Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive242

Amy Poehler
>Nearly two years ago In September last year, it was widely reported that actress Amy Poehler broke up with her actor boyfriend Nick Kroll. Apparently, Us Weekly first reported on it, then People Magazine followed up with what they had from the Us Weekly article(s). Entertainment Tonight followed suit as did the San Jose Mercury News, Los Angeles Times, and Variety. It should be noted that I don't care about Poehler's personal life or about who she's dating. What I care about is that the article on her be accurate. Which, at this time, it is not. As well, I've always been a stickler for following BLP guidelines and accuracy in all articles. In the past, when a celebrity relationship, death, or "breaking news" story has come to light, editors are rightly skeptical and cautious in adding such content into BLP articles - I'm among them. In this case, when the story of Poehler's relationship split first broke, I was one of those who remained cautious. A year later, when there was nothing that refuted the reporting on the break up, I was less cautious and felt the new information on her relationship status should be put into the article. Now, almost two years later, the content remains out of the article, the article states she and her now ex-boyfriend are still dating, and the result is a BLP that contains inaccurate information. Others beside myself have tried to rectify this situation, always adding reliable sources to support the content addition (LA Times and SJ Merc News among them). We have been met continually with "NOTATABLOID" and "not a reliable source" and almost immediate reversions. Today and the last couple of days is the most recent occurrence of this. Discussion at the talk page in the past - and, it would appear today - has resulted in brick walls being built. I think it's time to solve this issue once and for all in regard to the sources cited for this BLP article. Any help and direction on this from uninvolved and neutral editors would be appreciated.-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This has been a perennial problem in biographies of TV, film and music stars, and normally most editors will follow WP:BLP and WP:NOTTABLOID. But a couple of editors have made or are trying to make edits at Amy Poehler based on anonymous, unattributed, shadowy "sources" making unconfirmed claims.


 * Their claim, for example, that her purported breakup with Nick Kroll has been "widely reported" is specious, since virtually every single report is secondary reporting citing Us Weekly and its anonymous "source." That's all the Los Angeles Times and San Jose Mercury News did. A hundred sources could repeat the claim, but it all goes back to the same "source": some anonymous person of uncertain credibility or agenda who gave Us Weekly an unconfirmed claim — which by definition is a rumor. An encyclopedia does not traffic in gossip and rumor.


 * RE: "a year later, when there was nothing that refuted the reporting on the break up..." Some shadowy person's allegation isn't magically confirmed after a year or even 10 years. And if celebrities had to refute every anonymous claim made about them in celebrity magazines and the tabloid press, they'd have little time for anything else. Many, many celebrities never bother to refute media gossip.


 * RE: "the article states she and her now ex-boyfriend are still dating...." That is absolutely false. The article says they began dating at some point, with RS citing, and that she mentions Kroll in her book. That's all we confirmably know. Nowhere does the article say, "As of 2016 they remain in a relationship."


 * The other editor said on the article's talk page that he or she: "tried to use language in the article which reflects that the split was reported rather than saying the split was confirmed by the couple." One of the biggest weasel words we avoid is "reportedly." Anyone can report anything. And simply adding the word "reportedly" to gossip or a rumor doesn't make it OK or encyclopedic.


 * Finally, there's a larger issue at stake: Stating unconfirmed, unverified, anonymously sourced claims as encyclopedic fact. Sometimes those claims will be correct. Sometimes they will not. There's no objective basis for saying, "This anonymous source is OK, but that one isn't." Where do we draw the line? That's the critical question. I do not believe that an encyclopedia, which as much as humanly possible is supposed the concrete, definitive word on a subject, should be using unconfirmed, tabloidy, who's-dating-who / who's pregnant-type information based on anonymous claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Reportedly, most Wikipedia editors who use a lot of weasel words are actual, literal weasels... --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Our guideline WP:RS says "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Several of the news outlets cited on the breakup have excellent reputations. The LA Times in particular cites "multiple reports" and attempted to contact both parties. WP:RS does not require that we vet the fact checking that our sources actually carry out in each case. Doing so might be appropriate as an extra measure for a highly damaging report about a living person, but the end of a dating relationship does not seem that contentious. I think the sourcing passes muster in this situation.--agr (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * User:ArnoldReinhold a.k.a. agr might not be the best person from whom to get interpretation of Wikipedia rules: On the same edit as his post above, he actually went in and changed the comment of another editor. I don't know what guideline he read that says it's OK to change another editor's talk-page comments. I've restored the editor's original comments.
 * Newspapers are famously "the first draft of history". They are not encyclopedias, which have a higher standard. In fact, wait: Here's how WP:BLP puts it: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid."
 * WP:BLP also says that "contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Anonymous sources by their very nature are poor sources. And it goes completely against BLP to suggest that we can use anonymous, unconfirmed claims by unidentified "sources" — i.e. rumors — to invade someone's private life. Or as the policy puts it: "Biographies of living persons ... must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." --Tenebrae (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "agr might not be the best person from whom to get interpretation of Wikipedia rules". Please keep this civil and comment only on content not contributors.  Back to the real issue: While I don't usually think that administrators, as agr is, always have the right answers, I don't think his comments on and interpretation of WP:RS are off at all.  Even if I didn't agree with what side he's coming down on in this discussion, I would still feel what he quoted above and explained is on the money.  And, just for the record, I highly doubt agr intentionally changed my comments and what happened was a simple copy and paste that went slightly awry -- it's quite unlikely an administrator intentionally would change another editors comments.  The copy and paste snafu has happened to me before and I think it's a very plausible explanation for what happened above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  04:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It was indeed a paste instead of copy error on my part. Thanks for understanding that.--agr (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Every source traces back to US weekly. Which is *not* useable as a RS for contentious info on Wikipedia. The LA Times probably would be, but we also dont put in speculation 'We have contacted them and been unable to verify this information' should be a warning sign for most people that the info is probably not sound. Until someone actually comes up with a reliable source that confirms the info, it should stay out as it is clearly unconfirmed rumours. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Us Weekly isn't a RS? That is news to me.  As far as confirmation, ET, also a RS, stated n their article that they confirmed the story. Regardless, the LAT and SJMN, both unquestionably RSs, reported the story.  Doesn't matter from where they got the story this time just it doesn't matter in other instances.  Are you saying both reputable publications must now be scrutinized as to their journalistic integrity and we must question what they publish based on where they got their info?  I don't think it works that way, just as Agr pointed out above according to the RS policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  09:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In short, RS requires we judge all sources individually for the information they are providing. An otherwise RS may be unreliable for specific claims. We dont include information in a BLP and leave it at 'well source X printed it, so it must be true'. When it comes to BLPs half-measures do not cut it. Yes it *does* matter where the information comes from, and if you continue to use gossip sources to report unverified celebrity gossip, expect the same response you have already been provided with. The other option of course, is as the nature of her relationship is unclear (and it is not just linked to her, I did a fairly comprehensive search on the other party last night and the info available is equally badly sourced and out of date) the most BLP compliant option would be just to remove all mention of said relationship from both their biographies. Since said relationship (if over) was not significant, it doesnt belong as an UNDUE issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what you're saying may be true in theory, but in practice, it just isn't the way things are done in Wikipedia. Time and again I've seen the exact opposite occur.  I will retain my position on this: the SJMN and the LAT are unquestionably reliable sources.  They published it, therefore, it is verified.  Remember: verifiability over truth.  Further, the relationship was significant enough for Poehler to include in her book (and that is also included in the article), therefore, the break up needs to be included in the article as well.  Otherwise, you have a completely open-ended relationship status that should have closure in the article but still states, incorrectly, that it still exists.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  14:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well in practice it *does* work that way, since numerous editors apply it that way every day. That you do not is your problem. Since its a BLP and the info about the relationship ending is contentious and in multiple editor's opinion is unreliable, it stays out until you can demonstrate a clear consensus to include it. So unless you have some entirely new argument that is more compelling than the one you have just made, I suggest you leave it a day or so for others to comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please abandon the hostile tone ("that you do not is your problem") as its not necessary and is starting to take things south here. My observation is simply that, an observation.  I didn't say I don't apply it every day and I didn't say I don't still see that as the gold standard.  That said, in this case, I believe this gold standard is a bit over the top on something so minute that has been verified and published by reliable sources.  There's nothing overtly contentious with this other than the two-year long contention from one editor at the article who reverts this content on sight, no discussion has resulted in anything but what he deems correct.  Two years is a long time for something verified by reliable sources enough to their satisfaction that they published it to stay out of an encyclopedia article and incorrect content to remain.  I see that as a much bigger problem for the article than the argument about all the reliable sources' content verification going back to Us Weekly, a reliable source in and of itself.  There's something else applied by numerous editors every day here, WP:COMMONSENSE.  I think it's time to use some where this content, for this article, is concerned. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  14:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since its a BLP and the info about the relationship ending is contentious and in multiple editor's opinion is unreliable, it stays out until you can demonstrate a clear consensus to include it per WP:BLP. Length of time on a 'fact' not being reported on further can equally mean no one reported on it further because it was unverified celebrity gossip. Unless you have some entirely new argument that is more compelling than the one you have just made, I suggest you leave it a day or so for others to comment. If it sounds like I am repeating myself, it is because I am as you appeared not to have heard the first time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Length of time on a 'fact' not being reported on further can equally mean no one reported on it further because it was unverified celebrity gossip." They haven't been seen together for two years following the stories published by reliable sources that their relationship ended but it's unverified gossip that they are no longer together?  I'm not following your line of reasoning.  I still believe BLP guidelines will not be compromised with inclusion of the content supported by the aforementioned reliable sources, that WP:RS as quoted above by agr is the right way to approach this, and WP:COMMONSENSE needs to be applied.  And with that, I will bow out commenting further unless someone asks a specific question of me.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  15:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with anyone insisting on putting celebrity gossip into Wikipedia. It's a tortured argument to say that because the LA Times repeats a rumor from Us Weekly that the rumor must be true. Magazines often report gossip and many newspapers have gossip sections — en encyclopedia does not and should not. That is WP:COMMONSENSE.

And incidentally WP:BLP is more stringent than simple WP:RS, and rightfully so.-- Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Has anyone seen this interview in The Guardian?
 * That's basically everything this source has to say about the (alleged) breakup – unless you squint, a lot. Anyway, what's unique to this (reliable) source is that it does not link to Us Weekly. Politrukki (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you even have to squint a lot to see what's being said. It doesn't seem to be any kind of WP:SYNTH situation, either.  It certainly supports what the LAT and SJMN already said three months prior to this article.  agr, do you know if The Guardian is considered a reliable source?  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  20:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * After some investigation, it would appear The Guardian is a reliable source, legitimate newspaper with editorial oversight, and I see no reason why this cannot be yet another RS to support content that mentions the end of Poehler and Kroll's romantic relationship. As has already been established, the relationship is significant in Poehler's life as she talked about it in her book.  There seems to be no valid reason at this point to keep content on the break up out of the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  23:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Politrukki I had not seen that quote but it does come from another reliable source. I'll be brief here since I have already discussed at length on the talk page. First to clarify a few things, the reports come from September 2015, so it was almost 10 months ago, not two years. Also to clarify, US Weekly is the source that was picked up by most other outlets, however People.com did report having its own source for the news, so that makes two reports with their own sources. Now we can add the Guardian article above, which makes three articles that have their own reporting. I have yet to see any reliable sources indicating that Poehler and Kroll are not broken up. Even if the Los Angeles Times did not do in depth reporting on its own here, a writer at the Los Angeles times read the US Weekly reporting and determined it was reliable enough to report on. Dozens of other writers at reputable websites and newspapers made similar judgments. Two people ending a relationship is not libelous and should not be controversial where it is so widely reported. No one has proposed assigning blame or attaching any value judgment.
 * I had wrote "reportedly" in the article as a way to respond to a previous complaint that the article said Poehler and Kroll had confirmed which did not reflect the article cited (which at that time was the Daily Mail). I am open to coming up with a way to phrase the sentence which might be more agreeable to other editors and address some of the concerns. Knope7 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This fan-site-like desire to start injecting unconfirmed relationship gossip into a WP:BLP is simply remarkable. If Poehler had confirmed the claim to The Guardian, that'd be definitive. But she clearly did not and the writer was forced to make an assumption — because if Poehler did not confirm it, and the paper did not speak with Kroll, then where did the information come from? From exactly the kind of rumormongering that magazines and newspapers do but an encyclopedia should not.
 * RE: "Dozens of other writers at reputable websites and newspapers made similar judgments" — I'm rather frustrated at Knope7 playing "I don't hear you." So let me say it again and I hope that this editor doesn't try and pretend again that he or she does not hear: Those "dozens" of outlets were all simply repeating gossip that an anonymous, shadowy, unattributed source of uncertain agenda told Us Weekly. Repeating a rumor does not make it true. As for People, it also used an anonymous source.
 * An encyclopedia can't rely on anonymous claims made to gossip sites and tabloids. WP:BLP is rightfully more stringent than WP:RS. I'll repeat what it says, since some editors seem to be willfully ignoring it: "Contentious material about living persons ... 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. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons ... must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. [emphasis mine] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Tenebrae I have read all of your comments and I do not agree with you. I will not go through the reasons why again. We can disagree and still be civil. I was putting my comments here so that other editors who may not have read the talk page could see them. I would like to ask you to please stop making snide comments directed at me. I do not appreciate it and I would like it to stop. We are here to try and reach consensus on the Amy Poehler article. Knope7 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay - wow, my error on how long it's been. Thanks for pointing that out, .  My suggestion for the wording is:
 * Poehler began dating actor and comedian Nick Kroll in 2013; he was mentioned several times in Poehler's 2014 memoir, Yes Please. From September to December 2015, it was reported in several online publications that Kroll and Poehler had ended their two-year dating relationship. The break-up was confirmed on September 23, 2015 by the news-magazine, Entertainment Tonight.  In December 2015,  the break-up was further confirmed by the British newspaper, The Guardian, where writer Elizabeth Day's interview with Poehler stated she had discussed Poehler's past relationship with Kroll.
 * Suggesting something like the above, anyway. The content acknowledges the significance of the relationship (which was questioned by an editor above) with the mention of Poehler's book, it notes that there were reports of the break up starting in September 2015, it was confirmed by Entertainment Tonight that same month, and then discussed by Poehler with the Guardian writer during an interview in December 2015.  Reliable sources will be added to support all this, of course.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are so many reasons why that suggestion is completely unworkable. First, the amount of space given to a purported breakup is undue weight. Second, "it was reported in several online publications" practically screams "unreliable gossip and rumor" — are you unfamiliar with the reputation of online publications? And those "several online publications" are all re-reporting the same Us Weekly rumor.
 * And your claim about Entertainment Tonight seems deliberately misleading. Here's what it says: "...have officially broken up, ET confirms. Us Weekly was the first to break the news." So ET is also basing its report on Us Weekly, and as for its confirmation .... there is no confirmation! Who confirmed it? Poehler? Kroll? Their representatives? No. And for goodness sakes, that tabloid TV show betrays its sloppy reporting when it says the two "officially" broke up. Really ... where do you register to make it official?
 * Since this editor also seems guilty of "I can't hear you", I'll repeat about The Guardian: If Poehler had confirmed the claim to The Guardian, that'd be definitive. But she clearly did not and the writer was forced to make an assumption — because if Poehler did not confirm it, and the paper did not speak with Kroll, then where did the information come from? From exactly the kind of rumormongering that magazines and newspapers do but an encyclopedia should not. Addendum: The writer does not say,"she had discussed Poehler's past relationship with Kroll". Anyone can read for themselves that she says she was "breezing through all the usual interview questions" — whatever "breezing through" means in this context — and the writer mentions Kroll in a parenthetical aside. Not as a quote. Not even as a paraphrase. Her own parenthetical aside.
 * Are two editors really arguing that it's a good thing for an encyclopedia to start adding unconfirmed celebrity gossip? That just strikes me as a very odd thing to be fighting for. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally yes. Its fairly common for celebrity BLP's. Which brings me back to my original suggestion of removing the section under UNDUE grounds. Its irrelevant to her notability and as WV has clearly show above, attempts to expand it fall under UNDUE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Winkelvi, Us Weekly and Entertainment Tonight were both published on September 23 and the US Weekly article online mentioned that they published the story in their magazine as well. To address @talk's undue weight concern, I think one sentence would be sufficient. "In September 2015, US Weekly and People reported Poehler and Kroll had broken up," or something else quick, to the point, and then followed up with citations. I'd be fine with replacing People with Entertainment Tonight since they both say they have a source outside of US Weekly. I would also recommend maybe adding a citation to LA Times/CBS/some other more "reputable" source that reported the information.
 * An alternative suggestion would be just to combine the relationship and break-up into once sentence. "Poehler dated comedian Nick Kroll from 2013 to 2015," and use whatever source is their currently for them dating as well as any one (or several) of the sources which reported they broke up (US, People, ET, Guardian, LA Times, CBS).
 * I'm also fine with removing the relationship altogether as suggested by Only in death. One of my complaints about not including the break-up is that it gives the impression that Poehler and Kroll are still dating that is contrary to all reports I've seen. I'd be fine with just removing the relationship if compromise cannot be reached for how to include the break-up articles. Knope7 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I would agree with you about removing the relationship altogether if the relationship with Kroll had not been mentioned in her book. Obviously, for her to put it in the book, it was significant.  Two years together is significant.  We now have a reliable source that does, independent from Us Weekly, and in spite of what some here are saying, confirm Kroll and Poehler ended their relationship as was reported in reliable sources.  The Guardian is a reliable source and there's no reason why we should not take what the author of the article says as suspect or unclear.  Just because it's written in a prose-like fashion rather than a bullet-point or time-line fashion doesn't make it any less verifiable and real. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  03:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think saying "Poehler and Kroll dated from 2013 to 2015. Poehler mentioned Kroll in her book." (or some variation of that) would be fine. I think that mentioning the break up is the best way to address the reporting. That said, I would also like to build consensus. The second best option, IMO, is to not mention the relationship at all. I think the relationship is notable enough to mention, but I don't think it is so important that its exclusion would be as bad as option three. Option three--leaving the article as it is now with the relationship mentioned and leaving out the end of the relationship, which has been widely reported by reputable sources, is poor work. It is misleading as it implies the relationship is still going on and makes Wikipedia look unnecessarily out of date given the sources available. My main concerns are accuracy and veracity. I will note that I looked at the edit history and this information has been added to the article by several different editors over the past 10 months and so far I have not seen one source refuting the veracity of the break-up report. Anyway, I am willing to agree to a compromise which is why I suggested removing the relationship altogether. It is not the best option, but it's also not the worst option. Knope7 (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think saying "Poehler and Kroll dated from 2013 to 2015. Poehler mentioned Kroll in her book." (or some variation of that) would be fine. I think that mentioning the break up is the best way to address the reporting. That said, I would also like to build consensus. The second best option, IMO, is to not mention the relationship at all. I think the relationship is notable enough to mention, but I don't think it is so important that its exclusion would be as bad as option three. Option three--leaving the article as it is now with the relationship mentioned and leaving out the end of the relationship, which has been widely reported by reputable sources, is poor work. It is misleading as it implies the relationship is still going on and makes Wikipedia look unnecessarily out of date given the sources available. My main concerns are accuracy and veracity. I will note that I looked at the edit history and this information has been added to the article by several different editors over the past 10 months and so far I have not seen one source refuting the veracity of the break-up report. Anyway, I am willing to agree to a compromise which is why I suggested removing the relationship altogether. It is not the best option, but it's also not the worst option. Knope7 (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone still doubt that no source is sufficiently reliable for matters of "celebrity gossip"? Collect (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur with Collect and I'm surprised this is even a discussion. Plus, addressing once again the "I can't hear you" tactics of the only two editors who are advocating for celebrity gossip, the phrase "US Weekly and People reported Poehler and Kroll had broken up" is an unusable construction since it's simply and end-around attempt at inserting the WP:WEASEL "reportedly". --Tenebrae (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "I'm surprised this is even a discussion". Not following you or why you said <---that.  Especially considering that the following thread at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons was started by you four days ago: .  Essentially the same kind of thread, asking for help and advice regarding content at the article in question and asking for a check on the understanding BLP guidelines in regard to reliable sources.  In fact, according to the time stamp, you started that discussion before I started this one.  The day after you started the thread, you received the following response from : "The question is whether the source is reliable. If sources as diverse as the LA Times and People Magazine are satisfied with the information and willing to publish it, they are, to the best of my knowledge, generally considered reliable sources capable of competent fact-checking, subject to editorial control, and generally accurate. It does not matter if they name their source, they would have verified the information to their satisfaction. I don't believe the use of BLP here to remove the information is appropriate, given that multiple reliable sources have published it. Seraphimblade 03:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)".  As we can all see, Seraphimblade agrees with the majority of us who have commented here: the content is valid and should be included if supported by a reliable source, which, in Seraphimblade's estimation (as with the majority of us commenting here), it is.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has moved back to the article's talk page Talk:Amy Poehler.--agr (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Randy Spears
This porn actor gave an interview in which he alleged that a former romantic partner (also a notable porn actress) once accused him falsely of rape. I don't think the allegation of a false rape claim belongs in either ones BLP. I've deleted it from both articles. However, another editor argues that it's appropriate on one, if not both, pages. I initiated a thread here and the other editor has responded. Additional opinions (either way) would be helpful. David in DC (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I share your concern and have commented at that talk page. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Given events since your comment, I imagine the page will require sustained attention from BLP-savvy editors. David in DC (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not Sylvia Miles in photo on her page
The photograph on the page for Sylvia Miles is for Vera Miles, not Sylvia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.6.19 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The source of the photo, the Florida Keys Public Library, identifies her as Sylvia. What's your source that it isn't? —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The photograph in question is apparently File:Sylvia Miles on Duval Street.jpg. But what makes you sure that this is Vera and not Sylvia Miles? The image was published by Monroe County Public Library (Florida Keys) which is supposedly a reliable source. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite their shared surname, and being born within a few years of each other, Vera Miles and Sylvia Miles are not related, as far as I can tell. Sylvia Miles is credited with a role in 92 in the Shade, the film shot in Key West when the photo was taken there. I see no evidence that Vera Miles was involved with that film. Therefore, I believe that the photo is of Sylvia. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure looks like Sylvia Miles to me and nothing like Vera Miles. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  22:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this particular image. I just wanted to point out that the same situation exists at Bob Armstrong (actually Tommy Seigler) and George Barnes Grigsby (actually James Wickersham). The latter is not a BLP, but I thought I would mention it anyway. This has been repeatedly pointed out and categorically ignored, because of the same lazy, obedient assumption that a clerk at the Library of Congress is going to know more about Grigsby and Wickersham and their contentious, intertwining tenures in Congress than members of the local historical society. Some of those folks have been studying Wickersham for decades, while some others volunteer as docents at the local Wickersham House museum. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . I see no discussion at Talk: Bob Armstrong and no opposition at Talk:George Barnes Grigsby. If you have investigated the matter, why don't you go right ahead and remove those photos from those articles? Is anything stopping you? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on prior episodes, the problem may be that I'm violating particular interpretations of AGF by saying anything when people just randomly slap together content elements without regard for context or factual accuracy. This compared with this makes it a no-brainer.  Accuracy-wise, there's nothing to discuss.  However, the very existence of crops like this suggests a deep, abiding hatred of context on the part of some who perhaps push our content a little too far in a hagiographic direction.  While we're talking about professional wrestling, here's a good example of that.  I doubt that an article such as Heyman's is being read mostly by people who have zero familiarity with professional wrestling.  As such, it wouldn't take much to figure out that the arm on the left side of the photo belongs to Brock Lesnar, and that Heyman's shit-eating grin can be attributed to this being their first public appearance following WrestleMania XXX, where Lesnar ended the WM winning streak of The Undertaker, a pretty significant event in wrestling within this decade.  I'm just waiting for someone to respond to this with "The article is about Paul Heyman, not about Brock Lesnar.  That's why he was cropped out".
 * A more pressing BLP problem is at Don Young, which I've been watching for years but haven't paid a lot of attention to until a recent news story about one of his election opponents. One active editor with a fondness for constant edit warring and otherwise messing with good-faith contributions to political articles added the signature of John Conyers to the infobox in December 2014.  Other active editors with a fondness for constant edit warring and otherwise messing with good-faith contributions to political articles have shown up there since, but evidently didn't find this to be worth their bother.  Instead, their edit warring focused on some fleeting political issue, as is always the case with that article.  I've had past interactions with this group and have just left them alone, since I don't view my purpose here as being one of providing them with fodder because they're bored and need something to do.  In this context, I view SOFIXIT as just covering up for that sort of behavior.  Fuck that, let them hang by their own rope.  Similarly, Sarah Palin never served in another governor's cabinet, but Click Bishop served in Palin's cabinet.  Various editors over the years who have worked on those and related articles appear quite confident in how we don't need to properly reflect those sort of things.  If they want to walk around in a Wiki version of "The Emperor's New Clothes", how is my constantly fixing their fuckups going to address the root cause?
 * I don't want to dwell as much on Grigsby, as it's not a BLP. Nome and Seward Peninsula by Edward Sanford Harrison (1905) is on Google Books, so you can verify this yourself, but the photo of Grigsby in that book shows just enough resemblance to leave just enough doubt.  I recall attempting to contact the LOC about this and never receiving a response.  Without resolving it at that level, it's a US-PD image, and therefore people will continue to upload it and claim that it's Grigsby even if we figure things out and change it on our end. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  15:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

J Roberto Trujillo
This appears to be a copy of this person's CV written by himself, and is not verifiable or written from a neutral point of view. A clear WP:COI. http://www.robertotrujillo.ceo/about/

J Roberto Trujillo

Christos Tsiolkas
There is a separate related article in wiki for the ABC TV miniseries based on Christos' novel of the same name. There is no hyperlink from one article to the other.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracuda_(TV_series)> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.47.8 (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn vos Savant
Could people have a look at this? The very extensive list of (apparently) every error she ever made in her column seems excessive, and it used to come before "famous columns" Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Micky Murphy
The article "Micky Murphy" about guitarist Mick Murphy is full of inaccuracies, both major and minor, from basic information such as his full name, date and place of birth, through to members of bands he has been in and worked with as well as many, many other details. I and others have attempted to edit the article on numerous occasions, only to have the changes rolled back or reported as vandalism. In its current form the article is very misleading and - I believe - should be removed. It seems to me that it is in clear breach of Wikipedia's living persons policies.Burlington Bert (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That article has had less than 30 edits in total, and none of them are by you, unless you were editing from a different account. There have been a couple of instances of vandalism which appear to have been reverted. One was by an IP and the other account has been blocked. There is also no discussion of any such problems at Talk:Micky Murphy, which is where such matters should be discussed. You should identify the specific errors and provide reliable sources verifying the accuracy of your version. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 . I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I understand that I wasn't actually logged in when making my edit to the Micky Murphy article - whereby I updated the info box to make it accurate - and hence the changes I made have been logged as an IP rather than my user name. Despite the accuracy of my edits, I note that they were reported as vandalism and reverted back to the original inaccurate info box. Whilst respecting Wikipedia, its policies and aims, it is hugely frustrating to keep being referred to different sections of the site to report inaccuracies and try and ensure they are amended or deleted. The errors in the article are so numerous that it would take a new article to list them all. Do you know of another route by which I can quickly resolve this? I have no other aim than to ensure an accurate article. With thanks in advance. Burlington Bert (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I suggested above,, list the inaccuracies on the article's talk page (linked above) and provide reliable sources for the accurate information. Do so while logged in. Inform me when you have done so and I will take a look. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  15:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 . I'll inform you when done.Burlington Bert (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 . I have now listed out the inaccuracies in the article at Talk:Micky Murphy. With thanks.Burlington Bert (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing excellent documentation on the talk page, . I have moved the article to the proper title Mick Murphy (guitarist), and corrected the most glaring errors. Please continue correcting errors and please also copy and paste the references you have provided to the article. Let me know if anyone adds falsehoods again, or post here. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance in resolving the most obvious errors <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 . I will continue to edit the article to improve accuracy and overall sense.Burlington Bert (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Christian Maldini
Can I create this page? I write again because after that nobody answered. --John95 (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Why? Do you dislike this individual sufficiently that you're willing to create a magnet for vandalism and wide exposure of anything negative about him? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't WP:BITE the newbies, Boris., in order to recreate the page you would need to ask if they would be OK with this. However there are a few things to consider here:
 * You will need to show where Maldini has received coverage enough to where he would pass notability guidelines per WP:NFOOTY or WP:NBIO. Being the child of a notable athlete would not be enough to assert notability.
 * You may want to work on an article at the Articles for Creation process. This would greatly benefit you since you would be able to present Mailer diablo with a working copy of the article, which can help show notability more efficiently sometimes than conversations on a talk page.
 * Be aware that as Boris stated, Wikipedia pages can sometimes become vandalism magnets. Wikipedia also tends to be protective of minors, even those in their later teens. If Maldini is still a minor then it will likely be more difficult to assert notability for him because Wikipedia generally figures that an article for a minor could be harmful if the kid does something foolish that would warrant inclusion in the article. However I get the impression he's about 19 years old, so the "protection of a minor" part might not be valid anymore.
 * Hopefully this helps you some! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not meaning to bite, just wanting John95 to recognize the problems that having a Wikipedia biography can cause -- especially for someone of marginal notability whose article may not be closely watched. My language was a bit strong but sometimes that can help people sit up and take notice. My apologies to John95 for any offense. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Diamondprox Possible COPYVIO
This article popped up while doing NPP. It has a lot of obvious and some suspected issues. The language is clearly promotional. It reads like a fan page. But I am more concerned with the serious lack of sourcing and what smells like a copy and paste job in the text. One of the items that has potential COPYVIO flashing on my radar is that much of the text has brackets with numbers in them like what you would expect for footnotes. But they are just unexplained part of text. I did a couple of quick text searches using Google but turned up nothing. Even so I remain suspicious. Does anyone have a better way of doing a text search than Google? If anyone has some time and wants to take a look, I'd appreciate the second opinion. I am holding off on tagging for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see large chunks of the history text here, with a different person's name. That material is released under a CC-BY-SA license, but with a copy and paste stripping the attribution, we're probably not meeting terms of the license and thus WP:COPYVIO is indeed a concern, but someone here might be better at navigating that question than I. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It says in the reference section - - which is apparently where this content came from - esportspedia June 2013, our article was created in June 2016.-- Isaidnoway  (talk)  17:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added tags for ref improve and copy & paste. At this point I am unsure if we can leave it alone or this is something that needs to be redacted or maybe it rises to the level of just deleting the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had missed that (I was too busy looking at edit summaries.) The template, added in this edit, is improperly formed, but when corrected it should probably cover the requisite needed attribution. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Lorraine Mooney
The article about appears completely unacceptable: one unreliable source (powerbase.info), one mention in a gossip-y column in 2002, and a mention in a Salon article in 2008. Should it be blanked and proposed for deletion (I can't find any evidence of notability or better sources)? Thanks in advance for any advice. shellac (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the worst unsourced material and tagged the rest. It should probably be proposed for deletion if it doesn't improve soon. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. shellac (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nick Knowles
The subject, Nick Knowles, has complained, on Twitter (his account is verified there), of multiple inaccuracies but refuses to say what they are (apart from one, where he says the cited source is wrong about who is the mother of one of his children; but he will not contact the source for a correction), and has dismissed my offer to help. He also invited people to vandalise the article, which is now semi-protected. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

B. Alan Wallace
The article uses a blog post as a secondary source for Wallace's views and claims (which is at least discouraged by WP:BLPSPS as I understand it). I asked for a primary source for the statement "in support of this view Wallace cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception", as it seems dubious (I give my justification for that here). The other editor involved didn't provide it and reintroduced the claim, despite no one else expressing assent to it after a long discussion on the talk page. Chilton (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Chilton believes, indeed insists, that a primary source is required to back up a secondary source. This is wrong. As I have attempted to explain on the article talk page, secondary sources are vital in Wikipedia (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:FRIND, etc.).
 * The source in question is Steven Novella, a neurologist and professor. It is narrowly focused upon critiquing Wallace's ideas about consciousness, and it is only used for that purpose. Per WP:NPOV, specifically WP:PSCI, we are required to place views considered pseudoscientific in the context of mainstream reception. That is, it is against the NPOV policy to present Wallace's fringe views uncritically; Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of fringe views. This is the reason WP:PARITY exists, and the source is suitable per WP:PARITY.
 * The text in the article accurately reflects the source, as Chilton himself has conceded. He just believes Novella is "wrong". I have asked (several times) for a better source, but none has been forthcoming.
 * I proposed removing from the article the mention Wallace's views on consciousness, as this would cleanly resolve the dispute. (No policy says that we must discuss a particular view that a subject has.) Chilton has refused to say yes or no to this proposal.


 * Manul ~ talk 22:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "Chilton believes, indeed insists, that a primary source is required to back up a secondary source." - I asked for a primary source only for this particular claim, explaining why I think it is probably untrue. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for a primary source for the person's own statements (especially if they are sourced solely by someone's blog post). Please don't ascribe your misunderstandings to me. Chilton (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "It is narrowly focused upon critiquing Wallace's ideas about consciousness, and it is only used for that purpose" - no, it is also used as the sole source for Wallace's own views and claims. I never implied that I want to present them uncritically. Chilton (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "I have asked (several times) for a better source" - as far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't require providing a source as a justification for every deletion. Besides that, it would be next to impossible to find a source which contradicted Novella's claim (as I explained on the talk page) - unless the totality of Wallace's own books and interviews counts. Chilton (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You tagged the article with the template, giving the reason as "No primary source for this claim could be provided." There is no policy-based justification for this, and it's a bit more than "asking" -- it is demanding.


 * Correct, we use independent secondary sources to describe fringe views.


 * If you can find a better source, I'm happy to throw out Novella. The Salon interview is in line with what Novella says, but I'm open to a better (necessarily secondary, necessarily independent) source.


 * Manul ~ talk 23:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The full reason is obviously on the talk page, as you very well know. Please don't try to manipulate the situation in this way.


 * "Correct" - I'm pleased that you are able to admit that you were wrong on some point.


 * Here we go again. You didn't address my argument for why I think the statement is dubious, nor my doubts about the possiblity of ever finding a source to contradict Novella (even in principle). I also didn't claim that we have to throw him out. I hope someone else steps in an settles this, as this is getting extremely tiresome. Chilton (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The basic problem here is really not secondary versus primary source. No, we don't need a primary source if we have a reliable secondary source... but this secondary source being used does not meet our standards for reliability. It's a WP:BLPSPS, and is thus not sufficient for data on a living person. The material will need to be sourced properly if it is to be included. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A blog is definitely WP:BLPSPS Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur with NatGertler - Self-published work by third parties is not acceptable for comment on a living person as per WP:BLPSPS. However, as the publisher appears to be an accredited expert in a relevant field, their opinion on the substance of Wallace's ideas may be included. Their opinion on Wallace himself (or speculation about what he actually believes) may not. Its a fine distinction that rarely comes up, because there are usually plenty of primary sources that confirm what the secondary sources ascribe to them (the subject). Compare:
 * "The idea that evidence of "substrate consciousness" may be obtained through meditative states...." sourced to Novella
 * "Wallace believes that evidence of "substrate consciousness" may be obtained through meditative states..." Sourced to Novella
 * In the first example, Novellas self-published source is being used to critique the idea Wallace has put forward (that this is testable) - this would usually be fine. In the second example we attribute a belief to Wallace from a third party - this would not be okay without either a non-blog reliable secondary source stating Wallace holds that belief, or a primary source (Wallace) stating he holds that belief. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if we put "Wallace believes in substrate consciousness"(SOURCE: Something Reliable)" up against "Novello says that science finds that substrate consciousness is cherry-flavored hogwash" (SOURCE: Bloggity blog), then we're engaging in WP:SYNTH. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. Synth is A+B=C where no source connects A+B to conclusion C. An example of synth would be - "Wallace states substrate conciousness can be tested" (Source: Something Reliable) + "Substrate conciousness cannot be tested because science!" (Source: Bloggity Blog by scientist) = "Wallace believes in substrate conciousness" - Synth. The first two statements would be allowed per sourcing (depending on the author of the blog's credentials) the conclusion would be Synth and BLP violating - which I believe is currently what the wording in the article states now. I think the BLP *could* be reworded to include Novella's comments on the testability of substrate conciousness, but ideally this would be in an article on the subject itself. The other problem of course, is for truely fringe/pseudo science topics you sometimes just do not get the ReliableSource(TM) commenting on it because no sane scientist is going to put out a paper for peer-review on something obviously bunk. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but putting those two statements together is used to create an implied C ("Scientists believe that Wallace's belief are cherry-flavored hogwash"), and the only place that has that A+B=C is a place that we specifically cannot use for that statement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * These hypotheticals don't seem helpful because they don't match up with the case at hand. The Novella source connects the fringe theory to Wallace, so there is no SYNTH in making that connection. Novella also discusses the evidence cited by Wallace, so there is no SYNTH in tying the claimed evidence to the theory or to Wallace. The evidence is part of the fringe theory being critiqued; it is not something separate from it.


 * I do think the comments above raise a valid concern about the wording, which should make clear that the evidence is part of the theory and that the theory is being criticized. This is quite different from SYNTH-sounding "Wallace believes ... but science ..." sort of sentences. Manul ~ talk 02:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That's an article about Wallace, not an article about consciousness. We have a whole single article from salon where he states his views.  At best we can say he has a view, and that it is fundamentally incompatible with main stream science.  But anything pulled from the blog post is a BLP violation, and any more detail would probably be an WP: Undue weight problem for an article on a person. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is not a platform the promotion of fringe theories. As such, we do not simply pull from primary sources. Rather, we use independent sources to describe fringe theories (WP:FRIND): "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." As noted above, there is a distinction between using a source to place a fringe theory in context as required by WP:NPOV, specifically WP:PSCI, and using a source for BLP information. The source is suitable per WP:PARITY. Manul ~ talk 20:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence after the colon certainly doesn't say the thing you said before the colon. What WP:FRIND states is that the best (not "the only admissible") sources for describing such theories are independent reliable sources. I don't know if Novella's blog post qualifies as a truly reliable source per WP:BLPSPS. I'm also not sure if statements of the form "X cites Y and Z in support of his theory" (without ever explaining what the supposed connection is) are exactly what is meant by describing a theory. Chilton (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Novella is a violation of BLP. It's a self-published blog, and WP: BLPSPS is explicit that self published sources are never to be used as material on living people, unless published by the person themselves.  What's more WP: BLPFRINGE requires us to meet BLP while dealing with people who have fringe views. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I proposed removing the relevant text (subsection below), so I think we are on the same page regarding WP:UNDUE. However the argument about Novella being a BLP violation is mistaken. You're saying that when a fringe theory is attributed to an identified person (usually the case), WP:PARITY cannot be applied because critiquing the fringe theory is the same thing as critiquing the person. Effectively the argument is: an idea is a person, therefore BLP applies to the idea. No, the purpose of BLP is to protect people, not ideas. The Novella source is fine as long as its use is constrained to critique the fringe theory and not Wallace himself; Novella is an expert and WP:PARITY applies. Otherwise WP:NPOV (specifically WP:PSCI) would have to be thrown out and Wikipedia would become a platform for the promotion of fringe theories. Manul ~ talk 19:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal (Wallace)
Simply remove Wallace's views of consciousness from the article. This will fully resolve the dispute. If we don't discuss them then we are not bound by WP:PSCI to find an independent source like Novella to provide context. Novella is permissible per WP:PARITY, but any situation invoking PARITY is not ideal.
 * Support as the proposer. Manul ~ talk 20:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Against. In my humble opinion, Novella is fine as long as we don't have a better source and use him mainly to provide context, not as an infallible authority on what are Wallace's own statements. Chilton (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - this does not prevent addition of the material once a proper source if found. WP:BLPSPS does not have an "unless we can find a better source" exception. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support As far as I'm concerned the section is WP: UNDUE. It's an article about a person, we shouldn't be putting too much emphasis on his personal theory. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Second proposal (Wallace)
Remove the absurd-sounding line about quantum mechanics, ESP and clairvoyance being evidence for substrate consciousness according to Wallace (which is sourced only by the Novella blog post). Replace it with something that is supported by primary sources, like "in his critique of scientific materialism and reductive accounts of consciousness, Wallace references modern physics along with paranormal phenomena" (which I already proposed in this version, but it was reverted). Leave Novella solely as a source of critique until something better is found. Chilton (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Chilton (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Bill Battle Athletic Director of Alabama
could you look at Bill Battle page it looks messy. There are too many pipes as a symbol which makes it hard to read, and when you type in bill battle his name comes up as a coach. He has not coached since the 70's at Tennessee. Could you change it to athletic director at Alabama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AF2D:5109:5588:FDAD:4B51:9850 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is not an infobox for athletic directors. Since he has previously coached, the coach infobox is the most appropriate. I've restored the coach infobox. Also, the intro says he's the athletic director at Alabama. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Using web archive as a source
On Tyrel Jackson Williams in Personal Life, there is a source for the sole sentence in the section. However, the source redirects to web archives of a previous version of the page from DisneyXD. Is this permitted? Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  03:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Kim Dae-Eun
A user notified a discussion board that he changed the article for Olympic Gymnast Kim Dae-Eun by including a few sentences talking about how the user felt the gymnast was robbed of a gold medal in 2004. No source was given to why he felt this way, only the term "knowledgeable gymnastics fans will know". This has no place in the Wikipedia article and I've removed those sentences a few times, and the other user continues to add them back in. The editing for this page needs to be closed so this doesn't continue to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin888 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vigilance Penguin888, it's because of editors like yourself that we can provide accurate encyclopedic on BLP subjects. I can see that you've had to revert additions of this information twice, is that correct? If so, it may not yet be at a level to warrant the use of article protection, however if it continues you may wish to make a request at Requests for Page Protection or notify us here -- samtar talk or stalk 17:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it was twice! I've gotten in trouble in the past for continuing to reverse changes to articles without bringing it up anywhere before so I just wanted to bring it up as soon as I could here!  I'll keep an eye on the article and if it keeps happening I'll do what you say to do!  Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin888 (talk • contribs)
 * bear in mind that although you may be reverting unreferenced additions this is not a reason to edit war or break the three revert rule. On second thoughts you may be better taking the editor to the edit warring noticeboard now -- samtar talk or stalk 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The user has edited the page for the third time, I tried completing the form at the Edit Warring Noticeboard like you have said but am unsure if I did it correctly. Penguin888 (talk
 * I saw the report, and although you didn't get it quite right the editor has been blocked. Leaving you a message on your talk page -- samtar talk or stalk 08:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. It might also be useful to keep an eye on the IP user Special:Contributions/184.144.40.116 who seems to be the same editor editing when logged out (very similar patterns of behaviour).  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've watchlisted the article but hopefully it'll die down soon enough -- samtar talk or stalk 11:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Perhaps unsurprisingly the Debbie Wasserman Schultz article is being turned into a political hit piece, , a couple of agenda driven WP:SPAs. The info being added violates DUE WEIGHT, is poorly sourced and neither editor has bothered to get any kind of consensus for conclusion. One of them, D.Creish, has made BLP violations on related articles as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The second edit fits your description, but the first sounds like fairly factual reporting. It is sourced to the NYT. One hardly needs to get a consensus to report that someone has resigned their position.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The first one is actually not that big of a deal, except for the way it's phrased ("emails that proved") and yes, of course it should be mentioned that she resigned. The other two are the big problem here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that "proved" is probably too strong.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Charles Perrow
I believe the article on Charles Perrow reports what is available on its web page on the Yale University's website. Although I don't appropriate relying on a single source, I believe the university's page is an authoritative source. Therefore, I request the banners complaining about the poor quality of the stub to be removed and the page to be unmarked for deletion. This in one of the most important researchers in the fields of Sociology and Business. I believe he deserves having a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.188.161.160 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * IP, thank you for reporting this - I agree with what you're saying, and will 'meet you half way'. I've removed one of the tags as I believe that there are enough sources listed at the article. I do however agree with the editor who placed the primary sources tag. Wikipedia has a page you may wish to read about primary sources. Lastly, the page is not listed for deletion. Is there anything else we can help you with? -- samtar talk or stalk 14:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe they are talking about the old deletion nom on the talkpage. It is not current IP, it is there for historical purposes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Art Rascon
Cited sources have been challenged regarding the inclusion of national awards won by former CBS news correspondent Art Rascon whose work has appeared nationally on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather as well as 48 Hours. reverted my edits saying the cited sources are not independent sources per this diff. I'm of the opinion the cited sources are compliant with WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. Following are the sources: CBS News dating back to 1998, an alumni bio by College of Fine Arts and Communications BYU, a bio by KTRK-ABC,  and the Emmy nomination announcement published by The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. WP:BLP states "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." The sources cited do indeed meet V requirements and are inline with BLP policy but I think Ca2james may be confusing GNG independent sources requirement with V considering there is an AfD in progress for this BLP as well. I would appreciate further validation of the sources cited as being in compliance with [[WP:V]. Thx <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 18:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I reverted most mentions of him winning national awards because there's no independent confirmation that he won those awards (which is not the same thing as an independent source). The only place those awards is mentioned is in bios that, since they all read the same with the same syntax and language, have all been written by him, so they're primary sources (which are also not the same thing as independent sources). I reverted another mention because the source didn't indicate it was a national award. It's better to err on the side of caution for blps, I thought. Ca2james (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources that mention the awards are RS. You are being disruptive by reverting properly sourced material.  Your comment about erring on the side of caution further proves you are not familiar with the PAGs. I highly recommend that you read BLPN, RS and V before you revert another edit from that article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 04:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if they were primary that would not be a problem for the info cited. You wouldnt use non-independant sources to demonstrate/satisfy notability (so in an AFD they would hold little weight) but you can within the constraints of V, BLP, RS etc use them in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see: even if a statement might be inaccurate, if there's no other source contradicting the statement, inaccuracy is not a reason to remove the statement. Please note that of the three removal edits, one was to change "he won national and local awards" to "he won awards". The other two were to remove similar modifiers that were added by editors and are not in the sources. For example, the sources say that he's won emmy's (unspecified) and a Murrow award, but none of the sources (listed above) specify whether these were national/regional/local level awards, and there are these different levels for both. So I removed those modifiers too . What I'm saying is that I understand that my edit summaries were unjustified but that removal of the text wasn't necessarily unjustified. Ca2james (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, they were cited to sources - in the CBS source the reference to the "national ERM Award" for Hurricane Opal was near the bottom of the article - you may have simply overlooked it. I've added more.  Keep in mind that it's not our job to prove the secondary sources are telling the truth - our job is verifiability of what we include in the article, and if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged, we include inline citations; if it's controversial or derogatory material about a BLP we have to cite high quality sources in an inline citation.  Either way, we are not obligated to go searching for primary sources in order to validate material cited in secondary or third party sources.  Unfortunately, with some of the early national award sites dating back to the 90s, including the earlier version of the Edward R. Murrow site, they have been replaced with updated sites on different servers, so their award recipient lists have been archived or buried in the cloud somewhere. We have a few on WP. The same applies to articles that were written about those awards and recipients.  All we have to go on at this point are the few secondary sources we can find.  When notability is as obvious as it is with Art Rascon, we can apply common sense and IAR when making notability determinations.<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision of picture on Harshvardhan Kapoor's wikipedia page
Hello,

I'm a representative of Harshvardhan Kapoor, the actor who's biography is available at: Harshvardhan Kapoor

The actor requests that the current picture be replaced by a more recent one, which I'd be happy to provide to the administrators of the page.

The picture currently used on his page is dated and not very representative of the actor's current look & personality.

Please advise on how to replace the same.

Thanks,

Priti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.225.223 (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read through Wikipedia's fair use policy and upload an updated image of Kapoor to Wikimedia Commons. Once you upload the image, I'd be more than happy to add it to the page. 02:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Silverman
I quoted with attribution and reference Washington Post Reporter Aaron Blake: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/democrats-dispatched-sarah-silverman-to-defuse-the-bernie-sanders-situation-it-didnt-go-great/  quoted and footnoted material in 2rd paragraph from bottom -- "Nevertheless..." is it a copyright issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRego (talk • contribs) 03:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends on how much you're quoting and how - if the quote is very lengthy then it can still be seen as a copyright violation, especially if the quote isn't overly dire to include as it was written. From what I can see here the quote wasn't overly long but I do have to question its inclusion since it does seem a little point-y and you also need to show that this statement would warrant inclusion. I'd recommend holding off for the time being and gathering reactions from multiple different organizations rather than just one, in order to give a good range of reactions but also to show that this comment was important enough to be included in her Wikipedia page. You've got to be careful of recentism. Odds are this likely should be included, it just needs to be carefully written in order to get both viewpoints. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like it was removed as a copyright issue. 's edit summary says, "Removed opinion of Washington Post reporter on Silverman's comment". Journalists are reliable sources for reporting facts, but it's probably undue weight to quote this one journalist's personal opinion on Silverman's comment unless, I guess, the reporter is some kind of recognized expert on whatever the comment was. —PermStrump  ( talk )  05:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Democratic National Convention
All edits and edit summaries from 04:26, 26 July 2016 until 08:40, 26 July 2016. Need to be deleted similar to this one. This may be a Privacy of names issue and the person involved ( the disabled activist, please don't name them) may not be notable. I feel I made a mistake in this one. Please delete this for the sake of that person's privacy. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Triggering and "Trigglypuff"
Could someone give me a second opinion on this article. Its ostensibly about a campus event called the "Triggering" but spends a lot of time focusing on a mostly non notable activist who the internet has nicknamed "Trigglypuff" as an insult. The sources all also seem to be borderline at the very least, mostly coming from student press and obscure libertarian publications (also lots of Breitbart). Should this article mention the activist, should the article exist at all? I've not really edited Wikipedia in a while so I feel a bit rusty on this stuff. Brustopher (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (Copying my comments over from Talk:The Triggering) Stating what happened is not "to insult and mock other people involved". This event became known in large part because of #Trigglypuff going viral. <span style="color:green; font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold,Times,serif;">juju ( hajime!  &#124;  waza ) 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPNAME: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it" This does not apply. Neither does "individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic"— she was directly involved and is a big part of the reason the event itself is notable. <span style="color:green; font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold,Times,serif;">juju ( hajime!  &#124;  waza ) 23:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The student press sources were supplementary and don't form the backbone of the article, and Breitbart is RS—POV, but RS if WP is careful about not taking on the source's bias. Which publications are obscure, exactly? (Honest question, so I can address the concern.) <span style="color:green; font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold,Times,serif;">juju  ( hajime!  &#124;  waza ) 23:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And by all means, if anyone comes across any sources that are more neutral or even progressive, please add them (but of course don't use that as a justification to remove the existing ones). <span style="color:green; font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold,Times,serif;">juju ( hajime!  &#124;  waza )
 * Breitbart is not WP:RS. Just search the archives of WP:RSN and you can see it's been discussed many times and never been deemed reliable for more then it's readers own opinion. Even if it were reliable, it's not an independent source in this context as the controversy involves a Breitbart editor. — Strongjam (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When it comes to living people, Breitbart should be avoided and considered unreliable. Especially so when the topic contains politics or polemics. Would argue Breitbart is not RS here. Article seems ripe for AFD imho. GNG is tenuous at best.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No opinion on the article's overall notability, but I'd say that the activist's name shouldn't be included. From what I do see of the event news-wise, there aren't a lot of places that mention her name and most importantly - I don't see where she's come forward to discuss the event. When it comes to naming names we have to question whether or not the article is less for not including it - and offhand I don't see where we really gain anything by naming her. There aren't many articles that specifically name this student and would be considered even a remotely RS on Wikipedia. I think I counted about two of them, so that's a pretty solid argument against including her name. Most of the places that do mention her as "Trigglypuff" don't use her name - New York Magazine is a good example of this. We don't have to include the person's name even if it's relatively common knowledge, especially if real world harm could come out of it, as prior edits included her name and college. Especially considering that a complaint was filed against the person who videotaped the student, which would imply that the student doesn't want her name spread around. We can get the general point across without naming names. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "should the article exist at all?" I don't see why it should. Insignificant article about non-notable protest at non-notable meeting on something to do with those wretched Pokemon things. Suggest AFD'ing the whole mess. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You will never get consensus to delete it at the moment, it's a US uni interest and supported by that large group of wikipedia contributors, which is one of the largest, so please do not nominate it for deletion, its support will only make its existence and wikipedia publication stronger, just let it be while they are focused on it and when they have moved on we can delete it. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the event itself had nothing to do with "those wretched Pokemon [sic] things", right? <span style="color:green; font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold,Times,serif;">juju  ( hajime!  &#124;  waza ) 06:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the worthiness of this being a topic, we purposely kept the name of the Star Wars Kid out of the article - despite the fact he was named in RSes - up until the point he came forth himself to admit being that person as part of his intent to speak out against the bullying he had endured and to help others (so the present article does now mention it). Same logic should apply here - no need to name the person despite the fact RSes likely name the individual. --M ASEM (t) 05:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really a good example. The Star Wars kid had no intention of his (private) video becoming public, nor did he court public attention. 'Trigglypuff' was the opposite. A quote actually in the article sums it up well, "We know who [the student] is and we know what [the student] believes because [the student] has told us these things. [The student] is an activist, and when an activist goes to a public event and disrupts it by shouting obscenities — “F–k you! [sic] ... Keep your hate speech off this campus!” — [their] public activism is newsworthy. Identifying [them] is not “doxing.”" Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Except, that the student never likely expected to become a meme, despite their actions being done in a public venue. BLP errs on protecting their name unless they themselves want to be associated with the Trigglypuff meme, which is how I compare to the SWK meme. And best I am aware, that student has not made it crystal clear they want to be associated with the meme. --M ASEM (t) 14:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Bridgette Kerkove
A bit of especially derogatory information has been included, reverted for BLP reasons and then re-inserted into this bio, without an effort to achieve consensus for the re-insertion on the talk page. I re-reverted and asked the editor to go to the talk page to try to establish a consensus before attempting to re-insert again. Please see this diff, the prior edits to that one, and the discussion on the talk page. Additional input (on either side of the issue) would be welcome. David in DC (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, so the argument presented for removal of the text is founded on the fact that the person in question was not convicted of the allegation, although the main purpose of its insertion was not to discredit the individual in question but rather to provide background to the reasons of their divorce, this and in addition to the fact that the case in question was highly publicized. The information was properly referenced using a reliable source and I have heard no contention regarding the choice of source. However, my confusion stems from the fact that "dropped allegations" seem to be acceptable to a wide array of celebrities, such as Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, Jonathan King, Cliff Richard etc. There is no doubt that these celebrities were accused of "derogatory" accusations, so why would we hold a double-standard and disallow it in cases such as this? The policy of dealing with cases such as this should be universal and not subject to wanton subjectivity or WP:CRYBLP or WP:BLPZEALOT (I am not referring to the editor above in this case, but to a different editor on that page who applies BLP in this manner for self-serving purposes). Holanthony (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. That you don't distinguish between uncorroborated, apparently discredited allegations against non-notable or minimally notable individuals and widely publicized actual criminal prosecutions of highly notable public figures is just another compelling bit of evidence that you shouldn't be editing BLPs at all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How were any of the names I mentioned (with the exception of Robert Blake) prosecuted? Wikipedia does not "rank" celebrity notability. According to Wiki's rules of notability, you either are a notable person (and thus worthy of having a Wiki page) or you're not. As such, the same rules apply TO EVERYONE, whether User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz likes it or not. Which brings me to my point, we can't have double standards for different people depending on the subjective mood of a particular editor, which is why I would appreciate some clarification here.Holanthony (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Koko Jones
An IP made two edits today (diff) that made certain changes regarding gender identification of the subject. The IP did not add any new sources, so I reverted. However, out of concern that the IP might be right, I'm bringing it here to get more eyes on the situation and see if more sources can be found on Jones. (If there's a WikiProject better equipped to handle these types of issues, let me know so I can direct the situation there.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , IMO you were right to revert. The IP also removed reliable sources that illustrate that Koko as her common name. She's referred to by feminine pronouns in reliable sources and this appears to be her personal preference, and those are the things we're supposed to go by. Maybe the lead should say "Koko Jones (born Kevin Jones)", but I don't know. Definitely shouldn't say "Kevin Koko Jones", like the IP put. "Kevin Jones" as her birth name is in the infobox. Usually I think it might be in both places, but I'm not sure, so I'll let other people weigh in on that. —PermStrump  ( talk )  23:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein
There's been a fair amount of (now archived) discussion of Dianne Feinstein's religion on her talk page. The following things seem to me to be true:

1) Many non-Wikipedia websites claim Feinstein is Jewish. 2) Clear statements on this from Feinstein herself seem somewhat hard to come by. I've seen a couple different people claim (without sources) that she has said different things at different times in her life, and I can't establish what things she's said most recently. 3) It seems likely the apparently-reliable sources mentioned in (1) are simply assuming she identifies as Jewish because her father was Jewish.

Absent better sources, I think there's a strong case for removing any references to Sen. Feinstein's religion (as opposed to that of farious family members) from Wikipedia immediately, pending someone finding a better source. This seems to be what WP:BLP demands in this case ("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.") But I'd like input from more experienced editors. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. WP:EGRS, which is for categories, says to only list a religion when it's self-proclaimed, so personally, I follow that as far as inserting religion into the body of a BLP. I think it's better to remove it as contentious and poorly sourced per WP:BLP in any case like you said. —PermStrump  ( talk )  05:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your issues with Dianne Feinstein's religion. Here she is discussing being a leader of the Jewish community with the Jerusalem Post and what it meant to be Jewish. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Most-influential-Jews-in-diplomacy-and-politics-Dianne-Feinstein-404004 You can also look at the entry on Diane Feinstein in the the Jewish virtual library and the Encyclopedia of Judaism discussing specific aspects of her Jewish education and her choice to identify as Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.145.80 (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In the JPost interview, she doesn't talk about being Jewish at all. Also, could you link to the specific pages in the Jewish virtual library and the Encyclopedia of Judaism you have in mind? Chris Hallquist (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The interviewer called her a leader in the Jewish community, but I don't see where Feinstein stated herself that she identifies as Jewish. Plenty of people with only one Jewish parent (especially if it's the dad) don't consider themselves Jewish, so it's not a natural assumption that she does consider herself Jewish. What value does including it add to the article? What value is lost by not including it? I don't see that it really adds anything and it unless there's a source where she clearly self-identifies as Jewish, it runs the risk of being false. —PermStrump  ( talk )  23:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is another source where she talks about being Jewish. She has an essay discussing the spiritual and cultural significance of her Jewishness. "I Am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl" Jewish Lights Publishing, 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.145.80 (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Something feels fishy with the google preview. It looks like a self-published list of names, but maybe there's a glitch with the preview search? What's the exact quote from her? —PermStrump  ( talk )  01:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, what's the urgency with publishing her religion on her BLP? —PermStrump  ( talk )  01:40, 27 July 2016

I don't see an issue with the preview it goes to the book which was published by a publishing house in both hardcover and softcover editions. It has a lot of names because it is a compilation of essays written by different people including Feinstein. Her essay is on page 228 and 229. here is the ending of her essay "For me, that's what it means to be a Jew, and every day I rededicate myself to that ideal." (pg 2229) Feinstein is also included in the book The_Jews_of_Capitol_Hill https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Jews_of_Capitol_Hill.html?id=ACTF56SnaykC where there is a discussion of her upbringing and her decision to identify fully as Jewish despite her mother's Christianity.

Bethlehem Shoals
Image should be removed and page deleted because it has been subject to repeated vandalism and image has been used in threatening messages.

VerminTax (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)VerminTax — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerminTax (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the image being used in off Wikipedia harassment? If that's the case then there's not much that we on Wikipedia can do about that, although you can contact the WMF at <tt></tt> about this. I need to warn you that the page might not be deleted unless it can be shown that Shoals would fail notability guidelines or that he himself wants the page gone and that its removal would not adversely effect Wikipedia overly much. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have spoken to subject and asked him to email Wikipedia directly. There is also very little reason to consider him "notable"—he is not a full-time writer and only occasionally publishes—and at this point is "notable" mainly because of the controversy mentioned on the page. It's unclear to him (and me) what purpose it serves to have a page for a minor figure when it will serve as little more than a target for harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerminTax (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Has he emailed Wikipedia yet? That's one of the biggest things he'd need to do. I found enough via a search to where he could generally pass notability guidelines, so we'd really need confirmation from Shoals that he wants the page removed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he emailed them over the weekend but hasn't gotten any response yet.
 * Cool - I think I might start up the AfD now as a technical move. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started it here. Hopefully it'll go through AfD quietly. If he wants to weigh in on the AfD he can and that might help show that he endorses its deletion, however since the whole Twitter thing was so recent I can't guarantee that it won't end badly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * End badly in what sense?


 * Ok, he's emailed Wikipedia again.

Tavis Ormandy
Just another researcher. Works at Google. Nothing special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:54D:4C00:801E:ACB3:3D2B:45CE (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, there are many people who are considered to be WP:NOTABLE for silly stuff like kicking a ball or singing badly. Tavis Ormandy passes WP:GNG. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Leonor Fini
The article contains the text: " It has been reported that Fini was bisexual but there is no proof of this despite the many claims by people that did not know her. She is documented as to having had relations with many different men. "

and

''

''

Are there any reliable sources that can be used to improve the article?

&#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If her bisexuality was never confirmed then she should not be placed in any LGBT or bisexual categories. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, however this is not a BLP issue as she is 20 years dead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually from taking a look there are reports in reliable sources (her obituary is one, but others can be found on the net) about her alleged bisexuality, and as her art often had sapphic themes, it was a natural speculation for critics/etc to make about the artist. Direct quotes appear in short supply - she outright denied being homosexual (but didnt deny being bisexual) and obviously had multiple relationships with men. Since she is dead any self-declaration is not forthcoming - I have removed the categories but I might put some of them back - she might not have been (or declared LGBT) but her body of work is certainly important in the LGBT art world. Unfortunately I dont think the categories adaquately cover this distinction. Is there a category for 'LGBT art' rather than artist? Off to have a look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Anna Zalewska
Anna Zalewska is a Polish minister who has recently stirred up controversy when, in an interview she gave, she appeared to deny or minimize the role that Polish citizens played in two WWII-era pogroms where 340+ Jews were killed, most of them burned alive. numerous reliable sources have covered the incident and the reactions to it - a small sample -. Is it appropriate to include the following sentence about this incident in the article Anna Zalewska?

"Zalewska was criticized in July of 2016 for statements which seemingly denied or minimized the role played by Poles in the Jedwabne pogrom of 1941. In that incident, Poles were convicted by a Polish court of burning alive more than 300 Jews "

My understanding is that this fully complies with the BLP policy regarding public figures: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Impact Hub (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I would add that Zalewska is the education minister, not a historian, and she said as much during the interview in question. There is a great deal of information about this at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom; I won't waste anybody's time by copying and pasting it here. I will point out that a BLP that consists of not much more than a controversy section, such as Zalewska's did yesterday, should have been speedily deleted as an attack page. Even now, the only thing the article would say about Zalewsk's eight years in parliament and eight months as education minister is that a small group of foreigners worked themselves into a lather about a possibly mistranslated sentence in an interview she gave. How is that consistent with the conservative, cautious style we're supposed to use for BLPs? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Minister Zalewska was coaxed into taking part in a public dialogue by two eloquent and skilled TV broadcasters, Monika Olejnik from TVN24, and Agnieszka Burzyńska from FAKT24, who specialize in drumming up top ratings for their regular TV interviews. The exchange specifically about Jedwabne and Kielce lasted for less than a minute in each interview. Zalewska did not deny anything outright because she is also a skilled politician. She only repeated time and again that the incidents are shrouded in controversy. Personally, I'm impressed by how good these women are at what they do, however, there's no place in an encyclopedia for any of this media whizz.   Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk  13:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Márcio Fernandes
Someone have added informations on this page that are not true with clear intention to prejudice the athlete. The IP address is 81.99.230.245 from Chingford- London I would like wikipedia to take actions against the person and make the page safer. If this happen again we will take legal actions.

Thanks for your attention

Fernandes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernandes 2015 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not allow legal threats. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor was also referring to a post from January that had been reverted. Shearonink (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Richard Silverwood - Edit Not Showing
My edit does not show even though Google uses it as most up to date but the wiki is showing the old edit and ignoring my edit even though it is in the edit history as current

86.183.62.42 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The edits you made to Richard Silverwood were removed because they are unsourced. Please provide a newspaper article or something to backup your change. If you don't know how to cite a source in the article, post your link on the talk page and someone else will do it. Thanks. Bradv  18:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorted it. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Page Creator
I created this page and would like to have it removed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Schiller Thank you Marc Schiller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optiontrader11 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Optiontrader11, the page cannot be speedily deleted on the original author's request because it has subsequently had several significant editors besides yourself. However, if no one removes the current proposed deletion tag, the article will be deleted after 7 days, i.e. 6 August 2016. Voceditenore (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Tomlinson
This page is clearly written by the subject with bias towards their own experience. Public criticisms from other LGBTQ activists have not been included. This page is unbalanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.234.190 (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Such as? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Mayuto Correa
I am Mayuto Correa, I am a subject of an article listed in Wikipedia and I've been noticing changes on the text of the article about me. I have two concerns with that: 1: why the additions to the article are being deleted and by whom? Since the additions I noticed are corrected, according to correct sources of reference regarding my career – I would reject any untruthful addiction (positive or negative) about my life but, likewise, the deleting of accurate additions seems malicious, unprofessional and shameful coming from Wikipedia, which is there with objective of being impartial in the preservation of history.

In view of what has happened in the article I am subject of, I spent time looking into other articles and pages featured in Wikipedia, particularly, of friends of mine, that participate together with me in the same projects; in addition I looked at their Wikipedia articles, source and reference pages and noticed that their sources and references were identical to the ones added to my article and deleted from there. When I looked for answers about that I'd got entangled on the overwhelming amount of generic details of “how to,” “not to” and “why not,” but couldn't find any rational justification for the rejection and deleting of correct additions to my article.

One detail of information I saw and that was referring to “Police,” or voluntaries that guard the editions of Wikipedia; I could not find one, specifically, to ask for answers, but I left a note on a pad suggested by a generic being who said that he was rejecting all the changes of my article: I got no response. That raises more questions, because there's not a real person to be contacted, but the problems are real. My other concern is with the actual article, which has been there for several years, without any change and no indication of who wrote that very small article. Though the few details of the article are correct, the article, besides my name, describes a person and an artist that has nothing to do with me. That bothers me very much, and more, because, according to the site, nobody knows who rote that article and there is nobody to correct that and the ones who added correct information it got rejected and deleted.

Let's be real: Contact me directly, so we can, rationally, resolve the issue and if is necessary I will pay an expert in generic or surreal information to write an article that reflects my career as musician, composer, arranger, singer, producer, actor, director, writer. That is what I do since I am a teenager and the sources of references are available and offered. Let's be real, please. Here is my information: MAYUTO CORREA – [ redacted ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.86.228 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have asked two people who know more about this stuff than I do to leave a comment here. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not one of those people, but decided to take a look myself. The first (and currently the only) paragraph in the article is verified in the sources. For example, here is a good link to one of the sources, which gives the same information and no more.


 * The long paragraphs of stuff being inserted into the article are not found in those sources as far as I can tell. No offense intended, but I'll list a few of the problems I see. The writing style is fine for an autobiography, but not even close to an encyclopedic style and tone. It's in first person, even though all of the "I"s have been changed to "he"s. The writing is narrative rather than expository (telling the story like a novel rather than simply reporting the facts and notable opinions.)


 * The biggest problem is the lack of sources for this new information. Wikipedia doesn't accept autobiographies, so there needs to be sources where this information already exists. We can't accept copy/pasted work either, because the information must be written in the contributor's own words. Both facts and opinions need to be attributed to a reliable source of information. Ideally every paragraph should have a source that others can go look up. This is to protect the subject from people putting whatever they want into the article, and this rule applies to the subject as well.


 * We have a duty to protect the privacy of people, and especially that of non-notable people who, for whatever reason, may not want their name and info posted on Wikipedia for all to see. This includes things like names of friends, associates, family members and children. These things should only be included if they can be found in multiple sources (not just one) and also if it can be shown that it is indeed relevant to the article. (For example, a news story about a car crash doesn't gain anything by naming every person involved in the crash. Unless the names are highly notable the story will read just the same if they are omitted.)


 * That's just a little of what is wrong with the additions you are proposing. They need a lot of work and a lot of sourcing to reach the standards of an encyclopedia. As is, it's better suited to facebook or some other site. I would suggest doing some research on our policies, such as the Manual of style, WP:Reliable source, WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:Biographies of living persons. I hope that helps explain. Zaereth (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all we can't tell if the particular IP address is you or not but for now we will assume that it is. Second, nobody is likely to contact you by email. Most things are kept on Wikipedia so everybody can see it. I deleted a large amount of material because of copyright problems. You would not like it if somebody took your music and the same applies to written works. Zaereth has given an excellent explanation of other problems in the article and why they were removed. I would suggest that you don't waste your money hiring a professional writer as there are better ways to work through this.
 * I suggest that you register an account then work with the Volunteer Response Team, who can be contacted at OTRS noticeboard or by email, to prove who you are. Then declare on Talk:Mayuto Correa that you have a Conflict of interest. Then you can make suggestions on that talk page and other editors can review and help to improve the article. Remember that as a biography having sources/references is very important. Lack of them can lead to peoples birthdays being removed to avoid problems. Also please don't add long lists of external links as they will be removed quickly. Hope this helps. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Mr. Correa. I wrote the current article on you. It is in the article's history for all to see, including you. No one is hiding anything from you. Let me just explain how that article came about. On  30 April 2008, long before I became involved, an editor named, presumably you or someone representing you, created the first version of the article. It was deleted on 2 May 2008 as a copyright violation because it appeared to be a straight copy of this page on AllAboutJazz. Then in September 2008 User:Mayuto Correa added this different but still unsuitable biography to his talk page. I first encountered it when in October 2013, the IP 66.215.87.74 attempted to paste the whole biography  into Copying text from other sources. I then found the text on User:Mayuto Correa's talk page. I moved the text to User:Mayuto Correa/sandbox and explained what I had done on User talk:Mayuto Correa. I realized that although the artist Mayuto Correa was indeed notable, User:Mayuto Correa and the IP were going to struggle with getting an article on Wikipedia because they were very confused about how Wikipedia works and seemed unwilling to communicate with other editors. So, I created a brief but accurate and properly referenced stub, and hoped that other editors would expand it. It definitely needs expansion and this could be done using reliable sources. Unfortunately, starting in 2015 you (Mr. Correa) editing as an IP have repeatedly attempted to add the inappropriate material (including further copyright violations) to the article, as have two other editors, who I assume are you or your associates:  and . Mr. Correa, these additions were repeatedly reverted by several other editors and administrators to protect the editorial integrity of Wikipedia. It was not done as an insult to you. We simply cannot publish copyright material. We cannot publish material about living persons which cannot be verified via references to independent previously published sources. We cannot publish material which is not neutrally written. These are core policies of Wikipedia and apply to all articles.  gave you good advice. Register an account and then take the further steps he suggested. Hopefully, other editors will step in to help expand the article. I realize that you are upset, but I have to tell you that they are more likely to take an interest in expanding and improving the article if you don't refer to them as "malicious, unprofessional and shameful". Voceditenore (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is my suggestion: If everything you wrote is true (and from finding your name in other sources like this it just may be), write an autobiography. Then have it published by a reliable publisher. Then sit and wait, collect royalties, and sure enough some fan will read it, then use it to whatever extent they can as a source to improve this article. Zaereth (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Zaereth, I don't think that book reference you linked is the same person. Voceditenore (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe not; the book doesn't say. Only the real Correa would know for sure. I was guessing based upon the additions to our article, but lacking good sources, writing his own book would probably be the best way to set the story straight. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. Zaereth (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've now expanded the article with more about Mr. Correa's life and career with inline citations. I must say, I had better things to do with my volunteer time, but there you have it. I'd appreciate it if the other editors here, The Quixotic Potato, Zaereth, and CambridgeBayWeather, could keep an eye on it to avoid a repetition of Mr. Correa re-adding the previous wildly unsuitable material. Voceditenore (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * {{{ping|Voceditenore}} Nice work! Thank you. I will keep the article on my watchlist for a while, but I am currently not very active because I am quite busy IRL. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll watch it as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too, but I don't spend a lot of time online. I can only hope that Mr. Correa has read and understands these policies are for is own protection. In an encyclopedia anyone can edit, we need rules everyone must follow. Zaereth (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

many biographies
Have had the category "Christian fundamentalists" appended without strong sourcing for that categorization - including use on Catholics and others where no source for that category has been furnished per the requirement for self-identification. I think that category should be re-examined at this point, IMO. Collect (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There are certain things that I personally am against categorizing people under, such as sexual orientation, race, and one is religion. Race is such a pervasive category that it's referred to as one of the three basic categories. Belief systems, on the other hand, is much farther down the list.


 * The benefit of categories is that the human mind functions by categorizing things. It is impossible to get around. This function is hard-wired right into the amygdala. (For example, when walking through a neighborhood, people rarely remember the true shape of each house, car and tree. Instead these memories are stored as generic categories.) The Handbook of Neurosociology talks about this in detail.


 * The problem with categorization of people is that people are much more complex. Categorization creates ingroups and outgroups, where people in the outgroup are considered to be homogeneous (all the same), which is the foundation for stereotyping. It is well known that when people begin to see those in the outgroup as heterogeneous (individuals) the fear and prejudices decline. Zaereth (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We should get rid of all these religion categories. Granted there are cases where religion is important to the person's identity or professional activities.  But this is better explained in a more thorough and nuanced way in the text rather than simply attaching a category. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Recall that the NYT had to correct an error: "Karol Wojtyla was referred to in Saturday’s Credo column as “the first non-Catholic pope for 450 years”. This should, of course, have read “non-Italian”. We apologise for the error. I would have thought that the NYT should have known that the Pope was usually Catholic without being prodded to correct that. Collect (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Did this also include a retraction for saying that bears do not defecate in the woods? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not the New York Times. That mistake was made by the Times of London. "Newspaper corrects: The Pope was Catholic". Here's an NYT blooper: "NYT corrects: God didn’t part the Dead Sea". Felsic2 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * God didn't? (my posts elsewhere did make the proper attributions, I apologize for not fact-checking this latest version of my long post.) Collect (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The real problem with categorization of people is it's used as a powerful weapon of propaganda. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should take no part in propagandizing things. This type of category serves just that function when used in a political arena. Zaereth (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Brenton Thwaites' interest in men and women
There is an ongoing BLP issue on the Brenton Thwaites article, pertaining to the actor's sexuality or more specifically interest in men as well as women.

"Thwaites has been dating his Gold Coast-based girlfriend Chloe Pacey since 2015,[50][51] after the two had been room mates whilst Thwaites was in Australia filming Pirates.[52] The couple became parents in March 2016, after Pacey gave birth to a baby girl.[53][54] Brenton once vocalized his interest for both men and women as partners, when he fielded a question from a fan who asked about the three things he looks for in a partner. Brenton replied by asking back, “male or female? They’re very different.”" - (source: Brenton Thwaites Vaguely Comes Out As Bisexual. One More And We’ve Got A Hat Trick.. (2014))

I think the highlighted content ought to remain excluded, for the following reasons:
 * The citations provided seem to be in violation of #1 and #3 of WP:GRAPEVINE; that is, the sources are your typical gossip sources.
 * Per WP:BLPGOSSIP: the source isn't as reliable as it could be; his previous statements on his supposed interest of men/women isn't "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" – especially considering the subject now has a child with a girlfriend.
 * I'd feel a lot more comfortable if Thwaites clarified what he meant, and then we could add said content in.

We are supposed to state objective facts – how do we know whether or not Thwaites was serious about what he said?

Since the 2014 source, the subject has a partner and and a child. I'm not quite seeing how a past statement (which didn't quite confirm or deny anything) may override that? —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 08:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, having a girl and a kid doesn't necessarily negate bisexuality. I never heard of Queerty, so I don't know how reliable they are. I wasn't able to access the link above. That said, the title seems to say it all. This is a clear case of synthesis, using a "soundbite" taken completely out of context to imply something not actually said. This could have been a joke, being indicated by the mere inflection of his voice, or it may have been serious, but we don't know that from the context. It's adding 2 and 2 to get 5. (ie: Jon says he prefers Mustangs over Corvettes. Conclusion: Jon hates Corvettes. Ridiculous!)


 * RS is never a "black and white" thing. The reliability of a source is directly related to the information it is providing. They admit it was a vague utterance and they're just reaching, so who are we to state unequivocally that it is fact. As BLP clearly states, we are not a tabloid, do not delve into titillating details of the subject's sex lives, and require both excellent sourcing and a demonstration that it's necessary for understanding the subject. Zaereth (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely understand that sexuality is fluid (RS is never black and white - nor is sexuality haha!) — and you hit the nail on the head regarding context. I completely agree with your sentiments above! thanks for your views. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 07:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I figured you understood. Assuming the person wanting to insert this information is watching (which I assume is in good faith) I was responding mostly to their edit summaries. A source that is perfectly good for some info may be horrible for other. Zaereth (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Tawfik Hamid
Within the primary source, the person listed claims to have a Masters in two different areas from one university. The University's site lists only one, which is not the one he brings out on the page. Additionally, the person in the article claims to be have been friends with terrorists... but the talk page indicates some discrepancies. The page also heavily cites from the author's own site, which may not be the most credible, especially in light of the inconsistent narratives he has about his education and his life history.

Finally, there is heavy bias; it looks very biased toward him by quoting his methodology directly from his website, or makes statements without citations about the subject's views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldwayz (talk • contribs)
 * It's almost entirely sourced on WP:PRIMARY. Not good. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  09:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Tom Mendelsohn
Hi, I am the subject. A thoroughly non-notable freelance journalist with no major fame or following. The article in question is very clearly a prejudiced attack piece which doesn't deal with my career at all, so much as minor criticisms I've attacted, mostly in student media.

I very clearly do not meet the notability guidelines for living biographies, and request deletion. Moreover, the claim made in the third paragraph, that I authored an anonymous article, is untrue. I did not write the article, and the link to the Huffington Post that 'supports' this claim does not claim that I did; merely that I published it (which is true). Moreover, the fact that I published an article which was subsequently removed does not seem to me remotely to meet notability guidelines.

I'd be very grateful if the article could be removed; I have an ego, but I couldn't possibly try and pretend I'm notable enough for Wikipedia.

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


 * I nominated this article for deletion on the following grounds: notability and neutrality. This deletion was objected to by the page's originator who accused me of COI/meat puppetery issues – see below.

The subject is not a major figure and the article does not seem to meet guidelines for notability as laid out in WP:BASIC – there is not significant reference in secondary sourcing to the subject, nor are there multiple sources

Under the guidelines of WP:AUTHOR WP: JOURNALIST it is clear that the subject has not originated a new concept and is not widely referenced by their peers; even if this were so, the article fails to demonstrate this via adequate sourcing: the page only cites five sources, three of which are by the subject of the article, which seems to fall foul both of reliable sourcing and again fails to establish notability.

In addition to this, there are concerns about the neutrality of the article.

The article contains a claim that an article was written by the subject, which the subject denies, and there in nothing cited to corroborate this assertion in the article [WP:GRAPEVINE]

In the edit history of the page, a contributor (30/07/2016, 10:59) uses a tone which strongly suggests an edit has been made for personal reasons and given that the subject of the edit is contentious, this appears to contravene neutrality guidelines.

I do know the subject of the article but I believe my grounds for objecting to the article are valid regardless of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staggeredhermit (talk • contribs) 12:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I (and HW) have stubbed it. Once you take out the primary sources and mis-applied sources, there is not much there. Its probably a candidate for AFD if anyone wants to nominate it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And I re-stubbed it again - the editor who finds the material to be of any importance is to be discommended.  I also suggest it be AfDd at this point. Collect (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

OMG - the edit warrior has reverted me as well. I am forbidden to raise BLP issues, alas, so will some admin please tend to this? Collect (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The image file has only recently been uploaded, but it appears that the image was previously deleted on Wikipedia when it was Ambivalence.jpg so I wonder if the current image is properly licensed, etc, or should be removed? EdChem (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tom Mendelsohn has been started. EdChem (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Jessie Chung
This BLP article is super promotional and very few of the citations pass verification. Needs a major overhaul. Delta13C (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Peter S. Beagle
Cross-posting this from Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard now that this is crossing into a BLP. Editors have been inserting large non-neutral sections into both articles, sourced mostly to blogs and primary source court documents, in place of a smaller neutral section. See the NPOV noticeboard post and the talk page for more details. More eyes are urgently needed. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Vice is (more or less) a reliable source, but primary source court records should never be used in a BLP as sole sourcing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A more-or-less identical section is at Conlan Press and refers to the same living persons; I've been reverted when attempting to remove it. Most discussion is happening on that talk page, and it should probably be kept in that one place. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Jay Jay French
Much of the article is based on original research, and the tone reads like a press release in some areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwampZombieCult (talk • contribs) 00:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had the article on my watchlist for a little while now. I agree that it's promotional and needs much better sourcing.  I've been meaning to clean it up, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.  It shouldn't be impossible to find sources, though he experienced his peak popularity before the rise of the internet.  I think a lot of content will need to be removed, as there's no easy way to verify it, such as the claim that his first band was Lost 6, which Google seems unable to confirm. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Beena Kak
This article was expanded on 25 July 2016 by an anonymous editor; who is almost, but not quite, a WP:SPA. Much of the new material looks controversial to say the least, if not in gross violation of WP:BLP. My first thought was just to revert all the anonymous edits, but (a) there might be good mixed in with the bad, (b) a BLP specialist might recognise a known pattern, and (c) the article might need watching or protecting. BLPs are outside my main fields, so help would be welcome. Narky Blert (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The recent changes were in my opinion opinionated and bias reporting - I have reverted back to a decent version and request editors to respect WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLP itself in regards to this content. Pending changes would be of benefit to this article.Govindaharihari (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wallace Huo
There is a dispute between myself and an IP user on the subject. Since the IP user is not making edit summaries and has responded only once to the talk page, I would appreciate third parties' involvement into this. The problems being on "career": Also, since the contents were moved here and there, some of the citations are in a mess now. I have stopped editing on the page totally and is hoping for help. Jessicat830 (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the heading is not "acting career", I can't see why elaborations on the subject's commercial activities be put under "commercial" where there is already a table indicating that.
 * Subheading "upcoming acting projects" - is this about the subject's career or his works'? The IP user maintains that until those works are released, they shouldn't be put into the main content. Then what is the use of the tables under "filmography"?

Robin Reid (criminal)
Someone may want to take a look at this article. My inclination is leaning toward a good judicious blank. I already removed some content, but... Well, all of this information may well be true, but if it isn't it's one helluva BLP violation. Timothy Joseph Wood 17:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to add some inline citations. clpo13(talk) 21:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. It relies a bit too heavily on an article by true crime author Paul B. Kidd. The article could use some contemporary news reports to balance things out. clpo13(talk) 22:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Ripoff Report
Hey all, I'd appreciate some feedback on some content that was recently added to Ripoff Report, specifically in this edit where a user introduces some cases where two Google execs were accused of being "drunk and propositioning teenage girls" and a famed academic was accused of being a pedophile and extortionist. My specific concern is that the content could be potentially defamatory because we're publishing for a worldwide encyclopedia what they were accused of by a random person, just to make a point that the website has refactored some posts contrary to their terms of service. Content about living people isn't my area of expertise, so I was hoping to get more input on this if possible, and if others feel an academic purpose is being served, perhaps to find a better way to deliver the content. There is some discussion on the talk page. Thanks for your help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The "article" was rife with claims sourced to blogs, OR and the like. Splendid example of using Wikipedia as a soapbox, alas. Collect (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response and your edits at the page,, thank you. I also appreciated the numerous uses of alas in your edit summaries. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Lupe Valdez
The article appears to be in quite a messy situation. The last discussion over its content ended some eight years ago without a satisfying conclusion, leaving a long section where most source links are dead and can no longer be recovered; some seemed to be blog posts/op-eds when added but currently appear in the news section. Of course, the fact that there is a controversy section almost purely sourced to negative reports from one outlet is also highly questionable. I am tempted to remove the whole section save for one or two lines which may be integrated into the body. Is the article still salvageable at this point? Raven (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't think the controversy section was salvageable, so I moved it to Talk:Lupe Valdez with some comments. She's clearly notable and should have an article though, so I wasn't sure if you meant to say: "Is the article *section* still salvageable at this point?" or if you really did mean "article". Does the rest of the article look like an attack page or just that one section? The career section looked fine, but I didn't look at the whole thing yet.  —PermStrump  ( talk )  02:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

James Dreyfus
Begoon removed the section about his personal life as "unimportant". Actually, I just added a prose info about his sexuality, but then it was reverted. Honestly, I'm torn about this, but I just added it because I didn't think adding that part is undue. I just thought adding it with verifiable sources does not violate rules. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't see how a whole section called "Personal life", the entire content of which is "he is openly gay", is problematical? Would you create such a standalone section for his hair colour, or height? -- Begoon &thinsp; talk  07:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see the logic of comparing sexual orientation to the guy's hair or height. --George Ho (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They are all characteristics which do not need an entire section just to include them. If sexual orientation is relevant, somewhere in the text, then include it there. What you added was utterly gratuitous. -- Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, in today's world, people are assumed to be automatically heterosexual. Adding such info eliminates such possibilities and would encourage education about any person in the world. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding it into the prose if/where it is relevant would not be undue. Creating a section titled 'Personal life' with the entire content 'He is openly gay' is ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Only in death: Where shall we put the information then? I see Career and Early life and career. The guy did play two gay characters, one in Gimme Gimme Gimme and other starring Bette Midler, which was short-lived. George Ho (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel it must be mentioned (although technically it should be as the article has LGBT categories which need to be referenced within the article) then career would probably be best. Plenty of good interviews where he talks about his camp characters and opposition from the 'pink press'. Or you could write a personal life section that doesnt predominantly focus on his sexuality. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the thing back but into Career section. I added the guy's comments about his characters for emphasis. George Ho (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * May I suggest you re-read your edit? No offence, but it is bizarrely written. Thank you. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  08:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I was going to attempt a copyedit, but I can't understand it well enough to even do that. Begoon &thinsp; talk  09:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, for your copyedit. I did try, but found it impenetrable. I confess, though, I still don't really follow the logic of the paragraph as a whole. -- Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. It has no internal logic. There is, after all, no connection between being gay and acting a character. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  11:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I'm seeing the word "shoehorn". I don't doubt that this can be mentioned. Indeed it probably should, as points out. I don't think we need to do it so seemingly urgently, in such an odd way, though. --  Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It does feel shoehorned, but to be honest as part of his career is probably the best place. I think a couple of the main problems are that as a quiet non-publicity seeking celebrity (in contrast to his best known characters), there is a lack of the usual gossip/stories about his private life out there in the regular press that would normally fill up this sort of BLP. Celebrities who dont court celebrity do not sell newspapers. Given his issues (from interviews) with the gay news who criticised his 'camp' roles there is probably either an overt or unconcious bias towards non-reporting from that sector too. From what I have seen, the only real info is in interviews with him (as I linked) where he mentions it in reference to his past roles. The bit where he (paraphrasing) states he played the character in Gimme Gimme Gimme flamboyant because the character was an actor, not because he was gay, is one interesting aside. We could just as easily leave the information out, but as a BLP issue his sexuality is required to be sourced somewhere if the gay and LGBT categories are continue to be on the articles. While obviously true, sexuality based categories require sourcing. Its just until now no one has felt the need to mention it in his biography per sky is blue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's exactly right. I just feel a less "clumsy" mention might be preferable. If I could think of a way of doing that right now, I would, but it's late, and I'm not feeling creative. Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a "clumsy" mention to no mention at all. Silencing his self-outing from biographies seems... unethical and encourages editors to think that he should not be categorized if outing is not mentioned there. I want to preserve the categorization of it. I just... wanted readers to acknowledge people's self-outings. Never mind if you still retain your opinions otherwise. Maybe there might be a point of omitting a self-outing? George Ho (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There must be discussions about emphasizing sexual identities in biographies. George Ho (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean/want. Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant the whole emphasis issue must have been discussed in the past. Am I right? I dealt with others deeming such sexuality emphasis as distracting and irrelevant. I don't get the issue of briefly outing a person who self-outed. I don't know why putting it separately without enough emphasis is wrong. George Ho (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed categories which require self-identification and strong RS sourcing. Collect (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: Claims of sexual orientation should be from self-identification and reliable sources. Unsourced claims do not belong in any BLP. Collect (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is easily sourced (see interview I linked above for self-identification, and that was just one of many I found) the main problem is that no one has seen fit to do so, because the biography doesnt actually cover it, presumably because no one has felt the need to. Leaving us the absurd position of having to add in material about his sexuality in order to reference the category, unless there is a way of referencing categories without having to shoehorn in content? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The rule about categorization is clear. Such claims must be strongly sourced in the BLP, and self-identified. Collect (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.
 * And note the "notability" requirement. Just because we can establish that "George Gnarph was gay" does not mean it is part of his notability as a person. Collect (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether self-outing on Twitter establishes the notability. What about this one? What is the minimal length of notability of self-outing? Examples? George Ho (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Twitter account is not "verified" and "Out Magazine" is not likely to be a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Can you find a strong reliable source anywhere?  And a reason why it is particularly a notable item about this person? Collect (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the archived one, Collect? George Ho (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Does not appear to meet WP:RS but you can ask at WP:RS/N how reliable a source it is. Are you sure this is a significant part of the person's notability, by the way? (note the cite you give uses the name "Dreyfuss" which was either sloppy or indicative of no editorial controls.  lack of checking such things as "spelling of the person's name" is a likely issue.) Collect (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how insignificant it is to the person. If an already notable person outs oneself, that person makes self-outing important in one's own life, right? George Ho (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A source which fails to be a "reliable source" under Wikipedia policy may not be a reliable source for quoting a living person as self-identifying with a group. And "outing oneself" where there is no nexus to the actual self-identification (a quote without indicating where the quote was published may, alas, be inaccurate in citing the quote). Clear enough?   Suppose George Gnarph ran a blog where he wrote "The Queen of Bothnia said today 'I am proud to be quadro-sexual'".  Would you find such a blog to be a reliable source for attributing that claim to the Queen of Bothnia? That is why Wikipedia says we must use reliable sources as set forth in WP:RS. Collect (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Saw this posted at WP:RSN, but I'm responding here so as not to split the conversation. It doesn't seem like due weight to include in the article at this point. If it were, it wouldn't be so hard to find a few solidly reliable sources discussing it, but I couldn't find any and rainbownetwork.com site definitely isn't realiable. All of the articles seem to be user generated according to their archived Terms & Conditions: They didn't even give a pretense of any editorial oversight or fact checking. —PermStrump ( talk )  00:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this part-interview and that interview, Permstrump and Collect? George Ho (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The freelibrary.com link is just hosting the article and it says it was originally published in the The Mirror, which describes itself as an "intelligent tabloid", so that one doesn't seem good. I came across that YouTube video when I looked earlier and decided it was too low quality to the be able to verify that this is actually Dreyfus talking during a real BBC interview. If there was video and not just audio, maybe, but I wouldn't feel comfortable citing it based on that YouTube video alone. Also, in The Mirror interview he said, "I'm a gay man but I'm not a part of the whole gay scene..." Then in this 2013 interview with The Sunday Times, the journalist asked his opinion on gay marriage and he all he said was: "If gay people want to get married, I see no earthly reason why they shouldn't. Who else does it harm?" The fact that he didn't take that opportunity to relate his own situation to the issue combined with him saying in 2001 that he's not part of the "gay scene" make it seem to me like he's making a conscious effort to separate his public and private lives, which explains the lack of reliable sources covering his sexual orientation, so hypothetically, even if The Mirror were reliable and we were able to find a verifiable version of the BBC interview, I still think it would be undue to included it until it's covered more substantially by reliable sources. WP:Verifiability says: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." And WP:DUE says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (my emphasis). As it stands, the vast majority of the times he's mentioned in reliable sources, they don't mention that he's gay, so I don't think mentioning it in his BLP is in proportion to the reliable sources if this is all we have. It doesn't seem to add value to the article anyway, especially since it really doesn't fit in anywhere naturally. —PermStrump  ( talk )  03:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yasmin Khatun
Concerns of self-promotion and notability at Yasmin Khatun

This Wiki page seems self-created and possibly an attempt at self-promotion. The journalist in question has also simply described a few projects they were involved in at minor or small media outlets, and online research indicates they are merely contributors to open sites such as the Huffington Post and other similar outlets - hardly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baromm (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible deletion also to be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baromm (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hamza Tzortzis
This article is frequently updated (and in my opinion, vandalised) by GorgeCustersSabre to almost exclusively refer to defamatory and potentially libelous assertions. The updates remove objective references to Hamza's activities, engagements, achievements, and statements in his own words, and instead focuses on quote-mining and highlighting negative comments from media smear-campaigns against him based on tenuous links.

The page almost reads like "this is what so-and-so says about Hamza", as opposed to "this is who he is and what he does".

I appreciate the quotes are from mainstream media, but quote-mining displays a distorted image if it's not balanced with any responses or rebuttals made by the person concerned, and completely ignores other activities regardless of whether they've been reported on or not.

For example, Hamza has debated many prominent academics who have their own pages on Wikipedia. Hamza has engaged with this, but just because the mainstream media has not reported on this should not mean to say that Hamza is not actively involved in this field.

The problem is any changes or edits are frequently reverted by the user mentioned above, based on emotional/subjective rhetoric alone, and I would appreciate a neutral person stepping in to help assist in evaluating whether the content is accurately representative of the person concerned (i.e. Hamza) and doesn't rely almost exclusively on content produced by right-wing media rehashing the same unsupported claims with ambiguous terms whilst ignoring the bulk of Hamza's work and his responses to the very same.

Apologies if I've missed anything obvious/necessary, this is my first time making such a complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamShady (talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * thank you for bringing this here - while we work through this, could I ask you to stop reverting any changes made to the article? When in a dispute, it is better to discuss (as you are now beginning to do) the content - we have policies which could result in you being blocked should you continue to edit war. would it be possible for you to join this coversation?
 * My understanding of the situation is that has a valid point - all claims made on Wikipedia should be cited with a reliable source. The claims you are trying to insert into the article are not referenced -  do you think you can find two reliable sources which verify the content you are adding and list them below? --  samtar talk or stalk 10:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you the same Jamshady as the one who went to Africa for IERA, Tzortzis's organization? See here. If so, I am not sure if you editing the article is OK according to the rules.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * How outrageous to be accused of vandalism for twice reverting an edit that is unreferenced and clearly non-neutral ("involved with presenting a cohesive compassionate narrative for orthodox Islamic values in a modern setting" etc). Someone has been reading his website, which states that he is "Compassionately articulating a positive cogent case for Islamic thought and philosophy." Wikipedia requires citations to reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. I try hard to follow these guidelines. Which, may I ask, have I violated? George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, I don't know how to do proper replies.


 * Yes, I agree information should be cited where relevant, but which aspects here need citation? That he's Muslim, British, a convert to Islam, of Greek heritage, works for iERA, has debated various academics, is a public speaker and lecturer, and general outlook? There's no newspaper profile or article that refers to these, but these are all matters of fact. Where would you obtain references from this except his own statements (which any newspaper profile, etc, would also refer to).


 * Further, the assertion that he's involved with presenting cohesive compassionate narrative for orthodox Islamic values in a modern setting is the exact foundation for his works. One only has to read through his material to see this is what he talks about. The alternative into from Gilligan is definitely not neutral at all, and makes horrid sensationlist claims that have been unsupported except by random statements presented without context. There's definite bias in that article, and it's not counter-balanced with anything else. It's not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamShady (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've indented your reply for you - just to let you know I've reverted the article to a previous version per the reasons given in my first reply, and the reply of . Jeff5102 (above) has a question which would be prudent for you to address -- samtar talk or stalk 12:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am the same one that went to Africa with iERA though I'm not involved with the organisation (nor have been involved in their activities for a few years). In either case, I'm just trying to present objective factual points, devoid of emotion or personal perspective or agenda. Hamza's page should be about Hamza, not selective commentary on what others wish to accuse him of as part of a bigger narrative. Even Osama bin Laden's page is more balanced than this one, presenting facts rather than massively quoting from agenda-based articles.

If the content is objectively sound, and the crux of a person's character, does it matter who authored it? If another person mentioned that he's a public speaker and lecturer, etc, would it be more significant than one who knows him personally? How is it appropriate to exclude reference to this when it makes up the bulk of his activities, and is the basis for his notoriety (he gets invited to universities because of his involvement in this field, which is where the media then appear in order to attack the message he brings). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamShady (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's best for us to identify and stay on topic - the issue is that of verifiability. We really do need some reliable sources (which won't be agenda-based articles) to support the content you are trying to add. Can you provide any? -- samtar talk or stalk 13:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's best to stay on topic - for me that topic is Hamza and his work, not what Andrew Gilligan wants to make of him. As for articles to support the content I'm trying to add, I'm at a loss in understanding this, or what you'd need for which claims exactly? His debates, for example, are all available on YouTube, and linked to by his own website. There's no "article" discussing his debates with X, Y, or Z because the media aren't interested in that, but that doesn't mean this is what he actively engages in. His role and activites within iERA are cited on their website: https://www.iera.org/education/book-a-speaker/meet-our-speakers/. His non-iERA lectures are on yet another website: https://www.alkauthar.org/instructor.php?id=23

I almost feel at this point that he'd need an article in the Times discussing whether he's male before that could be included? Are the points I'm trying to add really that sensational or disputable?

Incidentally, the guidelines also state that potentially libelous material should be removed. His page (which is a stub) has 3-4 references to extremism, as compared to someone like Osama that barely has that many across the whole length. The article reduces Hamza down to a singular perspective and is causing problems in his personal/professional life by regurgitated unsubstantiated views without giving due context to his own responses to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamShady (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Any update on this @Samtar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamShady (talk • contribs) 08:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I very much like the introduction you wrote for the article. The only thing wrong with it is that it does not have any citations to reliable sources. In my opinion, the paragraph about him allegedly being "associated with extreme positions and extremists" is probably best put as a second paragraph. It is not really suitable as a first paragraph. Are you able to find reliable sources for your paragraph?-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a systemic problem affecting both the article on Hamza Tzortzis and the article on iERA. The articles place unqualified reliance on articles by the journalist Andrew Gilligan. Mr Gilligan may be a hero to some, but to others his work has been described as a byword for sloppy journalism, which was why he lost his job at the BBC in 2004 and at the Daily Telegraph in 2016. Gilligan's journalism was heavily criticised by the Hutton Inquiry report in 2004, and in May 2016 the Telegraph made an out of court settlement paying damages and apologising for libelling a Moslem in series of articles by Gilligan between January 2014  and April 2015. Gilligan appears to be extremely biased against Moslems.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do have citations, some in foreign media (Hamza was interviewed by a mainstream Greek newspaper that was a lot more balanced - but I'm not sure if foreign/translated media is allowed), and some on websites for institutions that Hamza lectures for (i.e. iERA, and AlKauthar). It seems to me that if iERA/AlKauthar openly state he's a speaker/lecturer for them, it doesn't get any more reliable than that? In terms of his debates, etc, they're all up on YouTube (so they're matter of fact), but I believe only the Krauss one was mentioned in the media, only because of the controversy invented about the segregated seating. His other public speaking is only mentioned in the media as inference to highlight that he's been banned from certain venues (to be banned as a public speaker, one must be a public speaker in the first place, right?). But there does exist an article that mentions he had about 34 university speaking engagements recently. We're compiling them together to create a new draft page that has kindly set up to help redress the neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamShady (talk • contribs) 10:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Foreign language citations are allowed.
 * A citation from iERA that he is a speaker for IERA is an acceptable citation.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you, JamShady (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP violation at Vision Forum
I have been involved in an edit war at Vision Forum, removing what I think is a BLP violation. The text previously said the organization closed due to the founder's "marital infidelity". This was changed to "alleged sexual abuse of a young nanny". A source was provided which mentions the allegations, but it does not say it led to the closure: it says he"made a public confession of an inappropriate relationship with a young woman, leading to his resignation, the closing of his organizations and much behind-the-scenes jockeying." So he confessed an "inappropriate relationship" but did not admit to abuse - and it was the former confession that led to the closure, not the latter allegation.

Anyway, I have explained this on the talk page, and reverted several times (going past 3RR and claiming a BLP exemption). But still the other editor keeps adding his preferred wording back in. Am I misapplying BLP policy here? It seemed to be a fairly straightforward issue of "not in the source", but this needs some more input. StAnselm (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The Huffpo article seems to pretty clearly support the content:


 * "Last fall home school leader and Biblical Patriarch Doug Phillips made a public confession of an inappropriate relationship with a young woman, leading to his resignation, the closing of his organizations and much behind-the-scenes jockeying."


 * So...yeah. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying - which content? The "inappropriate relationship" bit, or the "alleged sexual abuse" bit? StAnselm (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The source that I see says "Last fall home school leader and Biblical Patriarch Doug Phillips made a public confession of an inappropriate relationship with a young woman, leading to his resignation, the closing of his organizations ..." and "the young woman comes forward to file a lawsuit in the District Court in Bexar County Texas against Phillips, Vision Forum Ministries and Vision Forum Inc. The complaint accuses Phillips of various sexual improprieties, emotional damage related to that impropriety and even fraud, invoking his status as the defendant’s former pastor, counselor and employer. It also brings charges against Phillips’ ministry and his business.". The cited source is corroborated by this source which says "In October, 2013, Doug Phillips, of the Vision Forum, an organization that promoted the idea of “Biblical patriarchy,” stepped down from his role as president after being accused of sexually assaulting his children’s nanny several years before." It isn't a WP:BLP violation to say "alleged sexual abuse of a young nanny", nor is there a valid reason reverting it seven times.- MrX 18:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The BLP violation, as I saw it, was that there was no source that said the closure came from the allegation - only that it came from the confession. (I hadn't seen the New Yorker article, and as far as I can tell it contradicts other sources - Phillips stepped down before he was accused.) StAnselm (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The woman came forward several months later. The timeline is
 * Phillips resigned in October 2013
 * "Vision Forum Inc. sold off its assets and closed its doors" at the end of 2013 (HuffPo)
 * The woman filed the lawsuit in April 2014.
 * StAnselm (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * On a closely related issue, the same editor has changed the lead sentence of Doug Phillips to read "Douglas Winston Phillips is a Christian author, speaker, attorney, and homeschooling advocate who was involved in a scandal with alleged sexual abuse of a young nanny." Is this appropriate for the lead sentence of a BLP? I didn't think it was (due to undue weight) but I couldn't find any BLP policy that talked about undue emphasis on allegations. StAnselm (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That does seem to be a bit of a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue, unless his notability comes mostly from the alleged sexual misconduct, that does not belong in the lead. Also, its ungrammatical.- MrX 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Any way you slice it, these are allegations of crimes. I think WP:BLPCRIME disfavors including allegations of crimes in biographies of living people without the allegation leading to a conviction. David in DC (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, though in this case it wasn't an allegation of a crime, but a civil lawsuit. Does WP:BLPCRIME still apply? StAnselm (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The lawsuit alleges sexual abuse. That's a crime. I think BLPCRIME applies whether or not there's ever an arrest or indictment. David in DC (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The key part of BLPCRIME that people sometimes miss or overlook is "For subjects who are not public figures". The first question you should ask is, 'Is this person a public figure?' followed by 'Is this material WP:UNDUE?' Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And he certainly wouldn't be under United States law. Strange that we don't have a WP definition; only a US-legal definition. StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the Kevin Phillips Doug Phillips bio, here and here. Please review them and then join the discussion thread on the article's talk page. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made similar edits to the Vision Forum page, here. David in DC (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't a WP:BLP violation to say "alleged sexual abuse of a young nanny", it is available from several sources and is really a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. There is no controversy here, or more importantly, among sources.  Lipsquid (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But once again, that isn't why Vision Forum closed. It had already shut down several months before. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, once again. "In October, 2013, Doug Phillips, of the Vision Forum, an organization that promoted the idea of “Biblical patriarchy,” stepped down from his role as president after being accused of sexually assaulting his children’s nanny several years before." which is reliably sourced.  There is no controversy here.  Lipsquid (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think as editors we need to say that the New Yorker got this one wrong. It blatantly contradicts the timeline found in the other reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time.  "Then in January of 2013, after Phillips allegedly attempted a late-night visit to Torres family home (by knocking on her bedroom window), her parents brought the situation to the attention of the church elders. While in early 2013 Phillips was removed from authority in his church, he remained at the helm of Vision Forum Ministries (though with the closeness between the church and the ministry it seems unlikely that no one there knew the situation) until near the end of 2013, when a confrontation with a handful of friends and colleagues forced the resignation."  Can we please get a recommendation?  Lipsquid (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that this would be an example of the "inappropriate relationship" that Phillips admitted to, not the sexual abuse (which he denied). StAnselm (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we please get a recommendation? It seems the only uninvolved editors, Timothyjosephwood and MrX, have said the edit on Vision Forum is not a BLP violation Lipsquid (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see an immediate reason for removal of the content. If anyone still feels uncomfortable with it, the safer route may be to include the information as a direct quotation rather than content presented in WP's voice, that way any ambiguity falls squarely on the source and not on WP. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not a BLP violation, but whether it's included in the article is a matter for editors to decide by way of consensus. Directly quoting a high quality source is one possible way forward.- MrX 21:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback, will consider a direct quote. Lipsquid (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump Racism
Assuming there's agreement, I would appreciate someone uninvolved removing this content from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

There is an ongoing RfC on the subject, but the fact remains that you don't leave in contentious BLP material and discuss exclusion; you remove it and discuss inclusion, especially on such a high profile article. I have said as much on the RfC, and therefore think it would probably be too BOLD to make the edit myself. Timothy Joseph Wood 14:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Its exceedingly well sourced so is not a BLP violation (specifically, see WP:BLPSOURCES and the following subsections at WP:BLP). As the sourcing is both reliable and verifiable it doesnt fall foul of WP:BLP. Merely being 'contentious' is not by itself a reason to remove material about a living person. Also the RFC is overwhelmingly (given the strength of reliability and sourcing) going to end up including this. The actual (potential) violation here would be WP:UNDUE which doesnt require removal of contested material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ, I hate it when people lump a half dozen sources into a single inline. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately its necessary sometimes when a highly charged subject requires multiple sources in order to deflect accusations of 'not enough sources to indicate this is notable!' arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I thought "It's mentioned twice in the article and a single citation in the lead." Timothy Joseph Wood  14:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What happens is occasionally you get people removing the extra ref's as 'overciting' then someone comes along a month or so later and removes the material claiming not enough sources, then the cycle starts again. This is one way that prevents that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get why it's used. I just don't personally like it and avoid it, so I didn't think to check. One source, even a damned good one, wouldn't have been a terribly firm foundation to rest a claim like that on. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Kelley O'Hara
Incorrect place of birth noted in article. Footnote 1 directs to a gostanford.com page. At the bottom of the page in the "personal" section the correct place of birth, Jacksonville, FL, is noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md8890 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Done (on de-Wiki too). Thanks for pointing this out. It looks like some Wikis and similar sites picked up on "Fayetteville", but the majority of more reliable sources (Getty, Eurosport, team bio, ref #1) seem to agree on Jacksonville. "Hometown" is not always "Place of birth" - changed to Jacksonville. GermanJoe (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)