for the more likely act. Collect (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• STRONG Option D - Wikipedia is not censored and reliable sources have shown that the scandal is notable. The tag should remain regardless, as the article comes nowhere close to having a NPOV and I will not rescind my objections. The article as it stands now still does not mention the defamation lawsuit or the illegal drug scandal, both of which are Major events, which have been extensively covered by numerous reliable sources. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page. ParkH.Davis (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option A. Some mention should be made of the incident, because there are reliable sources. However, mention should be commensurate with the amount of reliably sourced coverage of them vs reliably sourced coverage of the rest of Manning's career. Strongly against option D because it creates forking issues and material will be covered twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfiona99 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option C with modification I think the incident merits more coverage, especially more coverage of 1. the Nauhtrights viewpoint and the subsequent experiences and actions in relation to the incident, and 2. the outbreak of the media coverage in 2016, including descriptions of Mannings subsquent actions in relation to the incident such as the accusations of attempts at character assassination. This probably requires one more paragraph, but not a controversy section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • That actually sounds like "Option 'A' with modification". Basically adding more info the existing paragraph. - ^theWOLFchild 22:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Maunus, I was going to say the same thing as Wolf. You said, "This probably requires one more paragraph, but not a controversy section". So that would be Option A, not C, with modification. Tracescoops (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure it could be either. I read option C as "needs more coverage" and option A as "status quo is fine". Between those two options I think C is closer to my view. I could also have added an option E but that seemed silly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Option A - Its a hesitant vote for option A, I generally would prefer to avoid creating "Controversy" sections due to their nature of attracting all sorts of POV pushing. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Could an administrator please delete this BLP violation from the history? We are starting to stray into dangerous territory. ParkH.Davis please stop this crusade you seem to be on. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This disruptive obstructionism by ParkH.Davis has been going on for a month and needs to be dealt with by administrators. Although he's only been editing for five months, he just came off his third block a week ago for disruptive editing to prove a point. It appears he's never going to stop. Tracescoops (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [41]. All I want is for this article to give the allegations against Peyton Manning their proper due according to the amount of coverage given to them by reliable sources. This article is suffering from a systemic bias, which is actively preventing any sort of discussion of the allegations. I have not violated any Wikipedia policy in my efforts to make sure this article has a NPOV. I find it disturbing that there are so many editors seeking to whitewash this article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• If I were an admin I would issue ParkH Davis a temporary topic ban on this issue. They clearly seem to have problems editing neutrally and inline with basic policy here. There are some policies they need to read up on. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [42]. There is no reason why the allegations shouldn't be discussed in this article. The article as it is right now, lacks a NPOV, as it only discusses the overtly positive aspects of Manning's life why minimizing or omitting any negative aspects. There is still zero mention of either the defamation lawsuit, or the HGH allegations, both of which have been well documented by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored and there is no reason why the allegations shouldn't be included in the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You are repeatedly violating BLP policy on the talkpages by making statements about guilt and what "really happened". These statements show that you do not understand wikipedias basic policies of BLP, NPOV, and V. You also clearly are way too emotionally invested in this issue to be able to contribute collaboratively in a meaningful way. I think you should step back from the issue and let others handle it. You are only hurting your own cause the way you are currently acting.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please to quote where I said that anyone was "guilty" of anything please? I have made no such claim. All I have done is quote BLP policy word for word: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [43]. There is no reason not to include the allegations in this article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a BLP violation that I think is enough to get you blocked.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears we have a smoking gun with regard to ParkH.Davis. Look at this addition he made today to his user page in which he proclaims, "Wikipedia must not be whitewashed. I will fight for the acknowledgement of victims of sexual violence on Wikipedia wherever and whenever is necessary." His motive for being so aggressive and disruptive is now clear. This matter should be reported to ANI. Tracescoops (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Are people not allowed to advocate in favor of the victims of sexual violence anymore? User:Keilana creates a new article for a female scientist every time she is bullied by someone online for promoting feminism. Maybe I should create a new article on a victim of sexual assault every time I am bullied on here. Please stop bullying me. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You can advocate for anything you like. But not on wikipedia. Spending your time writing articles on notable victims of sexual assault would be a much better use of your time. As long as you start by refreshing your basic understanding of our editing policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

My understanding of BLP policy is as follows: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [44] Based on the amount of coverage which these allegations against Peyton Manning have received, they most certainly should be included. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you keep repeating the same phrase instead makes me even more inclined to recommend that you be restricted from editing. You are not doing yourself any favors here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [45]. There is no reason to not discuss the allegations. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This encylopedia cannot be used as a venue for your personal crusade. The cat is now out of the bag and your editing privileges should be removed. Tracescoops (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am fully allowed to edit on Wikipedia. Please stop bullying me. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis, you have endlessly spouted your newest out-of-context mantra ("BLP policy explicity states...") for the past several hours.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] I would suggest you take your crusade to some other website before an administrator forces you to do that. Tracescoops (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am chastised for not following BLP policy and then I am chastised for directly quoting BLP policy. I can't win. Are you going to just pretend that BLP policy doesn't explicitly state: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."? [54] Please stop bullying me. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This, by itself, should earn you a very long block. But combined with your endless disruptive behavior and your notorious block history, it should be indefinite. Quite simply, you're not here to write an encylopedia; you're here to cause chaos. My hunch is that you won't be here much longer. Tracescoops (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Quoting policy is now a blockable offense as well? I am here to make sure this article has a NPOV and represents ALL sides, not just those who are sympathetic to the subject. BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [55], yet there is no mention whatsoever of the defamation lawsuit brought against Manning or the HGH allegations, both of which have been well documented by reliable sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What you don't seem to realize is that there are many policies, and they all work together and modify each other. You can repeat the same one until you're blue in the face, and it still won't get you anywhere. In an analogy, the rules of a race say the first person across the finish is the winner. However, that's modified by the rule that says you can't jump the gun. There are many other policies that modify the one you keep quoting, and that is what everyone here is trying to point out. Repeating the same one over and over like it's the only one that matters is not helping your case, but only hurting it. Zaereth (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

With the types of complaints, allegations and clear policy violations that are being posted here, perhaps it's time that this issue was brought to WP:ANI, so that the community at large can have a look and non-involved admins can take any necessary actions. - ^theWOLFchild 22:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Tracescoops (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Reluctantly agree. I will bring it there. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That's it, ParkH.Davis needs to be permanently banned. Look at this and this. It's long past time to remove him, so we can get on with writing this encylopedia. This nonsense has gone on far too long already. Tracescoops (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have brought this issue to ANI. Please find it here. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

notice

This issue has now been brought to ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ParkH.Davis and Peyton Manning - ^theWOLFchild 23:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to close this discussion. It appears consensus in the straw poll is for a version of Option A. Let's work collaboratively to get it done. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure things will go much smoother now. - ^theWOLFchild 00:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Smoother for sure. Putting aside ParkH.Davis's choice, it looks like we have an almost unanimous consenseus for Option A ("Leave the article as is, with the current paragraph mentioning the sexual assault incident placed in the 'College career' section"), with one editor wanting a more extensive version of Option A. So based on the consensus, I don't think the current content needs to be touched. Tracescoops (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And remove the POV tag at the top of the page. Tracescoops (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That an editor is blocked is not justification for disregarding their opinion in discussions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I fully understand that and didn't actually say that ParkH.Davis's opinion should be disregarded. I was simply pointing out that we had virtual unanimity if you put aside his lone opinion. However, we cannot ignore the smoking gun which revealed his illicit motivation for being so aggressively disruptive for the past month, nor his edit summaries, including hashtags, the 11 times he blanked Peyton Manning.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66] I think his behavior and all the evidence showing he was not acting in good faith actually does justify disregarding his opinion, although that was not the point I was making in my prior comment. In any case, it's all moot since the consensus here is overwhelming. Tracescoops (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I havent seen any evidence for "illicit motivation" whatever that means. I just saw someone who didnt understand policy and was passionate about the rights of sexual harrassment victims.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You haven't seen evidence of his motives? Really? Did you look at his user page? Did you read his edit summaries/hashtags from when he blanked the article 11 times? Did you see his comment where he directly called Manning (Redacted)? Did you observe his refusal to listen to anyone? Did you see him endlessly repeat his buzzwords and talking points literally dozens of times? Obviously, he was here to make Manning look as bad as possible because of his personal agenda. Having passion for an important cause is very admirable, but coming to Wikipedia to advance that crusade by causing chaos and snubbing every core policy is outrageous. That's precisely what he did. Tracescoops (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Manus is correct. It's a problem when we focus our discussion on an editor and not the subject. There were enough snide comments on both sides of this discussion to ward off most people from bothering to get involved. (I usually try to avoid them like the plague.) Building consensus begins with getting others to listen. That doesn't require getting people to like you, but does require giving them something worth listening to. Claims of outrage and "smoking guns" give little in the way of substance. If there are no more BLP vios to work out, then the proper place for building consensus would be the article's talk page. Zaereth (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I would agree if ParkH.Davis's inappropriate behavior had only been occurring for a short time. However, it persisted for a month, while an endless number of editors counseled him on proper ways to work towards a resolution and urged him to stop being disruptive. Based on his responses and his admitted agenda, he obviously had no interest in cooperatively and reasonably discussing the matter. Tracescoops (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the redirect should be nominated for deletion. See Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy. See WP:RFD. QuackGuru (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:RFD - See what? - ^theWOLFchild 06:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:RFD to nominate the redirect for deletion. See WP:RFD#HOWTO. QuackGuru (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I nominated the redirect for deletion: == Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy listed at Redirects for discussion ==

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I notified ParkH.Davis of this redirect as instructed in the template, but should I delete the notification? I do not want it to give an appearance of grave dancing or gloating. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You notified an indef-blocked editor? That was a mistake. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok I deleted the notification. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Why was that mistake? He could post an unblock request at any moment and have it granted. He can still post comments to his talk page. If he wants he, he can get his remarks on about the RfD on the record at least, perhaps even ask for someone to convey them to the deletion discussion. I've even seen admins temporarily unblock users so they can participate in certain discussions they are a party to. But all that aside, if policy say you must notify the creator, then you did the right thing. Anyway... this isn't grave-dancing. - ^theWOLFchild 21:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If the editor is unblocked then a notification can be made again. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter now. There will still be a talk page notification that something had been added. But in the future, I don't think a block should prevent a user from receiving such a notification. - ^theWOLFchild 21:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a specific policy when an editor is indef-blocked? QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Dunno... - ^theWOLFchild 22:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no specific exemption, exception or change to the standard policy - that is, editors should be notified - regardless of block or ban status. I would strongly oppose the creation of such an exception - we should be notifying even if the editor is not able to respond. Notifying if & when a block or ban expires or is lifted appears unworkable. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and agreed. - ^theWOLFchild 22:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A quick follow up: After a little research, looking at WP:BLOCKBANDIFF, Blocked (including indefinite blocks) editors & Page/topic banned editors are clearly Still a member of the community - so we would expect that they be notified. Site banned editors, however, are not considered in the same way - consequently, I could countenance not notifying such editors. Hope thus helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that just about covers it. - ^theWOLFchild 23:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_29587311/why-peyton-mannings-retirement-decision-can-be-made

Is a source proffered for the claim:

As of 2016, Manning's net worth is estimated to exceed $150 million."

I think the source is a sports column basically speculating editorially about Manning's future plans, and really could only support:

Mark Kiszla, a sports columnist for the Denver Post, in a column about Manning's future plans, said that Manning's net worth "is estimated to exceed $150 million" and "That's not enough money to buy an NFL franchise by himself, although an ownership group that included Manning as president with a financial stake in the team would be led by a brilliant football mind."

Am I in error on what the editorial sports column supports - and in stating and citing it as opinion? Collect (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not an op-ed. I don't see a problem. If there are other sources that contradict it or give reason to doubt it, then fine. Are there? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Editorial" != "op-ed". Sports columnists opining on how a player might invest their money in retirement = "opinion" and != "statements of fact." Kiszla has no fact basis, nor does he assert he has one, for any monetary figure - he is simply whistling about what Manning might be able to do. Else we should use all opinion columns on every topic - and not give a damn about factual verifiability. WP:RS does not just exclude "op-ed" columns. Really. Collect (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that the Denver Post would allow Kiszla to publish an inaccurate or unfounded figure of this sort. I also note that you ignored my question: are there other sources that cast doubt on the number given? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth - sports columnists writing about their musings and opinions do not get fact checked. Really. Now do you have any real reason for asserting that sports columnists opining about retirement plans of players are strong reliable sources for facts? And, as far as I can tell, there are damn few reliable sources for valuations and speculations about "net worth" of living persons out there - and most such are on the order of tabloid entertainment columns. Collect (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're not going to answer my perfectly reasonable question, then I'm not going to answer your silly one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Are you making personal claims here? The Denver Post does not fact check the opinions of its sports writers. Clearer? Collect (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"are there other sources that cast doubt on the number given?" Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How do you know this? If a sportswriter said "[sports figure X] raped 13 cheerleaders" do you think the Denver Post would let it through unchecked? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[67] The Denver Post only gives specific corrections for errors in "news columns". Per DP official site. I rely on what the newspaper itself states about its own policies. And your "example" is sufficiently absurd here as to warrant no reply. Collect (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, absent a known history of incompetance, I would generally consider a sports Journalist proficient enough in their field to be able to estimate a sportsperson's net worth without us needing to perform a full background check of what they are taking their figures from. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That page says "The Denver Post will correct all errors occurring in its news columns." It does not say "The Denver Post will correct all errors occurring only in its news columns, and takes no responsibility for other errors." To underscore the point the example they give for that date (March 11) is from an obituary, not a "news column." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Mohammad Taqi al-Modarresi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It seems there is a deliberate attempt to slander the individual concerned. By reverting to previous edits which are libelous in nature, without making any attempt to be objective and unbiased, these individuals clearly have an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.190.36.248 (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

101.190.36.248, that's actually not true. You're attempting to insert information not supported by reliable sources (tumblr, twitter, scribd are not reliable). If you can find reliable sources for what you're trying to put in the article, then it would be more likely these items would stay in. KoshVorlon 16:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Rallé (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Long ago tagged as an autobiography, this is a puff piece/resume that could use some attention and a lot of cutting. Resumes of commercial gallery exhibitions, and in this case, a list of every book cover ever illustrated, are usually an indicator of COI, and nearly always ripe for cutting. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• On further review, I'm dubious about notability for the subject of this vanity page, and think a discussion at AfD would be merited. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sarayu Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The information on this page is being mixed up with the info about a Malayalee actress by the same name. I am mother of American Actress Sarayu Rao a.k.a. Sarayu Blue. 21:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)malathi n. Currently One piece of information in question is the following: She earned her Master of Fine Arts degree in engineering in 2005 from the MIT. This is incorrect. Sarayu Rao did not go to Engineering College but went to American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco. I corrected it but somebody else is changing it back to the misinformation. I need your help in preventing this misuse, for want of better word.

Thanks. Malathi Nidadavolu (thulikan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thulikan (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Kendrick Meek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Congressman [Kendrick Meek] biography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Meek) includes a reference to Dennis Stackhouse, a living person.

I believe the content of this section violates the living person policy for Dennis Stackhouse including "people accused of a crime", "privacy of names", the entry relies on poorly sourced, low-quality secondary sources (commentary section of an online journal is referenced, and other links do not lead to content), and considering that Dennis Stackhouse is still awaiting trial 8 years after his arrest (reference below), it seems to be victimizing him further. Overall, it reads as an attack, is not balanced, and does not contribute to the wikipage of the Congressman.

Perhaps if the Meek's entry was updated with the proper tense and with Dennis Stackhouse's name removed.

Here is my attempt:

"Real Estate Scandal" Questions about Kendrick Meek's relationship with a Miami developer came up throughout the 2010 Senate campaign as it was revealed that Meek lobbied for millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fund an ill-fated project while the developer allegedly provided Meek's mother, former Congresswoman Carrie Meek, with a free Cadillac Escalade, a rent-free office for her foundation, and tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees. The developer was ultimately arrested, charged with allegedly stealing almost $1 million in project funds. The scandal led the St. Petersburg Times to comment, "Meek owes voters an explanation". Meek has responded by saying he was simply trying to secure investment for economic development in his congressional district.[27]"

Reference: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-gardens/article50656700.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.130.225 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Gianni Nunnari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I need some extra eyes on the article for Gianni Nunnari. Long story short, back in 2014 Nunnari tried to make his article into an extremely promotional puff piece, which you can see here. I salvaged it from a speedy and tried to find sourcing, but it looks like the guy is really best known for a lawsuit that seriously backfired on him, since he ended up getting sued for fraud and the judge ended up judging against Nunnari. This ended up being almost the only area I could get RS in, since we can include information about suits that went to court and received judgement.

There was an attempt to get the page deleted as an attack page, which it wasn't. Recently there has been a few people coming in and trying to scrub any of the lawsuit information in the article, claiming that it's either irrelevant or just not giving an explanation at all.

As far as I'm aware, we can include content on lawsuits if it went to court, received judgement, and received media coverage, all of which seems to be the case here - especially since this ended up with Nunnari losing the rights to a film he made. ([68]) If Nunnari was to say that he wanted the page removed I'd be willing to send this to AfD, but we'd need to verify that it's him making this request. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• In other words, I think the guy was trying to use Wikipedia as a place for image rehabilitation and to a degree is still trying to do this, at least by removing any mention of the lawsuit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If you take out the lawsuit, is he notable (passing GNG) for anything else? If the answer is no, it probably should be deleted under BLP1E, unless the court case is particularly notable, in which case that should be the main article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Just took a look, producer on a number of big production films. Perhaps it might be best to ping the film people to take a look as it is outside my area. Not inheirited applies however, being a producer on a notable film wouldnt necessarily make him notable. I would expect there to be more sources out there that discuss stuff other than the lawsuit however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I remember trying to find sources and other than some brief mentions, there's not much at all. Mostly just random posts and stuff about the lawsuit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Younes Abaaoud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I nominated it for deletion.

No content, irrelevant and lack of notability, unknown person (other than to be the brother of a terrorist). Beside that, this article is also badly researched and poorly sourced. This boy is still a minor and has as far as we know done nothing, other than to leave home to go to a war zone. Everything that needs to be said about him is already mentioned in the main article: Abdelhamid Abaaoud. I think all these apply: WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER

What do you think? — Frieeedaaa (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

When did the subject requested deletion? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he ever said the subject requested for the page to be deleted. He put it up for AfD because of WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Meatsgains (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies "Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion...", Meatsgains. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also says "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." Meatsgains (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lavdrim Muhaxheri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This post concerns the Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article, which has gained issues with libel, defamation and BLPCRIME since reformulating and adding sentences this edit,fourth column in this edit and first column in this edit which are quoted reference articles with claims, accusations from 29 July 2014 claiming that Muhaxheri is seen on photos published to a Facebook-account, the article headlines were mentioned in the Department of State - list released in September 2014 but the claim isn't based on a conviction nor supported by the warrant from the Basic Court of Ferizaj in Kosovo or the Interpol warrant for Muhaxheri that doesn't claim that he's wanted for murder; "The demand comes from the Basic Court of Ferizaj, which has issued a warrant for Muhaxheri after he is accused of terrorism and organized groups to go to Syria and Iraq." Alike with the second edit first column in this edit and the article with the expert statements about the footage and video claims that the video isn't authenticized: "With question marks hanging over the video, Kosovo police said they are working with international partners to verify the authenticity of the video and the time of its publication". Since BLPCRIME says that such material and accusations shouldn't be included unless a conviction has been secured the sentences should be formulated into more neutral, indirect statements, to also be compliant with WP:NPOV and some additional text about the accusations needs to be removed. Lavdrim Muhaxheri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Petitioner has been blocked indefinitely for chronic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. See also [69]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are two sections in Emily Ratajkowski where I have attempted to summarize reviews of her performance that are under fire at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3. The issue is whether a critic who reviews a performance in which she has a significant role without describing anything noteworthy about her performance is critiquing in a way that has meaning to our readers. I have presented two statements under the belief that saying that a person has a significant role that was not worth critiquing is actually a critique on the role. The FAC discussant, GRuban says "If a critic did not mention her, it does not help our article to write 'critic did not mention her'. Feel free to get a WP:3O or open a WP:RFC or whatever..." GRuban also notes that "Probably the worst offender from that paragraph is this sentence: Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Brian Viner of Daily Mail and both Peter Bradshaw and Mark Kermode of The Guardian were also silent on Ratajkowski's performance." Basically, I need to know if when a person is described as the female lead and in her first leading role, it conveys information to the reader to say that leading critics did not mention her performance. Note that in this offending paragraph, I have gone through the list of critics at Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes who reviewed We Are Your Friends and summarized every critic who has a Wikipedia biography that did or didn't say anything about her performance in less than 1500 total characters. Is it better to note that some of these critics opted not to mention her performance in her first leading role or better not to mention all of the critics who have articles on WP who critiqued the film? Similarly, there is a less prominent role that was hard to find reviews of and I noted that "her hometown movie critic Anders Wright of The San Diego Union-Tribune remained silent on her role".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"saying that a person has a significant role that was not worth critiquing is actually a critique on the role" - but did they actually say that it "wasn't worth critiquing", or did they just fail to critique it? Those are different things.

In any case, barring finding a reliable source that indicates that this silence was important, it seems to me clearly no; you seem to be wanting to imply views based on the lack of views being stated, and that would be a BLP concern not only in regards to the actress, but in regards to the reviewers as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the content, but I feel that I am removing information for the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning what someone didn't say about something is a perfect example of original research, which we simply do not allow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. --GRuban (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Whenever I wind up on this page, it is usually because I am not seeing things correctly. I must say this is one place I can generally get a prompt response from critical eyes and walk away with a better understanding of a contentious issue. Keep up the good work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Janet Henderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. I am Janet Henderson, the subject of the entry 'Janet Henderson'.

As regards my titles (box at end of article) the position of Dean of Llandaff is a Church in Wales Position - the Church in Wales is separate province of the Anglican church with its own polity and governance.

Under Church of England titles, the article should read 'Archdeacon of Richmond 2007-2012'. My predecessor was Ken Good and my successor was Nicholas Henshall (acting Archdeacon) and then Paul Slater (also Archdeacon of Craven and now Bishop of Richmond).

I hope you don't mind me pointing this out - these are purely factual corrections and you can check their veracity in Crockford's Clerical Directory.

Thank you. 86.153.8.131 (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the succession box to use the correct Church in Wales heading, but haven't added the Archdeacon positions for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Now all done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)