Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive232

Carlos Alvarez-Aranyos
The sourcing is poor. There are no verifiable sources of any objectivity. It reeks of self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.4.252 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Article seems OK. If you have specific concerns, please bring them up on that article's talk page. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like the page is somewhat supported by reliable sources. Any source in particular that you find "poor"? Meatsgains (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ronda Rousey
Protection was removed from this article only in the last hour or so, since when there have been several unconstructive edits. Eagleash (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Protected again. Eagleash (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

WINK-TV
I had WINK-TV on my watchlist because of a non-free image whose non-free use rationale was disputed. Earlier today, an new editor added quite an extensive new section called WINK-TV to the article at a fairly prominent location. This addition is the first an only edit made by this Floridanewsgator and describes a legal dispute between the station and one of its former reporters. The section goes into quite a bit of detail and reliable sources are provided, but there are also quite a few names of real people being mentioned who seem to be involved in ongoing legal proceedings. Could someone more familiar with this type of content take a closer look and see if there are any WP:BLP or other WP:UNDUE problems. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I cut it back to one sentence per WP:UNDUE, WP:CRIME etc. I also note that that all the sources were published yesterday so we should be careful about recentism and WP not being a newspaper and all too.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look and cleaning things up. I thought about WP:RECENT as well but some of the sources seem to be from August 2015. They were all accessed and added yesterday for sure by that same editor though.   -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I got the source and access dates mixed up :-( You are correct. The recentism point is moot since the sources were published in Aug 2015. Thanks for spotting this!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 23:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Bishnujee Singh
This entire article is written by one user, which in the highest probability is the person himself. Totally biased and written in a way to cheat the public. Admins and members please have a look and take action as suitable. 121.244.94.9 (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been nominated for speedy deletion.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ralph Doubell
Can someone please update the Ralph Doubell image to an image of Ralph Doubell. Thanks,

James Doubell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdoubell (talk • contribs) 04:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The image on the page is File:Ralph Doubell 1968.jpg, which is derived from this source picture, which has the caption The Australian middle-distance runner Ralph Doubell is training on the running track for the Olympic competitions. The athlete shall end the Mexican Olympic games with two victories in the 800 metres final race: he shall win a medal gold and set a new world-record time. Mexico City (Mexico), October 1968. Do you have any evidence to suggest this caption is incorrect? clpo13(talk) 06:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to disprove that image other than to provide another source such as [], that shows a picture of my father.


 * the picture currently in the article is free (copyright-wise) though, while the one you provide might not necessarily be (though it could, I don't know). Perhaps you could provide a picture that you own and place it into the public domain? Not sure if you'd be asked to prove your identity... but just a thought. LjL (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ian Murphy (writer)
Subject is not relevent.

Subject is a tabloid journalist that prank called a man running fir a congressional office job in Wisconsin USA. The call did not impede the man from winning the election. (May deserve a small foot note in the elected official's subject page)

Later subject Ian Murphy ran for one of the 27 congressional jobs in NY. In that election this subject was not on a major party and recieved the least number of votes of all candidates scarcely one percent of votes cast and less than one percent of registered voters. (Not relevent in any context) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.59.126 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not he's "relevent," he's gained quite a bit of media attention for his antics, and the article appears to be well-sourced, if occasionally self-promotingly written. I think it would survive AfD, but you're welcome to nominate it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Fiona Graham
I would like to bring to the attention of wikipedia user DAJF, who single handedly is responsible for 20% of the edits on the page of Fiona Graham. Unfortunately, all these edits were made either to either publish information that would her the subject (personally and professionally), or revert any "positive" edits. Considering his contributions to wikipedia, for the last nine years, have majoritarily been about her, and the subject of his edits, I think we should look into his impartiality toward 2, and, if needed, prevent him from editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriss1991 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering that a) has almost 74,000 edits to their credit, versus 37 for, all of them at Fiona Graham, Geisha or at various noticeboards; b) of those 74k edits, only 126 were to the subject article, and most appear to be to enforce Wikipedia policies; and c) Chriss1991 has been identified on the article's Talk page as very likely a connected contributor, I suggest this report be taken with an appropriate grain of salt.  General Ization   Talk   01:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Aziz Sancar interview translation - talk
Biased interpretation of a particular interview of the Nobel Laurate Aziz Sancar in Turkish language used in his biography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aziz_Sancar#Controversies_section. Its' flowing with opinions but not with clear definitions. Until a full; reliable English translation of the said interview is provided to be discussed upon; talk is bordering "libel" and "slander". WP:BLPSOURCES and importantly; whole interview was skimmed down to one single biased comment.Mulkhan (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The definitions are quite clear. There's at least five users who agree with its current format, including those that happened to disagree from the beginning. If you'd like to discuss about who or what he was referring to, that can easily be managed. But that little tidbit of information is by no means biased especially considering that each and every word and its subsequent definitions was verified by numerous sources by native speakers such as myself and others. Please refer to the sources presented at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It used to say "English People" before my objection and now it says "the West" and on the talk page you claimed "... used against non-Muslim Western society. More importantly, this is the definition adopted by Wikitionary and Wikipedia itself." whereas neither wikipedia nor wiktionary says anything about "Western Society" You're adding definitions off of your head and claim those are "reliable". How can anyone rely on your interpretations if you keep adding personal ideas to descriptions? Thats why it's a dispute about "Sources". Definitely biased and no; biased definitions certainly can be pressed and supported by anyone. Before implying you're a native speaker; at least try to quote definitions without changing them. Mulkhan (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, if you really feel about that being an issue, you shouldn't advocate deleting an entire paragraph of perfectly sourced material. Instead, you can propose removing the word West or English. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is you who saw it as an issue and changed it on your own. So the person in question addressed "English People" or "the West" ? Is this what you call "Perfectly Sourced Material" ? This is a living person's biography, not an high school essay. That's why the "sentence" (not paragraph as you're trying to exaggerate) is poorly sourced and should be looked into by neutral people Mulkhan (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is indeed an unfortunate framing of the use of the word "gavur" to imply the worst possible framing. We must respect the spirit of biographies of living persons guidelines. It should not say "infidels" when it could have meant "foreigners". SageRad (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * He said "Allah'in gavuru" meaning God's (or Allah's) infidels or infidels of God specifically. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No; there's no source upon your preference of the meaning "infidel" when used with "Allah's" remark. "Allah's or God's" does not imply it's used in religious context. Please provide a non-personal souce. It's not what he meant. Mulkhan (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * However, the Wikipedia article on Giaour does seem to hold that it is a slur that is closely translated as "infidel" or at least is an offensive term. This is a difficult question. SageRad (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I proposed a word by word translation of the relevant paragraph of the interview in the talk; leaving Giaour as it is; in the context so people can see what he meant by looking up the word in wikipedia; without adding pointing to "infidel" specifically. Even the translation of to whom or what the term Giaur is debated; "English people", "the West" or "Western Society" are definitely not interchangeable. Instead of trying to skim it down to a debateable "one liner"; proffering the translation in it's entirety leaves no question of "misinterpretations".Mulkhan (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Debated by whom? It's not really debated. Five users have already agreed to its current definition of 'infidel', let alone entire articles (i.e. Gavur) and Wiktionary pages (i.e. Gavur). The sources provided by on the TP are as strong as it can get, including the Turkish Linguistic Society. All of the sources that have been presented up till now have the same definition. Let us focus on what sources say and not rely on personal observations. For the sake of your argument, that would mean to present sources reflecting your view, and not just commentary about what you think this or that word means. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Infidel" is one of the translations which does not need any debate; but you're yet to explan where does it say "Allah's Giaur" means specifically "Allah's infidel"; because it does not appear in TDK, the source you just gave; Turkish Linguistic Society in phrases made by the word Giaur. It's clear you're trying to avoid a word by word; direct translation where leaving Giaur as it is; because it doesn't fit a particular agenda. There's even debate in that sentence's object; is it "the West; English People or Western Society" which shows a poor (or misleading) understanding of the interview (or English language). I don't think you're neutral and unbiased so that's why the subject is here. A living person's biography can't contain poorly constructed and biased opinions; especially made by biased point of view. Mulkhan (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Until we have reliable sourcing about this as being a controversy, I thin is better left out of the article. It's a BLP and this feels like negative synthesis to me. I've read the talk page discussion as well and the English source. Need source to establish that it's true and significant, otherwise this is an editor's original research. SageRad (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Since it's an original research not sourced as a "controversy" by any reliable (or ANY) source; (which is admitted by the editor Étienne Dolet in the talk page : (Indeed, finding a source that calls it a controversy is important) I'll be removing it on the grounds of "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.", in addition to violation of the WP:NOR and should be immediate per : WP:BLPREMOVE and suggest complete removal of the debate in the talk page and protection of the section by an admin in case any vandalism may occur. " Mulkhan (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't to say the debate over his ethnicity shouldn't been included. After all, it's among the first thing reporters ask about him. His reaction to it should also be noteworthy to that effect. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * *Nope; the arguements in the "controversies section" in the talk page was made without referencing a single reliable source. Since the interview was not perceived as being "controversial" in any reliable source; pushing it with arguements sourced with original research is just arguing for the sake of arguing. And since there's nothing controversial about the interview; adding it to the article is pointless. And  WP:NOTABLENEWS is not a valid counter arguement since the interview was there for some time and assuming it'll gain "controversial" status should have no place in a BLP. If it becomes controversial in the future; it might be discussed again for inclusion; after assesing the compliance of WP:BLPSOURCES. Mulkhan (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No one is advocating the use of the word 'controversial'. However, it can be added per WP:NOTABLENEWS since the interview, along with the quote, has received wide coverage. A simple google search of the quote alone yields 600+ results. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP clearly stipulates: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Unless you come up with reliable sources; this "controversy" has no place in a BLP or it's talk page. EOD. Mulkhan (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please help me to understand this dispute. I cannot read Turkish, but i have been reading translations of stories about Sancar's interview, and i can't make heads or tails of it. Would both of the main disputants in this conflict please describe, in brief and simple terms, what Sancar said, and why it is important or not, and what it really means? It would help me, as i am sure it would help others who may be observing this dialogue without full understanding. Thank you. SageRad (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As he was born in Turkey; Turkish newspapers wrote that he said "BBC reporter asked me whether I am an Arab or half-Turkish (or Kurdish, depending on the Turkish source) ; I replied "I don't speak Arabic or Kurdish; I am Turkish" then a debate erupted in social media what ethnicity he is. Mardin province has Arab, Kurdish and Turkish residents; and Turkish media, esp. political ones, heavily used this in current political discussions.Mulkhan (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that user is blocked and there is discussion at their talk page here on which i have added my opinion of this very distasteful situation. SageRad (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bhavna Limbachia
[Bhavna Limbachia] this page has incorrect data on and could be harmful to the person that this page is about. Under Rule, Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

The date on the page, [Bhavna Limbachia] is

is unsourced or poorly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robson6244 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the date and place of birth, since they are unsourced. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Only source on that article is Imdb which, of course, is not a reliable source. Therefore I have placed a BLP Prod. Safiel (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Chimerism_in_criminal_evidence
Twice now, User:Wnt has chosen to bring up the name of a living person in connection with various odd political statements about procedures that he imagines could have been carried out in response to a question on chimerism that has nothing to do with the person he mentions. I suggest Wnt be admonished, and that the edits be revdeleted, as they have no relevance to the topic at hand and are based on unproven accusations not mentioned in that person's article at WP.
 * Problematic edits:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=691242359&oldid=691241907
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&type=revision&diff=691316855&oldid=691315280
 * Request on Wnt's userp[age that he not continue this behavior.

μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that the second diff represents only one of three in succession; I did add a source for the abortion story right afterward. Wnt (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The second diff actually covers all three edits, including the source Wnt says he added. I'll assume out of good faith he simply didn't click on and read the link. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal. Gratuitous, sexually degrading joke at the expense of a living person has no place anywhere, least of all in the context of a global encyclopedia.  -- Jayron 32 02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

1) The current content of a Wikipedia article is not supposed to be some kind of limit on what can be said about the topic elsewhere. For example, people are supposed to be able to propose additions to articles on their talk pages.

2) [The] abortion was the source of national commentary during the 1990s. I provided a reference about it in the second edit just to be clear about that, but to people in the U.S. it is well known.

3) The Refdesk is supposed to be a place where people can use hypothetical examples with real-world relevance to emphasize the impact of new technologies. I was not claiming to speak of things that had been done, but only of things that could be done.  A technique to determine the paternity of the fetus retroactively from the mother's blood might have been of interest to some of the Republicans who so doggedly dogged the president for so long.  In any case, it illustrates how the ability to find out a fetus' paternity could have far-reaching social effects.

Wnt (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The ref desk question was about chimerism, and still Wnt insists on making it about a totally unrelated political whipping dog, whose name he had no need to mention here except as a provocation. I suggest the edits, including the excuse above, be rev deleted and the user given a block to show that this is not acceptable behavior. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you don't understand? The point is, women are chimeric for fetal cells much of the time after pregnancies.  (It is less reliable after abortions, but can happen)  And the question was about the forensic use of chimerism.  It is necessary for people to understand the science, and necessary to understand how these procedures could be of public policy relevance. Wnt (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * And this required naming a particular individual -- why? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To illustrate the issue in a way that a generic example wouldn't. To ban all what-if scenarios that involve any living person from the Refdesk would significantly damage the ability of people to discuss interesting questions. Wnt (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed your reference to the BLP you have mentioned yet again, above, although Jayron and I find the edit improper, and Guy Macon questions it. The bottom line here is not that what if questions should be banned (even though the ref desk guidelines say we don't do predictions or debate).  The question is why it is necessary to drag an innocent individual into a concocted story, which is purely OR, in order to make what seems like a political point.  For example, would we name a person who had an article and who had been raped in the speculation that she might be the target for a future rape by some organization we think is misogynistic? μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Upon reflection, I am going to do more than question it. Mentioning that women are chimeric for fetal cells (properly cited) is fine. Mentioning the name of a person as a potenial example is a clear BLP violation, and the reason given ("To illustrate the issue in a way that a generic example wouldn't.") does not override our BLP policy. If Wnt re-inserts the BLP violation again he should be blocked for the BLP violation. The fact that the person named is not known to be chimeric and the fact that bringing up the incident involving the person named appears to be an attempt to influence the upcoming US presidential election makes the whole sordid mess a lot worse. μηδείς, good call bringing this here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not pleased to see some people here creating such an obstruction, but I have regretfully posted a less-interesting discussion of the concept at the Refdesk. It amazes me that after seeing half the politicians and all the media of America go to such lengths and legal compulsion to humiliate this woman for so many years, after waiting with the whole country to see if a close vote for an unprecedented impeachment from office would be passed as a result of their personal connection, now it is supposed to be improper to mention her as a hypothetical example of a forensic possibility. Wnt (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It going to almost always be improper to use living people as 'hypothetical' examples of anything that could be taken as negative. The BLP policy is clear on this. Do it again and you will likely be blocked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a point in my asking that the edits be revdeleted? If so, can someone here do it?  If not, I'd like to know where I should be asking, or if I should just delete the diffs above.  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thierry Morand
The English needs revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.229.205 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was very poorly sourced and formatted. Stubified. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Calvin Cheng
This article has a bunch of issues with NPOV, balance and verifiabilty. There is an aggresive editor who undoes attempts to fix the article.


 * Watchlisted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ismahil Akinade
The correct version of events has been changed. It can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ismahil_Akinade&direction=prev&oldid=689268199

All the information regarding his convictions are 100% accurate. Please amend accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.127.40 (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatchlisted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Susan Bitter Smith
There seems to be people adding and removing negative information from this article. Needless to say, I am concerned. --I dream of horses (My edits) @ 05:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Jaycen Joshua
Page reads like a resume, no citations to prove work, singular editor making all changes probably a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixoticzoomie (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Need a second opinion
Recently the article for Huccha Venkat was deleted several times, to the point where it was salted. It was eventually restored and moved to Draft:Huccha Venkat, but there's still somewhat of an issue here, predominantly from a BLP angle. The guy has been in a film that looks to be potentially notable and he was on Big Brother, so notability is likely established - I haven't taken a close look at this yet.

The main issue is that the guy is primarily known for being controversial. His latest thing is that he said some allegedly offensive stuff to another person on a panel discussion, which led to him being arrested. His lawyer is now claiming that he's mentally ill. Given that this is all due to controversy and there's allegations of mental instability, I want to make sure that this is 100% kosher before going forward. I'm fairly certain that if this was accepted right now, it'd probably go straight to AfD where the BLP issues could prove fatal if not discussed beforehand. I'm leaning towards this guy probably meriting an article since there is a lot of coverage (his film could probably be merged into his page, making notability easier to establish), but the possible BLP concerns are troubling.

I've posted at WP:INDIA about this since there will be some issue with finding sources since India-related sources won't come up in a basic Google search. I'd recommend using this search engine to find things. It's one that was made by the India WP specifically for use on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He's trying to stir up controversy, but mentioning that stuff on here affects other BLPs all on the say-so of this person. This appears to be all too similar to Kamaal Rashid Khan but without that much coverage for the nonsense. However, we don't cover most of the nonsense in the KRK article. If this bio is notable, it should include only opinions of him, not the random ravings about other living persons. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me - everything is attributed to whoever said or wrote it, and it's all relevant. The Times of India quotes should probably be compacted a little. Samsara 13:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This article has reference more than 20 news article. Huccha Venkat is a personality, where its for right or wrong or mixture of both. The article is relevant. It needs to be instated without further due and dragging to different forums. Please reinstate the article, ASAP. Rajannamysore (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Of possible interest
Articles for deletion/Mary DeMoss (3rd nomination).

Comment there, if you will.

jps (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Karunasena Kodituwakku
COULD SOMEONE FIX THE TOP PART OF THE PROFILE FOR "KARUNASENA KODITUWAKKU"? WHEN I EDITED IT ALL GOT MIXED UP JUST THE TOP PART. THE BOTTOM AREA IS ALL UPTO DATE

THANKS

D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.42.255.219 (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ (There was one square bracket missing from the birth place field). Eagleash (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Haxent
Lorenzo Giuliano, commonly known by his stage name Haxent, is an international music producer and Dj. Supported on BBC Radio 1 by Chuckie & many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areyoureadyec (talk • contribs) 21:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

mark evanier
hi the mark evanier article publications section is missing a lot of groos. dark horse & other groos. -groo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.161.80.195 (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reposted this concern over at Talk:Mark Evanier, where it more appropriately belongs. Nothing to bother with here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier Naidoo
Prejudicially negative, likely reputation-damaging characterizations re political views inserted into this short article here: Special:Diff/651182580 and here: Special:Diff/691706416 - IslandGyrl (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The material in question comes with sources that include Die Zeit. I'm not going to spend much time dredging up the German that I learned >20 years ago, but if the sources say what is being entered into our article then I doubt there's a problem.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources seem to support what's being said. My worry is whether German Huff Po is an RS (I have no idea if UK or US Huff Po is either) and a couple of the others (Heise.de and faz.net).  It might be worth finding someone who knows more about German media to double check.Red Fiona (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Its reliable to the extent Huff Po is elsewhere. My German pretty much gives me the same as google translate does, which indicates its factually correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Die Zeit und Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (faz) are the highest tier German quality newspapers. Heise is a computer-oriented magazine publisher who branched out online early and has a good reputation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

BBC story on the event Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The BBC link gives a good summary, but reports on claims, not facts. I've removed the claims that are not directly supported by the other sources. This whole thing is somewhat overblown at the moment, and might easily drift into WP:UNDUE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal
Asking for more eyes at, which for more than a month has seen IP editors trying to add unsourced (or poorly sourced) information to the BLP. Today a sockpuppet of perma-blocked editor joined the fray. Thank you. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Watchlisted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. - Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Jim Sterling
I've reverted this article to a version from 9 months ago due to the new content containing large amounts of negative or questionable material, which was mostly self-sourced or sourced to YouTube and other user contributed media. I'd appreciate any third party review. Prodego talk  23:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * you removed almost half of the content, and just almost a year's worth of revision, over that?
 * Jim Sterling has had a long-running feud with Indie Developer Digital Homicide for over a year. It has been discussed by external news sources, and has been sustained with frequent content between the two. At least three of his "Jimquisitions", produced weekly, have been on them in the last year, and his greenlight series has covered at least ten of their games. Further, there was an interview between the two lasting a full hour and forty minutes.
 * even putting aside the notability of the rivalry, is that one section worth reverting almost a year's worth of edits? really?--Kizzycocoa (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So much for being done, the whining continues. Listen, what have I been telling you? They are correct, obviously. All your sources consisted of reddit comments, taken down tumblr blogs, tweets, and youtube videos. And the few websites you had sourced were community blogs or websites that weren't credible, per WP:VG/S. None of that belongs in an encyclopedia, so I encourage you to look through the Wikipedia policies to better understand what should, and should not be added to articles. A 'feud' between Jim and a non-noteworthy developer is not something you add to encyclopedic articles. WP:NOT, WP:BLP. You can benefit from reading those. 206.45.74.203 (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To be honest, at this point, I can't care less. It's clear that this site is bureaucratic to a ridiculous PC degree, and I certainly don't plan on even trying to improve the article any further.
 * Right now, I'm intent to point out the incredibly ridiculous actions of the admin. It's to the degree where I'm livid that they, as an admin, thinks this is an acceptable course of action.
 * In response to a section on Digital Homicide, which has had a large coverage from Jim and other press outside of games websites (who tend to focus on games rather than indie disputes, hence the very understandable lack of sources), this administrator decided the best course of action would be to erase 9 months of edits.
 * I was one of the leading admins on The Minecraft Wiki - one of the most popular gaming wikis out there - for years. They still list me as such, though I've gone inactive for a fair while. Still, if I even attempted a move like this, I would be laughed out of my position.
 * Disagree with the section? as an admin, delete it, and put a discussion on the talk page over it's formatting or the like. I still believe that section is justified to be there, but that aside, that is the sane course of action in anyone's book.
 * The absolutely wrong answer is to nuke all edits in the past nine months. I would have been out on my ass within minutes if I dared to do that, and I am shocked that this was seen as the best course of action from this admin. Their actions have gutted the page completely, and I'm left aghast that this has happened. Forget me being a fan of Jim's, that is not the reason I am posting this. As an admin, to think this could happen with any page on the official wiki, I am shocked beyond comprehension. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia takes living person biographies very seriously, and for good reason. It's the role of the admins to make sure there's no possibility of a violation that could be considered defamatory (such as poorly-sourced, negative content). That said, have you considered bringing your concerns up directly to the ? clpo13(talk) 01:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I had thought he would find it here, but I'll go post to their page in the event he does not. This is simply unacceptable. It defies all logic that this is acceptable. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, too bad there's a difference between a Minecraft gaming wiki and a wiki that's meant to be an encyclopedia. If you don't want to see reverts going to 9 months ago, then don't make edits that directly contradict how articles are supposed to be written. It was not just the sections I was deleting that were the problems.. All the other sections had youtube citations as well, the "Digital Homicide" and "Tumblr threats" were simply the most egregious of them all. Those needed to be deleted absolutely, but the other sections were only marginally better. 206.45.74.203 (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comments on the Digital Homicide section being notable. However, I find it deplorable that this was the action picked to "fix" the problem. I am utterly shocked at the conduct.--Kizzycocoa (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And I am shocked that no matter how many people tell you what you're doing is incorrect, you stand by it and won't budge on that position at all. 206.45.74.203 (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit the threats section did not have enough sources to substantiate itself, but a year-long feud between a journalist and a developer (which had involved 20 games, a 1 hour 40 minute long interview and enough of a meltdown that several of his peers, Geek.com and many other smaller websites covered the saga, as well as many videos of Jim's and an entire section of his live show were dedicated to them) I saw as notable, with enough sources that it is clear that it happened, and was a big part of his career.
 * Even so, if you had disagreed with it as an admin, you delete it and make a note on the talk page. You don't nuke the entire page of all edits from the last 9 months. That's insane, and I'm shocked this is a thing that can happen. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * here on Wikipedia we have a saying that many editors think is very important: "Be bold". That means that editors are encouraged to make dramatic changes if they feel that it improves the encyclopedia.  I'm sorry that you feel a lot of work has been undone, but no one is going to support your call to restore it simply because it was in the article for a long time.  What they might support is the restoration of selected material provided there are enough appropriate sources - and not blogs or videos.  I suggest we move past the unproductive complaints about Prodego's edit and start a potentially productive discussion about what should be in the article.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, if we are to follow the wikipedia policy to the letter, we cannot get much further, if at all, beyond what we have at present.
 * Jim sterling is a video game journalist. If any news happens with Jim, he is the one to report on it first, and does so thoroughly. So, many parts of his career go without official sources. This includes his personal life (Which his wife had helpfully corrected), this includes his political views, his voice acting roles, his history of previous independent works, his involvement with the Steam Greenlight program and more. A lot of his career goes unmentioned, particularly after his massively successful move to independence.
 * Without sourcing to his works on YouTube which was done previously, the page will mostly be inaccurate and outdated. As popular as he is, Jim is a video games journalist at the end of the day. He is notable, but not flooded with sources by larger news outlets. You rarely get any stories on journalists from bigger sources Wikipedia will accept. It is impossible to build an accurate page while adhering to every letter of the wikipedia citing guidelines. By following those guidelines to the letter, the page is very outdated, and will be outdated in the future. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm afraid this argument isn't going to get much traction. We will work with you to make the article as up to date and complete as we can given these rules, but we have very firm rules about what goes in articles about living individuals, and this board is where those rules are discussed and enforced.  You can use less than high quality sources for some innocuous bits of information, but anything remotely controversial must be sourced to reliable secondary sources.  We would rather have an outdated biography than risk Wikipedia being used as a platform to harm living individuals, purposefully or not.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * the problem is, where can we source information like this?
 * Looking at the page pre-nuke, we can't possibly cite anything in his personal life. He lives in Mississippi, has a step-child, a wife and is in an open relationship. This are no news outlets in the whitelist that has covered this, except for Jim himself. His wife has personally made edits to correct this, but we have no source outside of this. Isn't this important for the article?
 * Then, his career and voice acting. How could we go about citing that? This is a part of his career and the works he has been involved with, but no reputable source will note down every stage of his career, from Podtoid to Fistshark Marketing, and all the projects between. There is a clear trail and connection to all of them through more primary sources such as tweets and game credits, but it's not going to be in the scope for game outlets.
 * How on earth can we paint an accurate picture in these circumstances? The facts are there, and some verified by Sterling's own family for the more personal details. But, we can't note them down? Jim's in a place where he is undoubtedly notable, but the details are not, and we cannot accept any details from the horse's mouth? --Kizzycocoa (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If it hasn't been covered by notable, credible, sources of information then it isn't notable enough to be encyclopedic. 206.45.74.203 (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That's generally the standard here.  We don't have to cover every stage of his career, only the notable highlights.  If there's an important, non-controversial project that deserves a mention, it can be cited to primary sources, there's nothing wrong with doing that to cover a gap here and there.  Large parts of the article and controversial incidents, however, cannot solely rely on primary sources.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply have to disagree. Relevant and accurate information about a subject can rarely be obtained solely through news articles. There is a lot of notable information, such as the more personal details and career notes, that cannot be sourced via third parties, but are certainly worth putting on the page. There simply is no third party that could source this, unless we get into interviews and the like, which I believe is "original research", though ref 2 on the page seems to differ. Yet these are details that are very relevant to Jim as a person, and to ignore them is to do a disservice to the page.
 * I mean, how on earth can the page be kept accurate through the sole sources of third parties for every point, given the field Jim Sterling occupies as a journalist himself? He is notable, that cannot be denied. But he is not the subject of journalism, he is the journalism. It will be next to impossible to build an accurate up-to-date page solely on third party sources.
 * I mean, we had this discussion on the talk page, following which I talked with an Administrator of the wiki. The general feel of what they said, is if there is a notable source on the situation or subject, that can give way to some primary sources on the details. In essence, as long as there is notability, the finer points can be defined through more direct sources. I would like another admin to clarify, is this not the case? If it is, to what extent is this the case by wikipedia's standards? --Kizzycocoa (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kizzycocoa – I think we would all agree with DMacks that primary sources can be used to support strong, third party, independent sourcing of the type described at WP:SOURCE. What we cannot do is reverse this relation - where a majority of the information comes from primary sources. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  02:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Prodego's list at Talk:Jim_Sterling should give you a good idea of what kinds of things cannot rely on poor sources. We do not need to solely rely on third party reliable sourcing for every single point like voice credits, but there are some points where we absolutely must, and these include controversial incidents.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've since replied in full. I'm glad to know what does need reliable sources, and what can be sourced by more direct sources. We can, at least, support the career section for a large part, to which I'm fairly happy. It seems on the page right now, one such source seems to be an interview. Does wikipedia accept interviews as viable references, if from a credible source?--Kizzycocoa (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you follow someone around to multiple pages and call them a whiner, why are you surprised they are going to dig their heels in a little bit? How about you step back from this and let others engage this editor in a more productive manner?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Just letting people know I pinged the Video game WikiProject on the discussion. GamerPro64 04:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The feud with Digital Homicide probably does need to be in there, as it was covered by independant (of the feud) gaming media due to the extensive and ongoing nature of it. I took a look at the previous versions, and as written and sourced, it was not compliant with wikipedia's requirements for inclusion in a BLP so it was correct to remove it. Sometimes with something that large the best option is to nuke it from orbit and start from scratch. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have left a (large) response on Talk:Jim Sterling. Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  02:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , you can talk about the policies of this encyclopedia being "incredibly ridiculous" all you want, but we will stick to our policies because they are proper and ethical, and have made us the world's most used and trusted reference work. Any contentious claim must be cited to a reliable, independent source. This is mandatory, and is not negotiable. The article is on my watch list now. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My issue with the policies is with the nuking of 9 months of content by an admin with no consensus, which frankly, "Be Bold" is more of an excuse than a policy if I've ever seen one. If there is a policy that addresses this type of action that isn't a blanket excuse for what could be any edit on the wiki, I'm all ears. As a former admin on Gamepedia's largest wiki, I found the move outrageous. If I had done so back there, I'd be fired on the spot.
 * While some policies on Wikipedia are bureaucratic to a silly degree, I do not have any issues with citation. Though the restricted pool of "reliable sources" is frustrating. For some sections, I have found 4 sources from various individual game news outlets. But they can't be used as they aren't on the list, though some have been discussed on the project talk page. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

John Martin (singer)
Article still has a somewhat promotional style.

E.g. "John's vocal tracks are a list of hits including ... all the way down to an in progress track ... with David Guetta": requires citation. It also seems implausible that a track can be a hit while it is still "in progress."

E.g. "At 13, Martin bought a guitar, formed a band, and began playing Nirvana covers." Requires citation.

"John Martin is now working on his debut album which was planned to be released in August 2014, however it has been delayed awaiting a massive new collaboration before the release" is clearly promotional and requires citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.182.74 (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed some promotional language from the lead. Meatsgains (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

query
One editor  has opined at Talk:Rick Alan Ross:
 * Mere recitation of 'facts' in not a service to our readers. We do not play the game of 'present the facts and let people figure it out themselves'. Wikipedia presents what competent and appropriate commentators have to say about a matter because they are the ones best qualified to draw conclusions or comment on an issue. Avoiding, suppressing or minimizing the views of a significant yet unflattering viewpoint is whitewashing and why we have a WP:COI policy.

Is this precisely in accord with WP:BLP? I had rather thought this policy says to edit conservatively, and stick primarily to fact. Here the interesting argument is made specifically that we should include "unflattering viewpoints" in order to tell readers what the "truth" is (i.e. that readers are not able to look at facts and decide what the truth is on their own without us guiding them)? And does this concept relate to COI policy in any way? Collect (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh.. forum shopping to make some point as again. Do you never tire of this crap... are you off to bring this up on Jimbo's talk page too as you are wont to do?? Care to give the whole diff [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross&diff=692304038&oldid=692303004] and quote "How are the opinions of other professionals and academics - as near as I see the only other professional commentary on your activities - a WP:FRINGE theory?? History is the analysis of facts and learned commentary is how Wikipedia adduces what is important and what should be included. Mere recitation of 'facts' in not a service to our readers. We do not play the game of 'present the facts and let people figure it out themselves'. Wikipedia presents what competent and appropriate commentators have to say about a matter because they are the ones best qualified to draw conclusions or comment on an issue . Avoiding, suppressing or minimizing the views of a significant yet unflattering viewpoint is whitewashing and why we have a WP:COI policy." If you have a question about what I mean in my statement ask me on the fricking talk page as opposed to scurrying to a noticeboard. I do not know if you simply misunderstand the conversation I have been having with over a period of months or if you simply like taking quotes out of context for some perverse reasons of your own. Also, if you wish to discuss me at a noticeboard please have the minimal courtesy to notify me on my talk page . It is a little thing but the discourtesy reflects poorly on you. Again, if you have questions about what I have said - ask me.  J bh  Talk  22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, article Rick Alan Ross, person I am addressing . See where WP:COI comes in or is this yet another case where we, for some odd reason, seem to be speaking a different language? J bh  Talk  22:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You made claims on a BLP talk page which impact the policy. That is a purpose of this noticeboard.  As you seem to think shouting "FORUMSHOPPING" means the issue does not exist here, I would like to gently disabuse you of the efficacy of that shout.
 * And the part about which we demur is your belief that we can not trust readers with statements of fact to make their own conclusions, but that we must make sure they reach the correct conclusion. I fear I continue to demur with that position. Collect (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not what I said, not what the context of the talk page conversation implies. If some other editor here has an issue with this they are welcome to ask me and I will discuss the matter with them. I believe most who are familiar with you know that attempting to discuss policy with you is much like talking to a, rather opinionated and obstinate, brick wall so you will forgive me if I do not engage further with your games. I will go post a notice about this discussion on the article talk page so the others can chime in if they want. I know you prefer to carry on with your little noticeboard point making exercises without letting others who are involved in the matter even know a discussion is ongoing so sorry for cramping your style. J bh  Talk  22:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, the words I cited as a quote are an exact copy of your post. I find your desire to use hundreds of words in a personal attack to be less than proper here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I will happily back up what I said about you with diffs if it comes to an ANI complaint. As ever, you just love quoting out of context to make a point so your claim of 'an exact copy [of my statement]' is spurious. You distort my statement by removing it from the context of the discussion wherein I made it and try to make the claim I either said or implied we must manipulate sources so " we must make sure they reach the correct conclusion ". You also failed to provide a diff to the full quote - you know, the standard thing all quotes of on-wiki statements should link - so I presume you wanted comment here without people looking much into it or even seeing my entire statement. As I have said, in the past - your statements often do not comport with objective reality - really, that is the most polite way I can think to say it. Again, I will happily dig up some diffs to illustrate that point if you insist although I have provided you with many in the past and it seems to make no difference. Now, enough of this. Would you care to discuss your misunderstanding of what I said on the article talk page - you know, ask me what I was talking about - or would that not fit with whatever your purpose for starting this thread is? J bh  Talk  23:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Per NPOV, in Wikipedia we report on significant viewpoints, not just facts. In BLPs we edit conservatively, but NPOV is non-negotiable. So if there are unflattering viewpoints that are significant, we report them. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My reply to an inquiry on the article talk page:"My statement was in response to the proposed edits in the section above. There exists significant WP:RS commentary which analyses and discusses the results/outcome of the Waco siege and Rick Ross's participation. Simply stating 'fact' without analysis is not what we do when there is RS analysis to discuss. Whether the analysis is flattering to the subject or not is irrelevant only whether it is a significant viewpoint offered by mainstream authors. To quote from WP:BLP This is not talking about the 'mere recitation of facts' it is talking about proportionate reporting of significant opinions represented in reliable sources. Do you claim we should forgo the reporting of relevant analysis and significant opinion and merely report 'facts'? If so, please support your position with policy. Cheers.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross&diff=692331491&oldid=692330165]" J bh  Talk  23:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * as per Cwobeel and Jbhunley. In addition, it is not only the actual things that people have done that matter, but the impact of those things and the reputation/place in the world that a person acquires because of the things they have done. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This should be closed before it degenerates further - the meaning of JBH's comment is clear (and yes, compliant with guidelines). I doubt Collect would have bothered to even bring this here if he didn't have a long-standing grudge against JBH - and noticeboards shouldn't be used to further a petty feud. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that the "closer" above is not an uninvolved person, and was a strong critic at the late ArbCom case about me, and thus the editorial nature of that conflict (where I opposed listing people in a "guilt by association" list - and where the consensus strongly supported my position at AfD) might possibly be construed as slightly less than neutral here. I have no "long-standing" grudges against anyone at all on Wikipedia, and that fillip is simply an ad hominem attack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  12:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

E-mail from Greg Kohs
I am posting, with permission, the following e-mail from blocked user Greg Kohs:

"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carrite/ACE2015&diff=next&oldid=692191767

User:Kevin Gorman engages (for the third time) in a violation of WP:BLP. He accuses me of "harassment", with no evidence to back up the claim. Online harassment is a criminal act in many jurisdictions, so this is clearly a problem vis-a-vis WP:BLP."

End of e-mail.--ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - Given that he's spent most of the last year calling me braindamaged in public, there's no particular reason to feed the troll any further, and I would suggest removal of this thread. Unless you're familiar with the history of site-bannned user Greg Kohs, I would in fact strongly suggest doing so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Eelco Schattorie


Persistent COI editing to make this a puffy resume. Probably involves WP:MULTIPLE. Help would be appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Nnamdi Kanu


This has been worked up into a lengthy and much-sourced piece pertaining to conditions in Nigeria, much of which doesn't relate directly to the biography. Appears to have become an advocacy vehicle. I suspect a lot of the article can be cut, but since it's profusely referenced, someone is likely to raise a fuss, and if I go in and shear it as an IP, there's a decent chance I'll be tagged for vandalism. I've templated it for several concerns. Thoughts welcome. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Glover (composer)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

The element about supposed bNP membership is liablous and tehrefore should be removed from the article. Some on Wiki appear to have a vendetta and not an impartial stance or opinion in this matter. Leave the item out of teh article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.181.171 (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez
I recently joined Wikipedia because I felt I could contribute with my expertise in stat mech. About a year ago, I came across the work of Ariel Fernandez and thought it was pretty cool stuff. When I recently looked it up in Wikipedia I noticed it was underplayed or missing. I tried to fix that, and a bunch of people instantly showed up and almost cut my head off. Then I tried to fix the Fernandez page and realized I was blocked. Then I joined the Talk page and was immediately accused of being a puppet of Fernandez. The attack came from. This person surely holds a grudge against Fernandez. He seems full of hatred and eager to destroy Fernandez. Everyone who sides with Fernandez seems to be accused of sock puppetry, whatever that is. For the record, I never met Fernandez. In fact I thought Fernandez was a woman since the first name suggests so, and became aware that he is a man when I searched in Wiki. It is obvious to me and to everybody I know that Fernandez has done much more in his career than getting two papers questioned or a paper with significant overlap. Give me a break! Why are you overplaying this? I read the Chronicle of Higher Education. It is obvious that Retraction Watch told the writer what to say, and the article is not even about Fernandez. There are people with more than 10 retractions for false data not even mentioned. One guy in Japan has 187 retractions (and counting). Not a word about him. There is not a shred of evidence pointing to misconduct or wrongdoing in Fernandez record, none in the public domain. I have never seen anything like this. Someone should fix this article.Spinrade (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Jahquel Goss
Jahquel "Jah" Goss (born May 6, 1999) is an American basketball player who is currently attending high school at the Eveyln Mack Academy in Charlotte, North Carolina. Jahquel previously attended Mott Haven Campus in Bronx, New York. Goss is a five-star recruit and is generally seen as top 10 best overall recruit in the 2018 Class by most basketball recruiting services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyc Top100 Players (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a problem with the article you wish to discuss? Gamaliel  ( talk ) 05:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find the article for the individual you are talking about. Meatsgains (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Gregory Baum page
I deleted the first paragraph of the page on Canadian theologian, Gregory Baum (Edited March 2014). It was libelous. Baum has never been excommunicated from the Catholic Church. He did not divorce Shirley Flynn (she died as his wife several years ago). Every couple of years this libelous, inaccurate, and insulting material is added to this page either by Monseigneur Foy, or his friends. These allegations need to be substantiated--which they cannot be since they are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstnobletruth (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've given this page an additional clean up. It appears much of the unsourced contentious material was added within the last week. I have warned the contributing IP editor.  What the article would benefit from is more sourced material on his life, as it is a bit light on them presently. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Brahm
From a cursory reading of this over-long article it is clearly mostly written by the subject and/or groomed by him to remove any criticism. The article's main named contributor is "LBwikiacct", a user who has only edited this page, and a few other accounts (Shambhalahouse, AfricanConsensus) who also seem likely to be aliases of the subject. Their purpose is only to promote Brahm's image and career. 202.81.248.186 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Heavily SPS material or as close thereto as possible.  About 99.44% pure.  4 NYT mentions total - once as "former lawyer", once as "businessman", once as "entrepreneur" and once as one "who has written several books."  In 2006, he was starting a high-end hotel in Tibet for Chinese tourists. Sorry - I rather think his "notability" is gauze. Collect (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the list of books is accurate (sources should be easy to find), he is notable as an author. Samsara 17:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well - he specifies that what he calls "economics" "is not about theory" which makes him a strange character, indeed. Many are produced by "NAGA Publishing" in Hong Kong.   Almost every work printed by that publisher is by one author - Brahm..  There is a chance than most of his listed works are, alas, simply self-published.   "Longman" refers to an imprint ("Longman Group (Far East)" of "Longman Schools" in China (mainly Shanghai). "The China Forex Guide" appears to be simply a compilation of Chinese rules.  The "Butterworths" imprint is actually "Butterworths Asia." and so on.  The "John Wiley" is actually "Wiley Eastern" in India, and not the parent publisher implied.  Its current name is "New Age International (P) Limited" which means it is odd to use a respected name for a publisher which no longer can use that name.   In fact, the only scholarly book is the Palgrave one, that I can verify.  At least seven on the list are essentially self-published,  Several are simply paeans to the current Chinese government.  One is a simple compilation of rules.  "Reed" is "Reed Academic Publishing Asia" (Singapoer) which seems to have issued seven titles in WorldCat..    Sorry -- the imposing list looks far from imposing once one verifies who published what. Collect (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes his notability is marginal. Have any of his books been reviewed?Martinlc (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I found one review - which basically said Brahm was discordant with everyone else <g>. For reviews in notable locations - such are absent, and I suspect many major publications do not use Chinese imprints with "famous names" as usual books to review seriously.  And essentially no mentions in NYT etc. as being an expert on anything specific at all.

Jesse Petrilla
Can editors please look at this article and see if further changes are necessary? On one hand we have an IP editor committing BLP violations and on the other we very likely have COI editing. I've removed the obvious BLP violations but haven't reverted to Martel10732's version as that also has issues. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits to the page to improve quality. The remaining content is well sourced and notable. Meatsgains (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added some more information pertaining to the gun charges, it was missing the fact the charges were dismissed after the probation was completed. Also removed the claim it was gang related since that was a unsourced campaign rumor. If someone can please take a look at the way that section is worded and make sure it appears neutral. Thanks. Martel10732 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Prashant Kishor
Wikipedia page of Prashant Kishor shows wrong data. He never worked for WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (WHO). He was born in 1977.

Currently 2 authors are trying to edit the content:


 * 1) indopug
 * 2) Paroma Bhat

indopug is a regular editor in wiki and uses newspaper articles as reference for his content; whereas Paroma Bhat works with Prashant Kishor and can provide valid proof for the content.

Number of changes version reversions has increased more than 3 times. Can you please help in providing a solution for this?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasank86 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Other editors are acting properly when using newspaper articles for references. The rules of Wikipedia state that article content must be sources to reliable sources like newspapers and must be verifiable, meaning they can be confirmed by other editors and readers.  Secondhand comments from people who may or may not know the subject of the article cannot be verified and we have no way of knowing if those people actually know Prashant Kishor.  Kishor's work with the WHO is cited to this newspaper article, so it seems that fact is appropriately cited and included.  There is no citation for the birthdate, so I have removed it from the article.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems like the right move. As for the WHO affiliation, I am not sure how User:Paroma Bhat can prove a negative (i.e. that the subject didn't work at the WHO). The Blue Canoe  20:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ketan Ramanlal Bulsara
Can someone please take a look at this, including the edit history. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you give us a hint? --Malerooster (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did a slight copy edit and removed some unsourced material. Not much of a bio now. --Malerooster (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After I made some minor edits to the page, I realized the subject isn't notable so I PROD'd the page. Meatsgains (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In regard to whether it appears to be notable, or whether it appears to be unduly promotional? SageRad (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, looking at the edit history, i see the article has been highly contested. How can this be handled? Can we ask editors to declare any COI with the article's subject? SageRad (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The PROD didn't work. I put it up for AFD. I found out today it was previously deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sabrina Erdely
Can someone clean up this article fast, it's filled to the brim with trash. I'd do it myself but I have to go somewhere ASAP. Brustopher (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made an attempt to correct obvious issues, but may need additional eyes. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Brian Bonner (linebacker)
The article should fail PROC:BLP, but was created before cutoff date and has a couple awful parenthetical citations. I think the article meets WP:ATHLETE, so I did not consider it for deletion. There are stale cleanup tags from 2012. Anyone interested in improving this article? Delta13C (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

use of a mug shot as the primary image in the info box
Please join the discussion about the appropriateness of utilizing a mug shot as the primary identification image at : Talk:Kent_Hovind -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Wilkinson (Canadian politician)
A user whose name is User:Penzerandrew, and thus has a possible but not confirmed WP:COI, has been persistently editing Andrew Wilkinson (Canadian politician) in recent weeks to bury any acknowledgement whatsoever of a reported controversy. This has also included the deliberate borking of reference templates to any media coverage of that controversy which remained in the article after the controversy itself was scrubbed — for example, their most recent edit stripped any portion of the "cite news" template from reference #4 that would actually have identified the specific news article being cited (the problem being that the article's title directly makes reference to the controversy), while leaving the remainder in place as an unlinked and untitled reference that was now formatted as a nonexistent "cite ork" template instead. But breaking reference templates is obviously not appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia regardless of the includability or excludability of the controversy itself.

I've placed temporary protection on the article twice now (semi wasn't suitable, as the editor has already surpassed autoconfirmed), but obviously don't want to indef it if I don't absolutely have to — but the user's persistence suggests that the content in question should be reviewed for WP:BLP compliance nonetheless and/or that the user should be blocked for vandalism if necessary. So I wanted to ask if somebody who hasn't already been involved with the matter could review whether it belongs there or not. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We try to avoid having "Controversies" sections in biographies altogether, particularly for politicians. There's only one source for the issue and given the brevity of the biography, I think it should, at the very least, be trimmed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, the wording of the section makes claims that aren't supported by the source — there is no "criticism" referenced in the source article, only factual mention of the relationship. I would reword the paragraph to the following, and get rid of the "Controversies" subheading: During Wilkinson's campaign, news media raised questions about his prior work with Sun Wave Forest Products and Chinese businessman Ni Ritao, who was involved in a failed deal to restart a pulp mill in Prince Rupert.' NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. To be honest, my own first inclination was that it seems like a pretty minor and insignificant "controversy", which might not be particularly noteworthy or encyclopedic even with sourcing — but I just wanted a second opinion on it because it's Wikipedia policy, not the subject's own self-interested personal image management wishes, that determine whether it should be there or not. For the moment, however, I've just stripped it out instead of rewording it, and will raise any ongoing discussion about it on the talk page. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree - the proper place to raise these issues is on noticeboards such as this one, rather than creating the obvious COI issues you mention. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Chu attacked
See this discussiom for a series of attack on Arthur Chu. Please retract those negative attacks against him. 166.170.48.13 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mike Turzai
The Wikipedia article devoted to Mike Terzai seems strongly biased. It has a distinctly glorified and propagandistic tone. There have only been a few editors to this page, and I presume those who would take the time to write it are the same people who take an interest in (and support) this politician, although whether or not they are affiliated with the subject of the article, I cannot say. Nevertheless, there is a strikingly uncommon use of adjectives describing the candidate and his actions. As with any article about a sitting politician, there is bound to be some subjectivity, but this is to be minimized. In this case, there would seem outright bias. At the least, there should be a disclaimer before this article and a suggestion for further editing.


 * The article is a mess with inline links and over-promotional tone. Tagged accordingly. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Holmes
BLP violations galore, as well as WP:PEACOCK. Additional eyes would be welcome. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nicole Moore


Two issue with this bio: the first is whether the subject, a victim of a shark attack, is notable for this incident alone--if not, AfD seems like an appropriate process. The second is that the article here appears to have been created by the author of a new book on Ms. Moore, so WP:COI is an obvious concern. Further scrutiny welcome. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious case of WP:BLP1E - AFD at Articles for deletion/Nicole Moore -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Robin Spencer
Limhey and I have been having a dispute about a section in the Robin Spencer article concerning his role as a prosecutor in the Sally Clark case. This is how the section looked before I removed much of it on BLP grounds. I took the view that the section was non-neutral and unduly long, and appeared to be an attempt to made Spencer look bad. Limhey disagreed.

My specific concerns included:


 * It used non-neutral language such as "cruelly", "zealously" and "disingenuous" - and they were being stated in Wikipedia's voice, not just attributed to a particular source.
 * It relied heavily on non-neutral sources that I did not regard as good enough for contentious matters on a BLP, for instance a book by John Batt, a member of Clark's defence team and a campaigner on her behalf.
 * Whether others involved in the case were found to have committed professional misconduct was not relevant to Spencer's article. The only point of that paragraph appeared to be to suggest that, unlike them, Spencer wrongly "got off" from the misconduct charges against him - i.e. to promote a particular POV.
 * Spending a paragraph on the case's effects on Clark and her death was disproportionate, given that the focus in this article should be on Spencer's role in the case.

In response to Limhey's suggestion that I was trying to "sanitise" the article, I noted that some of the material I removed could perhaps be included if rewritten in a neutral and concise manner, but that I did not attempt to do so because I did not have access to the necessary sources. I also stated that I was open to the inclusion of other relevant material, such as details about the particular misconduct charges that were filed against Spencer.

I suggested we take the matter here for some more opinions, and I would be grateful for comments. Neljack (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris Christian
This is from a COI editing problem reported at WP:COIN.

Chris Christian seems to have problems. It claims he's won several Grammy awards, yet I can't find them in the official Grammy database.. Citations at both Chris Christian and Home Sweet Home Records are very weak. Google searches are not bringing up reliable third party sources. A Grammy-winning musician should have more press visibility than this. Am I missing something, or is something badly wrong with these articles? Help requested from someone who does music articles. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Marc Randazza
The article on could do with some scrutiny. It seems real-world arbitration is spilling over on Wikipedia. Uninvolved editors would be welcome to make sure we neutrally summarize what reliable sources report. See also Talk:Marc Randazza. Huon (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mudar Zahran
There is persistent edit-warring at Mudar Zahran over BLP issues, involving (among others) an IP editor who claims to be the article's subject. More eyes would be helpful, especially editors who can read Arabic sources. Full protection may be appropriate. 66.87.115.139 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani
The article says she was a founding member of No Doubt. She wasn't. Her brother was. She joined the band later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:364d:70e0:90d7:dcc3:6f3f:d055 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Not according to the article No Doubt. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Stoya and James Deen


Today, Stoya accused her former boyfriend, Deen, of raping her on her twitter. Multiple users added the accusation to their respective articles citing only to the tweet which led to reversions and semi-page protections. Another user cited to a post from Buzzfeed which I did not feel was adequate for such a serious allegation. Please keep an eye out on the respective articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Google news now has five hits, including the Daily Mail (which, I gather is contentious, but still more of a news source than a blog or a tweet). It is highly likely that more news sources will follow in reporting this. We ought to be careful to avoid being on the side of dismissing a serious allegation, which could be read as disbelieving the accuser. Pandeist (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Both articles should be deleted. Wikipedia is WP:Notnews and in particular not the National Enquirer. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC).
 * one of the silliest things I've ever read on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 16:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, thousands of porn actors and actresses have articles in WP, for whatever reasons, so the articles are unlikely to be deleted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why "unfortunately"? Are porn actors/actresses in your view somehow less human? Do you think sex is filthy and those who are compensated for doing it artistically ought to be shunned and swept under some societal rug? Pandeist (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As predicted, coverage continues growing -- and now it is reported in New York Magazine -- which is additionally reporting that The Frisky is ending Deen's sex advice column due to the accusation, a real-world consequence. Is that addition not sourcing enough? Pandeist (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC) And now reported in Cosmopolitan as well. Pandeist (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We tightened up WP:PORNBIO considerably not too long ago, and have deleted many non-notable fanbios. James Deen, though, is indisputably notable, as is Stoya. The recent allegations are widely discussed in reliable sources. These biographies should comply with policies and guidelines, even if many editors (understandably) dislike this type of article. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Michael Nouri
Article states that Nouri was born in 1945, yet later says he enlisted in the military in 1942. It should be rewritten to clarify what parts are describing his father, and which parts can be attributed to him.

(Comment added by )


 * The whole early life section was (1) confused, and (2) completely unsourced, so I have just deleted it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Markus Hess
The article Markus Hess is severely lacking in references, which is a problem given that it suggests that the subject is a criminal. What's the best approach to take here? Removing all of the unsourced material would leave virtually nothing. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In trying to identify sources, I have run into problems of circular referencing. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Peyton Manning
This article needs a major review ASAP because it is on the front page of reddit. In particular the concern is over sexual assualt section. Much of that section relies on a single source called The Inquisitr and that name alone should make one wary. The following text needs scrutinizing: it is alleged that Manning, while being examined by a female trainer, pulled down his shorts and sat on the trainer's face. He proceeded to rub his rectum and testicles on the woman's face until she was able to free herself from him. I'd investigate this claim myself, but I don't have the time. This is a highly viewed article at the moment and it would be terrible for a BLP subject to be smeared because the article might use poor sourcing.Which Hazel? (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The section appears to be reasonably well sourced now, with three sources from The Inquisitr (which, despite the name, is a news aggregate site, not a tabloid), USA Today, and the Florida Times-Union. The Inquisitr article itself isn't great, though it references a few other sources that seem reliable. clpo13(talk) 23:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Rodrigo Constantino
This page goes in-depth into the views of a political pundit who is a fringe figure at best. Within the body of the article are summarized three editorial pieces Rodrigo Constantino has written. This is not relevant or notable. This page is being used to flaunt the political views of some contributors. No other political pundit has large excerpts of his own writing on controversial topics and nothing else. I request this page be reduced to a stub and his views be summarized in one paragraph at most.


 * The article is a mess. I have added some dispute tags, so that it can be cleaned up. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for someone to help me edit this biography page so that it is relevant to Wiki guidelines, thanks! Tony_Sparber
The Tony Sparber article is an orphan - how do I link it to other articles?

How can this article be improved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerlauren (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Writerlauren! Couple issues. 1) Please sign your comments on talk pages by following your comment with 4 tildes (i.e. ~ ), 2) I'm afraid the BLP you've pointed out might have some serious problems beyond it being an orphan. You may want to review Wikipedia's policy on the notability of people before working further on this page. NickCT (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Great! I've added a few more books as sources and changed the wording a bit. Do you have specific suggestions? Writerlauren (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Generally, if you're trying to establish notability, the best sources are going to be those that cover the subject "directly and in detail". I have read the your current reference, but I think they all appear to give Sparber passing mention rather than "direct" coverage. Do you have anything that directly covers Sparber? If not, this BLP looks like a strong candidate for deletion. NickCT (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have an autobiography directly from Tony, and a small bio from his company website - http://www.choicecamps.com/new-image-camps-camp-pocono-trails-bios/. Would those be considered credible?Writerlauren (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - The autobiography might violate Wikipedia's rules on autobiographies, and company websites aren't typically what we'd consider reliable sources.
 * If you had perhaps a newspaper or magazine article that focused mostly on Tony, that would be great. Or an article that gave him some significant coverage (i.e. more than a paragraph).
 * Thanks for your help! I'll work on finding those valid sources, and have you take a look again once they're posted if you don't mind.Writerlauren (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can't find this kind of thing, there's a good chance the article would get deleted if a deletion discussion was started at articles for deletion (AfD) because of notability concerns.
 * Given that you posted on this noticeboard looking for help, I'm not going to put this into AfD, but if I'd found this article in a different manner, I'd probably have proposed its deletion. NickCT (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - You're welcome Lauren. Feel free to ping me any time. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Courtney Stadd
May require some cleanup as it pertains to convictions listed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Calvin Cheng
This article has an editor who removes all content she didn't write (ARCIALIM). Have a look at the history.

Also I believe she has been removing comments from the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.100.132.176 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert Lewis Dear
I removed Robert Lewis Dear's birthdate, but it got added back. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears to have a source. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Rebecca Pow
This reads like an advertisement with no attempt at neutrality. Also, it is not written entirely in the third person eg. "In 2003, she set up my own PR and Communications business locally." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.250.25 (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed some of the promotional language but the page still needs additional reliable sources for support. Meatsgains (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That was a copyvio of her website so I have removed it entirely. SmartSE (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Feuerstein
I am bringing this article here for the following reasons: 1. Feuerstein has been in the news a lot lately b/c of his campaign against Starbucks, which has led to lots of criticism of him in the media 2. Some nasty edits have been made to this article, including one that was apparently so bad it had to be suppressed 3. A recent probably GF edit added content sourced to sources (Addictinginfo and Patheos) of questionable reliability especially for a BLP. I would like to know if others think there is a problem w/anything in the article now. Everymorning (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that AddictingInfo is definitely not a reliable source; it has no editorial masthead and its listed contact address appears to be a post office box in a UPS store. There's no evidence it has a significant reputation for fact-checking, accuracy and journalistic credibility. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also having looked at the Patheos source... I think some Patheos content may be editorially reviewed and fact-checked, but it appears that the specific source in question is essentially a personal blog managed and operated by a single person of expressed partisan viewpoints, and therefore it should not be considered an RS either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose that it might be reasonable to question if he's notable enough for an article. I do see some coverage, but it's not overwhelmingly heavy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to just sort of dump sourcing here and see if it's enough overall. If we can find heavy enough coverage of all of the stuff he's done then it could probably be enough. However I'm mostly finding coverage over the Starbucks cup, so I don't know if that's really a good depth of coverage given that he's really only known for one event. (Starbucks:, , ) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Finding more stuff now: (Bakery:, , , , ) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's some of the second thing he's known for: (Second Amendment:, , ) It seems like he received most of his coverage for the Starbucks cup rant, but there is some coverage for the bakery and SA things, although moreso for the bakery stuff. It's somewhat light but it might likely be enough to pass GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've fleshed it out some more. I do need to note that the article will likely get some vandalism over its content. The guy seems to have been fairly heavily criticized by the media, since the majority of places that did cover him, did so because they disapproved of what he was saying. It's likely that this was done in order to remain neutral, but the article didn't have anything about his criticism - which is one of the major things that he does tend to get covered for. Either way, this will be one that we'll have to watch. It's a fairly clear vandalism and promotion target for obvious reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 San Bernardino shooting
Information about the shooter's religion has been repeatedly added to this article despite no credible source stating the shooter religion's anything to do with the shooting and is thus "a conjectural interpretation" and original research. ParkH.Davis (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if they would be as happy adding the religion of the Planned Parenthood terrorist? Or all the other mass shooters this year? What horrified me is that most of the mass shootings in the US this year do not have articles - they are not notable. Here's a complete list of mass shootings in the UK this year:
 * Oh, wait, the last one we had was in 2010. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

T. V. John Langworthy
Was wondering if some others would mind taking a look at this BLP. Nothing in the article is supported by an inline citation even though there are lots of sources listed as references (not sure how many of them satisfy WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV though). Page was blanked (which was inappropriate) by another editor, but content does seem rather promotional and is pretty much the work of a SPA who may possibly be connected to Langworthy in some way. (Same editor is also working on a draft about Langworthy's record label). -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ian Mofford
Article, Mofford, a Verdun native who played for Monklands High School and the Verdun Maple Leafs, began his CFL career with the Montreal Alouettes,[1] playing 6 seasons and 79 games (up to 1979) and won 2 Grey Cup championships, in 1974 and 1977. He later joined the Ottawa Rough Riders for one season, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers for two seasons, and returned to the Als in 1981, playing 3 games. His last year was 1982, when he played 4 games for the woeful Montreal Concordes.

Please change to: Mofford, a NDG native who played for Monklands High School and the Verdun Maple Leafs, began his CFL career with the Montreal Alouettes,[1] playing 6 seasons and 79 games (up to 1979) and won 2 Grey Cup championships, in 1974 and 1977. He later joined the Ottawa Rough Riders for one season, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers for two seasons, and returned to the Als in 1981, playing 3 games. His last year was 1982, when he played 4 games for the woeful Montreal Concordes.

NDG Native not Verdun - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Stuart Mofford (talk • contribs) 13:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thank you for posting here. I have changed the article to make the source which states "born and bought up in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce". SmartSE (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Diane Ray
http://www.hayhouseradio.com/#!/host/diane-ray  this is Diane Ray of HayHouseRadio.com. The picture for Diane Ray american singer shows Diane Ray of Hay House. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=diane%20ray this picture is of the wrong person and needs to be removed. Please take this picture down in reference to Diane Ray the american singer. This is incorrect. sincerely, Diane Ray HayHouseRadio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.78.191.190 (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol move vote.svg Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have left feedback with Google on your behalf. I have no way of guaranteeing that will do the trick, as Google is not controlled by Wikipedia (nor by me), but odds are good. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence Khong
I was watching the edit filter log when I saw the Lawrence Khong article appear. I reverted this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_Khong&diff=prev&oldid=693658418 because I thought it abandoned neutral point of view, but the other editor quickly reverted my revert back to his original statement and said it is neutral because the guy is homophobic. I want to head off an edit war and I am wondering who is more right, what is more neutral, the current revision or my reverted version of the other editor's version? Thanks. In veritas (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I concur with your reversion. The additions violate WP:BLP. I have also reverted, explicitly referencing the policy. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I was mostly sure I was following the policy more correctly than the other person, but the other person seemed really adamant and I wanted another opinion. In veritas (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ion Croitoru
For those of you who don't read WT:PW (probably a great many), and I have been going back and forth for years. For my part, a lot of it has been criticism of blatant cherry-picking of sources and even more blatant trophy hunting, which is typically blown off in a derisive manner. The lead of this particular article ends with "On January 24, 2011, Croitoru was charged with first degree murder in connection with the 2008 execution of Jonathan Barber in Burnaby, British Columbia". Well, it's now nearly five years later. You have to go to the very bottom of the article to find anything about the events of the past five years, but does the reader really learn anything from that? In one paragraph, he was convicted of a crime in connection with Barber's death (but not first-degree murder, which also calls to mind the issue of undue weight in the lead) and is currently incarcerated, yet in the very next paragraph he "currently lives in Vancouver, British Columbia with his common-law wife and his two young sons" and is busy pursuing a career in the entertainment industry. So which is it? This isn't what I expect from either a BLP or a good article. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate the offer to help make a few improvements to the article. I am confident that this teamwork will help resolve the issues you mention. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So the real problem here is that I'm serious about these things and not snarky like you've been? There's a piece of wax paper on the table next to me.  How about I take a shit onto this piece of wax paper, hand it to you and tell you that the turd is actually andouille?  That's approximately how much respect is being shown for the intelligence of any given reader of this article.  WP:SOFIXIT?  I didn't break it.  You evidently didn't bother to notice when someone else did break it years ago (I only discovered this article today by chance).  I spend too much of my time around here as it is cleaning up others' messes for them.  I'm terribly sorry for you that real issues get in the way of fake glory sometimes.  Rather than filling a user page with scores of by-the-numbers "featured content" cranked out like sausage, I only mention one such instance on my user page.  In that case, the editors I collaborated with are nowhere to be found now that it's a GA, with plenty of work left to be done in covering that particular topic (with hints of "we won't get an FA with paper sources, so why bother?").  While I'm at it, here's a passage from another pro wrestling-related GA, The Briscoe Brothers:"The Pugh brothers, Jamin (Jay)[5] (born January 25,[6] 1984)[5] and Mark[7] (born January 17, 1985)[7]"That is one of the most obnoxious-looking things I have ever seen on Wikipedia.  Looking at the frequency and placement of references in that short passage, it's pretty abundantly clear that the community is not assuming good faith when it comes to the intelligence of our readers, rather assuming that readers need to have their hands held every little last baby step along the way.  To reiterate, is my attitude the real problem?  I mean, it's trivially easy to find statements such as "The rest of you need to get off your high horse and understand that we're here for readers.  Period." on various and sundry bully boards, but if we're categorically viewing readers as dumbed down and willing to accept whatever we offer them, do such statements really mean anything? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the real problem is that you are is constant violation of WP:AGF. You insist on judging me by my user page. I make no apology for putting articles through review processes on Wikipedia. These reviews have been key to improving the articles. That's good for everyone. It's actually a very logical process--find a topic that seems like a notable void on Wikipedia; find as much information as possible; develop the article to the greatest extent possible; nominate it for a DYK to get a bit of exposure for the project and hopefully bring in another editor or two who might be interested in working on wrestling articles; and, if it seems like there might be enough coverage in sources to qualify for a GA, put it through the nomination process to get some feedback. By my way of thinking, regardless of whether or not I keep track of reviewed content on my user page, Wikipedia has benefited from the articles I have created--Ion Croitoru, Jos Leduc, Swede Hanson (wrestler), Rip Hawk, Skull Murphy, Brute Bernard, Moondog Cujo, Billy Two Rivers, Rufus R. Jones, Burrhead Jones, Gene Petit, Tiger Conway, Sr., Danny McShain, John McMahon (wrestler), and more. You may notice that these are wrestlers from bygone eras--the very topic you constantly complain gets inadequate coverage on Wikipedia. Why can't you see that we're on the same side? Why do you feel the need to complain repeatedly to the community about your mistaken perception that I use Wikipedia for personal glory? I freely admit that I have removed a bunch of articles from my watchlist. My life has changed significantly since I started editing on Wikipedia, and I don't have the time to maintain every article I've ever touched. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it's a collaborative effort. I don't WP:OWN the articles, and people are free to contribute to the articles. Ion Croitoru is not my article. I created it because I remembered reading about Bruiser Bedlam in old Apter magazines and wondered why there was no article about him on Wikipedia. However, if you check the article history, you will see that I have tried to continue updating and maintaining the article. My most recent significant additions to the article (which I created 7 years and 9 months ago) were within the last month. I share your frustration that some of the discussion of legal troubles seems like it trails off without stating decisions and verdicts. In early November this year (27 days ago), I spent a couple of hours searching through court records in the hope of finding some closure. I resent your accusation that I created this article as part of a trophy hunt and turned an intentionally blind eye while it suffered. If you are concerned about stuff like the phrase "currently lives", then just change it to "most recently lived". And I have no idea why you bring up the Briscoe Brothers. I honestly can't remember if I've ever touched the article. I have no idea who the Briscoe Brothers are. Bringing this here is far more work, accomplishes far less, and makes you look bad. If you're here to contribute to the encyclopedia, then contribute. If you're here to air grievances, close your account. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP Violations in 2015 Minneapolis Shooting
Two editors are trying to put a violation of WP:BLP in the article, "2015 Minneapolis Shooting", named Mangokeylime and Mr. Granger. The first editor made the addition; the second, Granger, is trying to back him up. They want to include a statement that a BLM protestor later claimed to have 'heard the N-word' during a confrontation between apparently dozens of Black Lives Matter protestors and three white visitors to the protest. The person who was reported to have heard "the N-word" didn't say who, he believed, spoke that word. Yet, the reader would be left with the impression that the person who spoke the word must have been one of those three whites, rather than those dozens of BLM protestors: If it had been one of the BLM protestors, that usage wouldn't have been especially remarkable or significant, let alone controversial. So, the only purpose of including this statement in the article would be to give a false impression of what happened. So, I feel that has crossed the line into libel, or at least "False Light". Since those three visitors are still alive, and identifiable, I think WP:BLP applies. Further, Granger stated: "there seems to be consensus for including this. Please gain consensus for removing it before you do so again"  But the edit had just been made by Mangokeylime, then reverted by me (following WP:BRD). Nobody else had spoken up to defend it. Clearly, nothing had happened for Granger to conclude "there seems to be consensus". I believe an edit-war was committed by Granger, when he immediately reverted my revert of the initial edit. Following WP:BRD would require that he begin with a discussion of the issue, rather than reverting my revert. Lurie2 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this issue here, Lurie2. I won't individually rebut each of the things you said in that comment, though I dispute several of them—instead, I encourage editors to look at the edit history of 2015 Minneapolis shooting. Opinions from other editors on this issue would be great—not many people have participated in the discussion at Talk:2015 Minneapolis shooting, and hopefully some more opinions will help form a clearer consensus one way or the other. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am just noting that the content in dispute is now hosted at Shooting_of_Jamar_Clark. epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Davis
Hi!

Thank you so much in advance for reading. I'm looking to have a low quality warning removed from an entry.

I work at Epic Magazine, and I'm inquiring about the biography for one of our co-founders, Joshuah Davis (writer). Joshuah more than meets the notability criteria for a biographical entry (Josh is a major American journalist who has written articles that have become major motion pictures, and our company has been profiled in The New York Times ), but there's a warning atop the page about low quality. I cleaned up the text so that it has an objective tone and added several sources.

I'd be so appreciative if you could review the entry, and if you think it's appropriate delete the warning. And if there's anything else to be done to improve the page, please let me know.

Thanks again,

Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicodemus Underwood (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

List of plagiarism incidents
WP:BLP viewers might like to cast an eye on List of plagiarism incidents. There are signs of political COI there. My view is that only plagiarism established by authoritative (WP:RS) sources should be allowed. Unestablished allegations should not be permitted. Some editors claim that other Wikis are valid sources for a BLP. I disagree. Other editors may like to consider. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC).


 * We should not permit unsubstantiated allegations against other editors either. Please confine your remarks to article content.  Other wikis should not be used as sources, but I don't see where anyone is advocating that.  Gamaliel  ( talk )


 * Several of the sections in that list were a tad "free" in what they considered pertinent information about the specific living person listed. Collect (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To be honest, this article looks like it will be a perpetual nuisance and probably shouldn't exist. Aside from the potential for BLP issues, its scope is just too broad.  A search for 'plagiarism' on any news website will return hundreds or thousands of hits, many of which involve individuals who clear the 'notability' threshold on Wikipedia.  (And you'll see a steady stream of plagiarism-related retractions and corrections when you watch Retraction Watch.)  A 'complete' listing would run to at least hundreds and probably thousands of entries.  All you're going to get is what we're seeing now&mdash;a random hodgepodge of mostly-politically-motivated additions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: An Afd Articles for deletion/List of plagiarism incidents has been opened on this topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC).
 * and article has been deleted by overwhelming vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC).
 * Good call. In a similar vein, I would also argue that this article - Music plagiarism - is also problematic. In particular the section "Unsettled, alleged, and forgiven incidents", where a number of unproven claims have been made and there is obvious bias in the artists listed. Cleaning this section has been problematic due to editors with a POV reverting any corrections or deletions. 162.250.145.254 (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You would be justified in removing that section under WP:BLP (provided they are living). Xxanthippe (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC).
 * Better said than done. An admin should really step in and remove it. Someone with authority to keep it removed. Previous attempts to cleanup have all been reverted by POV pushers and axe-grinders. 162.250.145.254 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You could always prod or AfD it. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC).

Marathon course-cutting
Hey guys, I wanted to get some extra eyes on the article for Marathon course-cutting. Long story short, I mentioned this here back in August because there were some SPAs trying to add a specific person to the article after the guy's article was deleted at AfD. The whole story with that was that this guy allegedly cheated on a marathon and the article came across to me like a pretty thinly veiled attack page made to shame him. While the evidence did look pretty incriminating, the problem is that the guy claimed his innocence (and as far as I know, still does). That posed a huge, HUGE BLP issue for obvious reasons and trying to shift everything to a different page didn't solve the issue. We've had people threaten legal action over less on here, so I can imagine that there would be people that'd be very unhappy with being included on such a negative list. Whether they did this or not is irrelevant - if they're not notable enough for their own articles then they don't belong on the article. Arguing that someone got coverage, no matter how heavy, over a short period of time isn't good enough in this type of situation given how harmful being included in a page like this could be, especially since this could fall under WP:NCRIME.

A look at the page itself showed that it was a catch all for anyone who got a smattering of news coverage for alleged or confessed cheating, which also posed a BLP issue as well. Oldelpaso actually voiced concern over this months before I came across the article as well. Myself and Collect ended up removing pretty much all but a very few instances from the article and at one point the revert war grew so bad that NeilN had to protect the page. He may have to do this again.

I would like to have some extra eyes on the article to prevent further revert attempts. If it's going to be like last time, then it's likely going to have some people trying to revert back to the old version. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  21:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also see this AfD for Mike Rossi, since it's possible it may be related to that. I almost mildly wish that I'd opened an SPI, given the amount of SPAs that came out of the woodwork to argue for the guy's inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  21:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Will Ackerman
Will Ackerman was born in Palo Alto, CA not in West Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.135.142.80 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed his birthplace until we can provide a source to either West Germany or Palo Alto, California. Meatsgains (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Maureen Pugh
Greetings. Can I have another set of eyes on this article? I made the following edit, here, using Stiki, after reading the underlying reference articles. The issue I had was threefold: First, the edit seemed to be drawing conclusions (in a negative fashion) from the underlying articles; Second, per BLP, allegations like this should be multi-sourced; and third, the edit does not make it clear that these are allegations, but asserts them to be facts. Another editor,, has reverted twice, but has done the right thing and engaged on the talk page. Hopefully, we can hash it out there, but I wanted others who look over BLP's to take a look. I certainly want to know if folks think my interpratation is out of line. Thanks.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 19:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Bob Khanna


This could use a lot of oversight, and perhaps page protection if necessary. Especially in the last few days, this has been the subject of alternating bouts of vandalism and BLP violations, puffery and copyright violations, including edits by an eponymous account. Assistance appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had another quick look at its history, and the push-pull of vandalism and promotional edits goes back a long way.... 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the page is in decent condition now. I made a series of edits to improve the overall quality. Nothing noted is too promotional. Meatsgains (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Joey Wakamoto
ASA Anime Production Company The Animation Studio is one of the leading distributors of anime and other foreign entertainment properties in all of North America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.101.115 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you asking? Meatsgains (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

David Lisak
[Moved to WP:RSN to hopefully get more eyes on it] –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo
I am Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo of HNNAfrica.com and very angry at Wikipedia and seeking legal advice because I am being slandered and defamed on an encyclopedia trolls are allowed to edit. I noticed a Wikipedia article on me created sometimes this year. There are parts of it not accurate. I opened an account to be able to post this. I understand my profile is locked because you people have a troll and fighting problem. I read the talk page. Under Charges in Georgia and deportation from Canada my profile is linked to Newton County Sherrifs page on 2003 charges that were dropped 2010 after a Toronto Star story in 2009. I am not responsible for Newton County updating their database but my attorney has contacted them. Then there is somebody editing that page with a conflict of interest which should not be as I have a lot of trolls online. Many of these trolls are passing this info all over the net saying that I'm wanted. It is libelous and I want that link removed till Wikipedia verifies it themselves?Ododowiki (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we really putting in BLP's now that the subjects have outstanding warrants using the sheriffs dept as a source? I think not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And a laundry list of "charges" for which it appears there was no prosecution and conviction - if such better sources exist, fine, but UNDUE hits hard at the iterated edits. Collect (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Karyn Calabrese
Looking for help on Karyn Calabrese. An IP user has reverted a BLP tag despite the article still suffering from poor sources. I am concerned that the IP user is practicing FanPOV, as past edits seems a bit more promotional to this article. There is also concern on this article for WP:FRINGE. Delta13C (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Lucy Allan (politician)‎
British MP has been accused of faking death threats against herself, and has (partially) denied this accusation. Nuances of the situation are being ignored by IPs who are changing the article to state the fakery as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Could use a few more eyes. Brustopher (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I reworded the material to be as accurate per sources as possible, and avoiding the use of Wikipedia's voice to engage in a political contretemps.  She appears to have catenated more than one email, without making clear that she had  used more than one. Collect (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Warren H. Chaney
The other day I came across an article for a movie called, America: A Call to Greatness, that I'm 99% positive never actually existed (see my comment in the talk section for more details not related to BLPs). There are virtually no reliable citations in this article to date. I made an honest effort and wasn't able to find a single reliable source to verify that a film with this title was ever released in theaters or aired on TV. What's more, since 2011, it's been mentioned in the narrative and filmography of BLPs (and recently deceased persons) for many well-known celebrities with citations for the movie's amateurishly designed homepage,IMDb page and a YouTube video. Several users have attempted to delete the references, but almost all over them were reverted later and have remained since. This is only one of many dubious articles related to Warren H. Chaney that are edited by the same small number of folks. (See also BLPs on Warren H. Chaney and his wife, Deborah Winters, for more poorly sourced stuff. I'm not even up to scrutinizing their pages yet.) The reason I'm posting here is because there are references to this movie on lots of celebrity articles, so it will be time-consuming to delete them one by one, especially since this user has a habit of reverting edits. Can anyone guide me as to the best way to get remove all of the poorly sourced movie references on celeb pages? Do I just do it manually? Permstrump (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Chaney's article has a lot of grandiose claims but few citations to reliable sources. It may need to be rewritten from scratch.  Chaney's questionable filmography is being discussed at WT:FILM, and the general consensus there seems to be that some of the films are too unverifiable to have their own article.  Films don't need to be notable to be listed in an actor's filmography, but they do need be verifiable.  The ones that can't be sourced should definitely be removed.  In many cases, people simply copy-paste filmographies from the IMDb, which is a bad practice.  We have tools, such as AWB, that can automate tedious and repetitive processes, but before someone does an automated mass-removal of content from a large number of articles, it should be discussed.  We have ways to deal with disruptive single-purpose accounts, and page protection is one possibility. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I posted this before the conversation on WT:FILM really exploded yesterday. Think I should redact this post so the conversation doesn't end up splitting? (Not that it really seems at risk of that here.) FWIW I think the conversation is moving to User talk:Rhododendrites/Chaney to keep it off the main film talkspace. Permstrump (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You could. The discussion at WT:FILM seems to have attracted quite a few veteran users and admins. But I don't think it's hurting anything to have a pointer to where the discussions are ongoing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I got a notification saying that I was mentioned by you in this discussion, but...clearly I wasn't. Do you think that it was just a standard bug? I'm kind of curious about what happened. --Jpcase (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no! I didn't realize that happened. Who knows how many people I pinged. It was my mistake. Instead of putting brackets like [ ] around WT:FILM, at first I accidentally put these things { }. I fixed it right away, so I was hoping no one would ever know. Permstrump (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, no worries. I doubt anyone will mind. I just never realized that when a WikiProject is pinged, all members of said project are notified. And I guess it includes task forces as well, as I'm not even a member of WP:Film, although I am a member of WP:Animation. --Jpcase (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I think it was like I inserted some kind of template instead of a ping, because the way I noticed my mistake in the first place was that there was a mirror of the entire Film Project talkpage halfway through my comment on this noticeboard. I have a feeling that I pinged anyone who has commented on or has been pinged on that talk page since the last time it was archived. How embarrassing. I'm glad you said something though, because I'm still learning the ropes (obvi). Permstrump (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * when you surround the name of a page with brackets, it transcludes that page, which means copies the entire page in its place. So anybody whose name was linked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film would've been notified :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hah I assume you were one of those people. Sorry!! I was so busy celebrating how quickly I figured out my mistake and thinking I caught it before anyone else had a chance to see my gaffe, that it didn't occur to me to consider what other implications "transcluding" that page here might have. Permstrump (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend that you work on a copy in your userspace, actually. That way you can work on writing an article that's only sourced with RS and wouldn't have to worry about weeding and cleaning through all of the puffery, bad sourcing, and dubious claims. When you're done we can move the draft version to the mainspace and just delete the prior version. I'm really concerned that leaving the history intact would only encourage its restoration from the SPAs if they were to make new accounts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And, unfortunately, it could also lead to new and uninvolved editors restoring dubious content thinking that they're doing the right thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what to do with all of the celebrity BLP articles like Buzz Aldrin's that say things like, "In 1995, he made a featured appearance in the Charlton Heston, Mickey Rooney, and Deborah Winters film America: A Call to Greatness, directed by Warren Chaney." I assume you're talking about recreating Chaney's article? If the rest of his articles are deleted like Dynamic Minds already was, I really can't imagine there'd be any claim that he meets notability criteria for a BLP. Right?? Permstrump (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... yes and no. Someone can have films that would fail notability criteria but still pass GNG on other things if there's enough coverage as a whole. I figure the best thing for now would be to delete the pages that warrant deletion and then work on a Chaney article in the draftspace to replace the mainspace article. If it ends up that he's not notable enough for an article, we can approach it from there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Geoffrey Pomeroy
This article is a biography of a living person with no sources and is written in a promotional tone. I have requested its deletion multiple times, but the creator has removed the speedy deletion and proposed deletion templates and continues to do so even after warnings were left on his talk page. <span style="padding:2px 5px;color:#ffffff;background:#323B40;border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px;-moz-border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px;-webkit-border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px;">jBot-42 00:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBot-42 (talk • contribs)

Update: Page has been deleted by User:Delldot. --Hillbillyholiday talk 10:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Campbell Newman
This concerns the wikipedia page / biography of Campbell Newman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Newman

I have attempted to include relevant sourced and contextual information in this wikipedia page, which has been reverted three times without explanation. The last editor which reverted the entry I've attempted to make threatened me with an editing ban, but did not offer any explanation of why the information was not relevant.

Please review this entry, the revision history, and the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campbell_Newman&diff=694762692&oldid=694744810

The information I am attempting to include is as follows : On October 24th, 2014, according to reports, Newman threatened to have police shoot live bullets at protesters at the upcoming G20 summit in Brisbane. At the time, Newman said "It’s like when you have guests at your house. If your kids start misbehaving then you discipline them, . . . Only this time it will be with a high-powered sniper bullet to the brain, instead of a rubber hose to the back of the legs." http://www.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/premier-newman-orders-g20-cops-to-shoot-on-sight/

This information is sourced and relevant to the section on Newman's term of office, as he was not re-elected in the following election (probably due to a drop in popularity for acts similar to this). http://auspol.wikia.com/wiki/How_evil_is_Campbell_Newman%3F I should note that the entire biographical entry on Newman has virtually none of the content which the previous cite has. It suggests to me that the entry is being edited or controlled by someone with a political agenda, and that such control is not objective and therefore violates Wikipedia guidelines.

I find it odd that an editor would deliberately censor this information which seems to me highly relevant when one looks at the other kinds of information in that section of the wikipedia entry on Newman.

Please respond or mediate or intervene in this dispute. I will not undo this censorship, but it seems to me that censorship of relevant information is exactly what wikipedia editors should not do.

-end — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.74.253.202 (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

John Glen (politician)
User:Qpzmq has consistently reverted to a previous edit on John Glen's page, including a biased description of Mr Glen's beliefs, and disproportionate weight given to his position on the same-sex marriage bill.

Obviously all of Mr Glen's voting positions are a matter of public record, but it is evident that this article is not attempting to be based on a NPOV. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, or edit warring, we don't wish to continuously delete or edit the article, and would be very grateful for any help in restoring it to be a factual rather than ideological biography

WMinster-2015 (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Paul Singer (businessman)
I recently copy edited this article with regards to general aspects such as referencing and content updates. Upon doing so, reinstated a contentious sentence from the lede - the rest was left per my version. A friendly yet lively discussion ensued on the article's talk page involving a few of the article's recurring editors. I'm posting here in the hopes of garnering much needed feedback when the aforementioned discussion seems to be going nowhere, or rather somewhere unproductive. I'll try to summarise both sides of the debate, even though one of my main concerns hasn't been discussed at all and considering I am mostly unfamiliar with previous edits to the article). The sentence removed by me was "His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a vulture fund, a characterization which Singer rejects." Secondly, 67% of the section treating his company, Elliott Management, is about 3 minor occurrences involving distressed debt (WP:CRITICISM).

My arguments were:
 * 1) Sources do not substantiate either of the sentence's claims - against WP:UNDUE, WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:OR.
 * 2) Vulture is a derogatory term - again against WP:BLP.
 * 3) Sovereign debt accounts for less than 2% of the total fund's capital, plus sources discuss Singer himself in countless cases without referring to minor hedge fund trivia - against WP:UNDUE.
 * 4) Search results are 26 times more prominent for "Paul Singer" -vulture than for "Paul Singer" vulture.
 * 5) The article appropriately discusses the fund's activities elsewhere without using the term.
 * 6) Take John Edwards, for instance. He's widely known as an "ambulance chaser", yet his article utilises the neutral term "personal injury lawyer" instead, even though hundreds of sources use the former expression.
 * 7) "Vulture" as a term is nowhere to be found in the article content, therefore going against WP:LEAD.

Arguments for inclusion of the sentence as proposed by Nomoskedasticity, and  - note there weren't any comments besides those 3 other editors':


 * 1) Percentage of Singer's profits driven by sovereign debt is of little importance.
 * 2) These cases were major international news stories.
 * 3) Singer is "one of the most well known Vulture fund managers, one of the biggest advocates for the industry" (no sources provided)
 * 4) "There has been an overwhelming (and somewhat undue) focus on financial industry sources, the types of outlets which give advice to investors or pundits rather than providing more comprehensive coverage which doesn't appeal to their readership." - Clearly debunked by actually examining the sources. Also take into account professional sources are recommended, same as one would expect scientific reviews in a medical article.
 * 5) It is what the "subject is primarily notable for" - again, do some research and examine sources in existence.
 * 6) "Saying something is "derogatory" and hence unuseable is a dangerous game".
 * 7) "I'm not sure "vulture" really rises to that level [pejorative]."

Finally, note my brief counterarguments provided previously are not intended to incline readers my way, it's just a simple way of not having to post many replies a posteriori. Please feel free to add counterarguments next to my arguments above, or arguments from any side I forgot to relay (discerning content in long discussions is quite a feat). I think we all agree on the article's page that certain bits could use copy editing, we've all stated that in the talk page. It's good that I've managed to tweak it a bit and finally remove the ominous NPOV tag, even though it still needs some work. I look forward to reading others' opinions and seeing how we can move forward. Thank you all. Regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Though I appreciate your contributions and invitation for inclusion into the discussion, I'm going to have to sit this one out (at least for the time being). I can't even remember how many RfCs on these issues I have been dragged into now and just don't have the energy to say the same things over and over, especially when consensus on some of the issues has been established multiple times. Likewise, as you correctly pointed out, I did not provide sources to substantiate my claims. This is also for the same reason and I'm sure someone who is aware of Singer and his activities can easily provide them. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no view on the Singer page itself, but I am concerned to see the claim that "vulture fund" is a derogatory term being brought up yet again. This topic has been discussed repeatedly in many different locations, most recently at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch as summarised here .  There is no consensus that "vulture fund" is a derogatory term (though there is probably consensus that it is sometimes considered derogatory), but there is clear consensus per WP:COMMONAME that this is the correct term to use for that side of Singer's business activities.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jonathan A Jones. Also a bit disturbed that this topic is being brought up on a noticeboard during an on going conversation on the relevant talkpage. This looks like a WP:FORUMSHOP to me. NickCT (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's been a long and painful history of forum shopping in an attempt to establish the claim that the description "vulture fund" is derogatory and should not be used in Wikipedia articles. I had hoped this was finally over.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello there! WP:COMMONAME has nothing to do with it, as this is a BLP and we're discussing the article's contents + lede, Jonathan. Nick, I brought it up here given the only users who contributed to the article's talk page discussion have all edited the article before. It seemed pertinent to bring an otherwise obscure discussion to light, rather than have the usual 3 editors repeat themselves. The conversation on the relevant talk page has also gone stale. Please maintain an amicable tone and do not accuse me of forum shopping. I, after all, am the only uninterested editor here and this is the appropriate venue for discussing such matters. Keep the discussion on topic. Kind regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Amicably then, you were forum shopping. Conscientiously or not. If everyone had agreed with your position on the talk page, you probably wouldn't have bothered coming here for a second opinion. You only came here because you weren't getting the result you liked on the talk page. That's forum shopping.
 * It's also nice to leave a note on the talk page in question mentioning that you are bringing a conversation here.
 * But regardless, I'm assuming good faith and not trying to suggest you were willfully trying to subvert the conversation.
 * Listen, this subject has sorta had its day in court. There was a fairly recent RfC on it. Frankly, if you feel strongly about this, I'd wait a few months then re-RfC to see if consensus has changed. NickCT (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are making your own assessment, and while tacitly assuming things you are putting words in my mouth. How can a discussion between 3 people that have repeatedly edited the article and have it watchlisted be considered proper? We desperately need outside input, ergo my posting on the appropriate venue. Forum shopping would see me soliciting opinions where they are not expected or directly thought of. This is precisely where things need to be discussed when outside input is nonexistent. Regarding notification, the appropriate talk page was tagged with the corresponding template. I did not bypass any procedures. Can we discuss content now? Thank you, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  23:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They do make some pretty valid points though, and all sorts of uninvolved editors have contributed and repeatedly found that the use of the term is appropriate on the page. The last RfC on the subject was a mere two months ago and that established consensus that the term should be used, prior to that there was another RfC a mere year ago which had established weak consensus on usage of the term. There was also the move (back) discussion on the Vulture fund article after it became apparent that certain editors had used sneaky tactics to suppress the term. This was then followed by the WP:W2W discussion which you were party to. Again, this is why I don't want to get involved in this because it's becoming increasingly pedantic and a colossal waste of everyone's time. It's pretty evident that unless someone puts a stop to this, it will be discussed until every avenue on Wikipedia is exhausted, and even then, ideologically-driven editors will still most likely look for new ways to suppress a term. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Returning to the points in question, this is a whole different matter given we're discussing both article content and lede content. RfCs regarding article naming (the last of which I was briefly a part of, yes), while symbolically similar, belong to a separate domain. So am I correct in understanding I'm ideologically driven yet you are above all bias? Let me remind you it wasn't me that was blocked for editing Paul Singer's article. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  23:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - The nature of WP is such that we're very cautious to right anything potentially bad about living people. Sometimes a little over cautious. I'm not sure that's necessarily a terrible thing. NickCT (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  23:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This has all been discussed repeatedly in multiple locations, some of which are listed above. There's nothing new here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you point me towards the proper discussion regarding the lede and article content then? I wasn't involved with this article until very recently. I am proposing the discussion of 2 precise points: the use of the pejorative in the lede - with regards to neutrality, false referencing and undue weight; the 67% of content regarding Elliott Management's operations in 3 countries and little else regarding other undertakings - in his biography. Let's try and move this along please? I see nobody utilising my argument listing above nor providing any means for resolving this dilemma. I'd appreciate if we let outside editors have their say. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  23:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - We've talked about your two precise points over-and-over. "Undue" in Wikipedia speak means we're giving more weight to some issue then is reflected in the sources. As we'd covered in our "search engine test" discussion the "vulture" thing is widely-widely covered in the RS, and is possibly what the subject is most notable for. It is thus entirely due that we cover it.
 * Again, I approve of a BLP cautious approach, but there's a difference between being cautious and censoring negative information which is widely-widely reported on in RS. I think you've strayed into the wrong territory here, and frankly, you're not gaining any ground in garnering consensus. Take my advice. Sit on it and readdress it later. I'll help you RfC it again in a few months if you like. NickCT (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * None of my points are being discussed, and I need not list them yet again - they are clearly posted above. I find it funny how you think I'm "not gaining any ground in garnering consensus" when quite simply nobody else has commented. I can sit on it just fine, there's no deadline. FoCuS  contribs ;  talk to me!  03:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad this issue is being discussed and would ask users to focus on the issue at hand rather then deviating away so uninvolved editors can read through this post with ease. The fact that we are using a derogatory term to describe an individual who's business practices are 100% legal is absurd. Yes, there are articles (the majority of which are pretty heavily biased) use the term in reference to Elliott Management, his company, but to attack the subject with the term "vulture" is highly unencyclopedic. Comparing someone to a bird of prey that feeds on the death of a sick or injured animal or person is incredibly disparaging. Singer, or any hedge fund manager for that matter, would never deem themselves or their business practices as having the traits of a "vulture fund". This content should not be included in a BLP, especially in the lead section. I look forward to hearing other uninvolved editors' input. Meatsgains (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've voiced my opinions on this topic on several of the linked discussion. I believe the sentence should be removed entirely. An overlooked reason for removing the sentence is the fact that it is stating "detractors" deem his business practices of Paul Singer vulture-like in nature. The full sentence for TL:DR purposes is"His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a vulture fund, a characterization which Singer. rejects." Who are these "detractors?" Wouldn't a detractor's point of view on the subject be incredibly bias and highly WP:undue in relation to WP:BLP? A detractor is defined as "a person who disparages someone or something" meaning they find the person they are detracting from of little worth. I don't see how the opinions of people who have a clear biased opinion about Paul Singer are allowed in the lede section of his BLP. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 04:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There might be a few people who have a "clear biased opinion about" Singer, but at the same time, we have a contingent of BLP warriors who are clearly biased about writing anything potentially negative about someone regardless of how many RS have written about that thing. WP should strive to accurately reflect mainstream RS. Mainstream RS uses the sentence. Why shouldn't we? NickCT (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is precisely the discussion we have been having for months at multiple locations. There is no consensus that the term "vulture fund" is derogatory and clear consensus that it is the correct term to use for funds of these kind.  There is absolutely nothing illegal about vulture funds, and as far as I'm concerned there is nothing immoral about them either.  Paul Singer's activities in vulture funds are a perfectly legitimate line of business, and it should be discussed using the terms used in reliable sources.  The weight given to various aspects of his career should reflect the sources.  There's nothing complicated here, and there's nothing new in any of the arguments being made. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * re "no consensus that the term "vulture fund" is derogatory and clear consensus that it is the correct term to use for funds of these kind" - Right. This got RfC'ed. If you want it changed. Re-rfc the darn thing at some point in future to see if consensus has changed. Everything else it pointless bickering. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "I agree with Nick". If the issue is going to be dragged around, at least give it some substantial amount of time before it's discussed again. Maybe in the mean time, other aspects of the article could be improved. I also have to say to the opponents of its usage (ideological or otherwise), that every time there has been a discussion, it has simply established stronger consensus and in most cases there have been a lot of uninvolved editors not present in the current discussion. At present, if those opponents want to achieve their aims, it may be more prudent to let at least some time pass before the next feeble attempt to censor and ignore sources. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion is being diluted with responses not focusing on this post's original intent. Again, I'm hoping this post can gain some traction from uninvolved editors. Clearly there is an issue with the content in question or else we wouldn't be another discussion on it. Meatsgains (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean that you hope people will start agreeing with you. Since that hasn't happened in the many previous discussions we've had about this topic, it's a pretty brave hope.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it has been the same editors who have been in disagreement over this issue. We need others to voice their opinions. Meatsgains (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The various RfCs we've had about this topic have offered ample opportunity for "others" -- and the result has been very clear. You've tried at least once to pretend otherwise, to no avail.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Meatsgains, that's mostly because doing so would give validity to a moot discussion simply intended on providing yet another "vote" in the hope that things will go your way this time. We shouldn't have to do this constantly just because there's a small and persistent group of editors who don't like the previous consensus feel like they need to bulldoze their opinions through. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the discussion is not moot or else it would not have been brought up again. There is obviously an issue with the term or else we would't be revisiting the topic. Nobody is trying to "bulldoze" their opinions. Meatsgains (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Juan Dominguez 12-8-2015
Please make correction on your search engine page for Juan Dominguez fight on 12-8-2015, who did not pass on. Thank God — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.37.24 (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which Juan Domínguez?-- Auric    talk  15:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Jim Fiore
This article has a lot of issues: it does not have a neutral point of view, includes unsourced information, is imbalanced, and generally doesn't follow many additional guidelines of Wikipedia. The page is clearly being used for disparagement of a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6B41:3800:C81F:A6F2:62E6:CEEB (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please change name of Ali A. Olomi to Ali Olomi
Please change the name Ali A. Olomi to Ali Olomi. They are 2 different people. Currently you have Ali A. Olomi listed but with the incorrect Biography. You have Ali Olomi who's an Actor's Biography here. Please change the name Ali A. Olomi to Ali Olomi

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieindustry (talk • contribs) 08:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Article has been speedy deleted.-- Auric    talk  15:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Aishveryaa Nidhi
This article about Aishveryaa Nidhi is created by herself and her friends for self publicity. This article should reported and removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.134.81 (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your claim is unsupported and there is no reason to report/remove the page. Meatsgains (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Alistair Carmichael
This is now a controversial subject, can it be be semi protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAEmmerson (talk • contribs) 11:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can make a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added temporary (semi + PC) protection to the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect middle name in Willie Ann Wright.
Her middle name should be spelled "Anne" with an e. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a WP:Reliable Source for this?Martinlc (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Found her website. We should go ahead and change the page name. Meatsgains (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the appropriate spelling. EricEnfermero (Talk) 10:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Suzanne Nossel
I'm troubled by this para, which makes some strong assertions that aren't backed up with citations and veers toward political opinion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssata (talk • contribs) 15:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Article has a lot of promotional language and not-so-well documented assertions about the subject. It definitely needs a bit of de-puffing. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Questionable source on Deepak Chopra
I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for a few days, but wanted to alert others to this source as a possible BLP violation. This source isn't about Chopra per say, but about identification of what the authors term "pseudo-profund bullshit". The authors of the source note that:


 * "We focus on Chopra here merely because others have claimed that some of the things that he has written seem like “woo-woo nonsense” (e.g., Shermer, 2010) and because of the connection between these claims and the bullshit gen- erator websites that we used." (p554)

An editor suggests the content is coatrack content. He reduced the inflammatory nature of the original edit to the Chopra article, and also moved the content out of the lead.

I question whether this content and source has any place in the Chopra article since it is not providing any information about Chopra, and agree that it is coatrack content. As the authors themselves noted:


 * "The first, [in study 1] http://wisdomofchopra.com, constructs meaningless statements with appropriate syntactic struc- ture by randomly mashing together a list of words used in Deepak Chopra's tweets."(p552)


 * "We emphasize [in study 2] that we deliberately selected tweets that seemed vague and, therefore, the selected statements should not be taken as representative of Chopra’s tweet history or body of work"...and..."None of this is intended to imply that every statement in Chopra’s tweet history is bull- shit."(p554)

The study:

The content presently in the article:

"A 2015 paper examining "the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit" used Chopra's Twitter feed as the canonical example, and compared this with fake Chopra quotes generated by a spoof website.[123][124][125]"

Might be a good idea if uninvolved editors took a look.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC))


 * Looks like a reasonable source (in fact one of the better ones we'd have for the Chopra article) as it is pertinent for a discussion of the reception of Chopra's writing. The gist of the OP here seems to be that the source must not be used full stop. I don't agree with that, but of course its use must be careful, accurate, due, etc. Alexbrn (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliably-sourced criticism is not a BLP violation. The story (i.e. Chopra's twitter feed has been used as an example of "pseudo profound bullshit" by an academic journal) is not very flattering to Chopra, but it has been picked up and reported by several reliable sources such as Forbes, The Independent, Daily Beast, Irish Times, Paris Review and others. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Initial discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I was the editor that worked on it. Mention of the study was first added here. It was that portion that I think is obvious coatracking and so I removed it. I had pointed out that I'd like to see more sources for the portion currently in dispute. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think more sources are needed: an academic article reported in mainstream media is enough to merit inclusion. Martinlc (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There's nothing questionable about this source. The paper meets WP:RS and the reporting of it in mainstream news media also meets WP:RS. One of the rare cases where WP:NOTCENSORED is actually relevant, as opposed to the many times people use it to try to crowbar bullshit into articles. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dancing Dolls
You have the dancing dolls of jackson mississippi picture for dancing dolls of japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8EC:120:A885:B5BC:1DCA:636B (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol move vote.svg Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now submitted to Google feedback indicating that they have the wrong photo. There's no guarantee that they will correct their error, but my experience suggests it is likely that they will. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once
On October 13 a bot put 109 BLP articles into category "Climate Change Deniers" due to a CFD discussion. Number of editors participating: 10. Number of notices on the BLP talk pages: zero. Number of reliable sources cited to support the changes: zero. I claim that WP:BLPN is the appropriate discussion venue for such a large set of BLP changes, and that labelling people "deniers" is not appropriate without a strong consensus of subject-specific sources plus a strong consensus of editors who have actually seen the BLPs and are aware of previous discussions on the BLPs' talk pages and are aware of WP:AE. The articles are: Khabibullo Abdussamatov Stuart Agnew Syun-Ichi Akasofu Claude Allègre J. Scott Armstrong Michele Bachmann Sallie Baliunas Timothy Ball Robert Balling Joseph Bast Joe Bastardi Godfrey Bloom Joe Barton David Bellamy Maxime Bernier Marsha Blackburn Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Christopher Booker Barry Brill Paul Broun Douglas Carswell Robert M. Carter John Christy Petr Chylek Ian Clark (geologist) John Coleman (news weathercaster) Piers Corbyn Ann Coulter Vincent Courtillot Ken Cuccinelli Judith Curry Edward E. David Jr. James Delingpole Martin Durkin (television director) Myron Ebell Nigel Farage Chris de Freitas David Deming David Douglass Don Easterbrook David Evans (mathematician and engineer) Ivar Giaever Steven Goddard Vincent R. Gray William M. Gray William Happer John Hawkins (columnist) Rodney Hide Ole Humlum David Icke Craig D. Idso Keith E. Idso Sherwood B. Idso Jim Inhofe Wibjörn Karlén Michael Kelly (physicist) Steve King William Kininmonth (meteorologist) Václav Klaus Steven E. Koonin Lyndon LaRouche David Legates Lucia Liljegren Rush Limbaugh Richard Lindzen Scott Lively Craig Loehle Anthony Lupo Bob Lutz (businessman) Steve McIntyre Ross McKitrick Patrick Michaels Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Andrew Montford Patrick Moore (environmentalist) Marc Morano Nils-Axel Mörner Tad Murty Joanne Nova Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) Vladimir Paar Sarah Palin Garth Paltridge Tim Patterson Melanie Phillips Ian Plimer Denis Rancourt Arthur B. Robinson Marco Rubio Burt Rutan Pat Sajak Murry Salby Nicola Scafetta Harrison Schmitt Tom Segalstad Nir Shaviv Fred Singer Willie Soon Roy Spencer (scientist) Bret Stephens Peter Stilbs Philip Stott Henrik Svensmark George H. Taylor Hendrik Tennekes Anastasios Tsonis Fritz Vahrenholt Jan Veizer Anthony Watts (blogger). I will place appropriate notices on the talk pages. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPCAT, I think it is a really bad idea to have a category called "Climate change deniers" into which we put living people. Many of the listed people have been described as climate change deniers, often by reliable sources, so there may be some justice to applying the term&mdash;but in that case, the justification and sourcing for the term needs to be described with appropriate attribution and nuance in the body of the relevant articles. Categories, by their nature, are devoid of nuance, and so I don't think this is an appropriate use of categorization. MastCell Talk 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that a category based on a labeled term ("denier") for BLP is very very iffy. If we even should keep the category, it should be at something like "Climate change theory opponents" but that's even if we should keep the category. A list where we would be able to include inline sourcing where the individuals have self-stated opposition to climate change would be at least reasonable to avoid a question of unsourced contentious claims. --M ASEM (t) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is analogous to religious views. If someone claims to be a climate change denier, he or she will be offended if this isn’t included provided a RS supports it.  I edit Godfrey Bloom whose views are unequivocal. JRPG (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the concerns about this. Categories are blunt tools and the term "denier", while found in sources, is clearly pejorative and judgmental, regardless of the science and even if many both here and in the real world might think it fair.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * [EC] Fully agree with N-HH. Many extremely pejorative terms are found in sources that oppose those views. This phrase should only be used for BLPs of people who self-identify as "climate change denier". It is also imprecise, lumping together a blogger who thinks that the climate isn't changing and that all the scientists are liars with a respected climate scientist who agrees with the majority scientific view regarding climate change, including the most controversial part (the claim that all or nearly all climate change is the result of human activity) but doubts that proposed solutions that only involve a few countries and exclude China, India, etc. will solve the problem. Those are two completely different categories of people and should no be lumped together. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As said, maybe we could use a more neutral name like Category:People rejecting anthropogenic climate change. Prhartcom (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The parent category is named Category:Climate change denial which is a little wordy but seems inclusive. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Masem that this probably shouldn't be a category (under any name). --JBL (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with MastCell's argument here; while I think they're clearly outside the scientific mainstream, the category name is needlessly pejorative. Prhartcom's suggestion strikes me as sensible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please also have the courtesy to alert each editor involved in the October discussion. — TPX 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope it's redundant since notifications have been made on all the talk pages now, but I hereby alert Youknowwhatimsayin 烏Γ Marcocapelle RevelationDirect Prhartcom Jerod Lycett Peterkingiron Nederlandse Leeuw Ssscienccce  Cirt and the closing administrator Good Ol’factory. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This notification, at least for me, was in no way redundant; I had no way of knowing this discussion existed. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles were already in the category Climate change skeptics, which was renamed to deniers. Frankly, I think that the inclusion of most of those people in the original category was not controversial. What is controversial is the new category name, which sounds pejorative. I don't see this is a BLP issue. I didn't participate (or even know about) the original discussion. But to the extent that the new category name is pejorative, I'd certainly vote to revert to the skeptic category name. M.boli (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Skeptics" is just as bad as "deniers", even when knowing how the term is normally used in that field. Out of context, it implies "their opinion is wrong", and unless they self-identify as that, that's a label that runs afoul of BLP even if if the claim is made by a reliable source. And that's where we need the strength of inline sourcing to justify when such a label can be used. Hence why any type of category to group these people seems wrong and it is much better to use a list here which can be sourced and better maintained to avoid BLP problems. --M ASEM (t) 18:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We represent how the reliable sources represent. And basically all the reliable sources that discuss the people who oppose the science that mankind is changing climate are "deniers" . That positions they hold and espouse may reflect badly upon them is not a BLP issue.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It has already been skeptics and before that it was deniers. We have been going back and forth between those two with many discussions along the way. If we're going to change it, change it to anything but either of those two. See other suggested names above. Prhartcom (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of climate category might be okay, but it's very difficult. If someone denies that the US can unilaterally take action to stop climate change, does that make them a "denier"? If they deny that climate change would be a totally bad thing, without any silver lining, does that make them a denier? If they acknowledge climate change but attribute 51% of it to non-human causes, are they a "denier"? Maybe a better category would be "people with a position on climate change".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that there's a difference between skeptic and denier. Skeptic accurately relates that someone doesn't believe it. Denier implies that climate change theories are proven and that they won't accept it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * People who deny climate change probably do not see the term "denier" as pejorative. See, e.g., Category:Holocaust deniers.  The category definition may be incomplete if they only deny human-induced climate change.  A new CFD can be started if needed to adjust either "denier" or the scope.  But there is no BLP crisis requiring immediate response.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with Milowent -deniers are proud of their claims though wp:FLAT applies to those believing that CO2 doesn't cause it. JRPG (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the current list includes Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change, and Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Categorising those two as "climate change deniers" is madness. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I favor either of the paths suggested by MastCell and Anythingyouwant: delete the category per WP:BLPCAT, or expand the category to Category:People with public views on climate change or similar. alanyst 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * having a public view on climate change is not notable or distinguishing. Denying the overwhelming scientific consensus about human induced climate change is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What consensus exactly? Th UN report on climate change?  Some kind of academic work?  Something else?  And to what extent does one have to 'deny' the 'overwhelming scientific consensus' to be included?  What if one thinks the UN report on climate change is too optimistic?  Are they a 'denier' too? Bonewah (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr. Doom, sure it's distinguishing. It distinguishes people who have a public position from those who don't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * TRPoD, notability of a person's public views on climate change is up to the sources, and should not depend on our notion of how valid those views are. Whether a person has expressed public views on the subject is a rather objective question, much more suited to the binary nature of WP categorization than the nuances of the nature of those views. alanyst 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, categorizing people, living or dead, is the first step in creating a stereotype, which has been used for centuries as a divisive technique, from the Christians who were accused of burning Rome to the modern war on drugs, in essence to find support for a cause by finding someone to rally the masses against. Categories of things like athletic achievements, professions, or Nobel Prize winners are fine, but I personally am opposed to any categorization of things like race, religion or personal beliefs, because Wikipedia should not be participating in the stereotyping of individuals. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I disagree strongly with this category name, if someone is known largely as a critic/skeptic/doubter/denier/revisionist/debunker of climate change, I see nothing wrong with categorizing them as such. It makes it easier for readers to find other, similar articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure McCarthy didn't see anything wrong with his actions either, and that was the real problem with McCarthyism. This is no different. The real problem is not seeing how our actions affect others until it is too late. If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, would you be in favor of a category of "Communist sympathizers?" The world is simply not as "black and white" as categorizations, which is exactly what makes them useful tools. It's much easier to rally people against a "perceived evil" than it is a spectrum of individuals. The Romans did it, as did the Nazis, the Americans, the English, and everyone else since the beginning of recorded history. George Bush Jr. had it handed in his lap, but like an idiot chose to take the fight to an enemy that the people were not even considering. As an encyclopedia, we're expected to do better than the politically-controlled news outlets we use as sources. Zaereth (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Godwin's law If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, the term would probably be "Fellow Travelers" rather than "Communist Sympathizers" but, under either name, it should be deleted per WP:OCASSOC. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I share the concern expressed above that the current name for the category is potentially misleading. Many public officials who are currently included in the category have indicated that they believe in climate change, but doubt the significance of human activity as a factor.  I think it's misleading to say that they are "climate change deniers".CFredkin (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And what are they "denying"? That change is occurring or that it's a man made problem and not a natural cycle? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've never been a fan of the word "denier" as a label; I prefer describing instead of labeling: "...advocates for climate change denial", "...who denies climate change", "...rejects the scientific consensus on...", etc. However, that's just a personal preference. Our sources are extremely clear on these articles that the subject denies climate change. Our sources are also very clear that the term "skeptic" is incorrect, and intentionally misleading. I'm frustrated that Pete is forum shopping; this discussion has been had many times, twice now at CfD, so Pete is trying somewhere new to get a different result. Nearly everything he's said in his first post here is untrue to some degree. If anyone wants the cat renamed, we can have that conversation (that's why WP:CfD exists), but please look into the sourcing and the BLPs first. Try Anthony Watts (blogger) for an example, and investigate the talk page and sources. As our sources there indicate clearly, "skeptic" is absolutely not the right word.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * CFD Notification Procedure "Number of notices on the BLP talk pages: zero." The current procedure for notifying other editors of category nominations is to tag the nomination category page which does two things: 1) it brings the page to the notice of anyone who is "watching" that page and 2) it places an alert on any WikiProject that is on the talk page. There are limitations to both: many long-term editors are watching so many pages they may miss the tag (that's why I always tag the category creator with a notice as an extra courtesy) and categories are much more likely to not have WikiProjects on the talk page.
 * When this category was nominated, the Skepticism and Environmental WikiProjects had tagged the corresponding talk page so they were automatically notified here and here. If the WikiProject Biography had tagged the category talk page, the alert would have shown up here.
 * As much as I disagree with the outcome of this particular nomination, as someone who routinely nominates other catgories, I don't think it's fair to claim the nomination was out of order when the process was followed. Rather I think it's worth emphasizing the importance of tagging category talk pages and watching the alerts pages. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Jess that this is forum shopping. There was consensus for the new name; two days later, another CfD was opened and is largely being opposed. My participation in this collective discussion has been unintentionally contentious, and while I would prefer a more neutral name if possible, we can't ignore the sources. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's intentional forum shopping (the concerns here were BLP focused) but it is the wrong forum. (And, as an opponent of "denier" my viewpoint would benefit from moving it to this forum.)RevelationDirect (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Skip the whole category. "Denier" is obviously a BLP violation; as it implies that there is something wrong with scientists who hold a minority view; as opposed to seeing them as a natural part of a scientific discourse. That's basically an anti-science view as dissenting views and open debate are important in all science. But "climate change sceptics" is also misleading; since in most cases the issue for debate is human impact on climate change more than the existence of the change that are up for debate (they may also doubt the prognosis for further cliamate change and/or the negative effects of such changes). All in all, this is too complicated to get correct in a short category; the list category is called "Scientists opposed to the mainstream view on climate change" or something similar. Iselilja (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are more than two options: doubters, critics, or "skeptics and deniers" would all be a middle ground. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Forum I strongly agree with the sensitivity shown in this conversation toward categorizing people as "deniers" when they would likely reject that label and think we should find a middle ground between skeptics and deniers. At the same time, the frequent viewpoint in the CFD nominations that this group of people is objectively wrong (they are) so we should apply this unwanted label seemed inappropriate to me. Nonetheless, this is the wrong forum.
 * Category nominations need to occur in the CFD pages where they are centrally located. As much trouble as interested editors here had finding the official category discussion, it would be even more unlikely for editors to find an unofficial category discussion on this page. There is an open nomination to reverse the name back to to skeptics here and that is the correct forum for input (pro/con or other). RevelationDirect (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Reconsider change Many of the "deniers" do not deny the existence of climate change, but only challenge the cause. The previous label, "skeptic", captured this, while calling this group "deniers" does not.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my reason for supporting the name change: edit: I had a similar but different reason: Helps more clearly distinguish between skeptics and those who think change is beneficial. People in the latter group should not be in the category of course  Ssscienccce  (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC) edit: 20:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wrong forum here. CFD is the right forum for these discussions, see link offered by RevelationDirect below. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Those who hold a position here because of what they "know to be the truth" are precisely analogous to those who favour or oppose any "truth" in the first place. Rather, we should divorce this from what we "know" or "believe" or "believe we know" and stick strictly to the precept that people should not be categorized for their beliefs except on the basis of categories they place themselves in by stating their own self-categorization.

Else we are as bad as any who have labeled folks on the basis of beliefs as "heretics" or "witches" or any other category susceptible of "guilt by association" tactics. I, for one, have always opposed "guilt by association" arguments on Wikipedia and in real life, and if I be the only one left in the world holding that personal belief, if I be the only one in the world in my self-identification in the category of "do not classify people because they differ from you in religion or any other belief at all" then I proudly assert my position in that category. Collect (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete category Since this is a BLP issue and WP:BLPCAT disfavors this sort of "known sinners" category for living people, the category should be deleted immediately pending some consensus on whether any category name change would pass muster.--agr (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note The CfR was not properly noted on the article pages affected at all. The discussion had far fewer participants than the current discussion. Further such comments as
 * "''But climate change deniers are not engaging in scientific skepticism, but rather political rhetoric and ideology"' ,
 * " I'm saying this for NPOV, even though I personally agree they should be ridiculed.",
 * "Valid science is not a "Point of view." It isn't controversial among anyone with any scholarship in the subject matter. We don't have to pretend there is a real controversy because there are a small number of fanatics out there who cry "controversy." We don't treat the flat-Earthers that way either"
 * appear on their face to say that the change was designed to make a statement in Wikipedia's voice about everyone in the category whether or not we can provide reliable sources that the persons affected are 'deniers' .  As such, the "rename" was seeking to make a point which could not be properly made about each living person affected, thus should be considered improper from the start.
 * In fact, the reasons explicitly given for the rename in the discussion before were and remain violative of WP:BLP, violative ofWP:RS, violative of WP:NPOV and of common decency about categorization of living persons.  Wikipedia should never be used as a weapon to show how wrong anyone is, how evil they are, or how much they oppose truth - our task is to make an encyclopedia which will pass the "laugh test" in another century.   Collect (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct Procedure I certainly agree that the current category name is inappropriate and was one of the few editors to oppose the original nomination. Proceduraly, the CfR was fine though and the appropriate tag can be seen here. The good news, is that there is an open nomination to reverse the use of "deniers". RevelationDirect (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would note that there were actually only a few supporters of the use of "deniers" (some of whom sought the name of a category as a means of publically shaming those placed in that category for the express purpose of "ridicule."  IMHO, those !votes were a red flag to anyone closing the discussion that there were major problems with use of any category anywhere on Wikipedia for such a purpose. Collect (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Our article Climate change denial states that "Climate change skepticism and climate change denial form an overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics; both reject to a greater or lesser extent current scientific opinion on climate change." Perhaps we could retitle the category to Category:Climate change deniers and skeptics to cover that entire spectrum? By the way, we have an article, List of climate change deniers, which is actually called List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. But maybe we could also start an article called List of climate change deniers and skeptics, which would encompass non-scientists too, and would, like List of atheists in music, require a direct quote (listed in the footnote) for each person. From that list article we could accurately tell who belonged in the Category. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, With respect, I feel that this would be a poor solution. There is a reasonable likelihood for readers to assume the worst of members in a combined category. And there is not necessarily a consensus above that climate change skeptics is any better as a category. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * CORRECTION, seems to claim a 1:1 relationship between proposed entries on "List (or category) of climate change deniers" and [[List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.  This is not correct.  There are a lot of proposed entries on some sort of contentious "List (or category) of climate change deniers" who are not scientists within the listing criteria defined in the lead of that article.   Generally I agree with Masem and Mastcell; a cat implies wikivoice and a more NPOV way to use this label, if at all, is with inline attribution that so-and-so says so-and-so is a denier. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Climate change deniers The overwhelming scientific evidence supports the theory of climate change. Sceptic instead of denier is transparent POV-pushing. How long until right-wing POV pushers suggest renaming the Holocaust deniers category to Holocaust sceptics? Also, climate change deniers matches the article Climate change denial. Finally, this is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This discussion should be closed as an abuse of process AusLondonder (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * AusLondonder put these additional 26 BLPs in the category "Climate Change Deniers": Cory Bernardi Tracy Byrnes Ben Carson George Christensen (politician) Derek Clark Ted Cruz Bob Day Steve Fielding Bernie Finn Nathan Gill Nick Griffin Roger Helmer Dennis Jensen Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) Alan Keyes Nigel Lawson Jean-Marie Le Pen Peter Lilley Ian Macdonald (Australian politician) John Madigan (Australian politician) Deroy Murdock Paul Nuttall Benny Peiser Peter Phelps (politician) Chris Smith (broadcaster) Roger Wicker Brian Wilshire. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And your point is, User:Peter Gulutzan? AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I said in my initial post what my claim is. You decided to intervene, and your edits have similarities, so I showed them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I support User:MastCell and others here that per WP:BLPCAT it is a really bad idea to have a category called "Climate change deniers" into which we put living people. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. This is the BLP Noticeboard and our WP:BLP policy clearly states "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." A bot insertion of a "sinners" category on over a hundred bios of living persons cannot possibly be verified as properly sourced so this category should be deleted immediately.--agr (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Wikipedia is turning its back on scientific source in favour of becoming a poor imitation of Conservapedia. Far-right politicians and their conspiracy theories are being given undue weight, fringe theories being promoted. AusLondonder (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there is a scientific consensus that the quickest and most effective way to stop exacerbating climate change would be to rapidly switch over to nuclear power. Can we have a category for people who deny that?  I would support such a category if we wish to have categories like "climate change denier" that are designed to give BLP subjects a poor reputation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mastcell and many others. (If this turns out to be the wrong venue to argue for deletion interpret my position and being in favor of removing every entry from the cat. If some actually belong, add them following a discussion. Maybe there are some, but most in the cat do not belong.) -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete All. Obvious attempt to demonize people with unpopular viewpoints is obvious. If any are legit, they can be re-added after the mass deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not a deletion discussion. That takes place at WP:CFD. The astounding incompetence of some editors is deeply worrying. The cat corresponds to the article Climate change denial. The cat corresponds to independent, reliable sources. The matter should not have been brought here. The appropriate place is CFD. Could someone address why we can have these cats, if Climate change deniers is not allowed?
 * Category:Holocaust deniers
 * Category:Armenian Genocide deniers
 * Category:Nanking Massacre deniers
 * Category:Rwandan Genocide deniers
 * Category:Japanese war crime deniers
 * Hardly a NPOV approach: I don't see how Patrick Moore (environmentalist) could be considered a far-right anything, for one. Indeed, it seems like the whole point is to obfuscate any distinction among anyone who in any way or on any basis questions the political orthodoxy on this. Going through the scientists subcat I see people who merely question the certainty of the science, people who question the politics driving the scientific research, climatologists and meteorologists who don't agree with the science in their own field, and engineers and the like whose authority for expressing an opinion is at best doubtful. What it really looks like to me is a politically-motivated attempt to label them all as kooks. The comparison to long-settled matters of historical record is inapt. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Request for more admin input I'm asking -- not due to their authority but because I guess they've experienced the rules a bit more -- the four administrators who've been involved in this: MastCell, Masem, S Philbrick, agr. What do you think are the appropriate next steps so that we can come to a speedy resolution? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought I had the perfect solution. After watching the intense feelings expressed on this issue, not just here but carried out on the talk pages of articles such as Climate change denial, I did some thinking about the theory of categorization, helped by the article Categorization, and realized we were trying to solve the wrong problem. Roughly speaking, we were trying to debate the best term to be applied to a group of people, with some wanting to call the collection "deniers", others wanting "skeptics", and others suggesting alternatives. However, the problem isn't the identification of the correct word or phrase, the problem is that the collection isn't a proper category.


 * Categories ought to be "clearly defined, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive". That is generally true of most categories but fails miserably when it comes to this set of people. Note that while one aspect of the discussion is the word choice, and equally important part of the discussion is which people belong in the category even given one of the several word choices. That ought to be a big red flag. Imagine, for a second, that some outside force simply degrees that the category name will be "deniers", or "skeptics", or "deniers and skeptics". With the debate be over? Only the narrow debate about the word and then the debate will be over whether person X belongs in the category.


 * This debate has carried over to the CfD discussion, but that discussion has a framing problem. It was presented as a discussion of whether Category:Climate change deniers should be renamed to Category:Climate change skeptics. While it is supposed to be a discussion, which allows all options and some have weighed in with a recommendation for removal, most of the participants are focused in on which of those two options is the best.


 * I thought I'd try cutting the Gordian knot and request that the category be deleted rather than argue over the right terminology. However, when I made this proposal here, it was procedurally closed, on the understandable argument that the discussion was already taking place. While understandable, I think it was flawed, as it missed the framing problem. It currently looks to me like some admin is going to have some god-awful challenge to close a discussion and choose one of the bad options. Once closed, I will try again to make the case that it ought to be deleted, but it should be nice if we could save the effort and delete it now. I think too many participants are entrenched in their own view, and see it as a tool to advance their position in the general global warming debate. Would be better off if we thought about it as a category not as a global warming tool and realize that it's not a proper category.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree on pretty much everything you say here. I've been trying to look at how similar issues have been treated in the past, and superficially there seems to be a lot of overlap with the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9.  Is that right or am I missing something? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment (Non-Admin) CfD discussions begin with a specific proposal (in this case rename) but the conversations often end with a different outcomes than the nomination. You'll see a lot of delete votes and alternative rename votes in that discussion. (If you haven't already, please do add your thoughts into that main CfD nomination.) In this case, I think the first third of the discussion was distracted not by the rename proposal but by procedural objections over reopening a recently closed discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Jurisdiction Who ultimately owns enforcement of WP:BLPCAT: the BLP side or the cat side?  and I were having a side conversation on his talk page about this. There's been accusations of WP:FORUMSHOP here but I really think this is a valid question. For now, I've started putting notices (below) for open category discussion with WP:BLPCAT implications to encourage more participation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We didn't specifically discuss WP:BLPCAT on my talk page. I don't bother with WP:FORUMSHOP allegations because this isn't the proper forum. I thank Sphilbrick for replying; I realize that the other administrators may lack time. I'm thinking now that requesting a close could work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Climate change theory opponents or similar, per WP:NPOV. Yes, climate change is real, and yes, it's anthropogenic, and yes, it's a crisis and political action is desperately needed. But the current name of this category isn't helping any of that. -- The Anome (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is flawed, User:The Anome. Some issues do not require equal weight to all sides. Should Wikipedia take a neutral position on the Holocaust or whether the Earth is flat? AusLondonder (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not take a neutral position on climate change. Our article on Global warming reports what authoritative sources say on the topic without equivocation. In particular it says "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that global warming is being caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activities." However we have strict policy WP:BLP on biographical information that requires any contentious information be well sourced. "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." As the arguments over the name for the disputed category make clear, positions on climate change can be highly nuanced. I looked at a couple of the articles to which the category was originally added by bot and found Andrew Montford who's is quoted as saying "I believe that CO2, other things being equal, will make the planet warmer. The six million dollar question is how much warmer. I'm less of a sceptic than people think. My gut feeling is still sceptical but I don't believe it's beyond the realms of possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be correct. It's more the case that we don't know and I haven't seen anything credible to persuade me there's a problem." Does that make him a denier? Some might think so other might not. But the connection does not rise to the level required by WP:BLP. Categories are particularly problematic because there is no mechanism for adding a source to a category designation within an article. So our policy discourages label categories for living persons. The category was removed from Montford's article a few days ago, but who is going to check all 133 entries in the category and its sub categories on a regular basis?--agr (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I intend to go to WP:ANRFC and ask "Closure by admin requested for WP:BLPN discussion 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once", on Thursday November 12, unless other editors say more time is needed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My only hope that this would be closed in tandem with the CFD discussion. I don't think two dueling close results would be constructive. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have placed the request at WP:ANRFC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Cat per WP:BLP ("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.") Labeling people who think climate change is beneficial or who doubt that the US acting alone can reverse climate change while China and India increase CO2 production without limit as "climate change deniers" is a classic example of an unsourced negative claim in a BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Cat There is no agreed upon way to categorize this, and the claim that all the people here have the same views is just plain false. Some of these people disagree with the notion of man-made climate change because they dislike the political goals of those who argue for it, others are convinced the evidence is against it, others are convinced it attributes too much influence to humans and their actions and not enough to other sources of change, others are clearly ambivalent on the issue but unwilling to declare as proven fact based on the current evidence. This is a mass grouping. The fact that the other deniers categories brought up all dealt with past events that some dispute occured as opposed to future events that some dispute will happen, or argue will happen for reasons other than those posited, and that even those who agree that the general principal applies have multiple models of what will happen, just shows this is an unworkable category. It needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep category: if, as has been repeatedly asserted, multiple reliable sources call certain people "climate change deniers", there is nothing in WP:BLP that prevents those claims to be reflected by a category, as long as the references are in the respective bodies (that's how categories are meant to work). LjL (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can create a list of equally "reliable" sources that call people "anti-life", "anti-choice", "gun grabbers", "gun nuts", "freedom fighters", "terrorists", "traditional marriage defenders", "Homophobes", etc. etc. Just because a bunch of people use a biased term that most members of a group say does not accurately describe them, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should not find a more NPOV category name. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a huge red flag for me about this cat or others like it, when it is being defined by reliable sources that are not the person in question. It basically allows for people to be slandered/libeled by WP by a term that could be taken by some as derogatory because an RS says so. --M ASEM (t) 23:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Cat per BLP. The only place we should be even be thinking of using the term is in articles whose subjects explicitly identify themselves as a "climate change denier", and even then, erecting a category on that basis implies the term has the same meaning in all cases, which it doesn't, given as said repeatedly above one might contest the vality of the data, but not the predictions, the predictions but not the data, the reality of the problem but not the efficacy of the proposed solutions, and so forth. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious and egregious violation of WP:BLPCAT. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep category It is not pejorative, no one is going to be rounding up deniers, or blacklisting them, as per the concerns of people wanting to remove the category. When FEMA starts rounding up deniers and putting them in detention camps after the 2016 election, we can remove the information to protect them. I will personally ensure that they receive the Red Cross packages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete cat - Describing an individual as a "Climate Change Denier" is a pejorative. Very few, if any, of these individuals would actually call themselves "Climate Change Deniers". Meatsgains (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete cat - It is too woolly. Many so-called "Climate Change Deniers" accept that climate change happens but have non-standard views about what causes it. Biscuittin (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Update
Just an update but the category at CSD has been deleted. As such, this can possibly be closed as moot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Amy Schumer
An editor is making edits that call Amy Schumer a racist, by removing RS-cited statements that balance an op-ed writer's WP:FRINGE claim that she is a racist.

Calling a living person a racist by removing cited evidence to the contrary seems a WP:BLP vio — yet this editor claims it's a BLP vio not to say she's a racist. I really don't understand, unless it's someone who hates Schumer's politics. She's anti-gun, and that riles certain people. Please see Talk:Amy Schumer/Archive 1. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This kind of thing is the reason some comics will no longer speak at college campuses - because they are not allowed to speak freely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Jussi Näppilä
Can you erase the article of Jussi Näppilä (finnish footballer) born 1987.

Article is poorly sourced and includes false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:20:710F:221:E9FF:FEDE:C147 (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The article could use additional sources for verification but I don't see any reason why we should delete it. The subject is notable, the page just needs some cleanup. Meatsgains (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I also properly formatted the references to include inline citations. Meatsgains (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

subjective/defamatory/libelous
The very short read required to find the grossly hateful comments made on your Johnathan Karl page would prove quite easy. Nothing more needs said. This is a hit piece pain and simple. Pages like this gives Wikipedia a very bad name.

Martin Carlson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.223.53 (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about Jonathan Karl, the broadcaster? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There did indeed appear to be some unsourced attack material in there, I've removed it. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Comisar
Experienced editors, please keep an eye on this biography. Comisar is an imprisoned con man who is trying to reshape his biography in a promotional fashion. I have been personally threatened for trying to prevent that from happening. Thanks for your help. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Same. Collect (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

James T. Butts, Jr.
Accusations by his ex-wife that he molested his daughter were recently added in a section called Private life. I was hoping to talk about it with whoever answers my Request Edit, but I realize the queue is about 6-8 months backlogged.

According to The Los Angeles Times no charges were ever filed. The DA's report noted a lack of evidence and that the accusations were made by his ex-wife one day after he filed for divorce and began a custody battle.

I thought WP:BLPCRIME prevented us from covering crimes where no charges were filed? Please politely correct me if I am wrong. I appreciate your time and attention in advance. Please note my COI disclosure. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed the section. --Hillbillyholiday talk 18:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)