User talk:Bilhaa

Please review Wikipedia policies on people's biographies
You can find them at WP:BLP. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Bilhaa.

Charles Menzies (anthropologist)
Hi... in the interest of avoiding an edit war, I am appealing to you on your Talk page. Your edit here makes over half that article's readable prose a near word-for-word copy of the article subject's personal webpage, which is a clear case of plagiarism and WP:COPYVIO but on top of that, it also means a majority of the article's content is sourced from material the article's subject has published about himself. On top of being poor form, that clearly falls under point 5 of WP:BLPSELFPUB, which is to say an article on a living person should not be mainly based on sources published by that same person. The article before your edit was a little light on sources, yes, and those sources were questionable in that they're bio pages from the person's place of work so there's a question as to how independent of the article subject they actually are... but at least they're from third parties. One of the prime Wikipedia policies is WP:NPOV and having a biography page whose content is nearly entirely based on primary sources is clearly in violation of that.

I understand you wanting to expand the article but this is not the way to do it. I request you revert the article to its state here and leave it like that until and unless better sourcing that is further removed from the subject is provided. Otherwise I will need to report the article to WP:BLPNOTICE. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not intersted in an editing war. Additional sources - from two published, peer reviewed books were added in to supplement and expand what was stated. Peer reviewed academic publications, even if by the subject, are considered reliable by most standards I think. Perhaps, instead of removing everything, there are portions that might work. Let me try to re-edit in a way that shifts the prose a bit and removes things that might be thought extraneous or not verifiable.

So take a look at that - all of the info in that section is now something that can be found in a reference source. The peer review material should be considered acceptable. I'll also try and locate a news article that I recall seeing that also includes some of that. But it will take me until later today - trust that's okay.