Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive246

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

I reverted the anonymous editor who insisted on adding text citing Ban Ki-moon as the worst secretary general of the UN twice from RC patrol because the cited sources are opinion pieces and it isn't a factual statement; it's also inappropriate for a BLP. He's added it back and is kind of arguing with me on talkpages. Anyone else have a viewpoint or a good course of action on this? FalconK (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Odd choice to use sources other than The Economist to discuss what The Economist said - here is the actual source. Note that it doesn't say he's "the worst" just "among the worst." Much softer in tone than the edits to the wikipedia article suggested. Note that the content is also already in the article - it's quoted in the last paragraph in the "criticism" section. I've removed the new additions as they don't seem to ad anything over what was already in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm writing to solicit feedback on this edit to Edward Snowden by Brian Dell. Brian is quoting statements made during the following NPR interview:

• Kelly, Mary Louise (June 29, 2016). During Tenure In Russia, Edward Snowden Has Kept A Low Profile. NPR. {{cite AV media}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

In the interview, Mark Galeotti, a Russian security expert, said that Snowden "was bought and paid for," and Frants Klintsevich, a Russian politician, said he thought that "Snowden did share intelligence" with Russian authority. These allegations were never fact checked by NPR or anyone else. In my view these unsupported allegations should not be repeated per WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPCRIME. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

NPR is notorious for publishing spurious material in your view? The byline here is that of Mary Louise Kelly. She's not a legit journo? You've reviewed her work and then came to the definitive conclusion that it was not up to your fact checking standards, did you? You're stepping up to the plate to block material that NPR's editor failed to? How about this for compromise: the NPR cite stays in but you can do your level best to try to smear her reporting by having a mention of it immediately followed by the views of partisan critics like you did for the Sunday Times report. Speaking of which, are we going to get a repeat of the Sunday Times antics here? Last year you edit warred to suppress the Times story claiming BLP violation and out of 8 editors besides us who give us an indication of what they thought about its inclusion you got support from just one of them for your BLP violation claim. It eventually took admin intervention to shut down your edit warring and force you to leave a mention of the Sunday Times report (a report independently backed up by the BBC, by the way) in this particular bio. By the way, WP:BLPCRIME is supposed to apply when WP:PUBLICFIGURE does not so you should pick one of those two instead of trying to run with both.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• NPR argument: Your logical fallacy is... strawman. I never said NPR is unreliable. But, just because NPR interviews someone doesn't mean we get to quote what the interviewees say as fact. You're a smart person, so I'm sure you understand this concept. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Then stop edit warring to suppress material cited to NPR if NPR is reliable. It is absolutely false that I have ever suggested we cite what the interviewee says here as fact. Indeed, that's a strawman if there ever was one. We instead attribute it exactly as NPR attributed it. You know what the "fact" is here, Doc? It's that the Russian official and spokesperson told Mary Louise Kelly what he did. You may not like what he had to say but the fact that I, and I think the editing community, will stand by is that he said it. It's theoretically possible that Kelly and NPR just made up the quote, but for Wikipedia purposes the source here is reliable--Brian Dell (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This line of reasoning is patently contrary to our BLP policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Is that so? Then prove it by quoting the relevant policy back to me Doc. That should be pretty easy if it's as "patently" obvious as you say. You do realize that when all we are reporting is the same thing that NPR is reporting, that NPR is equally guilty of the same offence? Here's another question for you, Doc: is Donald Trump a reliable source? No? Then why aren't you purging WIkipedia of every Donald Trump quote? I mean, he's an unreliable source, is he not? But never mind other Wikipedia articles, what are the statements of Anatoly Kucherena doing in this bio? We've got two Russians here, but the one that passes your fact check screen is the one whom reliable sources have specifically identified is the unreliable one. Can you explain that paradox to us?--Brian Dell (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Easily explained. One is potentially extremely damaging to a living person's reputation, and the other isn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a "pillar" of Wikipedia. And you've just flatly rejected that principle of neutrality in favour of slanted editing. You are now frankly admitting that relatively unreliable material is to be included while relatively more reliable material is excluded if that gets you to the particular bio-, in this case Snowden-, friendly POV you want to push. I have challenged you to quote back to me the relevant policy, Doc. Are you going to do that or is WIkipedia policy just whatever you say it is? By the way, what's the motivation of a Russian official to damage Snowden's reputation anyway? Wouldn't he working at cross purposes to the other Kremlin-affiliated guy, Kucherena, in that case? Why doesn't some other Kremlin figure set the record straight about which of these two spokespersons is speaking out of turn?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sunday Times argument: Your logical fallacy is... tu quoque. Has nothing to do with the merits. I do not accept your so-called compromise.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the fact you've cried BLP violation before against a clear consensus is relevant to the question of whether readers here would be wasting their time telling you they don't see a BLP violation in this case. What makes you more inclined to respect what other editors have to say this go round? If you are going to speak of the merits, then how about addressing them by producing some evidence that NPR in unreliable. Think about the fact that the Sunday Times at least had some critics yet ultimately still stayed in after all your edit warring to keep it out. Who do you got criticizing NPR or Kelly's reporting? Anyone?--Brian Dell (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I respect your substantive arguments; I just don't agree with them. I don't respect your distractions and ad hominem attacks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You are under obligation to do more than just state that you don't agree, Doc. You are under obligation to discuss, and address my points, as opposed to edit warring. I have asked for evidence that NPR is unreliable. .Instead of producing that, you are just edit warring. I have asked you several specific content related questions that you continue to refuse to answer--Brian Dell (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no evidence that NPR is unreliable. Editing at Wikipedia requires a minimal level of competence, and part of that is the ability to listen to what your fellow editors are telling you and to drop the stick when someone informs you you're making a straw man argument. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That settles it then. The material at issue here is cited to NPR and you admit you have no evidence the cited source is unreliable. The next step is to stop edit warring. By the way, I suggest you start providing some evidence - in the form of answering the questions put to you - that you are listening to what I and others say before lecturing others about listening. Making snide remarks about my "competence" does not help you meet your obligation to discuss the content dispute at hand. Neither does simply repeating false claims like that I'm "making a straw man" when it's been shown to you why that's false. Is there any question of yours that I have ignored or otherwise failed to address?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have explained my concerns and they are not about WP:RS. At this point you are being disruptive. Please stop. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Doc, you are the party who is being disruptive. You admit you have no concerns about the reliability of the sourcing and yet you continue to to edit war. You've been asked to cite chapter and verse of the policy you are appealing to and you refuse to. All we know is that it's supposed to be from some part of WP:BLP other than WP:BLPSOURCES. Is it going to take yet another admin intervention to put a stop to your behaviour?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with DrFleischman on this one. It doesn't matter which media source carried the accusation - it was framed as an accusation, cited to a couple people who are speculating. This is a serious accusation, and the sourcing simply doesn't rise to inclusion in a BLP. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

First off, I think the settled policy matters and policy should be quoted specifically as opposed to making everything a matter of opinion. Otherwise what's the point of settled policy statements? Do you have any evidence that Klintsevich is speculating or are you just speculating? Are you aware that he has access to many state secrets by virtue of his status as deputy chair of the Russian senate’s defense and security committee, which oversees the special services? Why did the journalist pick this particular "speculator" out for comment and why didn't she inform us that he's merely speculating? Or are you privy to info that she and NPR are not? Whose statement could be called to the attention of readers if not Klintsevich's? Is there anyone? If it's not possible to find someone who could make the statement then why does policy not just say there is a total and complete ban on suggesting people have supplied classified info to foreign governments? I mean, how could one prove that to your satisfaction when the evidence can only come from one or another intelligence service? I would dispute, by the way, that Klintsevich's comment is "framed as an accusation". It sounds quite matter of fact to me and I frankly don't see the rationale for a Russian official to "accuse" Snowden. Finally, I have to ask you the same question I asked Doc: how much Trump related material in WIkipedia would you have to suppress if you were to enforce your view across Wikipedia consistently? I think you are confusing informing readers about what notable subjects have said and Wikipedia endorsing those comments.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"Let's be frank," he says. "Snowden did share intelligence. This is what security services do," adds Klintsevich. "If there's a possibility to get information, they will get it." It's a possibility that Snowden's lawyer, Ben Wizner of the ACLU, denies. That sounds a lot like speculation to me. If you want a quote from a policy, I would point to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures, If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative. Speculation from two people, I don't consider that noteworthy. And, Trump...I don't know why you're even talking about him. I don't edit any Trump articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objections to advising readers of Wizner's reply, even it's 100% "speculation" on Wizner's part (just how is Wizner in a position to make even an informed guess, never mind a definitive statement of fact, about what transpired behind closed doors in Russia? Is he a Kremlin insider? A Russian security and intelligence practices expert?), and that's primarily because it's not my job as a WIkipedia editor to second guess NPR's editorial judgement's about what's noteworthy, relevant, and of sufficient reliability to be presented to readers. I also understand that giving Wizner's reply does not mean that Wikipedians fact checked Wizner such that we'd be putting Wikipedia's credibility on the line by noting what he says. You evidently disagree with respect to second guessing the editorial decisions of RS since you believe that it "doesn't matter which media source carried" the material, if the source thinks the material is noteworthy and you don't, it's out. Now don't get me wrong, if NPR reported Snowden's shoe size I wouldn't be arguing that absolutely had to be included, but that's because the article length has to stop somewhere and we should accordingly limit ourselves to what readers are most interested in. The material at issue here is deserving of significantly more attention than Snowden's shoe size.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm writing to solicit feedback on these 4 edits to Edward Snowden by Brian Dell. Brian is quoting the following source and treating it as reliable:

• "Executive Summary of Review of the Unauthorized Disclosures ofFormer National Security Agency Contractor Edward Snowden" (PDF). United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 15 September 2016.

However, this source does not appear reliable to me in any way, and citing it approvingly or giving it equal validity as reliable sources, effectively smearing Snowden, appears to be a gross BLP violation. The source has been harshly criticized, most notably by Washington Post national security journalist Barton Gellman who called it "aggressively dishonest" and "verifiably false" and pretty much dismantled it piece by piece, at least in my view. The dispute between the House intelligence committee and Gellman has been covered by U.S. News & World Report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you're treating the other side not just as reliable, but so reliable so as to, in at least one case, make attribution unnecessary and unchallengeable by the particular source I've introduced. There's one of the two us that is fine with presenting both of the competing narratives and it's not you. Gellman is not infallible: I am more than happy to point out false statements Gellman has made about Snowden and provide the evidence for that. But let's just take the first item at issue here for a starter, which concerns Snowden's claim that he broke both legs in a training accident. The House intel committee report says that isn't true. The committee surely must have tried to fact check the accident claim before saying it's false. They fact checked it and then decided to lie after discovering Snowden's claim was true? All 23 Committee members, Republican and Dem Congressmen, then proceeding to sign their name to this lie? That's a rather significant conspiracy, is it not? But even before we get there, when Gelman steps into the Snowden vs the Committee explanation for the reason Snowden was discharged, what is Gelman's basis for declaring that the Committee statement is "verifiably false? Why, it's that the Committee says "shin splits" while the Army paperwork Gelman has seen apparently happens to (also?) mention "bilateral tibial stress fractures". Now what do medical professionals say about this difference? "Medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) [is] commonly known as “shin splints"... MTSS and tibial stress fractures may be considered on a continuum of bone–stress reactions...." So where the Committee says Snowden washed out because of the repetitive stress to his legs that training posed and uses the vernacular term "shin splits", Gelman steps in to call the Committee liars because the shin splits happened to to in fact be a severe form of shin splits. This somehow vindicates Snowden's broke-legs-in-an-accident claim? Should Snowden not have to at least claim that there were repeated "accidents"? I invite others to comment on whether the paperwork Gelman cites in fact proves Snowden's narrative is accurate or on the contrary shows that the Committee's account of Snowden's discharge is closer to the truth than Snowden's.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I never proposed citing Gellman's rebuttal. But it's potent evidence that the committee report is unreliable, particularly on the high school diploma bit, where Gellman cites specifics. This is apart from the fact that congressional reports are never reliable. They are written by politicians to sway public opinion, and in no way meet our reliable sources guideline. As for the shin splints vs. stress fractures, just because a source says stress fractures and shin splints may be considered to fall along a continuum doesn't make them the same thing or one a "severe form" of the other. Your arguments about whether Snowden's narrative was accurate or not have little to do with the subject of this discussion. We're talking about the appropriateness of quoting the committee report. Insert another wall of text below. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You're pointing to Gellman as your proof that the Congressmen are liars. In a he said, she said, which is what we have here, by the way, contrary to your assertion that "Snowden's narrative" is irrelevant, the credibility of both is an issue. Gellman does not cite any specifics at all with respect to where he got his documents. If he got something directly from Maryland officials as opposed to from Snowden why doesn't Gellman say so? Because he's got to protect the Maryland government as a source? Where do you think the Committee got their documents? " congressional reports are never reliable" Please cite where you find that in Wikipedia policy. Can you even cite a WP:RSN discussion that concludes that they are so unreliable they are unusable even with attribution? If you feel so strongly that stress fractures are not a form of shin splits then why don't you change the Wikipedia article saying "stress fractures are also common forms of shin splints", Doc? That's not the issue anyway, of course. The issue is which account of Snowden's military discharge is more accurate. According to you, the Snowden narrative is not just more accurate, but readers are not to be informed that it's been disputed.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the issue isn't which account of Snowden's military discharge is more accurate. The issue is whether inclusion of inclusion of unsubstantiated, extremely damaging factual allegations should be parroted in an article about a living person. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is the issue. If one account is more accurate and only one account is to be presented to readers, then the more accurate account is the one that is presented.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Says who? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Says basic logic. Start with the premise, your premise, which is that only one account is to be presented to readers (which is something on which you are now against consensus, Doc, per Safehaven's comment). Now what's the next step in terms of writing the article when we've got two competing versions of why Snowden was discharged? As Wikipedia editors we have to choose one or the other. Do you feel no responsibility to give the more accurate story to readers? Is Snowden more important than them?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue I see with this content relates to WP:IMPARTIAL, specifically "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." I assume we can agree that the U.S. government and Snowden are in a heated dispute. So we shouldn't be quoting directly from a congressional report. If we include information from this report, which may be noteworthy (I don't have a strong opinion on whether it is), we also must include reliable rebuttals of the report (including the Gellman report), per WP:BALANCE. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86, I agree, but it's not just a matter of WP:IMPARTIAL, it's also a matter of BLP and false balance. Politicians are levying serious, unsubstantiated factual claims against a living person, claims that are seriously undermined by Gellman. This is potential defamation, and we should not be parroting it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

So when NBC News writes:

"The public narrative popularized by Snowden and his allies is rife with falsehoods, exaggerations, and crucial omissions," said the report by staff members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

NBC is "parroting" "defamation"? Better be sitting down, then, when I tell you that ABC actually has "serial fabricator" in a headline about this report. That's just two of the legion of RS that found the House report noteworthy. With respect to balance, we've already looked at just one matter, the miltiary discharge, and if there's any false balance it would be from including Snowden's entirely unsubstantiated "broke my legs in an accident" claim alongside the essentially-substantiated-by-the-actual-documentation House statement.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The magnitude of the errors in this report absolutely disqualify it as a reliable source. We can't look at something with such blatant errors in fact and pretend it was well fact-checked. It honestly doesn't matter who wrote it, or who published it, or how many media sources report it. Now, it is certainly notable, and I think it should be mentioned, but in the context of all the other sources coming out now talking about the errors. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The most "blatant errors in fact" are, in fact, in the various tales spun by Snowden and his supporters but I'll leave that aside to note that the blanket statement "doesn't matter who wrote it, or who published it, or how many media sources report it" is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. For starters, with respect to "how many media sources report it", policy states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Pretty much everyone and his dog has called attention to this House report. If you are OK with noting what the House report claims, but only "in the context of all the other sources" then that settles it, because I have no problem at all with giving both sides of the story. What we could use right now, in any case, is your opinion on specific edits at hand as opposed to sweeping generalizations. The bio currently says the subject was "discharged after breaking both legs in a training accident". Is that the story, and only that story, that should be presented to readers?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to suppose that there are any reliable sources on intelligence matters. Thincat (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to say something. It's our job to try.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Alicia Machado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should the article concerning Alicia Machado mention her appearance in court accused of being an accomplice in an attempted murder, and the allegation that she threatened to kill a judge? (RS are available) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@NPalgan2:. Of course not, because she was neither indicted nor convicted. Because she was mentioned in the Trump/Clinton debate last night, this article has been subjected to a wave of very ugly BLP violations and at least one IP editor has been blocked. I hope that many experienced editors will keep an eye on this article to prevent it from being transformed into a hit piece. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: "WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN." This is not "tabloid gossip". Machado was a well known Latin American actress and celebrity and (in the words of the LATimes) has been "publicly campaigning" for months in the US election. Thus the murder trial and the judge claiming on national television that she threatened to kill him are notable and part of a balanced article that mentions the fact that the charges were dismissed. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Alicia Machado was recently in the news, because Hillary Clinton said she told her that Donald Trump had called her "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeper," which she says caused her (Muchado) to develop anorexia and bulimia. Clinton congratulated Muchado when she became a U.S. citizen this year and recently arranged for a press conference for her. Machado was Miss Universe and had a career as an actor. There are however several controversial items in her background: as a reality show contestant she engaged in sexual intercourse while being filmed, and prosecutors alleged she had a child by a Mexican drug cartel lord, assisted in a murder and threatened to kill a judge. She denies these allegations and they have not been proven in court. All of these stories have been covered in mainstream media. Are we allowed to mention them, or does BLP protect her? TFD (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:. Our BLP policy protects every living person without exception. We do not include tabloid gossip, thinly sourced and unsubstantiated allegations, politically motivated attacks or gross violations of personal privacy. There are no exceptions. None whatsoever. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

TFD, this is EXACTLY the kind of crap that BLP is suppose to prevent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of BLP is to prevent unsourced or poorly sourced information. All the information provided is well sourced, mostly having been reported by news wires such as AP. Wikipedia is not a tabloid means "details about an individual that have not been published in the mainstream media and are not widely known." This is not "tabloid gossip" but information has been published in mainstream media. So the test is, are the allegations widely reported in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually unsourced or poorly sourced information needs to be removed from ANY article. That's just WP:RS. BLP is stronger. And yeah, this is tabloid gossip.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying that but are misrepresenting the policies and guidelines. Reliable sources not you determine what to print. IF you think AP and other mainstream sources are tabloid gossip, what news sources do you recommend. TFD (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If accusations have been reported in reliable sources, and she has denied them, then the accusations cannot be included in a BLP without also including her denial. "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. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out....If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

But whether to include her denial is not the point at issue - her denial was already included (I believe) or could easily be added. The discussion here seems relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_examples_for_discussion#Example_1:_Allegations_Against_an_Entertainer NPalgan2 (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it is the primary point. If she denied the charges and we omitted the denial, then removal of the entire material is justified, until such time as the denial is included.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that the all the information should be provided - the allegations by the judge and prosecutors and her denials. TFD (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why not, as long as there are multiple reliable sources reporting the allegation, and we include that she was not prosecuted or convicted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, at the moment I don't agree, so hopefully this will be discussed on the talk page first along with the relevant sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't agree with what? That she denied the accusation? That we should follow the portion of BLP policy that I quoted? That the info can be included if there's adequate sourcing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

For myself, that there's adequate sourcing to include any of it. The article has other BLP problems as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was clear. I don't agree that all the information should be provided until the sources are presented for discussion. Of course that means developing consensus for the sources and the added material. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I already discovered two sources that are not adequate for the material covered. Two gossip magazine sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean this is already in the article - but it is in lock down so I can't remove the material or the sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, it has been reported in the Daily Mail,[1] the Inquisitr, CNN,[2] the Daily Beast,[3] and the LA Times,[4] The story was carried in The Economist[5] and Associated Press[6] (reprinted in the Daily Mail in 2016) in 2008.[7] Those are just the first sources I found on Google news search. If you want to suppress the story, you are too late. TFD (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Which of those sources provides a sober historical overview of the entire case instead of tossing out some sensationalistic unsubstantiated claims that were never proven? Why is it that editors who favor inclusion have no interest in summarizing her denial? This incident happened in the 1990s. We should rely neither on breaking news stories published back then, nor on sensationalistic stories published in the last 24 hours. We need thoughtful, comprehensive sources published months or years after the original incident, soberly placing the matter in context. Do such sources exist? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, all I am seeing is these accusations sandwiched in between stories about Trump, Clinton, gaining weight, American citizenship, and so on. None of these have in-depth coverage of this - and it seems they are all repeating the same two or three factoids. I can't see how these support that type of highly charged material. I think this would be going into wp:undue territory (or wp:weight). All we are left with is repeating sensationalist or titillating claims. And anything negative we write impacts the person we write about. Just look at her strong feelings about Trump's remarks about her weight, and the press conference with cameras rolling that he held while she was working out.

In an Anderson Cooper interview (CNN video), she says that she was only 19 and her self esteem dropped to the floor. We would really need better coverage in sources to place unproven accusations in a Wikipedia article. Maybe it's best to keep in mind, most of our articles are in the first ten listings on any Google search. What we write has that kind of impact on another person's life. And believe it or not there are possible liability issues for WMF - please see: Outside view by New York Brad ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• FYI, the OP has also posted this: WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Public_figures_with_charges_against_them_not_found_guilty_and_never_conclusively_resolved. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The facts around this incident are just so shaky. If you follow it back to the original news report of the alleged death threat, it's not even clear whether the alleged victim of the relevant murder case was even dead. As for the coverage by mainstream media, it's just the same blurb repeated over and over about the accusations - none of these many sources seem to have actually done any independent reporting, they are just repeating each other. So in fact, I would consider the coverage to be totally insignificant from an NPOV perspective, which combined with BLP makes it completely inappropriate for inclusion, even if we also added Machado's rebuttal. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The facts are not shaky. Reuters, AP, The Economist, El Tiempo, all agree on the claims made against Machado, her denial, and that the shooting victim survived with brain damage. They do not repeat the same blurb, if they add new details as the events happened chronologically throughout Jan/Feb 1998. She was asked on CNN about the claims today, and only responded that she was 'no saint girl'. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not on the sources that are listed here. Please present them. Checking all that's listed here, only the Economist goes into any detail. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alicia_Machado#Article_protection Scroll down for my suggested, sourced version. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Has any news source gone to the bother of reporting how this got resolved? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This story is really outdated - it happened 18 years ago and no new information has surfaced. This doesn't seem to be useful for a biography article on a living or dead person. There is nothing there - just innuendo and accusations. I think it is a big so-what, who cares, and what difference could it possibly make. I agree with Someguy1221 - the facts are so shaky and the current sources are an echo chamber, and the coverage is not significant anyway. It is almost passing mention - a few sentences inside a much larger topic or subject. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the incident is worth a mention, but I think we need to be careful in how it is presented. I do think there are enough reliable sources now to be able to put together a more straightforward, yet brief, paragraph that includes the incident, Machado's alleged involvement, and what Machado said about the matter. As written previously, the section over emphasized statements from a prosecutor and a judge. Knope7 (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Given how the attempted homicide and death threat cases are no longer current events, I would be uncomfortable including them at all without a source that states how these matters were concluded. If everything was later dismissed, then by not including that we are committing a rather large BLP violation by omission. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

May we assume that the discussion about her weight should also not be included, since it isn't a current event either? If you argue for its inclusion because it came up during the Presidential campaign, you'd have to argue for inclusion of these accusations of serious crimes as that came up during the Presidential campaign as well. 2601:602:9802:99B2:3091:69:7ADE:127B (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you missed the point, or I didn't explain it right. These accusations happened 18 years ago, and so we can assume the issue is resolved or has at least been updated since then. Accusations to this level don't just vanish into the aether, there is some conclusion to them at some point in time (or maybe not, do criminal accusations regularly vanish into the aether in Venezuela?). Actual arrests were involved, so something must have come of this. If the attempted murder case were a current event, then there would be no expectation for a firm conclusion, and we might conclude we have presented all relevant facts. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

She was never charged, so as to Machado that's the resolution. Like I said, I think that there are sufficient reliable sources that a brief, relevant summary can be written. I would see how respected news sources are summarizing the incident now. Knope7 (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328, Someguy1221, Knope7, Volunteer Marek, Steve Quinn, and The Four Deuces: Any more input you all could provide on the article talk page would be much appreciated. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey i would like to know why my article is getting deleted. Can someone please help me or revise it please.... Its Kongobeats (Record Producer)....Please can someone fix it up for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C3:4301:5C56:0:0:0:6699 (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey there. It would be helpful first if you signed in with either your real username - or another that you may be using to edit (if that is that case) -- since this one seems to have just been created, so we could tell if you are closely related to the subject within the article under a different username. This may aid in making a connection for deletion as stated in the tag. Often when dealing with WP:BLP, the first most important issue is WP:NBIO or in your case WP:NMG and whether the subject meets the criteria for inclusion. Also, if you visit [8], you will find your article's entry with submissions for either delete or keep and the reasons for doing so. Last, you can contact the editor directly on the talk page for a more in depth reason other than the one he gave initially. Hope this helps. Maineartists (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

In further review of your article, content and sources, I have noticed several red flags (notability aside). First, your sources are not in keeping with Wiki standards for reliability.

• #1 references and cites a YouTube video that is not a reliable source due to [WP:V].
• #4 does not support the claim that the subject "released his first instrumental mixtape in 2011", let alone that "which lead to many artists recording songs over the beats".
• #5 / #6 reference and cite another subject all together that really has nothing to do with the article and does not mention the named subject at all.
• #7 a link to a mixtape is not a notable resource. If instead there was a link to a notable music publication that reviewed the release that could be cited in its stead, this would help in claiming some notoriety for the subject.
• #8 & #9 are not reliable sources since they are promotional blogs created by the artist (or subjects closely related) and do not support the inline claims.
• #10 YouTube self-promotional source directly related to the subject.

It seems that all linked sources rely heavily on videos, mixtape listings, and the subject's own personal accounts (twitter, soundcloud, instagram). The only link even closely salvageable might be #3, in that it is an actual publication that reviewed the subject and mentioned him with a somewhat notable air: "Producer Kareem “Kongo Beats” Tatem Is Ranked Among MTV Artists", and listed artists that he has worked with ..

If an editor can find more notable publications in this vein, and perhaps reveal one or two guidelines met from WP:NMG, then perhaps your submission might stand a better chance of remaining. However, as it stands, it has several grammatical errors, nearly ever line requires an inline citation, the discography needs better presentation (see [9]), and clean-up is recommended, since elaboration for many of the statements given is necessary.

I hope this helps! Maineartists (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Could use some outside opinions on whether this article contains BLP violations. One example is this paragraph in the lead that begins with: Another type of theory is that the murder could have been committed by a family member. Evidence appears to rule out John Ramsey as a person culpable for the murder, but there are theories under which Burke or Patsy may have killed JonBenét, generally thought to have begun accidentally. - OK, where do these "theories" come from, who is saying this, where is the attribution and sources to back this up. Because in 1998, Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said Burke Ramsey was not a suspect, and again in May 1999, Burke is not a suspect, Burke Ramsey...Police and prosecutors say he is not a suspect., Burke Ramsey was cleared by both Hunter and Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, and again in 2008, The Boulder district attorney's office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. The main article just underwent a requested move for an article title change based on these theories, and I don't think we need an entire article about conspiracy theories that include family members that originated from recent TV specials about her murder.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The sentence that you mention is a summary for the article intro. There are notes [f][g][h][i][j][k] that explain the reasoning and the info is very well cited.

This summary sentence was written before I added all the info to the Death of JonBenét Ramsey [adding: and this theories] article about Burke being ruled out as a suspect. That did resurface, though, in a recent documentary that I find to be somewhat troubled and ignores a lot of evidence.

I'll take a stab at rewriting that summary/intro sentence to rule Burke out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done, edits made to Death of JonBenét Ramsey and Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories. To your question below about Burke being ruled out - again, yes, I saw that. I typed it in last night. This is the one I made to the main article. I also made the same edits to the theories article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "I don't think we need an entire article about conspiracy theories that include family members that originated from recent TV specials about her murder." Did you by chance see the numbers of investigators, experts, pathologists, etc. that have been cited in the article? If you're saying that I need to replace the "The Case of" sourcing with better sources, though, I can get behind that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

And did you by chance happen to see the links above that say law enforcement/prosecution no longer consider Burke or other family members suspects? Because you added conspiracy theories about family members that imply they could be culpable.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

See 1st above  Done comment.--CaroleHenson (talk)

• That article needs to die. It's a dumping ground for speculation of a level not sufficiently important to make it ot he main article. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

As an FYI, this wasn't done in a vacuum. I started a conversation about this before I put days of work into it. See Death of JonBenét Ramsey#Two theories. I asked before I started if it would be considered for deletion.

I don't get how it's a "dumping ground for speculation" - other than my ill-advised use of the The Case of source too much, which as I say I'm happy to rectify. What do you think is in the article that is a "dumping ground for speculation"? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

In addition, one of the options mentioned in that discussion was moving some of the uncovered info over to the main article. Nobody commented about it after that, but I'm happy to look at that, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Lastly, I wrote up a summary for consideration of what information might be consolidated into the main article in Consolidation opportunites. It might be best to keep the comments there, so it is maintained with the history of the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I did mention that I didn't think that a "Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories" article should be created, but I was also clear that I wouldn't nominate it for deletion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The subject is a student politician who identifies as black based on North African heritage; as the black British article shows, black often has a wider usage in the UK than the US, and can encompass North Africans. ("The term "black" has historically had a number of applications as a racial and political label, and may be used in a wider sociopolitical context to encompass a broader range of non-European ethnic minority populations in Britain.") She is referred to be almost every mainstream media source to comment on her race as black. Therefore we should describe her as black, while also citing the minority opinion--from a single RS, which is fairly charitable to Bouattia and makes reference to, but criticizes, the broader definition of black to which she is appealing--that questions her race. After all, our job is not to "seek truth" but to reflect the opinion of reliable sources.

User: Phantom147 keeps deleting all references to her being black. He says he is committed to doing this regardless of what sources say because "I think we should reflect what is true even if RS are false." (See 2) Defensible though his position on Bouattia's race may be, this is obvious OR; and Phantom's commitment to OR is even more problematic given his desire to use OR to disparage a BLP. Phantom refuses to listen to citation of the rules and thus I have the unhappy task of reporting him here.

There is a controversy over her race; but the solution is not to take sides on the controversy. We should describe her as black (per almost all RS), note her heritage (Algerian), and discuss the criticism from the two sources that question her blackness. If we want to avoid confusion, we could call her "black British" rather than black, which has a different technical meaning than the US usage of "black."

In any case, the first solution needs to be topic-banning Phantom, who is openly disregarding the rules (follow RS) in pursuit of "truth," despite weeks of warnings from other users. Steeletrap (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted, this issue was already under RFC. The RFC took my side, saying we should represent both views and not say that she is black, because it's taking a side. This is why i removed his edits and even when we discussed the issue he kept edit warring with me before the issue was resolved. In my opinion, saying she is black IS talking a side (also the RFC concluded this is the case), not saying she is black and explaining the issue as the article does right now is the right way. But in any case, there is not reason to topic-ban me because I was only trying to bring the article to it's initial state before Steeletrap edited it AFTER it was already settled in RFC and was again in dispute on talk page. I do not see any wrong doing on my side. After the issue would have been resolved I wouldn't have reverted anything, but it was not resolved yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom147 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not "taking a side" to reflect a person's ethnic identity as expressed in reliable sources. We do not give equal validity to "both views" of an issue if "both views" are not equally represented in reliable sources. We may note contrary claims, but if those claims are a minority or fringe, we do not treat them as if they deserve equal credence in articles. This is particularly important for claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I will note that the statement in the lede that she is "the first black Muslim president of the NUS" is supported by half a dozen reliable sources which explicitly use that phrasing, including The Guardian, the BBC, IBT, etc. If the BBC says, without qualification, The National Union of Students has elected its first black Muslim woman president, Malia Bouattia, that is pretty much going to settle it. We're talking about gold-standard sourcing here. Up against this BBC article, @Phantom147:, what sources do you have to support the claim that she is not black? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Were any of these sources published since the discussion two months ago closed by an admin in Phantom147's favor? Otherwise I don't see a need to relitigate this so soon. Participants should be reminded: as this is a BLP addition of any material requires clear consensus. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually yes, I noticed it a few days ago and was going to post a reference on the talk page but forgot about it. See "Ms Bouattia, the first black Muslim to hold the post of NUS president". The BBC has now on multiple occasion's directly confirmed her as 'Black' even while covering the controversial issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A single-purpose editor devoted to smearing Malia Bouattia (as Phantom147's user contributions effectively demonstrate they are) should not be editing their biography in the first place. BLPN is precisely the place to draw broader attention to such issues and gain a broader consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't view inclusion or exclusion as a "smear" and I don't particularly care about any editor's history. I care if editors appear now to be abusing process. Can you address my question: were any of the sources you cite published after the closed discussion? (You might also want to remove the personal attack.) James J. Lambden (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

We should examine how reliable sources describe Bouattia in order to develop a clearer picture of how to give due weight to what each reliable source says, and to avoid giving equal validity to minority or fringe claims. I have opened a thread on the article talk page and invite interested editors to search the sources for this purpose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The RfC was not closed with any sort of consensus. Moreover, an RfC cannot override NPOV ,RS, and BLP.

The motives of Phantom--a user who states that he is committed to telling the "truth" about Bouattia regardless of what RS say (yes, he literally said this)--are relevant and need to be discussed outside the context of ad hominem attacks. Steeletrap (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

he is not the son of former player Tomas Locatelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.120.103.105 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, that detail was just recently added. I couldn't find definitive online-information about it either way, although some forum discussions seem to agree with your concern. But as biographical information about a living person it should have a reliable source, especially when disputed by other editors -> removed for now. By the way, you can remove such unsourced controversial or disputed information from biographical articles yourself. Please make sure to provide a clear edit summary to explain the removal in such cases. GermanJoe (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it SYNTH to assume that the abstract of this article refers to Hillary Clinton? Don't want to pay $$$ to see if her name included in full article. "This paper investigates the odds of generating a 100-fold return in the cattle futures market. We employ cattle futures data for the period October 11, 1978, through July 31, 1979," http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02920493 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy#blatant_synthesis NPalgan2 (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

"Is it SYNTH to assume..." <- I think you just answered your own question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: I have access to the full article. It contains does not contain the word "Clinton" anywhere, let alone "Hillary Clinton." Fyddlestix (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It does contain the numbers 1,000$ 99,541$ and the correct dates. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that if you read between the lines (and know the context) that it's pretty clear they're talking about Clinton. But the article doesn't name her. I honestly have no idea where that leaves us, I need to go read WP:BLP again and think about it before taking a firm position on this. Although I would lean towards Marek's point of view I think - they didn't name her for a reason, and I think it's likely that this can't be used in the article for the same reason. You can't infer that someone was guilty of market manipulation. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/11/8383593/hillary-clinton-2016-campaign "one analysis estimated that even under the most generous of assumptions, the odds of a return that large during the period in question are about one in 31 trillion." Vox vouches for the Springer link referring to Clinton, so they make the synthesis for us. Do we have consensus now to add this back in? NPalgan2 (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please point out the words in the Vox piece that says that the Springer analysis referred to Hillary Clinton. Because I do not see that stated explicitly but rather only hinted at. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

"That gain [i.e. Hillary's] came in for considerable scrutiny during Bill's presidency; one analysis estimated that even under the most generous of assumptions, the odds of a return that large during the period in question are about one in 31 trillion." Vox explicitly cites the Springer paper when explicitly discussing Hillary Clinton and the cattle futures. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed it too at first. There's no in-text citation - they link to it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, Fyddlestix, Someguy1221, and Cullen328: I propose readding the information, citing Springer and Vox, to the article. Marek, also see talk page. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@NPalgan2: Your pings did not work (at least I didn't get one). I've removed your most recent edits to the article pending the outcome of this discussion - so far I don't really see a consensus to include it. Would appreciate it if others could weigh in here. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Don't know why the pings didn't work. Also, do you really still think this is SYNTH? I just directly quote the Vox article on Hillary. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Reping @Volunteer Marek, Fyddlestix, Someguy1221, and Cullen328: NPalgan2 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ping worked that time (for me, anyway). As for whether it's SYNTH - I'm honestly not sure. But I am quite uncomfortable with using the article to imply that Clinton must have been doing something unethical (ie, that it's almost statistically impossible for to have done this "on the level") when the article doesn't even mention Clinton. It just seems... odd. I am happy to defer to what others think here but given that this is controversial I think we need a clear consensus before restoring it. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, odds an economist's model not right >> than 31 trillion. But it got through peer review and is unquestionably a RS that should be there for balance. We could not mention the actual number? NPalgan2 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think what Fyddlestix says is key - if the article doesn't mention Clinton, only insinuates it, then there is a reason for that. And it also means that it's not good enough for a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

But at this point we're discussing whether to add the Vox quote from an article which is published in a RS and explicitly about Clinton. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

An editor wants to keep the phrase "He does not have a degree in economics" in this article about a journalist who writes about economics and politics. I consider this so obviously inappropriate that I'm noting it here rather than waste time with him on the talk page. TiC ^(talk) 21:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO, It seems that there are three problems: 1) The source is not a reliable source, 2) the source does not say that he doesn't have a degree in economics, and 3) the article already states that Yglesias's degree is in philosophy. The reader can conclude for themselves that they don't have a degree in economics.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this strikes me as non-neutral original research--a misuse of a primary source. The source doesn't say that Yglesias doesn't have an economics degree, and it's not noteworthy unless it's been reported on by at least one independent reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

John Basedow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing AFD for the BP of John Basedow where editors are claiming the article isn't adequately sourced, even though every sentence has at least one RS. Anyone here care to weigh in?StonefieldBreeze (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The editors at the afd, of which I am one, are not claiming that. We're claiming that in twelve years we have been unable to produce a neutral article on this marginally-notable person due in large part to paid editors and admitted sockpuppets like StonefieldBreeze; and that blithely continuing to assume that it'll somehow magically happen is not optimism, but madness. —Cryptic 23:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Denis Coderre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After Montreal City Council enacted a controversial animal control by law last week, Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre's Wikipedia page is consistently being vandalized. Can we please limit the ability to edit this page to people with confirmed logins (ie NOT ip addresses?)

Much thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwquinn (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it and suggest that others do the same. I'm not sure the disruption meets the threshold of needing page protection just yet but will happily file a WP:RPP if it continues. The article needs work - way too much focus on controversies and many basic details about his political career missing. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

As of now, there was enough further disruption that I thought semi-protection was needed. I agree with Fyddlestix that the article needs work. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It is requested that Muhammad(P.b.u.h) is respected and followed by all Muslims around the world. the problem i am facing is there are pictures of Prophet is uploaded in this article which violates muslims ethical and islamic values as no one is allowed to draw or refer any picture as MUHAMMAD(s.a.w.w) So i request u to allow me the access so i can remove that material and make it according to our beliefs. Its misguiding people and against our beliefs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan murtaza (talk • contribs) 11:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC) 

Randy Spears has appeared in a number of interviews on Youtube used as sources on his page. [10] An editor believed one of these, published by "Fightthenewdrug.org" [11] constituted a WP:COPYVIO, with the argument that it was a different uploader than the one who had created the video. The editor later retracted this statement, having realized that he had mistaken a hashtag for the uploader's name and that the video had in fact been uploaded by "Fightthenewdrug.org" (the organization whose name appears in the video at 06:23). Another editor then claims that the video fails WP:RS with the same argument, namely that since the uploader is genuine, it is a "self-published" source. [12] My contention is however, that it is not a legit argument since it is an actual interview conducted with Spears and is valid as per the rules of WP:INTERVIEW. Please advise.Holanthony (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewees said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what they said." There is no sign that the interviews cited in the article have been factchecked in any way, and one conspicuous claim, that the subject played a year-long role on a major soap opera, is uncorroborated by IMDB or by any identified reliable, relevant source. Other claims are little more than self-aggrandizing puffery. Holanthony simply lacks basic competence in evaluating sources (see this ANI discussion [13]) and merits a topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The interviews have been checked by the editors at "Fightthenewdrug.org", that is pretty plain to see. Also, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz keeps making frivolous disruptive edits in spite of there not being a resolution to the matter. Would someone please advise him on the rules in this regards? You need to reach consensus BEFORE you act. He tried pulling the same thing on the Charles Laughton page but was fortunately stopped.[14] Also, again, Wolfie, if you insist on bringing up past irrelevant posts on other wikipages, then why don't you also bring up all the times YOUR NAME had been brought up on the ANI list?[15] Or all the times YOU'VE been warned and suspended?? Or all the times you've been slammed for bullying and harassing other users? You have HUNDREDS of incidents reported on you so far so try not to call the kettle black next time would you? A topic ban might actually be in order for you, considering your track record. Holanthony (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yikes. This spiraled out of control pretty quickly. I regret my part in it. There'd already been one round of delete-and-re-insert before I came on the scene. I concluded that that the whole paragraph was poorly sourced and started a thread on the talk page for discussion. I listed three reasons. A) Copyright violation as to a youtube interview, B) Non-reliable source as to IMdB, C) Non-reliable gossip as to adultfyi.com and nextshark.com.
I botched the argument against the youtube video, so when my error was pointed out, I struck that part. I got stuck on copyright when, as was later made clear, the problem with this particular youtube video was one of reliability.
After that... well just read this thread and you'll see what happened after that. It's not pretty and I regret my part in getting it re-started. I still think the paragraph is sourced pretty dreadfully, but knowing that there had been a prior fiery tussle over far more serious BLP issues in this article recently, I ought not to have fanned the embers over a somewhat less important reliable source issue. David in DC (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this guy also a bald-faced liar. In lack of tangible arguments, he invents his own "reality", such as the Ryan's Hope appearances being "uncorroborated" through IMDb. You know what? I actually took the trouble to look through FULL cast list from Ryan's Hope on IMDb, and guess what? Spears' name IS RIGHT THERE, appearing in five episodes in 1989 as -you guessed it- a BARTENDER! [16] Corroborating every word he said in the interview and more so! If we assume good faith, we must deduce that the guy can't read, or assumes facts without checking the source, the alternative explanation is that he is willfully attempting to mislead fellow editors by lying in the hope that no one will check the source. In either case, it raises serious issues as this editor clearly is not competent to edit the page in question and has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a topic ban is in serious need for the editor in question! Holanthony (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For all of Holanthony's blustering, incivility, and personal attacks, the basic facts here are clear. The article credits Spears with roles on multiple soap operas, including "a one-year stint on Ryan's Hope in 1989". IMDB lists him only with a single, uncredited, one-week role (and that item was added quite recently, apparently while this dispute was pending). That;s not corroboration. That's contradiction. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't believe that YouTube videos are generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. IMDb is generally considered a reliable source though for filmographies, although the soap opera acting credit appears to just be a (recurring?) bit part. AdultFYI.com is a "self-published site" and generally "not considered reliable for the purposes of BLPs". Guy1890 (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Guy1890: You are a dependable editor and I have nothing but the utmost respect for your work and you bring up relevant points, which I will try to address. The operative word regarding the AdultFYI.com source, and the BLP link you bring up, is "generally". I.e. there is no "blanket ban", which means that the context and the way the source the use is what matters. You would definitely have a point if that site had reported events in Spears' life in a general sense. However, in this context the point in question is an interview with the subject himself, meaning it falls under WP:Interview. In this context, the site is to be considered a secondary source and thus reliable. The same also goes for Youtube interviews. There is nothing that suggests that the web channel in question does not exercise editorial review, which means that interviews conducted can be considered legitimate and reliable, as per WP:Interview. Holanthony (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"Generally" means "pretty much always, but someone might find an exception." I suggest that YouTube videos are very rarely usable for anything on Wikipedia. If something is important, it should be found in a reliable secondary source. Collect (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, as per WP:INTERVIEW and WP:VIDEOLINK, this "exception" is fairly clearly stated, namely that the site should exercise editorial control of its videos, which is safe to say it does in this case. Holanthony (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Interviews is unfortunately not a Wikipedia policy, and I noted (when recently editing the article in question here) that most (if not all?) of the AdultFYI.com citations in the article appeared to be interviews. I would definitely try to use the Wikipedia interview template when trying to cite interviews in the future. I don't have anything further to add about the supposed YouTube videos, except to say that we really need to use the absolute best sources available for these types of Wikipedia articles & video links almost always aren't going to cut it. Guy1890 (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I am current in a dispute with another editor over Richard B. Spencer and his National Policy Institute which is pretty much the same thing (it's virtually a one man shop). The dispute is detailed here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_B._Spencer Basically, Spencer holds the position that white nationalism and white supremacy are different things. (supported by relevant wikipedia article) but the two positions are commonly conflated by non white nationalists/supremacists. Spencer denies being a white supremacist but identifies as a white separatist and white nationalist. There are a number of in depth profiles, interviews from RSs of Spencer. They mostly tend to note his denial of the supremacist label, talk about his views, note that he is closely associated with people who identify as white supremacists, and then let the reader make up their own mind. my position is that we need RSs that are at the very least cognizant of the difference spencer claims and that reaffirm that he is a white supremacist before the two articles declare in wikipedia's voice that he is a white supremacist. The other editor disagrees. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm -- I've offered feedback at the article talk page, but it seems it wasn't welcome... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that mainstream sources in the US don't really recognize any significant difference between "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" — they are both viewed as extreme racist positions. Spencer may hold that position in good faith, but mainstream reliable sources basically reject it. "The two positions are commonly conflated by non-white nationalists/supremacists" for good reason, in other words. His opinion should be noted, but if mainstream reliable sources describe him as a white supremacist or as promoting white supremacist views, he should be so described. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

As you say, they are both viewed as extreme racist positions. WP:LABEL and WP:BLP requires we introduce the subject in a dispassionate tone and give contentious labels in-text attribution. Zaostao (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

So I've been editing the article Cyriac Pullapilly, and have tried to organize and expand the article. However, the problem is, there is only a couple of reliable sources which even mention the subject. The majority of the sources are poorly sourced material from self published student newspapers and flyers, and I could not find any material anywhere else regarding this subject. In addition to this, the poor sources are also not even accessible as they have been taken down. I could not find any sources to replace the existing ones, and would like to expand the article. However, the lack of reliable content also makes me question if this subject is notable at all? Any assistance is much appreciated. Vagbhata2 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not one of the project team members, but I saw your posting and thought I'd chime in. That is so strange. I tried to use wayback machine to retrieve an archived versions of the first two sources and that's coming up empty. The New York Times article is about Gita and just has "The bride’s brother, Anand Pullapilly, who became a Universal Life minister for the event, officiated with the assistance of their father, Cyriac Pullapilly, a former priest of Syro-Malabar Catholic rite." The last source, the pdf comes up - but I don't know what page the info about the award might be on from the table of contents.

There's a little info here, and here, here. And, there's an article on page 4I think you raise a good question - I'm having a hard time finding good biographical info. I'll take a couple of more stabs and see if I can come up with something else.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the best, by far. There's info here, it's just a little hard to sort out the OCR text (bottom of the page). I'm not sure if this would be considered a reliable source, but there's info about his program that might help back into info from a RS.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I will update the information with the given ones and see where the article takes off from there. Once again, thank you! Vagbhata2 (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Gina Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was wondering how to repair some breakage by a new editor at the above BLP when I noticed that one of their edits changed the hatnote

This article is about the actress born in 1984. For the actress born in 1967, see Gina Rodriguez (pornographic actress).

to

This article is about the actress born in 1984. For the actress born in 1967, see Gina Rodriguez (actress).

The latter is wrong because the link is a redirect to Gina Rodriguez which is the page with the hatnote, and WP:Hatnote says to not pipe links to articles.

However, it is rather offensive for a BLP article to have "pornographic" prominently displayed. I know, NOTCENSORED and who cares about sensitive people, but is there a way of handling this? A permalink showing "pornographic" is (30 September 2016), but that is a bit misleading because the pink permalink box hides "pornographic". Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I had someone point out this article in an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS situation. Offhand the guy has enough notability to where he'd pass A7, but overall notability is still very much in question. What makes this a BLP issue is that the article is a promotional mess and needs an extremely thorough cleaning. A quick search brings up stuff like this, which discusses him selling some of his real estate, but I'm unsure if he's really notable per WP:NPERFORMER or WP:NBIO. He's worked with notable people, but we all know that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a paragraph that keeps getting added to the Gordon H. Smith page that is only sourced to a youtube video, and a local news station article that doesn't talk about Gordon at all [[17]],[[18]]. I would appreciate some additional eyes and patrollers on this page to make sure that content being added is BLP compliant. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Audu Maikori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The first and most obvious concern is that large swaths of the bio are unsourced and promotional in tone; the second is whether these passages are copyright violations. I've seen identical passages at other websites, but don't know whether they've copied Wikipedia or vice-versa. Some assistance would be great. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Joseph Piotroski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joseph Piotroski is a full professor at Stanford University Graduate School of Business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garden girl (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Garden girl: The article states that he was an associate professor as of 2010. If he's been elevated to full professor, please provide us a source (or link) where we can verify it, and the article can be updated. —C.Fred (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Heather Marsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While there are numerous references at the end of this article, many seem to be to dubious sources.

I suggest that this article be reviewed for potential non-notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdf987654 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Chase Coleman III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I outlined an edit request over at Talk:Chase Coleman III a week ago. I realize the requested edits list is backlogged and that "there is no deadline." However, was hoping one of the editors who regularly visits this noticeboard might be willing to take a look and give feedback. Please note I have a declared COI with the subject of the page. Thanks in advance. NinaSpezz (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I have replied on the talkpage Govindaharihari (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Jeffrey Epstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Jeffrey Epstein § Lead section

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Not in the first sentence, given the current state of the article, sourcing, and general notability of the subject - "He is a registered level three sex offender." should also be removed however as it is labelling rather than a summary of the article content (which is adaquately explained right before it). Previous consensus is that labels such as 'they are a sex offender' even when they are extremely prolific about it, are not used for people whose notability is not solely because of their sexual activities - in deference to a descriptive approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No. If being found guilty as an offender were the only reason they were notable (taking BLPCRIME into account), then yes, it would be reasonable since there would be litle else to describe him objectively. But for Epstein, his previous career and funding prior to the charges appears to be notable on their own. As such, the first sentence should be a dispassionate statement of objectivity ("...is an American financier." is how it reads now and is neutral and impartial, per BLP). After that, then there's more room to give the context of the criminal charge and resulting penalty can be discussed. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Half of the article is about his sexual history, investigation, conviction, lawsuits etc. The lead summarises the article. I agree the labelling needs to go, but you cant get away with the article content as it is currently and not mention his conviction in the lead. Arguably his article has been overly padded in the finance and philanthropy areas as well. The references to his friendship with Prince Andrew are only relevant when you consider the accusations made against them both later in the article. Ignore this, lead yes, lead sentence no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the lede, it has to be mentioned, but this talk section asked about the "lede sentence", which is where it does not belong, unless that's the only reason he was notable, which very much is not the case here. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah right, well I agree there - my misreading. I have amended my comment above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he should be so described (though the exact wording might be altered). It is admittedly a crude metric, but googling his name gives an idea as to where emphasis is on the coverage. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thats a bad way to gauge it really. Google 'Jimmy Saville' and you will get pages and pages of results about his sexual activities before his primary notability. And the first sentence of his biography (and he is dead! so not even a BLP concern!) does not use 'he was a sexual offender' either. Google suffers terribly from recentism, so search's will always provide the latest news, rather than provide an accurate reflection of their life in total. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That strikes me as a failing of the Jimmy Saville page, but reasonable minds can differ. Dumuzid (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's also a failing of Rolf Harris too. The general consensus previously has been that taking into account BLP concerns & npov, people notable for things other than criminal acts have a more descriptive approach than 'is a *insert label*' to the lead. Of course there are counter examples like O.J Simpson (is a convicted felon), so its swings and roundabouts. Wesley Snipes does not say he is a tax evader. Max Clifford says he is a convicted sex offender. Bernie Madoff (a more direct financial counterpart) does not say felon in the first sentence. Adam Johnson is only a footballer And so on. This is probably something that needs to be nailed down in guidance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's the same situation that previously was discussed here about Jared Taylor and above about Richard B. Spenser. There is no question that where there is "negative" information regarding a BLP that significantly contributes to a person's notability and is appropriately sourced within BLP's guidance, that information should be included in the lede at some point. But the first sentence of the lede needs to be as objective and dispassionate as possible - inserting that negative information as the first thing the reader reads impacts the tone immediately.

I've pointed out in other BLP and other bios, using spot checks at GA/FA, that nearly all of these start of with "John Q. Smith (birthdate) is a (nationality) (career/profession)." Zero contentious or subject facts, and often not immediately getting to why that person is notable. Subsequent sentence then open up about context. A writer or actor might have a list of representative works; an athlete a list of teams/positions; a politician with a list of other offices, and in such a case as a person that their criminal history is more significant than their other features, an explanation of their criminal history. Putting things in that order consistently avoids setting the wrong tone for the article. The only time that a negative aspect should be in the first sentence is if the only thing that person has "contributed" towards society is their criminal acts, (such as most of the names on the convicted serial killer lists) because there is no way that that will impact the tone of the rest of the article which is going to be about their criminal acts and actions from that. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This view counsels a false "neutrality" and requires us to override an evaluation of what appears in reliable sources. If someone's notability is mainly "negative", then our portrayal should follow that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the sex trial is only one aspect of the person's life, and should not be given undue weight in the lead, which is supposed to be a précis of the entire article. "False neutrality" is totally inapt as a claim here. The body of the BLP is where the details go, not the lead. Collect (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

As I've said on the Epstein talk page, I'm not keen on putting "X is a sex offender" in the opening sentence of any article. It lacks proper context and does not establish notability. Joe Soap from Oshkosh may be a registered sex offender, but he doesn't have his own Wikipedia article. The WP:LEAD is not a rush to condense things into the opening sentence, and the current wording in Jeffrey Epstein makes no attempt to hide the sex offence conviction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

As I've said on the article talk page, Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris are very well-known for their professional careers, at least in the UK. Outside finance circles, Epstein is relatively unknown for his work, but widely notorious for his pimping. It is what he's known for. In this case, we owe it to the reader to identify the thing he's most notable for in the first sentence. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, there is nothing that requires us to establish notability in the first sentence. The lede eventually needs to come to this, yes, and ideally in the first paragraph, but when you start attaching subjective labels (positive or negative) or contentious aspects, you need to have room to give sufficient context to explain those, and the first sentence of an article is nowhere near enough space to do that. As soon as you try to force this type of information in without context, you impact the tone of the article even if the information is factually true or well-backed by RSes. (I'd also argue that taking the Epstein example, while he may not be known for the financial aspects outside of the UK financial circle, the fact that he is well known within that circle is part of what makes him notable, and not a trivial aspect relative to the sex offenses. Notability is not judged on a global scale, but within context of the field of interest, and in this case, as a UK financier, he seems very well established). --MASEM (t) 14:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

That he's a sex offender is not a "subjective label". It's proven and he's admitted it. Neither is this a "contentious aspect". No one challenges that fact and it's what he's best known for, and first known for outside finance circles. I know it's unpleasant and harsh but, well, he is a convicted sex offender and a financial advisor/financier, and leaving either of those points out of the first, defining sentence would be doing the reader a disservice. This may well affect the tone of the article but, really, it's Epstein himself who's responsible, and it's not our job to play it down for aesthetic purposes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact of him being a sex offender, while fully backed by sources, is a contentious point by focusing on a negative aspect over any positive contributions he made as a financier, or any other neutral, objective facts about him. This is the principle behind the concept of character assassination, which WP should not at all be engaging in. We have to describe his crime and subsequent punishment in the lede, no question, but to just state that "he is a sex offender" without giving any context to what the original crimes or what he did otherwise impacts the tone, as "sex offender", even if true, creates a negative image of the person. It is necessary to set up who is he and the brief fundamentals of the case that led to him being convicted of the crime. BLP requires us to take a dispassionate tone, and to that end we must be very careful of carelessly throwing such terms around without proper context. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You lost me there. The fellow is a sex offender. It's a fact. It's what he's widely known for. You're worried that us describing him as such creates a negative image of him. Uh huh. It creates an accurate picture of him that happens to be negative - and that's down to him. Leaving it out of the first sentence to deliberately make him look less "negative" would be letting down our readers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The term "sex offender" while accurate carries a lot of weight that putting in the first sentence of a BLP as a summary of their whole life, without any further context, particularly in considering how most other BLPs are written (limiting the first sentence to "profession" rather than other factors of a person's life). It makes us excessively judgemental out of the door. Holding the details for a sentence or two after getting past the boring details drastically improves our tone. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Weak No The opening sentence is generally reserved for what the subject is most famous or notable for. Unlike in the case of Darren Sharper whose notoriety as a serial rapist has almost certainly equaled, and arguably surpassed, his fame as an NFL player, I don't think that is the case here. The conviction is covered in the lead. I believe that is sufficient. It is also worth noting that it his fame in the financial world that rings the WP:N bell, not his criminal conviction. Again, unlike truly notorious sex offenders, this is not the kind of offense that on its own merits would justify an article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Even on Sharper's article, where the lede sentence is "Darren Mallory Sharper (born November 3, 1975) is a former American football safety and serial rapist.", there's far too little context that makes that sentence rather negative in tone and creates implications (was he a serial rapist throughout his life? (obviously not, but again, no context in that sentence alone). Instead we could say "Darren Mallory Sharper (born November 3, 1975) is a former American football safety. He is currently serving a twenty-year sentence after being convicted of being a serial rapist in 2015." Same information, but context is everything. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I disagree. You don't need to provide detailed material in the opening sentence. Indeed, normally an opening sentence should be a bland statement identifying the subject's principle claim(s) to fame. There is plenty of context further down the lead and in the article. Further, he is at least as famous as a serial rapist as he is for his NFL career. As I noted in the lengthy talk page discussion on this subject, if I were limited to citing only one claim to notability, i.e. his NFL career or his criminal one in the opening sentence, I'd opt for the latter. However, we are digressing. The topic here is Mr. Epstein. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
      • See, this is back to my point that the lede sentence does not need to address notability if it eliminates the needed context to speak about the person in an impartial, dispassionate tone. I have said before that if you spot check FA and GA articles on BLP and bios across the board, nearly every first sentence is "(name) (born (birthdate)) is a (nationality) (list of professions/careers)." For the bulk of those, that sentence does not establish any type of notability, but instead smoothly leads into sentences that do establish the notability such as important works they are a part of, awards and recognition, and in cases of those with criminal records, the crimes they're known for, because now you have the space to write out that notability in context. I recognize the importance of trying to cover a major crime a person has been convicted that contributes a significant part of their notability, but cramming that into the first sentence is poor writing under BLP. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

So, Masem, while admittedly not a BLP, you would favor "Jeffrey Dahmer was an American combat medic" as the first sentence of said article? Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, because in the case of people like Dahmer, where there was no other notability of any type for that person (eg would fit the qualifications of BLPCRIME), then identifying them as a criminal is the only way to handle it. All other cases here being described is where there is some degree of notability prior to the crime in question, so to highlight the crime without additional context takes away from the other notable aspects. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

There has been a lot of straw man going on here. Nobody has suggested removing or playing down the fact that Jeffrey Epstein has a sex offence conviction, but it doesn't need to be in the opening sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

People come to this article to find out who this is. He is a convicted sex offender who also happens to be a financier, and dropping the former from the first, defining sentence would be eliding, and by omission dishonest, and letting the reader down. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a distinction between the first sentence and subsequent sentences in the lead? Not that I know of. This is a question of style, not of substance. Stylistically we should favor establishing the more mundane reason for notability prior to establishing the more exciting reason for notability. Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence is the defining sentence. "Sex offender", more than "financier", defines this subject. Yes, that's harsh, and a tragedy for him. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You are being judgmental, when you should be dispassionate. Why is the first sentence the defining sentence? Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It tells the reader who the person is, or what the thing is. I'm not being judgmental. The court made the judgment, after a great deal of evidence and deliberation. The man is a sex offender, and it's what he's most widely known for. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

He is a financier who is a sex offender, not a sex offender who is a financier, and this applies not only to this article, but to similar cases, because notability in any setting concerns itself with the more standard occupations and accomplishments rather than more oddball areas of notability such as unusual sexual activity. Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• No. That is not his primary reason for notability. Simple test: if he were a wealthy financier but not a sex offender, would he still have an article? If he were a sex offender but not a wealthy financier, would he still have an article? --GRuban (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• He would definitely have an article, regardless of his background in finance, because of who he pimps to, like Heidi Fleiss. It's what he's most notable for. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• That would work, were he convicted of it, or admit to it. Was he, or did he? If all we could say is "sex offender" it wouldn't. Just sex offenders are convicted every day and don't get articles. --GRuban (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes But lets sound more like a broadsheet than a tabloid. For example, say he "is an American financier and convicted sex offender." While he was first notable as a financier, he is very well known because of his offenses. The lead should then summarize both aspects of his activities. TFD (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Trevor Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please review cited sources. Article does not meet Wikipedia criteria and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.34.224 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure he's notable - the sources certainly don't demonstrate that he is. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Amy Schumer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I would like to edit the Amy Schumer article to add the following two paragraphs to the "Personal Life" section:

In May 2014, Schumer gave a speech at the Ms. Foundation for Women gala which was described as "intense, [and] inspirational" which touched on her formative years where she struggled with a "crisis of confidence, [and,] body-image issues". In her speech Schumer described a "regrettable sexual encounter" with a fellow student whom she described as "wasted". She described herself during the encounter as "faceless, and nameless" until shortly after when she declared herself as "beautiful", "smart, and worth more than this" and left to room. She continues to say that even though she turned her life around after that ordeal and is now a successful comedienne, she can still be "reduced to that lost college freshman quickly". Whenever she is down due to criticism and she wants to "quit ... being a woman altogether", she can quickly turn those feelings around by saying "I am not laying in that freshman year bed anymore ever again". [link to the vulture article goes here]

Her description of the "regrettable sexual encounter"[link to the vulture article goes here] was controversial and the encounter was widely discussed at the time in various online forums and social media websites. [links to those sites go here]

The first paragraph is the summary of a speech she made in 2014 that details personal details of her life. It is heavily based on this link:

http://www.vulture.com/2014/05/read-amy-schumers-ms-gala-speech.html

That offers a short description of the speech along with the transcript. From what I understand other editors do not have an objection on this first paragraph.

The second paragraph has a description that states that the speech was controversial and was discussed in online forums. I believe the existence of online forums which discussed the speech is evidence enough to say that it was controversial and discussed whereas other editors disagree and call this "original research". In their view I can only call this speech controversial and discussed if I can reference a third party reliable source which describes it as such. I disagree.

So wikipedians, can you offer guidance on this regard?

Thank you very much.

NutellaPancake (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This sound more as an OR issue: if your claim that the speech was controversial can only be sourced by pointing to forums where the controversy arose, then its original research. You'd need a secondary source outside of those forums to address the issue that those forums found the speech controversial. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

EG a newspaper or other secondary source saying 'Amy Schumer's speech prompted controversy in the online world' yadda yadda... However even then this would probably fall foul of WP:UNDUE, as a very minor thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well that settles it I suppose, I'm incorrect at it is indeed OR. I must say that I find the argument a bit for fetched however controversial means "giving rise ... to public disagreement", a 10 year old could deduct that there was public disagreement by looking at the content of the forums. I feel like I'm arguing that ships exist on the deck of a ship and no one believes me because I cannot handily find a source.

So controversial is a bridge too far, could I call the speech "widely discussed"? NutellaPancake (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Has any reliable source said it was widely discussed? Just pointing at some forums and going 'it was discussed here' would not indicate that. And having looked at the article talkpage I dont think the fact a load of MRA trolls on the internet tried to pass off her having sex with a guy (she thought and described as wasted) as rape means it needs to be shoehorned into the article. She had an unfortunate experience in college, talked about it in a speech, some people on the internet got angry about it because they have agendas to fill. I would want *strong* sourcing to include anything even approaching that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It was widely discussed not only on Men's rights forums, but also forums dedicated to discussing women's issues among others. As far as I can tell in none of the forums, even the men's rights forums, is there actual consensus on whether it was just 'regrettable sex' or something else. Even with 'agenda's to fill'. I'd also argue that actions of 'MRA trolls' has no bearing on my suggested edit.

There seems to be consensus among you guys that the second paragraph should not be included. Can I get confirmation that it is OK to add the first paragraph by itself? NutellaPancake (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Why? Its a speech, that apart from the Vulture reposting (which has zero commentary other than calling it inspirational), appears to have garnered no comment from reliable sources, no extended discussion from reliable sources, or have impacted on her career or notability in any real fashion. Its trivia. 'Woman gives speech in which she says had bad sex'. Its hardly Dr King 'I have a dream!' material is it. The first paragraph does not outright violate the policy (BLP) and can be sourced, but the question of if it belongs in the article is one for the talkpage concerned. Not every factoid of a celebrities life needs to be in their biographies. This is where WP:UNDUE kicks in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The part that I included shines light to her personal life and her struggles. It is far more relevant to the 'personal life' section than the content currently included "She has been friends with Taking Back Sunday drummer Mark O'Connell since childhood". WP:UNDUE doesn't kick in as the content I want to include is not a minority view: it isn't like a majority of us say 'she didn't have self esteem issues' and a small minority says 'she did have self esteem issues', where we wouldn't give the minority view undue weight. We all agree that Amy Schumer, by her own description, had self esteem issues in college and that she overcame those issues. No?NutellaPancake (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

For additional context please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amy_Schumer#Dayle23.27s_edits and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amy_Schumer#Verifiable_facts. There have been multiple attempts to add variations of this. The earliest versions described this as an example of non-consensual sex, basically saying Schumer may have raped a durnk guy in college, and this sparked controversy and cited reddit and blogs for this. This was objected to as WP:OR and a BLP violation due to the controversial content. The current suggested version above has that significantly down-played compared to earlier versions added to the article. However, most of the suggestions seems to be WP:OR or WP:UNDUE. So far, this speech has apparently been mostly ignored by reliable sources, only being covered by vulture.com and that source does not specifically focus on the part about the guy being drunk and it does not describe the speech as controversial but rather "inspirational".--DynaGirl (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The vulture.com reporter does call the drunk guy part 'regrettable sex' — Preceding unsigned comment added by NutellaPancake (talk • contribs) 7 October (UTC)

• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could external neutral editors with competence on these issues please review this discussion at the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk page and give their considered opinions as to whether attributing to the subject not his own words, indeed he was quoting a phrase, in his own native language, but as they were (mis)translated in the Iranian English source should take precedence over quoting what he actually said, as Iranian specialists (highly critical of that government) have established? Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The official Iranian Government translation, which came first, is what is written first in the article. It is then followed by the competing claims about the translation. Neither translation is given preference in Wikipedia's neutral voice, and nothing was removed. There's clearly a dispute over the translation, the Iranian Government, NY Times, and others translate it as wiped off the map, using sense-for-sense translation, while others like Amirpur and Juan Cole use literal translation. As an aside, literal translation is generally considered bad practice, particularly because it's poor at translating idioms, and not frequently done in professional work. (http://www.copypanthers.com/resources/literal-translation/, https://books.google.com/books?id=myLDA0_brhcC&pg=PA858&lpg=PA858&dq) Wikipedia needs to have a neutral voice. Describing the Iranian Government translation, which was backed by the New York Times and others as a "mistranslation" isn't appropriate. What my edit did was to simply place things in the correct order in time. Stating "was translated by Iranian state-run media" and then going immediately into both sides of the dispute. I'd also add that Nishidani's claim that anything was "established" is incorrect. Drsmoo (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Iranian gov translation gives evidence complacently wishing for a crime, genocide. The scholarly translation, and its technical glosses, indicate no such implication existed in the original Farsi where 'disappear from the pages of history' bears no such connotation. You cannot on a biography of a living person spin the English translation (=MA spoke of genocide against Israel) as having priority over what the man actually said. We don't even know if the genius who translated that thus into English knew the precise implications of the idiom he adopted (the words are of Ayatollah Khomeini, a lunatic in many accounts, but he expressly scuttled the Shah's atom bomb creation programme on the grounds that in Shi'a theology, weapons of mass destruction (i.e. genocidal) are against God's law. Jeezus. This place is so weird, one even ends up sounding like an apologist for a regime I dislike profoundly.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a BLP violation to me. It's not for us to decide which translation is "correct", and the "wipe off the map" one has some excellent sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

What sources? The only two Iranian specialists we have, both saying outgright that Ahmadinejad is despicable, say it is a mistranslation.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Put it this way: if we have secondary sources on the original text of what X said, and a translation into another language of what X said, which is more important in terms of BLP, the (a) secondary source that gives the literal translation, or (b) the translation that gives the contested version, which (a) states is a mistranslation, that says something not in the original text? Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You're saying the translations published by the Iranian government, the New York Times, and others, were not prepared by "Iranian specialists"? If your intent is to argue that we should emphasize the literal translation above all others, regardless of weight, you will find no traction here. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we should explain that he was misquoting Khomenei, that the student's group reporting his speech used Khomenei's words and years later experts pointed out that his comments were mistranslated. BTW direct translation from original languages is allowed in Wikipedia, many articles contain foreign languages and we can go to Wikipedia:Translation for help. According to Google translate, the correct translation is "Our dear Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[19] A commentator at the Guardian outlines the story.[20] Also, if we include the quote, we should explain its significance. A straightforward reading is that the territory would return to the status quo ante of Palestine. How that would be achieved and what would have to the post nati inhabitants is speculation. TFD (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia isn't about giving our personal interpretations but reporting based on reliable sources. Wikipedia can't describe a translation put out by the Iranian Government, the BBC Monitoring Service, multiple newspapers including the New York Times, explained by Sohrab Mahdavi (one of Iran's most prominent translators) Siamak Namazi (managing director of a Tehran consulting firm), Ahmad Zeidabadi (an Iranian journalist, academic, writer and political analyst) and which was declared an accurate translation by a later BBC committee, as a "mistranslation" in Wikipedia's neutral voice even if Google Translate and an opinion on the Guardian comment page agree with you. In other words, it isn't Wikipedia's purview to determine which side is "correct", only to describe the event. Drsmoo (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It can say that if it is reliably sourced. Anyway this is not different from any other case where a second source inaccurately reports what is in a primary source. Suppose a reliable source on Shakespeare says Hamlet said, "To be or not to be, that is the answer." Well that disagrees with the primary source, so we know it is false. Because what we have is a conflict between reliable primary and secondary sources of what the president said. And primary sources are a better source for what they say than secondary sources. Out of curiousity, what do you think was actually said? TFD (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a false analogy. The sources aren't disagreeing over what Shakespeare wrote, they're disagreeing over the best way to translate Hamlet into Farsi. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No one disagrees on the exact translation of the original. It has been transliterated, and glossed, word for word, by several sources, and nowhere are the words 'Israel', 'map' or 'wipe off' in the original text. Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I know nothing about this and care even less. It seems like a content dispute rather than a BLP issue. The one thing that does interest me is the linguistic issue, with regards to which is a better form of translation: literal or free. This is actually a rather archaic viewpoint on translations, as there is really a full spectrum in between, from the very literal to the semantic, the faithful and the free. Literal is often seen as being faithful to the text while distorting the intended meaning, whereas free attempts to stay faithful to the intended meaning while distorting the text. Neither is always better or worse than others, but both have their advantages and disadvantages. Take Google translate for an example of the very literal (for example, translating words like por favor as "for favor"). It's more helpful in understanding the language than the content of an article. If it's the meaning that is intended to be conveyed, then a more semantic or free approach is usually chosen. If we have sources for both then I see no problem with including both, simply explaining where they came from and why. Zaereth (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The edit we have is tampered with, and that itself is a patent abuse of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

In 2005, Ahmadinejad, in a speech praising the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, was translated by Iranian state-run media as saying that "Israel must be wiped off the map

This is false attribution. No one 'says': One 'quotes'. You could write correctly

Ahmadinejad was translated by the Iranian source as agreeing with a (slight mis)quotation from Ayatollah Kohomeini:

The original Farsi text is known, and has been literally construed by several sources, areas specialists, and that is not disputed by MEMRI, an Israeli website which is widely acclaimed for its coverage (hostile but often accurate) of Arabic and Persian sources (Islamic)

(Imam) Khomeini said:”This regime that is occupying Quds (Jerusalem)must be eliminated from the pages of history.’

That is also how the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs translated it. So both MEMRI specialists and the JCPA, famous for their stout advocacy on behalf of Israel, agree with Juan Cole, Katajun Amirpur and others (Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance, Yale University Press 2007 p.285 n.1) All of these sources are hostile to the present government of Iran.

It has been extensively argued, by minute control of the way this meme translation we use circulated, that rather than translate directly from Farsi, the New York Times, the BBC, and Reuters drew on the English version, and then later backtracked saying it was translated from the Farsi (oddly enough, as any translator knows, all choosing the exact same idiom as used by the state-run Iranian English news service. I am among other things a translator. When you get the exact same words from 3 bilingual translator translating the same text, the conclusion is almost inevitable that they are copying each other, or the one original source). Any wiki reader of the press will recognize that wire and news services copy and paste, more often than not, and we give them undue precedence over the original, verifiable words.

Note therefore that rather than say, Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini (they are not words attributable to Ahmadinejad), we have him portrayed as (a) praising Khomeini, and then (b) stating as his own view the words misattributed to him. This is obvious. No one to my knowledge ever cited Khomeini's words as an example of genocide. When the Ahmadinejad cited them, they became A's genocidal declaration. This is a BLP problem.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Todd McKenney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Todd McKenney is an Australian entertainer. For quite a while, his biography has included the referenced statement that "In 2008, McKenney was found unconscious in a Sydney park and arrested for alleged possession of GBH. The charges were later dropped.". An IP, 144.132.183.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), removed it earlier today, just as I had been planning to ask about it here. The same IP has removed it before, in NOvember 2015. Since an IP removal could easily be reverted again, I would like wider input on whether it was UNDUE, so that its removal (if re-added) can be supported by consensus here. (Assuming there is consensus, of course). Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• UNDUE: Lots of people have interactions with the police, or have charges laid and then dropped. This is not a significant incident for McKenney's biography, especially as it implies he is a drug user, which can damage his reputation. EdChem (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Follow Up: The content has been re-inserted into the article. Can I now get some views on whether or not this is UNDUE or a BLP violation? EdChem (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove as UNDUE: Ed, your analysis is spot on. The implication that he uses illegal drugs is clearly negative. As to the charges being dropped, in common law jurisdictions, such as Australia, this usually indicates that there was not enough evidence available to prove the charge in court. It is not the job of Wikipedia to document every embarrassing factoid about an individual even when there is a clear lack of evidence to support the obvious implications. --Allen3 ^talk 13:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Eric LeCompte (non-profit)

 – The concern expressed here seems to be primarily WP:COI, rather than any specific WP:BLP content. Murph9000 (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Eric LeCompte (non-profit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• @Citizenlandi: I fixed the link for you (and gave it a long form which can be helpful on the noticeboards). You had previously linked to Eric LeCompte, which redirects to Éric Lecompte. I could tell from the history of those articles, and your editing history, that you intended to link to Eric LeCompte (non-profit). Murph9000 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Michael Gastauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WB21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (not a BLP, but contains BLP statements related to above BLP)

I'm reporting this article based on fairly significant efforts by IPs and socks to wash away sourced negatives. Although no actual threats have been made, that I'm aware of, I'm thinking of the WP:DOLT aspect in this. It seems worth flagging it at BLPN for review, to ensure that we are not keeping the wrong content through reverts, page protection, and blocks. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be some socking and a few accounts have been blocked as such. That issue seems to be dealt with. I missed the legal threats, though. Can you be more specific? Kleuske (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I'm not saying that any threats have been made so far. My concern, per WP:DOLT, is not to overlook the possibility that there might be a real problem with the content, which could result in a future legal problem. It's easy to dismiss COI-socks as just that, but we must be careful to ensure that somewhere in their attempts to wash the negatives away there's not something which actually should be removed. Flagging it here is an act of due diligence towards protecting myself, other editors, and WP/WMF from liability. Amongst the edit summaries, we have things like factual background corrected and removing untrue statements, so we have at least informal claims of inaccuracy against our articles. The actions of someone trying to whitewash or enhance history, or someone engaged in deletion vandalism, can sometimes be very similar to the actions of someone trying to correct defamatory statements about themselves. Murph9000 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Murph9000: Ok. I misunderstood. More eyes are welcome in any case. Kleuske (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Where to begin? I hate being dragged into drama but here we are. I left a message on the talk page of Michael Gastauer a few days back due to quite a bit of edit warring. It is obvious from this thread that it didn't stop. I also received an email from someone informing me of the negative information which has since been introduced the page. I will not disclose that person's identify because of WP:OUTING, but it appears they could have a conflict of interest leading to WP:NPOV. I can also see from the edits that someone close to the subject has been trying to correct the information and has since been banned for using multiple accounts. Looks like quite a mess and reminds me of Banc de Binary in this Wall Street Journal article [21]. I checked the first reference under the controversy section. The Wikipedia page says he was arrested but the reference mentions no such arrest. I am just here to respond to my talk message and don't have an opinion either way, but would suggest someone with more experience go through the references and make sure it adheres WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The first reference says Gastauer is "in custody" in March of 2004, and describes criminal proceedings as underway. According to the main Swiss wire service, a founder of G&S (an unnamed man who may or not may be Gastauer, as he also would have been 36 on October 27th of 2010) was arrested in February 2004 and was in custody for 45 days. So, we know that there were criminal proceedings connected to this case and someone was arrested and in custody in March 2004, the time the first reference refers to Gastauer being in custody. --Fin3999 (talk) --Fin3999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay. That is all fine and good but where does it say this Michael Gastauer was arrested? When it comes to biographies on Wikipedia, we need to tread with caution. If there is a reliable source that talks about the situation specifically and in detail then I say we add it. If not, we cannot surmise from bits and pieces of various sources. That would mean we are conducting original research instead of stating what is in the sources.

Not doing original research, the first reference says Gustauer was arrested. If the wire service article had contradictory information, that would be reason to cast doubt on the issue, but nothing conflicts at all, so seems like the first reference would stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fin3999 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not think I am able to explain it correctly, but basically the source needs to say it, not lead us to that conclusion. The sentence has already been revised to reflect the reference. If you take a look, you will see how it summarizes what is said, not what we want to conclude. You can apply that to the remainder of the content and likely come up with content that is both encyclopedic and is stated from a NPOV. As it stands, not sure that it meets BLP guidelines. But that's just the opinion of one editor. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CNMall41: Thanks for responding. I was just doing my best to facilitate proper due process, having arrived just as the battle was ending, and dropped a notice on basically everyone that has been around the article while the COI-socks were active, to ensure maximum transparency. I'm inclined to agree with you about that paragraph based on a Google translation from German to English. I have amended that paragraph to be something which should be reasonably supported by the article. Others are welcome to refine that or do a better job of it. It might help if someone who is reasonably fluent with German could take a look at the untranslated article. If reading it in German supports the previous version, or there's another source which better supports it, I'm quite happy for someone to revert me. If there are reasonable concerns behind the actions of the COI-socks, the problem has been made far worse by the fact that none of them have succinctly explained the issues on the talk page, and basically just tried to brute force a largely unexplained and radical change to the article. Even now, if someone representing the subject was to come forward and just calmly and clearly explain their concerns, and engage in constructive discussion, that would help. They could email their concerns to info-en-qwikimedia.org (per Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects), if that would be easier. Murph9000 (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you did a good great job. Like I said, I hate controversy but understand why I got the notice. I am desperately looking for sources now and find nothing that mentions anything about an arrest or any controversy. There are a few Forbes articles, Wall Street Journal, a few in German which I translated in Google and found nothing, Business Insider, Finance Magnates, EconoTimes, Business.com, Huffington Post, SiliconANGLE, Bitcoin Magazine, and more. I am starting to think there is more to this story than we are being told. Not sure if what is being introduced as controversy is truly a controversy or maybe someone trying to create an [Wikipedia:Attack page]]. Maybe we should redirect into the WB21 page to eliminate BLP concerns. Just a suggestion but we'll see how it goes. I'm trying to find the actual Financial Times article now as I cannot access it to see what it actually says. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Murph9000:- I was sent a copy of the FT article and it appears a journalist has documented their questions about WB21 but mentions nothing about an arrest nor does it detail his involvement with the company Apax. The way it is used as a source under the career section (first paragraph) would be appropriate as that is what the reference says, but there is nothing about any controversy detailed. Looks like they may have a story in the future but currently it looks like more questions than anything. It would be nice to get an opinion about the reliability of the German sources.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The German sources which raise doubts seem to be very reliable, and to have done actual investigative work. Süddeutsche Zeitung is the largest daily newspaper in Germany (article here). Manager Magazin is a monthly business magazine run by the Der Speigel group (article here). Gründerszene's specialty is covering German startups, and their article is titled "The Dubious History of Fintech Unicorn WB21." By contrast the Forbes, Business Insider, and Huffington Post articles are not written by journalists working for those companies, they are by "contributors", essentially bloggers using those companies' platforms. None of the authors of the articles at Finance Magnates, EconoTimes, or Business.com claim to have done any research or fact checking at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fin3999 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Article as a whole

I've been trying to view the article as a whole, I'm somewhat struggling to reconcile everything here. Take the positive facts at face value, mix in some past controversy with press coverage, and he should have tons of notability, and sources discussing significant events / incidents in depth should be easy to find in both English and German. I would also expect German Wikipedia (ranked #4 WP by articles and users, or #2 by active users) to have de:Michael Gastauer, but it seems to have been deleted via their equivalent of AfD (:de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/15. November 2015 § Michael Gastauer (gelöscht)) for what I think is a combination of lack of notability and lack of sources. Really? A significant German person, allegedly one of the richest Germans, in the financial world, with some possible controversy in the past (supported by German sources), starting a new global bank-or-not-a-bank, and they don't have an article in DE-WP? I was going to use the DE-WP article, via Google Translate, to aid in determining what should be in ours (and maybe identify some more sources).

On the negative side, we have suggestions / allegations that he was using a pseudonym for official purposes on a British company in the financial sector. That just seems extremely bizarre to me, and I struggle to see how the company could pass scrutiny from financial institutions and regulators. Details about Apax do seem problematic, there's certainly superficial coverage of it in the sources we have here and in the article, with suggestions of possible controversy (and not clear if it can be reliably linked to Gastauer), but the solid details seem lacking.

Overall, I'm just uncertain what to believe right now. I feel like I have many more questions than answers.

Murph9000 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Occam's razor, either there's a mysterious German billionaire who made his money from a secret $480m acquisition and has quietly built the most valuable financial technology startup in the world in 10 months ...or there isn't. As the Financial Times piece points out effectively, there is no evidence that WB21 has actually received the specific blessing of any regulatory agency, and the only financial institution they have claimed a relationship with, JP Morgan, has declined comment. I'd also point out that after speaking with Gastauer, Manager Magazin wrote, "this he achieved with Bitcoin and a customer in Russia for a sizeable part of its business, Gastauer makes no secret." So regulators and banks around the world, enough to enable the company to operate legally in 180 countries, have given their blessing to this company that attributes a sizeable portion of their success to Russian Bitcoin transactions? That would be...extremely unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fin3999 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Murph9000:, @Fin3999: - I should have read the above first as it would have answered questions I had earlier. I left quite a few comments on the talk page of the article and also removed some sources and reworded a sentence slightly. At this point I am not sure if we have someone trying to pull a hoax or if they are trying to use Wikipedia for promoting themselves. I certainly am upset that The Wall Street Journal would publish an article without fact checking. Not sure what to do at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Murph9000:, @Fin3999: - In full disclosure, I just finished discussing this matter offline from Wikipedia with the editor who emailed me yesterday. Basically, this appears to be someone trying to pump themselves up in the media and using Wikipedia to promote themselves. Publications that wrote articles about the subject have been notified and could potentially pull what they wrote such as Forbes did this morning, although that is yet to be determined. Not sure what to do about the WB21 article but I am recommending Michael Gastauer for deletion based on notability. I was thinking of recommending speedy deletion as Wikipedia should NOT be used for promotion, but figure there are other editors who have been involved that should share their opinion as well.

• Bharat Aggarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is of a living person. There are some people editing this page and putting words that are defamatory and libelous, for example the word "fraud". The source is poor and they are adding the words on their own. Also the content is biased. Instead of showing all the works, articles and books, only negative ones and select few are showing. This is unfair and unjust to the living person. Some one has put some restrictions and some contents cannot be edited, like the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3ABB:B6A0:91E9:7959:765F:8AC5 (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

In the Article about Bharat Aggarwal, one of the editor is using the word "Fraud" which is a very serious accusation. This word has been picked from newspaper articles which are using to sensationalize the article. It has not been proven that "Fraud" was committed (which shows bad intention of a person). This is living biography, and it is defamatory and libelous. The way the editor is arguing and putting this word is not right. It is giving a wrong message. The articles were not retracted because fraud was proven, but because of concern over data. The editor is presenting the material in their own words without fact checking in right context. There is a difference. We request the word "Fraud" be deleted from the Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 14:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that outcome is unlikely. The sources for the claim are very strong. You might want to have a look at WP:NLT -- it's best not to accuse editors of defamation, etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has been dealing with Universaljustice on this article, I can state that the term "data fraud" comes from the headline of an article published in the Houston Chronicle.^[1] This is hardly a "sensational" news piece, but rather a calm and factual exposure of the facts. It is unfortunate that Universaljustice does not like the word "fraud", and I have suggested that "data manipulation" could be used as a substitute phrase, but in reality I don't see that "data manipulation" is any less damning than "data fraud". Aggarwal was caught doing something that scientists are not supposed to do, and on multiple occasions. Since the data manipulation affects Aggarwal's most significant claim to fame (the purported discovery of cancer-fighting effects of certain spices), without which claim Aggarwal might not even merit a Wikipedia article, the discovery of data manipulation within that claim is highly significant, and should not be whitewashed.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Well put! That last sentence sums it up nicely. I am one of the other editors dealing with Universaljustice on the article, and I have contributed quite a bit of content to it. Agree with both editors who have replied to this so far. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Élizabeth Teissier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Élizabeth Teissier is an astrologer who was awarded a PhD for a thesis which defended astrology, which led to a huge controversy. She was a model and minor actress when younger, has written several books on astrology and was an advisor to former French President Mitterand. There is not that much that can easily be added to her bio that isn't already there, except on the controversy. I have started a separate article on the controversy. An UNDUE tag has been added and I would like to invite comment on what could / should be removed to produce a better article. Teissier sued the WMF about her article on the French WP, by the way. Please ignore the fact that the hat note in the controversy secrion is still a red-link. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Young Thug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've just happened across this article and see that there's been a debate about his DOB. It's now sourced to an image of an arrest warrant.[23] Unless things have changed, we don't accept such sources. Due to the debate I've brought this here. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it, the WP:BLP is very clear on this.

"Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

Bolding is in the BLP. Absent a reliable secondary source commenting on this, court records alone cannot be used as a reference. Cross-posted at article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I also took out the bit about his arrest/alleged criminal activities, due to the only source being used 'BallerStatus'. I am *pretty sure* that does not qualify as a reliable source for controversial material in a BLP, but would appreciate another opinion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right I think about BallerStatus, but his arrests for gun and drug felony and making terrorist threats are well reported.[24][25] etc. I can't find out what happened afterwards, but these things can drag on. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Larissa here. My last name is spelled incorrectly on the page. It is one word with a big H in the middle, FastHorse. It wouldn't be a big deal, but now three news sources have used this article and spelled my name the way it is in Wiki instead of the correct spelling. I love that you did this, but could you please correct the spelling in the page title? I can only edit in the body of the page. Thanks so much! Larissa FastHorse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimpatrj (talk • contribs)

 Done The article has been moved to Larissa FastHorse, as the available sources indicate that is the correct spelling. @Jimpatrj: I'm curious why a user named Jimpatrj has identified themselves as Larissa FastHorse. It is entirely possible that Ms FastHorse has registered a name completely unrelated to her own, but I rather suspect that Ms FastHorse is borrowing another user's account. Please don't do this. It is a simple enough matter to register an account. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This entire article violates the rules of biographies of living persons. I kept getting my addition to the article removed for the very reason the article should be removed. It's all unverified allegations of Bill Clinton. Luk3 tool the liberty to only pick on me instead of deleting the entire article. I would also like his editing privileges banned for the week that I've been banned, and I would like you to remove my ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A2F:6001:B582:2083:5BB4:290E (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a mature article and I think it's suspicious that it's being gutted of content at the exact time the presidential debate is airing and Bill Clinton's misconduct is being discussed. I think experienced editors and administrator need to take a look at what's going on here, because this excessive removal of contentt by an IP during a time when many are likely googling this seems suspicious. The article now has no lead at all. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: It's now gone beyond removing the lead. 2605:A601:A2F:6001:B582:2083:5BB4:290E is attempting to blank the article Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations . --DynaGirl (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Page is now semi-protected. The content the IP was adding was completely ridiculous, and he is only able to still edit because his IP range is too large to block. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I question it only be calling his allegations, it should be "bill clinton sexual misconducts" and then around the bottom have a list of allegations, because some of his sex misconducts have been proven. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If not all has been proven, we have to say "allegations". it is impossible to go into details in a title, so we use the most neutral wording. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The existence of such an article clearly does not violate WP:BLP and the content, by a very rough skim, does not seem to either.

It is not "suspicious that it's being gutted of content at the exact time the presidential debate is airing and Bill Clinton's misconduct is being discussed." The removals arise precisely because someone who is following the election just heard about this, saw the article, and thought it was bad. Dark accusations of motivated spin doctoring are inappropriate here for a number of reasons, not least that the editor is so unsophisticated and pursuing a strategy that won't actually result in any lasting changes to the article. A real PR shill would have been subtler about it. TiC ^(talk) 18:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor who brought this here was actually the one gutting it of content during the debate. Also, IP had earlier added blatant BLP violations to article to make the point that the entire article needed to be deleted. This editing seemed suspicious in the sense that this seemed disruptive and not a regular BLP concern. IP apparently ended up blocked and article semi-protected.-DynaGirl (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• List of serial killers by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of serial killers in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles are full of accusations of rape, murder counts, blatant guess work with weasels words etc.. We have some major Bio violation here. Let alone the fact WP:LISTVERIFY states "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations." We need to spend some time trying to fix all this. I plan to start...but the work load is huge any help here would be great.--Moxy (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Dan Senor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dan Senor, a former Romney advisor, has been "rumored" to be the source of the leaked audio pertaining to the Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy. Accordingly, he's been the target of vitriol on the Internet (see twitter). I've reverted additions of this material under BLPREMOVE [26], as well as other vandalism (Holocaust denialism [27] and some joke about cuckservative [28]). Additional eyes, and possibly a semiprotection, would be appreciated. FourViolas (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@FourViolas: Your concern seems justified. I've added it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection § Dan Senor, asking for pending changes protection, to match the related Trump article. Murph9000 (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@FourViolas and Murph9000: Dan Señor has been semi protected for 1 week. Please let me know if problems continue. Airplaneman ✈ 22:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Chelsea Krost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This reads like a PR statement. The person is not notable, and the text is non-neutral. Should be deleted.

(I'm not a frequent editor. Please redirect to wherever if this isn't the right place to report.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.23.206 (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I've gone through and trimmed some of the promotional and unsourced content. A second set of eyes would be appreciated. Meatsgains (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Hey Guys, I was randomly reading up on Jim Fassel and I couldn't help but notice how odd and un wikipedia like Mr. Fassel's page was. I'm awful with grammar and I'm also not a Giants fan so I didn't correct most of the errors on his page. I hope someone has the time to check this out and clean it up a bit. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringo9393 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I did some initial trimming but it needs more. Parts of the article are also unreferenced or under-referenced so it definitely needs some work. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Did more trimming and change of odd wording to normal wording. Collect (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Vajiralongkorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Monarchy of Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been multiple attempts to identify Prince Vajiralongkorn as the new King of Thailand following the death of his father in the article and also in Monarchy of Thailand. Unfortunately all RS sources I have been able to find indicate that this is not yet the case. The Crown Prince has requested a delay to permit mourning before being proclaimed King. I have not found a single RS source identifying him as King. Nor have any been cited by those trying to declare him King on Wikipedia. I have reverted these additions but am reluctant to do so further out of deference to 3RR. Extra eyes would be appreciated. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• György Droppa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

approx 6 months ago, I became aware of a Wikipedia page about myself. After reviewing this page, it was determined to contain false facts with information with a tendency to misrepresent myself. Interestingly, I question the reasons why I became important enough to garner a Wikipedia page. I recently invested time and energy correcting the misinformation and today, I find some of the false facts have returned and corrected information has been removed. I would like to discuss the misinformation and return of this misinformation, with Norden1990, or take the next legal step, to discover why it is important for Norden1990 to persist in undermining the integrity of this Wikipedia page attached to my life. It is of interest to understand that my background and work takes place in Hungary and the Wikipedia page appears only in the English version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.236.37.195 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

First, do not make legal threats against other Wikipedia editors. Second, it appears that the information in the article prior to your intervention was all well-sourced, whereas you provided no reliable sources for the information with which you replaced the prior content. As Wikipedia relies on sources to verify the information in the article, we must keep the sourced version in favor of your unsourced version. If you don't believe that the article as it stands fairly reflects what has been published in the available sources, please take that up at Talk:György Droppa, but editing the article, removing sourced information, and providing no explanation for your actions is not a good way to operate here at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Melania speaks Italian too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbvGxDmD3dY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssddmit (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Mark Sable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A vanity piece, to a great extent an apparent autobiography. I may start to trim this, but will appreciate feedback and assistance, as well as confirmation that the subject meets notability guidelines for starters. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:FC5D:32C8:E1D4:CBBD (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion that may be relevant to the subject of this noticeboard. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion on the article's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at recent edits? There is BLP information with poor sourcing (basically only self-published sources) that needs to be removed but which has been repeatedly reinserted. This first came up in 2014, I believe. I'm worried that similar info could end up in the entries of other philosophers if we don't establish an understanding. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this falls under BLP, and could use more eyes which I doubt would otherwise see my comment at Talk:Michelle_Tea#Prostitute.3F. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed. Not supported by sources in article, or even by unsourced claims. That category is for prostitutes, not people who write about them. Meters (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Source now found, so apparently itis accurate, but not in the article. Discussion at Talk:Michelle_Tea#Prostitute? Meters (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

We are a group of retired members from the Hollywood community and joined Wikipedia specifically to honor someone we feel has made a significant mark on the Hollywood landscape though a name you are likely not familiar with. On issues of what is notable we suggest that notable is not just something a 22 year old would be aware of but rather notable is specific to a category. In that light Mr. J Barry Grenga is the subject of an article we feel is absolutely worthy of his own article. There have been some very unsavory unethical and unwelcome efforts by USER:JBH in making comments and moreover actually DELETING our comments in support of the article. The user USER:JBH should be excluded from any participation or editing of or removal of the article on J Barry Grenga. This individual is single highhandedly responsible for catapulting the reputation the FSU Film School & is currently battling cancer so we felt it appropriate and timely he receive the credit he is due. The user USER:JBH has removed comments in support of the article, has made childish comments on the article and we feel the article on J Barry Grenga should be left as is and should also receive extended efforts and the full amount of protection from other more mature wikipedia administrators ie Template:Edit fully-protected. Thank you. Mrcitizenx (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to read our guideline on inclusion of biographies; the article you have created, while well-intentioned, may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. That's for community consensus to determine through the AFD process.

Meanwhile, you pageflooded a Wikipedia editor because they nominated an article you created for deletion; that's a much more serious issue than anything raised here. Attacking an editor for making a good-faith deletion nomination is entirely out of line and if you persist in these attacks, you're likely to end up blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the user you refer to is User:Jbhunley, not "JBH", a user who has not edited since November 2005. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Users comments in SUPPORT of the article J Barry Grenga were DELETED by an administrator SEVERAL TIMES User:Jbhunley and or User:JB. This conduct is UNETHICAL UNACCEPTABLE !!! A conversation about an article cannot take place if admins DELETE COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLE !!! Mrcitizenx (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The comment was by a sockpuppet. Having a single account post something seven different times isn't how we do things, and the fact that a film "had more film stock" also isn't relevant to Wikipedia. Typing angry words in capital letters with exclamation points also isn't a reasoned argument. "Hatting" irrelevant commentary on an AFD is neither unethical nor unacceptable. I reiterate, you need to read Wikipedia guidelines and policies about how we write articles, particularly biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The one account is seven different members from the ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE ARTS AND SCIENCES. Collectively we signed up for wiki, specifically to create the article for J Barry Grenga. Your opinion of Kim Kardashian as notable has no bearing on the fact that this person is NOTABLE for a single event. Mrcitizenx (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Using one account for multiple users is against our policy; see WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. This is not the place to be arguing for the saving of the article; that place is at the AFD discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I mean, if you expect us to believe that seven MPAA members all signed up for a single brand-new account that just so happens to have an IP very very close to yours... yeah, no. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• The OP is obviously very invested in getting his article included in Wikipedia. They have moved from "invested" to socking (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrcitizenx) and vandalism ([29] [30] among others).

  My strong belief is that if 7 real members of the MPAA AMPAS wanted to honor this person they would call up their publicists and place some articles in trade magazines or the popular press rather than pissing about on Wikipedia throwing hissy fits. This would serve the dual purpose of providing recognition for the article subject and the reliable sources on which to base a Wikipedia article. As it was so eloquently put above "...yeah, no."

  Thanks to NorthBySouthBaranof for pinging me to this thread. If anyone wants to review my behavior the AfD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Barry Grenga. Jbh^Talk 12:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC) (PS - Just for the record - not an admin as Mrcitizenx claims above. Never said or implied I was.) Last edited: 12:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note that the editor(s?) did not claim to be members of the MPAA, but rather of AMPAS. While similarly named and both involved in showbiz, these are different organizations. It's the MPAA who gives a film a PG-13; it's AMPAS who gives a film an Oscar. --Overly Didactic Nat Gertler (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Jbh^Talk 12:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I am a husband of Elena Plotnikova. I edit your profile: 1. She is Elena, not Yelena 2. She is Zarubina since 2010 - I can send the doc about it. 3. She has own site plotik.net 4. You can check all of it in Russian version of Wiki

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicesoft (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Several sources like The Advocate have articles breathlessly asserting that Shepard Smith has come out as gay based on this interview with Huffington Post. As far as I can tell, Smith has not explicitly come out. Are these sources (as well as Talking Points Memo and The Daily Mail), sufficient and/or credible for saying that Smith is out?- MrX 18:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI, a parallel discussion of this material is occurring at Talk:Shepard Smith#Out? Material has been removed from the article for the time being. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Noting only that prior discussions on WP:BLP require specific self-identification for religion, sex status, etc. for all BLPs, and the Daily Mail is generally considered a poor source for any celebrity gossip claim, period, no matter who is involved. Collect (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• What Collect said. This is another of those cases where the subject has not overtly and explicitly said anything, just implied/not denied it. Our standards require the former rather than the latter. (See Jody Foster). The Huff Post obviously addresses the situation directly, however Shep never confirms/denies it specifically related to him. Its just one of those edge cases where absent a clear self-identification our hands are tied. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There are currently edits by User:JJJJBBBB and 69.228.34.96 that are either vandalism or Mrs Buescher herself trying to avoid personal informations. --SI 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Several editors have deleted the entire sourced article of John Basedow except for the opening two lines despite an AFD that resulted in a Keep. They have described the topics's sourced career section as spam and the entire article as being improperly promotional. The AFD resulted in a Keep, not WP:TNT. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion on the article's talk page Talk:John Basedow.

A notice had been posted here previously for the AFD.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It was a mistake to restore all that crap. Possibly a bit of it can be salvaged, but there was a lot of crap... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What was crap and what can be salvaged? Everything is sourced. My understanding that the tone could be tweaked, but everything else was sourced. For starters, is the career section salvageable?StonefieldBreeze (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Still not sure how a sourced career section can be considered "crap"?StonefieldBreeze (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on -- there are different ways to write text, using the same sources. Tone matters. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll work on making a more neutral/neutered career section then.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Matt Taibbi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a journalist who threw a pie made of horse sperm into the face of a New York Times bureau chief
• Michael Wines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was the recipient of the pie (not mentioned in the above link, which is the reference)
• The eXile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a free tabloid newspaper; mention of incident was removed from that article 9 August 2016 by Smallbones

Previous WP:BLPN discussions:

• October 2007
• February 2009
• May 2014
• June 2016

An unfortunate aspect is that many comments, for example at Talk:Michael Wines, are based on the yuck factor although that has no relevance regarding whether the text is useful. It might be better to discuss the issue as if the attack had been to empty a glass of water on the victim because that would allow better focus on whether a reliable source has commented on the significance of the event—how did it affect the victim's career or personal life? If no such long-term effects are recorded, the mention would be WP:UNDUE. It appears the only reason the incident is recorded is that editors consider the yuckiness makes it significant (aka WP:OR). One important aspect where the yuck factor is significant is that the incident was clearly an attack on a living person, and WP:BLP means articles should not amplify that attack by giving it undue prominence (compare with the salon.com link above which does not mention the name of the victim). If Taibbi's stunts are significant, they should be mentioned at Matt Taibbi (without naming the victim). The current text makes no attempt to explain the significance of the event. Should this text recently restored by Hermione is a dude be kept or removed? Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It should only be kept if it's possible to indicate the significance of the event. As things stand, it's a factoid that does little (perhaps nothing) to enlighten the reader. I've had a look at a few of the sources; it isn't clear to me what Wines might have done that led Taibbi to attack him. If it was gratuitous, then I think we'd conclude that the event says nothing about Wines and should be included only in Taibbi's article (without mentioning Wines). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the re-addition in the Wines article. The violation of WP:BLP has been obvious since 2007 - this was one of the first violations noted under the new policy! I'll just note that given the context of all possible references, the only source of the information on "horse sperm" is Taibbi himself. In other words Taibbi did this as self-promotion. And Taibbi is not a reliable source on this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Wines was pied as a reaction to the content of Wines' reporting and a letter sent to FAIR, and that the pieing was part of a much larger criticism of Wines which has been covered in numerous sources. I would say that the "yuckiness" of it is the only reason for it being kept out of the article, since it is the most notable thing ever to happen to the subject. It's also worth noting that all of the discussions about this on the article's talk page have reached the conclusion that it should be included. Hermione is a dude (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If there are sources that give an account of these reasons, then could you please link to them? I checked a few but didn't see anything along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The comment "most notable thing ever to happen to the subject" above is not relevant. If it were true that a BLP article exists only because the subject was hit in the face with a pie of horse semen, the article would be deleted very quickly. Nothing to do with yuckiness, it's standard WP:N and WP:BLP1E. In general, if the only thing notable about someone is that they were criticized, Wikipedia has no article about the person. If the criticism (or pie throwing) satisfies WP:N, there might be an article about the incident. Re discussions at Talk:Michael Wines: there appear to be no substantive discussions involving experienced editors, and WP:CONLIMITED makes it clear that a small number of people with an interest in a topic are unable to override normal procedures. The only strong supporter of including the content that I can see has a total of eight edits in the last two years, seven of which concern the pie. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The following was posted[31] by User:RioHondo about edits supposedly made by User:Signedzzz in the middle of a TLDR thread on ANI about whether a death threat was issued or not. I highly doubt anyone other than me would have noticed it there. The emphasis is mine. I don't know or care whether any of it is accurate. Someone with more experience in BLP matters should look into it.

I am questioning the user's intentions given this string of disruptive and tendentious edits and this pattern of repeated ill behavior which i laid down here with diffs. It has been going on for a while (all these false accusations to discredit editors and to keep them from challenging his POV edits) so I thank the OP for bringing this up here. It has to stop and the article on Rodrigo Duterte must be reviewed by disinterested editors to address the BLP violations (COATRACK, UNDUE, NPOV, COI) entered by the problematic user.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Two real problems - Dutarte endorses and encourages summary execution of 'criminals and drug users' (which absent a trial is basically anyone who someone wants to aim an accusation at). In 'western' sources (and other countries where rule of law is upheld) this is going to be portrayed very negatively due to it being effectively state-sanctioned/sponsored murder. Unfortunately within the country it is also quite a popular policy with a population (and by extension, native editors) fed up of years of criminals, gangs and drug-related crimes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here Hijiri88. My issues with the article are those coatracking attempts by the anti-Duterte user and the Controversy and criticism section. Does it conform to WP:CSECTION? There have also been attempts to transfer those criticisms to other sections that eventually affects their tone to seemingly overly negative. Example: Crime Rate, Extrajudicial killings, Economic performance, and even the section on his Personal life (Note: A viagra comment to introduce his personal life.) On Extrajudicial killings, I pointed out to the user about possible violation of WP:BLPCRIME when attributing killings to the person who was never convicted of such crimes. That whole section of criticism too could be a possible violation of WP:CSECTION. There's also that edit on Media killings where the user inserted out-of-nowhere claims saying the country is a dangerous place for journalists where hundreds have been killed since 1970s side-by-side with Duterte comments about media killings as if the media killings of the past are also attributable to him. This edit on Prostitution too appears like coatracking a bunch of material from sources that don't appear to mention Duterte. We know this leader is controversial, but his Wikipedia shouldn't be more controversial than he already is.--RioHondo (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyway two things.. Western sources vs local sources (the former are almost always more critical or negative than the latter). And we have to differentiate between verbal pronouncements and written official endorsements (especially with regards to killings). I tried to put some BALANCE in the article but i was always faced with resistance and being dragged into an edit war with anti-Duterte user.--RioHondo (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Could an uninvolved editor please comment on whether the following statement should be removed from Rodrigo_Duterte#Mayor_of_Davao_City:

  In April 2014, he also declined a nomination for the World Mayor Prize, given by an international body to outstanding mayors saying "he was just doing his job."

  He was nominated by "Dr. Kyoichiro Adachi, whose wife Nelma Nacion-Adachi is board of trustee and corporate secretary of the Davao-based Philippine Nikkei Jin Kai Inc" - a local school. (See http://www.worldmayor.com, 2014 longlist including Duterte, shortlist (no Duterte) zzz (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I created a page (see a Subject's name), but I do not understand why I got this "Biographies of living persons" mark. Please help me.

Thank You in advance. Žydrūnas VU (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Žydrūnas VU (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Žydrūnas VU: Since I placed the tag, I will explain. There are some details of the subject (including personal and potentially sensitive details such as birth date) that appear to not be found in any sources you've included. Verifiability is a core policy, and biographies of living people must be written especially conservatively with regards to material. Primary sources like passports should not be used, as no one can verify that info is true without asking Mr. Yanushkevichius; see also WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Since you've claimed ownership of File:Yanushkevichius Romanas 2016.jpg, File:Роман Янушкявичюс 2010.jpg, and File:Роман Янушкявичюс 2010.jpg this suggests you may be a student, colleague, acquaintance, or representative of Mr. Yanushkevichius. Please review our guidelines on Conflicts of interest. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Animalparty!: Thank You for Your prompt message. Now it is more clearer for me. Yes, I am student of Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences (the same as a professor works at) I write my graduation thesis about Lithuanian mathematicians. I hardly find some information about professor in English so it is kind hard to prove to Wikipedia about verifiability. I added a few links (External links). Please check if it would be enough as a proof. I deleted a words "by passport" as by Wikipedia policy it is forbidden to write primary source.

I am sorry, I did not understand about Conflicts of interest. I do have all rights to those two (2) photos as I took an original photos from professor. He gave me a permission to edit and use them in public. The last photo (in English page) I made myself. Please explain what I have to do next if Wikipedia needs some prove of the photos. Žydrūnas VU (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)