Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive244

RfC related to BLPSPS
There is an RfC at Talk:Michael Greger asking: "Does the blog post by Harriet A. Hall referenced in this article violate WP:BLPSPS?" SarahSV (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Mike Hollingsworth (TV executive)
This article:
 * is totally unreferenced
 * carries an unactioned Template:BLP sources tag from Oct 2008
 * appears to be written by the subject's son
 * is about a person notable for being married to a celebrity

Surely a case for further action or deletion Keomike (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Euvin Naidoo
The article clearly fails the noticability test. It is also not neutral as it is written by the living person that it is a biography of. As a result, their achievements are grossly overstated. Does every Partner of McKinsey, BCG, and Bain have a page? That would be a lot of pages and a lot of noticeable people !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by John smith46 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Alvin Toles


Bio has been vandalized for a few days, with repeated false claims of death. I requested and received page protection, but the article is now locked in a 'death' version. Help appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks to have been fixed, I don't see any suggestion that he's died in the current revision. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

diego fusaro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Fusaro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.115.170.210 (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC) This article has been clearly written by diego fusaro himself. It's full of unsourced, non relevant information that appears to be a direct projection of the subject's enormous ego and need for attention. Doesn't fit wikipedia standards. Recommended for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.115.170.210 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Alexandru Deaconu
This is regarding the image on the page of Alexandru Deaconu. Please remove the image, as it represents Mihai Eminescu, Romanian poet, and not Alexandru Deaconu.


 * Done, and thank you. Pulled from Wikidata, updated to remove image there. Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Keith Vaz
Requesting temporary semi-protection. Notable politician, scandal emerged in the British media involving the named person using male prostitutes, repeated BLP violation edits and reverts ongoing on the page --TF92 (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, 2 days semi. Despite the current lack of non-tabloid sources, it's been on the BBC so it's not some minor tabloid thing that's going to go away in a hurry. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Brian Day
Brian Day has been here several times in the past for promotion: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive199, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive223, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive239 (filed by me). As I said the last time I brought this article here, there's been a history of COI editing (see report #3), POV-pushing, and whitewashing. Day is a controversial figure, and every so often controversy will disappear from the article, especially the lead. I don't know how much controversy belongs in the lead. I don't even understand all the particulars of the controversy. The only reason I've added this article to my watchlist was because I saw it pop up here on BLPN. have once again removed sourced controversy from the lead under the guise of "neutrality", which I dispute – it is not neutral to remove well-sourced controversy. This article desperately needs more eyes on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Prominent lawsuit returning to courts currently and biography hit by supporters and opponents in past so attention by experienced, neutral editors will be helpful. Above accusation of 'guise' is incorrect as I updated and added content and inline references about the controversial lawsuit.Canuckle (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Because there's been no discussion from uninvolved editors, I've alerted both WP:WikiProject Canada and WP:WikiProject Medicine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * might need more neutral text in some parts...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Vatal Nagaraj
Multiple wiki users have abused a lving person on his wiki page calling him "retarded", "a minature scrotum", etc. For some reason the admins have failed to delete the slanderous text, Someone with required permission, please do so. Thanks. KhaasBanda (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've deleted a number of revisions. Please let me know if I've missed anything. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing them but a few still remain. Here the person is called a kutti meaning bitch, another dog slur and kothi meaning monkey. KhaasBanda (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. Non-English slurs are quite difficult for me to spot - that's why I asked :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing them. KhaasBanda (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Sudetic
Legal threat at this page (not the first time I believe) by IP. Possible protection required. Eagleash (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I doubt the person is actually specifically notable. Almost the entire article is "self-published"  material or editorial in nature.  All I can find of substance, other than his opinion articles about racism in Yugoslavia for "Open Society" (a political editorial entity), is that he was a reporter for the New York Times from 1990 to 1995.  The current BLP is horridly written and florid.  Collect (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't disagree. I believe someone claiming to be the subject has previously blanked the page, possibly on multiple occasions. In the meantime a different IP has edited the article in two further instances today, in an identical fashion. Eagleash (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Richard McCabe


Always sends up a red flag when a WP:SPA begins redoing a bio, adds unsourced content, some of which looks to have been copied from a CV, and removes maintenance templates. If this persists I'll request a block or page protection, but short of that more eyes on this will be appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Caillou Pettis (actor)
Badly-sourced BLP about minor, recreated from Caillou Pettis, which is a salted redlink that was speedied three times. Editor on that was, editor on this version was and. Text is not identical between recreations. If this were culled to RSes, the entire text would be "In 2015, Pettis got a reply from singer-songwriter Taylor Swift on Tumblr about his issues with bullying". I would be tempted to speedy and salt this as a terrible BLP, but wanted to run it by BLPN. It's presently at AFD but this strikes me as an article that shouldn't exist per WP:BLP - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As you probably know, speedy and salting can't prevent recreation. A formally closed AfD however, even if slightly snowed, allows the G4 hammer to be used. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK if that's best. It's not negative, it's a fan piece - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

manolo gabbiadini
The club career is wrong, the last section at Napoli is totally untrue. As follows "Manolo from a young age supported England based Dagenham and Redbridge & has gone to several games of theirs when able to. His boyhood hero was former Crystal Palace and QPR midfielder Shaun Derry, admitting that if he'd achieve half of what he has in football, he would be happy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejm1982 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Saraju Mohanty
I think the biography at Saraju Mohanty needs some independent eyes. It has either been edited by the subject himself or some very loyal fans. There is not one but two image galleries of the subject, one where he is out and about meeting people and the other looks like a childhood photo album. To give you an idea of the POV nature, one image has the caption "Saraju Mohanty in an inspiring discussion with High-School Students in Lodhachua Village Odisha, India in 2010." On top of that there's lists of articles he's edited, theses he has supervised, and so on. I'm not sure where to begin with reducing it, so I am listing it here for broader attention. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Relisting, I didn't think it would be archived so soon. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Anna Ryder Richardson


Requesting assistance: I've twice deleted largely unsourced passages to this WP:BLP, and find that most of it is intimate/gossipy in tone and doesn't belong here. Initially I thought this may have all been copyright violation, but if not I'd appreciate more eyes, and restoring anything that's credibly sourced. I'm also dubious of News of the World as a reliable source, though it's hard to tell how much of the content in question comes from there. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see now that the same text had been previously deleted in January of this year . 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Camila Batmanghelidjh
Camila Batmanghelidjh

This article violates the biographies of living persons policies as it contains information that is factually incorrect, and not neutral or verifiable. Kid's Company closed because of false sexual abuse allegations, which were subsequently found to be unfounded. In fact, the police said that they found "no fault with Kids Company's safeguarding of kids and vulnerable adults" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35429630 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/28/police-drop-kids-company-abuse-investigation These allegations were maliciously taken to the media and not to any professional institution dealing with safeguarding issues. Therefore whoever did this intended to destroy the charity.

The government gave Kids Company money for staff salaries. Kid's Company spent the money appropriately, and in fact the charity had £4million worth of assets, including £2.2 million from the government in its bank account when it closed. No money was misappropriated, there was no mismanagement, the organization's audits have been clear for 19 years. Here is an example of an audit which the Cabinet office organized of Kid's Company http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/government-issues/legislation/cabinetoffice/175971English_votes_for_English_laws_explanatory_guide.pdf

On what evidence is Wikipedia reproducing these malicious rumors?

The government was auditing Kid's Company every quarter since 2003 against its grants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinklight (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article contains statements which are supported by Reliable Sources. The closure of Kid's Company is covered in detail in its own article, and the article on Batmanghelidjh summarises that account.  The rumours form part of the sequence of events.Martinlc (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible BLP Violations
The following notice below was posted on my user talk page by (diff). I may not become involved in this, so posting here. The only change I have made to the post is linking FallingGravity's user name within it. North America1000 17:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"User is  removing sourced and NPOV material on Mark Burns (televangelist) As per .  We have to be careful of WP:BLP violations.   Not only according to the source is the National Guard a reserve component of the Army but CNN stated "in August 2016, those longstanding claims in his biography were disproved after CNN fact-checked them."  It wasn't disproved  CNN is wrong on the fact. FallingGravity has edits with some dipping on the political side ,  and. I do not want to engage in an edit war so I am chiming you in. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)"

Panic! at the Disco
On this page, in the awards table, it says that the MTV music award for best rock video is still pending. However, it was revealed that they lost to Heathens, by twenty one pilots. For the source, it is here:. It is highly likely that link is temporary, though.

Fish302 (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't a WP:BLP issue — it's just that the awards were presented just over a week ago, so not all of the relevant articles have necessarily been updated yet. You can just change it yourself, and BLPN doesn't have to get involved at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Brian Rawling disambiguation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Rawling

refers to my friend and successful record producer Brian Rawling.

Unfortunately, my name is Brian Rawlings and I'm not him. I am a music executive and entrepreneur in Nashville (formerly Disney Music Los Angeles) I am the subject of the more than occasional internet search and it always goes to him, not me. Rawling doesn't use the internet other than email and he's not aware of the issue.

I would like to learn how to create a simple disambiguation. In our little business we are both very well known and it's not accurate or helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brawling (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages exist on Wikipedia to help people navigate to Wikipedia articles — they do not exist to help people who don't have Wikipedia articles remedy general career confusion between them and other people with similar names. If adequate reliable source coverage existed to support a Wikipedia article about you, then we could disambiguate you from him accordingly, but there would have to already be a Wikipedia article about you before we could do anything about this request — in the meantime, the only thing we can do is to correct our article about him if it's accidentally getting some of your work confused with his. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Probable False Assertion of Publication of Underage Nude Photos in "GodsGirls" and "Cœur de pirate" Articles
The articles GodsGirls and Cœur de pirate both assert French-Canadian singer Cœur de pirate had photos taken and published while she was underage on the GodsGirls website.

Annaliese Nielsen, the owner of the GodsGirls site recently had a video go viral showing her berating a Lyft driver and the past controversy with the Cœur de pirate photos was unearthed as well. I disagree with Nielsen's politics, but I'm always suspicious of things that seem too good to be true. So I did some digging into the WP articles that were cited in support of that claim.

I don't speak French, so I used Google Translate to view the original source article cited in the Wikipedia GodsGirls article. That article states "In July 2009, Canadian newspaper Le Soleil stated that French-Canadian singer Cœur de pirate was a nude model for GodsGirls while she was a minor, using the name Bea." But the newspaper article linked from the citation Le Solei says no such thing. It has zero mention of Cœur de pirate (Béatrice Martin) being underage when the nude photos were taken.

I also checked out the Wikipedia page on Cœur de pirate. That page also has a section talking about her underage photos. However Google Translate views of the sources linked from that article lesoir.be, lapresse.ca, patwhite.com, and the original Le Soleil had no mention of underage photos in those articles either. Just that Cœur de pirate was young and the photos where nude.

My first reaction was that someone had seen the recent video of Annaliese Nielsen and Lyft driver and wanted to make her look even worse—but the addition of the underage photo claims date back to an |addition by an IP editor on 23 November 2009. The paragraphs about underage photos in the Wikipedia article on Cœur de pirate |were also added by a different IP editor, but on 9 July 2016.

Maybe Google Translate is leaving out something vital in the source articles—and I would really appreciate it if someone with good French language skills could review the sources. However, as it stands, I think WP may have had false information inserted. Or at the very least, sources that don't say what they are claimed to say. Carl Henderson (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * When strong reliable sources do not appear to support a contentious claim in any BLP, the rule is to yank the claim instantly, if not sooner. Collect (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This other article (from the same) source ties in to the existing article James J. Lambden (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I note the deliberate re-addition of the rumours. The source given makes statements based on tattoos about a minor, and is not a "reliable source" for allegations of criminal acts, in my opinion.  This makes Wikipedia into a tabloid at best. "The side of the Los Angeles Police Department, indicate that such photos are definitely illegal if the model is minor.  "When it's a naked picture of a person under 18 is considered child pornography," said the officer Platero." (Googleized translation) makes clear that this is, in fact, a statement of a criminal act, and making the minor who was the victim into the shamed person.    Biographies should not be used to shame the victim of a crime. Collect (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this fallout from that Lyft driver thing? (Nielson had a less than satisfactory - for her - response to her video of her berating a Lyft driver recently) Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The only fall out from the Lyft driver incident is that the incident prompted someone to link to the Wikipedia articles from a message board I read, and from there I took a close look at the sourcing. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I suspect there may be some original research assumptions being inserted. You're correct that the sources don't say she was underage at the time she posed for the photos — what Le Soleil does say is that the photos first appeared in February 2007, which does technically make her slightly underage if you WP:SYNTH that with the birthdate claimed for her in our article. But (a) even the birthdate isn't actually reliably sourced, meaning it could be wrong for all we know and thus shouldn't be in our article at all either, and (b) our policies do prevent us from SYNTHING two distinct pieces of information to create a new statement of fact that has not already been put on the record by an outside source. So even if she technically was underage at the time she posed for the photos, that's not for us to reveal if reliable sources haven't already said that for us — especially given the BLP sensitivities involved. I agree that the underage claim has to go as not properly sourced. It simply doesn't matter whether it's true or not: if reliable sources haven't already said she was underage at the time, then Wikipedia editors do not get to combine discrete facts to originate an otherwise unpublished claim. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the paragraphs from both the articles. It seems from the rules and discussion, that it's pretty clear they are over the BLP line. Thank you all for your help. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed: among other issues, that material is WP:OR and should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal. I do read French, and I can confirm that the sources listed above do not state that these photos were taken while she was underaged. Meters (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC on Louis CK sexual harassment allegations
There is currently an RFC at Talk:Louis C.K./Archives/2016 --Jpcase (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
As this was written in response to one editor's view of "building" our coverage of a BLP subject, you may wish to read. It's kinda lengthy: basically, I've seen too many edits come across my watchlist which suggest that it's okay to tear down rather than build our coverage of biographical subjects if those persons happen to not be currently making headlines, particularly in regard to political biographies and former officeholders. I'm saying something now after reading one too many such edits like this over the years. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

TDLR / Dragan Vasiljkovic
"Only in death does duty end". What does that mean? It is short, granted, but it is not succinct. I noticed it t is stuck over other articles on totally different subjects as well as mine and it is hard to see its relevance to anything I have written succinct or not. It obviously has some "deep" meaning to you and you may like writing it in the belief that people will think "someone clever has looked at this". Well they don't. Stupidity is a dynamic where the stupid believe other stupid people are clever and clever people are stupid. It is a matter of intellectual pitch. People gravitate to those on the same intellectual and moral pitch as themselves. Dummies and crooks like other dummies and crooks.The only duty one has in life is not to violate the rights of others and to discover the truth. You are certainly not interested in doing either of those in the Wiki article on Dragan Vasiljkovic. Just because a comment is comparatively long does not mean it is not succinct especially if it is dealing with an article riddled with errors that can be corrected by research of public record primary sources most of which are published on the net. Instead Wiki relies on prurient newspaper reports. "Length" and "succinctness" are distinct concepts. My comments are not short. Is that your point? Wikipedia says Vasiljkovic has a criminal record for robbery and forcing women into prostitution. He does not. Is that succinct enough for you? You obviously never got to the part in my post on mental laziness and people being psychiatrically programmed from birth to avoid doubt. ADD again. "Not even in death do rights end".

If you want a succinct example of stupidity here it is. "The Australian" alleged Vasiljkovic was a war criminal over this exact statement attributed to him in the defamation case pleaded precisely and succinctly--: "When Croatians take up fortified positions in schools and hospitals I just have to massacre them".---If there are children in the school or patients in the hospital the Croatian military must be using them as human shields by taking up fortified positions there. Thus the Croatians not Vasiljkovic are war criminals. If the schools or hospitals have no children or patients then they are still legitimate military targets. Hamas militants did exactly this in a hospital on the West Bank and were massacred by Israeli soldiers. Vasiljkovic's job in an armed conflict as a Serbian military commander IS to "massacre them" in either situation.It is not a war crime. Murder as a war crime is about WHO you deliberately kill. Ordinary murder is deliberately killing anybody and has no application legally to the above situation. It is war and why it is called "war". The whole allegation mistakes ordinary murder under municipal criminal law with the universal "ius in bello" war crime of murder.They are not the same thing. I could take it further and tell you why it is a war crime to jail a soldier for ordinary murder on the above facts but am frightened of being accused of not being succinct. You take positions based on your lack of knowledge. Is that succinct? B.Slowgrove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.16 (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In reply - while you keep posting barely coherant rants that do not make a clear request, nothing will be done. As it stands the article is sourced to a variety of secondary sources. Wikipedia articles are written based on what reliable secondary sources say. If you believe some of the information that is sourced in the article is misrepresented by the sources provided, or the sources are unreliable, please detail which. As for the rest of your screed, you may want to read WP:RGW. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Does "Only in death does duty end" realize I was the lawyer that conducted Vasiljkovic's extradition hearing? I also appeared for him in High Court on 15 February 2006 see H.C transcripts. The Sources are in my prior posts that were on the same web page that I referred to. I want the entire Wiki article deleted-clear enough. My name from the article has already been deleted as I requested and proved wrong. Unlike V I am not in jail so can speak. Talk about making a fool of yourself. You seem not to know what a source is, primary or secondary. I am a primary source. Newspaper reports are neither.Your duty is to produce his criminal record. The Wiki article uses a Croatian nationalist newspaper on this-- that is pathetic and not a secondary source. Vasiljkovic was jailed from 19 January 2006 to 4 September 2009 and someone alleged to be Vasiljkovic was jailed from mid May 2010 and continuing including transfer to Croatia on 15 July 2015 so V cannot not be charged. Primary Source: Extradition Act requires no indictment. The Wiki editor wanted verification from another complainant that there is no evidence to support the allegations.This is easily and conclusively verified.Read the Extradition Act (no evidence required) that also bars Vasiljkovic in section 19 (5) bringing evidence to contradict Croatia's no evidence allegations. So I just conclusively verified that there was no evidence produced in Australia. It is now 2016 then he was charged in Croatia after 10 years jail. You find an identification hearing i.e a remand of V from mid May 2010 for the second imprisonment. There is none and that is not only a primary source it is conclusive proof. "OIDDDE" seem to think making allegations against V is proof and someone else has to disprove the allegations in the Wiki article. Someone sitting in a jail watching a video screen of a case about Vasiljkovic is not a remand/ i.d. hearing. The Van Lynden testimony in Martic case before judge Moloto of the ICTY in early June 2006 on the ICTY web site, the telephone intercepts of V's home by Serbian State Security in Belgrade from 5 August 1991 to June 1992 tendered in the Stanisic/Simativic case in the ICTY also on the ICTY web site are all primary sources that prove that the Wiki article is wrong on his years of service in the Krajina army(not the JNA--See map of world as to where Krajina is e.g Knin is in Croatia and Belgrade is in Serbia). The ICTY has separate indictments for each armed conflict. Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo ICTY war crimes are never indicted together. There are no ICTY indictments for the "civil war in Yugoslavia".(See entire ICTY web site again as conclusive evidence there is no such thing as the "civil war in Yugoslavia" but a Croatian war, Bosnian war and Kosovo war). Assuming I have to establish that there are no Muslims in the Croatian war go to ICTY to show no Muslim victims for Croatia and no invasion of Croatia by Bosnian military militias). No one is required to produce evidence to rebut your ignorant assumptions. See map of world-- there is no Krajina in Bosnia and no one has alleged V was in the Bosnian Serb army. V was arrested on 19 January 2006 at Liverpool, NSW. see A-G press release 20 January 2006. I have a copy of the official Croatian allegations on this computer that I could email as an attachment. There was a ton of alibi evidence for V but section 19 (5) of the E A forbids it being put into evidence. There is no ARREST warrant. The High Court orders of 30 March 2010 confirm the magistrate's orders and review and that is they confirm the first imprisonment from 19 January 2006 to 4 September 2009 not the second from mid May 2010 onward. The High Court orders of 30 March 2010 contain no order that V is to be arrested or imprisoned (again primary source and conclusive). He was at liberty from 4 September 2009 until (someone unidentified was) grabbed unlawfully without an ARREST warrant by the AFP in mid May 2010. Look how long the Wiki article has been up and not revised since 2007 apart from deleting me and V is still in jail for over 10 years without conviction (Primary source is Wikipedia history). As to the number of appeals etc. the Australian Court records are on the austlii web site. There is a great secondary source. "Only in death does duty end" seems to be alive so should owe a duty to support deletion of the Wiki article. V has served his sentence already before being convicted(Article 24 ICTY web site Babic, Silvijicannan, Plavisek cases -primary sources).Do you really believe that his imprisonment for the unproven crimes starts again when he goes to Croatia .War crimes are global and universal and do not care where the person is in jail. ICTY jurisdiction is global. It would be the same if they put him on the moon. I am highly qualified and know where all the primary sources are. I gathered them together for his extradition hearing and the Full Federal Court said I won having less than 10% of what I used and the High Court did not put him in jail.This is the first topic I have ever posted anything about on the net. If I wanted to include all the sources I have for everything I say the size of this post is nothing.It is shorter than the V Wiki article that is just propaganda. If V is innocent as he is then the press has no war criminal story and sells no papers. Further the Commonwealth government looks foolish to say the least. Do you get it, now? I assume you are lay persons so I write down to you to point out obvious core defects that are in plain sight but still you cannot see what is obvious. No one anywhere goes to jail for 10 years without a conviction not even in North Korea. No one is tried after they have served their sentence. Do you really think judges that sit on a case are going to find any person innocent after they have already done well over 10 years in jail for the crimes being tried? Do you think that when they find V guilty the judges will say you can go now because you have already served your sentence (if you do you are in Alice in Wonderland or Australia).Let alone when it is a Serb soldier before a Croatian Court over an armed conflict where he fought against Croatia. Do we send Australian soldiers back to Vietnam for war crimes allegations over the Vietnam war.? Wake up. After all this time no one has woken up. You are supposed to be convicted first then you go to jail is the usual procedure. No one does more than 10 years prior to trial.That is why I have decided to write. I should not have to. People's intelligence goes down when they are in groups (the technical term is "inner emigrants"). Is that clear enough for you? I bet it is not for "OIDDD" who is emotionally invested. I have so much more. B. Slowgrove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.175 (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm Guessing this has something to do with this archived post? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. They appear to be here to right the great wrongs done to Dragan, but have failed to listen to any advice and just respond with personal attacks. They are alleging bias on the part of Serbian sources used in the article, but ultimately unless they provide a clear request on the article talk page it is unlikely anything is going to be done further. Other editors have also looked at the article. If there is a problem with the sourcing they need to be brought up at rsn. This is the 5th time they have posting TLDR - at one point they had 3 looooonng posts on here at the same time. When they do not get a response they like, they post another long rant. If you look at the archive, Nomo told them we dont rely on primary sources, I said the same above and another editor stated TLDR. They essentially want the article to be sourced to primary sources, either themselves or others because they think its the Truth(tm). Despite being told that's not how BLPs are sourced. Ultimately though, if they post one more personal attack directed at me, I will just start removing their comments rather than letting them archive naturally. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * To the IP posting above, if you are in fact Mr Slowgrove, then you should be familiar with the jurisprudence regarding time spent in custody while fighting extradition. I have seen some cases where sentencing courts have reduced a person's final sentence due to time spent in custody, as it is considered part of the judicial process. In others, the court has said it was the person's own fault; if they agreed to extradition the process would have been over much sooner. Some courts probably see it as an insult if a person complained during extradition proceedings that they would not receive a fair trial if extradited.
 * Then of course there's the issue of bail. An accused person, whether they are facing domestic charges or extradition, will be denied bail if considered a flight risk. Again, that's all information that you would be familiar with.
 * But how does any of this relate to the Wikipedia biography of Vasiljkovic? I don't know. Judging from the above you have already seriously tested the patience of other participants here. But I have just stumbled across this today, so I have plenty of patience that is yet to be worn out. If you have specific issues about errors in the biography, I invite you to explain them to me succinctly at my talk page, or on the article's talk page would be better. In my experience, long posts that cast aspersions rarely help anyone. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe
An IP added a section to the above article that sources some accusations against this person to both the subject's personal blog and the accuser's personal blog. A few years ago I would have removed this without hesitation since blogs were not considered RS, but now sometimes they are so your opinions please. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * when did blogs become reliable sources? I'd say none of this is reliable. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It does depend slightly on the type of blog. Something like The Huffington Post, technically a giant collective blog where quite a bit of wire service news is reprinted, is acceptable sourcing in some contexts — i.e. the wire service reprints would be acceptable, but individual contributors' blogfeed content might not be — but somebody's individual WordPress blog most certainly never is. And the latter are the kind of blogs we're talking about in this instance, so the content has to go. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Simon aldred
Awards : Ivor Novello and ‘Q’ award started his career as an artist signed to EMI

http://blog.timespace.com/2014/08/we-talk-to-award-winning-songwriter-simon-aldred-about-omnisphere/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shweta786 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This board is not for "please add this missing piece of information to an article"; you can do that yourself. This board is for discussing issues around the acceptability of disputed information or disputed sources, not for making routine edit requests about uncontroversial content. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Neil Patrick Harris
I checked the source (#40) claiming that Neil Patrick Harris is an agnostic and found that the article which was cited contained no reference to Harris being agnostic. Using such a source means that Harris' agnosticism is unverifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:6:300A:4D03:6D6C:D47:6CCB (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Religion is not discussed anywhere in the source's text nor its video content. Since we shouldn't have unsourced statements about public figures' religion, I've removed the claim until someone can provide a reliable source for it. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  02:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Dotan
Please check the Wiki page, I think the few biographical lines are written as a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.244.62.182 (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Assuming you mean Dotan (singer), some obviously unconstructive text was removed at 08.05 (UTC). Please provide a link to articles you require assistance with, and sign you posts on talk-page by typing four tildes ( ~ ). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Matt Gunther
I've twice reverted insertions of a date of death in this article today. The latest one purports to source it to a Matt Gunther fan page, Ancestry.com and Find-a-grav. See here. I've left a message on the editor's talk page and started a thread on the article talk page. Other opinions (whether you think I'm right or wrong) would be welcome. David in DC (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Find-a-grave: has a 1997 date.--  Auric    talk  11:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Enrique Pena Nieto
The opening lines of his page have been messed with, specifically calling him moronic and stating he should have been kicked out of office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.38.86.179 (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch! What a shame that garbage stayed an hour. I have removed it and given the offending user a first-and-only warning. Thanks for this. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 19:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Zappelli
I have declined a db-attack speedy on this page about a former Attorney General of the State and Canton of Geneva. The speedy was placed by new user, who has declared his interest as a representative of Mr Zappelli, and has explained his concerns at length on the article talk page, mainly in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The article was created in December 2014 by an SPA, user, basically in its present form. Though well referenced, it certainly has a generally negative tone. Experienced eyes requested. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The wording of the material, and the clear desire to make a point about a living person, has led me to remove a lot of the "stuff" which verged, at best, to be OR, and, at worst, to be pointy. Collect (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Burt Bacharach
Someone has put an erroneous link on this bio page for Burt Bacharach in the 'References Section'. For some reason someone has put a link here to my website, which is a real estate appraisal website, and has absolutely nothing to do with Burt Bacharach. You'll see the link to which I'm referring in the references section under #20:

20. Real Estate Appraisers Brookville, NY - Home Appraisal Brookville Retrieved 2014-09-05.

Please remove this link pointing at my website. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.134.31.123 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have checked the archived version of that website from September 2014. It can be seen here. Somebody probably added the link to give credence to the (false?) claim that Bacharach lives in that neighbourhood, hoping that nobody would ever click the link to confirm. I've deleted the link as well as the sentence stating that he lives there. Thanks for letting us know. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Brookville, New York
Someone has put an erroneous link on this page for Brookville, NY in the 'References Section'. For some reason someone has put a link here to my website, which is a real estate appraisal website, as a reference source for a notable person from Brookville - Burt Bacharach. My site has nothing to do with Burt Bacharach. You'll see the link to which I'm referring in the references section under #11:

11. Real Estate Appraisers Brookville, NY - Home Appraisal Brookville Retrieved 2014-09-05.

Please remove this link pointing at my website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.134.31.123 (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noticed you've filed this second report. I have deleted that one also. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Richard J. Jensen
Seventeen (magazine) in their "Real Girl Stories" section published on 3 August 2015: http://www.seventeen.com/life/real-girl-stories/news/a32859/savvy-8th-grader-exposed-a-professors-myth-with-one-simple-google-search/.

This is being used for a claim in a BLP:


 * Nevertheless, her paper was considered sufficiently worthy to be published in the Oxford Journal of Social History,[31] the same periodical that initially published Jensen's paper.

The opinion "nevertheless" is not found at all source. The magazine does say "the same journal that had originally published Jensen's mistaken theory." Use of that as a statement of fact is iffy at best, and the Seventeen article is not a reliable source for that claim. In fact, Seventeen is a magazine aimed at providing inspiring stories to teenagers, and is not a reliable source for any claims of fact about the Jenkins thesis at all. The Fried article has, in fact, been changed as of 6/20/2016.

Earnest eyes are requested to ensure that opinions be ascribed as opinions, that "nevertheless" is a piece of original research not found in the scholarly source (Seventeen magazine?) cited at all, and that the wording is not conformant with WP:NPOV. Also that the BLP conveniently manages to say nothing about any rebuttals of Fried's thesis. Collect (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Prior discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive229#Richard_J._Jensen and  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive240#Richard_J_Jensen_under_attack   Collect (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the issue that you doubt that the paper(s) were published by OJSH?  Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No - the issues are the use of "nevertheless",  the snarky bit about "sufficiently worthy", and the connection that it was published in the same journal that originally published Jensen's paper.   In addition, fairness would seem to indicate that we also cover Jensen's reply to the assertion that he faked his data.  I note, moreover, that most historians now attribute the NINA claims primarily to the UK, and not to US usage. Fried's position, is thus also flawed. Collect (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just remove those three words?  We could augment the seventeen article as a source with the abstracts available from OJSH.   Toddst1 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In short -
 * Fried had an article published on the OJSH which suggested errors in Jensen's data regarding NINA. Jensen responded with an article on History News Network
 * (I think the actual article was printed in Smithsonian mag due to the header on that web page possibly). Collect (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160234  appears to be of salient interest here, and so far appears unused. I suggest that it be used in the BLP as expository of Jensen's research. Collect (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC with possible BLP implications
At Administrators' noticeboard there is a discussion about an RfC that may be of interest to the BLPNB. There is a two to one consensus in the responses, yet the side that is in the minority insists that after thirty days the closing admin will override the` majority on BLP grounds. I am asking for an uninvolved administrator make a ruling one way or the other on the BLP question and close the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Beryl Crockford
Article in question: Beryl Crockford

It's apparent that the subject, Crockford, may have passed away. This is according to those who know the individual (refer to User_talk:MelbourneStar and User_talk:MelbourneStar). I have erred on adding this information, on the basis that we do not have published reliable sources confirming this incident – and WP:BLPREMOVE is quite clear in immediately removing such content provided it's unsourced. Would we be able to waive WP:BLP and note Crockford's passing, and of course wait for published RS to document this?

Thoughts much appreciated! —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 12:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed the category Living people to Possibly living people.-- Auric    talk  13:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Pooja Hegde
Multiple instances of addition of defamatory content on Pooja Hegde page by User:Jitumoni1995
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=736123082&oldid=736028105
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=736124436&oldid=736123082
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=736249557&oldid=736246990
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=736252056&oldid=736249557
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=736255741&oldid=736252056
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=736256765&oldid=736255741
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Hegde&diff=738536420&oldid=738340817

and on Vijay Eswaran's page and on Michael Ferreira's page
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Eswaran&diff=prev&oldid=734645192
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Eswaran&diff=prev&oldid=734647078
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Eswaran&diff=prev&oldid=734648749
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Eswaran&diff=prev&oldid=734773109
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Eswaran&diff=prev&oldid=738240668
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Ferreira&diff=734134152&oldid=733823696 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhaasBanda (talk • contribs) 06:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * These don't look particularly defamatory. They all seem to be rather dry and also supported by sources.-- Auric    talk  12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As per WP:BLPREMOVE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is a conjectural interpretation of a source". See this revert of Jitumoni1995. The sources are youtube, twitter and facebook links which are unreliable sources as per WP:RS. The moneylife.in articles repeat the accusations by a single person without presenting the side of the defendant or the investigating authority. Basically Jitumoni1995 is running a slander campaign against Pooja Hegde, Vijay Eswaran and Michael Ferreira using the services of wikipedia. I hope the admins look into it. Thanks KhaasBanda (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Jitumoni1995 has again filled the Pooja Hedge bio page with insinuations using twitter and facebook links as sources seen here and here. Is any action gonna be taken for such vandalism of a biography of a living person or will the edits remain? KhaasBanda (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pulled the edits out and left a further warning. Tabercil (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edits but User:Jitumoni1995 has moved on to the Michael Ferreira bio page and started reinserting the slanderous content.KhaasBanda (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Mark Pendergrast
Hi -- I am new to trying to edit or communicate at Wikipedia. I am Mark Pendergrast, an author about whom there is a Wikipedia entry. It is somewhat out of date, since I have published other books since INSIDE THE OUTBREAKS came out in 2010. You can look at my website, www.markpendergrast.com, to pick up new info. Could someone do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpendergrast (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - though only after this request slipped into the archives. Will also respond on user talk page. --GRuban (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yury Mukhin (author)
Yury Mukhin (author) was recently titled Yury Mukhin (conspiracy theorist), until I moved the page, concerned that the title label is a BLP violation, per my concerns raised at Talk:Yury Mukhin (author). A second user suggests "political activist" as an appropriate label, which seems fine to me, while a third user would like the "conspiracy theorist" label to return to the title.

Advice would be appreciated. Mukhin has a series of IMHO execrable or strange beliefs, and is on the fringe of Russian nationalist political beliefs. Nevertheless I believe that readers pick all that up from the article, and that "conspiracy theorist" is a clearly pejorative label for his title. Nobody but the POV warriors benefit from beating readers over the head with our judgement, even if the judgement is likely justified. -Darouet (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Stacee Myers
I'm not sure this person is notable. The sources are mostly self-published or primary. The article seems intended to publicize an upcoming TV series. I would PROD but the article's author would probably decline. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been deleted at AfD back in July, so I nominated it for speedy. John from Idegon (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton did not "collapse"
I need someone to revert this edit. Sources do not support the notion that she "collapsed", and that's not paraphrasing. I already made a revert, and this article is on WP:1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post seems to refer to her "stumbling". Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So it should say "stumbling", not "collapsing". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless prominent sources are saying she "collapsed" we shouldn't be using that terminology. Bus stop (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

NBC : Near-Collapse. MANY sources using "faint". She was dragged by 3 people holding her weight, with her toes pointed down to the ground. Collapse is a perfectly valid description. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We can stick to a source and say "buckling and stumbling". Bus stop (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If we comb all the reliable sources for all the verbs and adjectives they use in writing a story, there may be descriptions that nominally pass WP:RS, but nevertheless violate POV, BLP, MOS, etc. Per WP:WTW there are plenty of evocative words that journalists use for color that are neither precise, fact checked, of due weight, or suitable for an encyclopedia. Similarly, per ResultingConstant's point, we don't necessary need to get RS support to make word choices. My point is that those choices ought to tend towards neutral ones, not ones that imply things or that could have double meanings as medical terms. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Is this a new rule about BLP/N, that BLP issues should be resolved on talk pages, and only brought here on appeal? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The rule is as old as Wikipedia, and is detailed at Consensus:
 * "When talk page discussions fail – generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue – Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because uninvolved editors can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. The main resources for this are as follows: [...] Noticeboards: Most policy and guideline pages, and many Wikipedia projects, have noticeboards for interested editors. Posting neutrally worded notice of the dispute on applicable noticeboards will make the dispute more visible to other editors who may have worthwhile opinions."
 * Note that it says "when talk page discussions fail", not "before talk page discussions have a chance to succeed or fail". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Not that we ought to reopen this particular discussion but that text is an introductory explanation for the list of noticeboards, not a prescriptive rule on how to use them. In practice, people often post questions to noticeboards, particularly RS/N, BLP/N, and AN/I, in the middle of a discussion in order to clarify a point in discussion. In this case, an editor isn't really asking for guidance but requesting some sort of intervention. Perhaps the wrong forum for that? Speaking of the wrong place, my query probably ought to be on the talk page here or a user talk page. Sorry about that :) - Wikidemon (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus, which is an English Wikipedia policy, most certainly is a prescriptive rule on how to use noticeboards and all other aspects of Wikipedia. Yes, editors do go to noticeboards when they feel that clarification is needed on something (which is a fancy way of saying that two editors can't come to an agreement on something) but it is never appropriate to not even try to get the other editor to agree on the article talk page but instead to immediately post the dispute to a noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Laughable wikipedia yet again - the edit has been reverted and nothing is left now but this - On September 11, 2016, Clinton abruptly left an event at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum. A statement from her campaign said she had been suffering from pneumonia, dehydration, and overheating. - it was well reported, she collapsed, had to be held up, fainted, was carried to the car, all of which is widely being reported globally apart from Wikipedia, due to apparent violations of WP:NPOV. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note BLP reversions are exempt from revert restrictions (for good reason). If you think it is a BLP issue you can ignore 1rr. If you dont think it is a BLP issue, its a content discussion that should have been taken to the talkpage first. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
This article, especially the "Misconduct" section, appears loaded with unsourced and or poorly sourced BLP violating material. Would like a second opinion prior to removing it. Like nearly the entire misconduct section. John from Idegon (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Link: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing what you are seeing, the LA Times is reliable and every entry has a reference, none are "unsourced". There is no valid reason for removal. This is handled with normal talk page consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible BLP vio Wilhelm von Homburg article
Hi, just posted the problem on the talk page there. O mighty ones, help. T85.166.162.8 (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Article subject is deceased 2004. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (Facepalm) Of course, sry. Wrong concern, then - just ordinary BP :) T85.166.162.8 (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Carol Swain


Ms. Swain is complaining on Facebook about this article. She states that her attempts to fix the article have been undone. I have only read the article briefly and know little about Ms. Swain, but the article appears to be an attack page. In particular, the 'personal life' section seemed extremely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. The sections on the subjects views on specific issues also seem to be out of context and with a inappropriate motive.

How notable is this person? What items from her life should be in an encyclopedia? Not sure what a Wiki Bio should contain, but this article does not seem to meet those standards.

Why is there a reference to a short term job at McDonalds in the article. That is certainly not notable. JohnDoe1122 (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Really WIKI ? Too much tabloid here !!!
"Swain got married at the age of sixteen and had two sons and one daughter.[1] Her daughter died of sudden infant death syndrome.[1] Upon being divorced five years later, Swain attempted to commit suicide by swallowing pills.[1] During this period she was a Jehovah's Witness.[1] According to the Nashville Scene, "As a young girl, Swain became a devout Jehovah's Witness. At the time, many in that church believed that the world would end in 1975. Swain was among them. [...] By 1975, the world hadn’t ended."[2] In 1998 Swain was baptized into the Pentecostal faith after hearing an "internal voice" when she thought she was dying at a hospital". JohnDoe1122 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All the personal/early-life material is sourced to an academic publication. I'll have a look at that article tomorrow when I'm back on campus.  It's not clear to me that this is an attack page at all; the narrative seems to be "this person overcame very challenging early-life circumstances and achieved a significant academic position & profile".  As for the editing, it's not unusual to revert large-scale blanking by an IP editor.  Some tweaking & minor scaling back might be desirable, but I don't see a major issue here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow. How did this article ever get approved? and how does it remain in this state? It is blatantly clear upon a first reading that whoever assembled this has meticulously constructed a page to shed direct light on a subject I know little about but have come away with a very slanted view of her life and career. If this isn't a calculated attack page, I don't know what is. I would hope someone would put this page up for deletion immediately and start over correctly. Just looking at the mess created on the View History page is enough to see that this article is not on the up-and-up. What does any of the "Early Life" information regarding her parents have to do with Ms. Swain except to paint a negative picture about her? From the words "Carol" to "Trailer Park" it is continuous negativity. What does it matter when she got divorced in relation to receiving a GED? or if she worked at McDonalds? The sentence describing her talk show isn't even a complete sentence with proper grammar (which is a constant within the History complaints) and is once again a negative connotation. There is not one neutral statement in "Views on Race" that does not lean toward negative quotes. It would be foolish to state in a Wikipedia article that this is all Ms Swain has ever said in her lifetime, otherwise, her lede would certainly have other "labels" than "American political scientist, professor of political science and law". The article does not support the lede. The sections: "Views on Islam" and "Personal Life" are very, very poor writing. Nomoskedasticity what "campus" do you attend? I trust it is not one associated with the subject? The fact that you do not see a major issue worries me just a bit. I hope that someone steps forward and does the right thing regarding this article. What a mess. Maineartists (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In researching the links associated with the chosen quotes within the article, I have found that many have been taken out of context to support a negative slant to the subject: i.e. "In 2013, when she was asked if Jesus was black or white, she responded that the issue was "irrelevant."[66] She added, "Whether he’s white, black, Hispanic, whatever you want to call him, what’s important is that people find meaning in his life." The article states: "For Carol Swain, a scholar of race at Vanderbilt University and a “Bible-believing follower of Jesus Christ,” the whole debate is totally irrelevant. “Whether he’s white, black, Hispanic, whatever you want to call him, what’s important is that people find meaning in his life,” Swain said." -- "FOR Carol Swain". Not to mention: "issue" and "debate" are totally separate and wording is essential; especially when one writes: "She added". Swain did not "add", as if to say, her intent was to disqualify the issue of Jesus but to then soften her statement, she went on to say: "“Whether he’s white, black,..." Furthermore, in regards to: "Swain called the re-election of President Barack Obama in 2012, "a very scary situation" -- after reading the entire Lopez-Swain "National Review" interview, it is clear that whoever chose that one line to support their claims dug deep because their is far more positive to have chosen from to include within the section "Views on Race" than this one line. The statement regarding President Obama's re-election doesn't even support the section's topic. Also, the line: "Swain, who supports Donald Trump's 2016 campaign for president,[72] said David Duke's endorsement was a "non-issue" is a misquote. The actual quote is: "Vanderbilt professor Dr. Carol Swain tells MSNBC the David Duke and KKK endorsements of Donald Trump, which the candidate eventually disavowed, will be a "non-issue" because people have had enough of political correctness and "no candidate can totally control who supports that candidate." The list goes on and on once you start dissecting how each line has been presented and extracted for what seems to be a bias construction of an article. I believe these to be deliberate once you see the overwhelming evidence of pattern. Once again, the lede does not support the article, and vice versa. The negativity within this article strongly suggests an attack. But that is my opinion. I'm sure there will be arguments on the contrary. Maineartists (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I took a start, but self-reverted, the sources are acceptable for a BLP - while I think there is excessive detail in some areas (her step-fathers abuse etc), it is sourced and used appropriately - the sources used make large of her rise from poverty to her current position, and in a proper biography early family life in a situation like this is often used for background. Considering her request to go into care, I cant argue it is not relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Only in death does duty end I did see your attempt and revert. I agree with the sourcing, but not the use in that the writing reads like a fact sheet. One has to "assume" she rose from that state to achieve her accomplishments. If you read the articles, "Up From Poverty: The Remarkable Career of Professor Carol Swain" and " A Woman Apart: How a Nashville academic, born poor and black, has become a conservative mouthpiece ‘speaking truth to a world that doesn’t want to hear it" they state the reason for notability of the subject. She is not notable for her father beating her mother, (if so, lots of people would have articles) she is notable for rising above those conditions. The section does not explain that. In addition, "Early Life" is far from 1989 and 2000. It seems as though whoever placed the initial lines from the first interview were countered by positive facts later from other sources and contributors. Thus the leap in years. The section should better reflect the article sourced. If you're going to list atrocities, you should at least counter it productively with the subject's reason for inclusion from the same article: "Eventually, she would escape and reach heights unimaginable to the girl who sobbed as her mother got whipped." - or - "But the nighttime of her life would slowly give way to a breaking dawn that even now is not fully realized. She got a GED, enrolled in community college, and in a matter of years graduated from Roanoke College in Virginia." That better shows the rise than an assumption of facts. Best, Maineartists (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is not used to determine content *in* an article, only if there should *be* an article. There may be non-notable incidents that are included in biographies because the person is notable and they contribute towards a better understanding of the subject. WP:UNDUE is generally the relevant guideline for if material should be included or not (as long as it does not conflict with WP:V and WP:BLP. I dont disagree there is excessive detail, but as far as I can see it doesnt outright violate the policies, being well-sourced and arguably relevant background info. I would wait until more people comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be reliably sourced, but I do think a lot of the content (especially about her personal life and early life) is undue and should be trimmed to a more concise summary. As-is, it seems sensationalist and very un-encyclopedic. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Using Buzzfeed as a source
Hello,

I've been asking the question here but Grayfell suggested I also ask on this noticeboard (see here). Can a Buzzfeed article - and by that, I mean a real article, written by an actual journalist - be used on a BLP, when it comes to contentious information ? The article is this one and the Buzzfeed piece is this one. I'd like to know if there is any kind of consensus against the use of such sources, when it comes to relatively obscure information. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Mo. Buzzfeed is not a reliable source for claims of fact. Opinions of notable persons, cited and ascribed as opinion, may be used subject to consensus.  A claim of "possibly the artist" is contentious as a claim of fact, and Buzzfeed is not RS for such an edit. Collect (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Collect : actually, Buzzfeed' article quotes three "notable persons" who say that he was indeed the artist. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And, absent anything more than rumour, the claim is contentious, thus requiring a reliable source for claims of fact.  See WP:RS/N for prior discussions about the status of Buzzfeed.   is clear - and you already knew the answer here.
 * "A Pew Research poll found BuzzFeed came in last of all the listed sources in terms of how trusted it is by the public. [40] It was the only one distrusted across the whole political spectrum. That said, it's still "RS". I just wouldn't use it for BLP, medicine, WP:REDFLAG, 2016 elections, etc."
 * "Buzzfeed is not a reliable source"
 * "Buzzfeed was the least trusted news outlet in a Pew poll on trust in journalism. Buzzfeed is a hybrid buisness where some of their promoted content is advertising ([9] [10]) "social" news and promoted advertising, along with a very limited amount first party reporting. Articles that don't have images on the right, and fewer ads, are the reports written for the site. Their investor slides are online - they pitch as a hybrid of an "advertising" and "media" company, with the media side making content (including reporting) and the marketing side optimising clicks, targeting and promotion."
 * So I suggest you drop Buzzfeed as a source for claims of fact about living persons. It has repeatedly lost at RS/N. Collect (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that it still qualifies as just "rumour", as it quotes three sources. Yet I understand that the "hybrid" nature of Buzzfeed may create a reliability problem in the eyes of the public, even when their articles are reliable. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Collect on this one - Buzzfeed seems pretty confident but... it's Buzzfeed. I went looking for other sources but only turned up things like posts on Stormfront and the Daily Stormer, which is not a good sign. I think this should be left it out of the article until this gets more coverage/confirmation in better sources. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's too bad, since it falls exactly in the criteria mentioned by Collect ("Opinions of notable persons, cited and ascribed as opinion, may be used subject to consensus"). But I agree : if Buzzfeed causes a problem just because it is Buzzfeed, we can wait for a better source. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Pam Bondi
There is a blatantly unqualified statement that indicates Pam Bondi claimed to support gay people, but that it was later proven to be false. Nowhere does the person who wrote that qualify 1) if it was actually proven to be false and 2) why it was later proven to be false. This is exactly WHY Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for any literary or scholarly purpose. Posts that contain errors are not proofread because if they were, those errors would be fixed. Please state the post as it pertains to Pam Bondi contains suspect accusations that have not been proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.134.82 (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says that her claims of having displayed support on her website were proven false, which is the case, although it could be better detailed and sourced. In seeking to show that she had voiced support, she claimed to have up a specific graphic, which was not to be found on the site. Esquire wrote this up, as did Slate, [ThinkProgress, and other sources. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * , if you are referring to the second paragraph of the Controversies section, then you are misrepresenting the content. There is nothing there about proof or proven. As far as I can tell, the content reflects the reliable sources that are cited. If you believe otherwise, please explain what specifically in the article is not written in one of the sources. - MrX 03:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Request review
I'm going to go ahead and request review of this talk page removal. I don't think the discussion was likely to result in addition to the article, but they were sourced, and there has been a general tendency on the talk toward removing others comments based seemingly mainly on the fact that you disagree with them. The content was removed once, and reinserted by me based on it being sourced, and apparently reporting what the source said, and then removed again. Note that it was not originally removed under the auspices of BLP. The fact that the final remover is currently at ArbCom doesn't make things terribly more simple. Timothy Joseph Wood 22:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The sections should be restored, but the poorly-sourced BLP-violating speculation needs to be redacted.- MrX 22:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are several tendentious editors on the Hillary Clinton pages who are one step away from an arbitration enforcement report, for repeatedly posting and endlessly arguing poorly sourced, trivial, and conspiratorial sounding derogatory information like this from the alt right blogosphere about Clinton. It's up to several ridiculous proposals per day and it utterly dominates the talk pages to the point where there is little constructive discussion. The legitimate editors on the page have, reasonably, decided to manage and cut off the more pointless and offensive pieces of nonsense, in this case a rumor that Clinton has Parkinson's Disease. Whether this is strictly a BLP violation or merely pointless and in bad taste is besides the point. The reporting editor here, unfortunately, has taken it upon themselves to edit war to keep the nonsense going and otherwise encourage this behavior. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this was removed as a BLP violation, whether it was a BLP violation is directly relevant to whether its removal was warranted under policy. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also add that Wikidemon was the first remover and also removed another comment including a two sentences from two sources as a copy vio...which is pretty much why this kind of thread has become necessary. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I've tried to deal with this editor in the past, and TJW has admittedly come to the page to do WP:BATTLE with me and others he perceives to be part of the cabal of liberal editors on Wikipedia. Diffs to be provided if necessary should we go to AE. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, the fact that I have been reported to a noticeboard by one side, and repeatedly threatened with AE by the other, probably means I'm doing a fairly good job at being neutral. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an incredibly misguided approach to participating in Wikipedia. Your job here is not to be neutral by drumming up drama that pisses off both sides equally in content and behavior disputes. It's to hep edit an encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse a goal for a predictable byproduct. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Some admin enforcer needs to tell in no uncertain terms that repeating nonsensical conspiracy theories sourced to the Daily Mail is not done. Worse, that editor has been around this POV block a few times and should know better. In other words, they do not come to that talk page with clean hands and an innocent question. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An admin did and their post was promptly deleted, as was my warning earlier in the day. The next time, , or step out of line in these articles, I am going to bring it to WP:AE.- MrX 22:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do they enjoy this kind of stuff? I thought we were here to write an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. It seems like trolling more than anything. It certainly isn't contributing to article improvement.- MrX 23:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, bring it to AE, bring it to the appropriate noticeboard, but this notion that two or three editors can decide to repeatedly remove comments and conversations does nothing but further the perception that there is some conspiracy to suppress the information, and only fuels further inappropriate behavior. There is a reason why we have policy on when and why you can edit other's comments. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I generally agree with that. - MrX 23:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It may inflame Timonthyjosephwood to see other editors deal with talk page trolls, but battling Wikipedia's imagined liberal conspiracy by egging on the trolls is Timothyjosephwood's personal fight. He's wildly misrepresenting the editors and edits involved. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment removal is so uncivil, imho. Wikidemon has done it too me a few times now on one article. I had asked him to stop it. I did not re revert this last one, to avoid a war on the talk page. I sourced the material. I thought it was relevant and may start some discussion. I prefer use of hab to hide a thread for things like WP:NOTFORUM, which BTW was reverted by Wikidemon here on the topic 'Sneeze'. Saint Aviator  lets talk 02:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * PS There is a perception of zealous POV pro Clinton i.e. Health Rfc necessity, reverts on Article leading to 3 day ban, comment deletions, etc. BTW I did take the admin caution seriously. Im allowed to delete it. The topic here is Wikidemons non BLP deletions. Saint Aviator  <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 03:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is my first experience of Wikidemons comment deletions  <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 03:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * SaintAviator, apparently the community is not getting through to you here. The message you should be getting is don't keep adding partisan junk of trivial importance to a well-watched article's talk page. Whether the problem is BLP, COPYVIO, WEIGHT, POV, and just plain TEND and IDIDNTHEARTHAT, editors are going to object and in more egregious cases collapse and delete the improper content. Closing and deleting talk page content isn't always bad or always good, it depends on what the material is. This is covered, albeit not comprehensively, in WP:TPG. It's disingenuous to spray garbage all over a well-watched talk page, then flop and play the victim when other editors clean up your mess. If you want to hear that message from an uninvolved administrator, fine. One has commented here, and others have warned you.- Wikidemon (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Re read the first post here. BTW that initial post of mine you deleted / moved, the 9/11 medical event, became the basis of an Rfc <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 08:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Kieran Tscherniawsky
I have to run: someone, please look in the edit history and see what we can or should do while being respectful to the (ostensible) subject. Involved here are and, a new editor. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the article. I've tagged a couple of dead links. Out of what's left, plus an additional ref I added, none include the info the subject keeps deleting. I think it should be left out - at least for now.  If someone digs up a source for the info, we might need to have a different conversation. But so long as there's no source for it, there's no problem complying with the subject's wishes. David in DC (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Drmies (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been reinserted with an assertion on the talk page that consensus may not be necessary for reinsertion. It's now sourced to a document that's, at least arguably a primary source. David in DC (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are trivially easy to find as their disability is the basis of their notability. There is no BLP issue here other than the subject does not want it documented. If their disability was unrelated to their notability I would be the first to remove it. But a successful paralympian not wanting the precise nature of their disability listed in their article? Thats just a request thats unlikely to be granted. Partly because the paralympics are categorised by disability, and this athlete competes as T33_(classification) which clearly lists their disability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not a hill I'm prepared to die on. But please consider that this classification is not limited to CP. Non-CP athletes with, for instance, traumatic brain injury compete in this classification. The salient fact is not CP, it's moderate paraplegia where the athlete competes from a wheelchair. I think that's why the secondary sources uniformly (so far as I can see) mention "disability" and "wheelchair" but not CP.
 * Please also consider "contentiousness" It looks to like 3 editors (Drmies, the purported subject and me) contend that this detail is unnecessary to the encyclopedia article and two (Only and Fruit) see things differently. I'd think that might merit more discussion on the talk page before reinsertion, at the very least enough time for Drmies to weigh in there. David in DC (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, claiming that the nature of a paralympians disability is un-necessary to their article is not a BLP violation. You could argue its WP:UNDUE but since its reliably sourced from primary and secondary sources and directly relevant to their notability - that is equally a bad argument. Their disability dictates what class they compete in and the nature of the scoring when they compete. Lastly 'we shouldnt say they have cerebral palsy because they might (even though though they dont by any number of reliable sources) have something else' is leaving out pertinant information in favour of dis-information. Its deliberately obfuscating an article to make it less useful. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Axl Rose
Currently contains a poorly sourced claim that Rose is "homophobic" and has criminally attacked women. http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20103471,00.html and  http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/50-wildest-guns-n-roses-moments-20151124/august-1989-one-in-a-million-shocks-the-world-with-racist-homophobic-slurs-20151119.

The first from People (magazine) is a classic "Celebrity Gossip" piece, and, as such, is a poor source for a contentious claim of fact. People very carefully made sure "alleged" is used in the celebrity gossip article. The second from Rolling Stone is on "50 Wildest Guns n' Roses Moments", and is also a "celebrity gossip" piece. It, in fact, is about the lyrics to a single song, and scarcely seems within a mile of justifying Wikipedia labelling the person as "homophobic" or "racist". It is a single snippet of a clickbait article. I consider "homophobic" to be a contentious claim in itself, and the claim of "about his violence and extreme abuse towards women. " is also a problem unless strongly reliably sourced. "Celebrity Gossip" articles, which carefully distance the publication from the claim alleged, and clickbait articles, in my opinion, do not reach the level needed to allow such comments on any Wikipedia page. Collect (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Contentious claims about the McDougall Plan on the John A. McDougall article
Currently, there is an ongoing dispute about whether the classification of the McDougall Plan as a "fad diet" on the John A. McDougall article is appropriate on multiple grounds. The full dispute can be seen at the article's talkpage and mine can be found here. Since this article falls under the category of WP:BLP; and since the particular claim in dispute is both highly contentious, arguably poorly sourced, and potentially POV; I might as well create a report here, too. The claims, from the lead, are as follows:

The claims are again stated in John A. McDougall § McDougall Plan criticism as follows:

I believe these claims may violate the WP:BLP policies because their inclusion in the lead may qualify as unbalanced and undue weight per WP:NPOV. I also think that the claim is poorly sourced and highly contentious, so it should be removed per WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPREMOVE. I attempted to do just that, but my action was promptly reverted. Rather than engaging in an edit war about this, I decided to open dialogue about it in the talkpage, but that went nowhere fast.

For the record, I have also submitted reports on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard and Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which can be found here and here, respectively. has also submitted a report to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which can be found here. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this: pick a forum, and discussion can happen there. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Second that. No point in having conversations all over the place. Better to consolidate. Since this is specifically about the plan not the man, I think the NPOV noticeboard is likely the best place. Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Matt_Little


Matt Little is currently running for a State Senate campaign and it appears that some editors are taking the liberty of posting contentious, libelous, and/or slanderous language. The user does not seem to have an account (at least the history shows only an IP address: 97.92.94.103, 71.82.129.66 ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theduckylittle (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the page for WP:AfD since the subject lacks notibility as a mayor and poltiical candidate. I've also trimmed the controversial issues section by removing poorly sourced and insignificant claims. Thank you for bringing this to our attention! Meatsgains (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Review request
After learning more about BLP due to deletions / reverts quoting BLP vios, on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 page. I was curious about Vladamir Putin re:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

Review 1/ I reverted here It appears to be also WP:SYNTH

Review 2/ The Media. It appears to be not notable / not widely found, obscure / OR / primary research - The downloadable Ref has no refs - 212

Can I have a review please <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 01:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP is often misintepreted as "never say anything negative about a living person". But what the policy actually says is that all BLP-related material must be well sourced -- whether that material is positive, negative, or neutral. Your first revert included material sourced to the BBC, which is a prototypical example of a reliable source. Likewise your second revert included material sourced to academic journals; the Russian Analytical Digest is sponsored by ETH Zurich, which is a top-rank academic institution, and Post-Soviet Affairs is published by Taylor & Francis, a well regarded academic publisher. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Coverage of policies by a national leader that are fully sourced follow the BLP guidelines. Putin's dealings with the media have been very well covered in the major newspapers, research centers and scholarly journals for many years. Google scholar shows thousands of articles in scholarly sources to "PUTIN MEDIA" https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=putin+media&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C43&as_sdtp=  for example: 1) Muzzling the Russian Media Again by MK Leighton - (Taylor & Francis, 2016): "Having muzzled Russia's print and broadcast media, Putin focused his energies on the Internet."  2) Tsygankov in the journal Politics 2016 - "More typically, these media outlets designated Putin as bearing responsible for murders of journalists or opposition politicians, terrorist acts, and other grave developments in Russian politics." 3) "How Putin Silences Dissent: Inside the Kremlin's Crackdown" by M Lipman Foreign Affairs magazine 2016 - "THE CRACKDOWN CONTINUES The crackdown that followed Putin's return to the Kremlin in 2012 extended to the liberal media, which had until then been allowed to operate fairly independently."  Rjensen (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you, very helpful. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 07:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Matt Corby (Australian musician)
Hi Wikipedia, I'm a fan of Matt's and I'm certain that ROLF HARRIS is not Matt Corbys father! Matt's father's name is John and he is an artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.128.96.122 (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The 'info' appears to have been added in the last few hours by an IP. It is totally unsourced; I have removed it and left a warning. Eagleash (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Todd Bridges
All I want to point out is that the article about Todd Bridges is very contradictory and confusing. In the write-up it says he married one person in 1997, but in the right hand box his spouse is someone else. He had four children with one person, but only has two according to the box. I have no information as to what is or isn't correct, but something is wrong.

Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.201.99 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Nevsky (actor)
It appears that this page was written by Nevsky himself, as there is no proof or evidence to any of his claims. And there simply cannot be - as his claims are beyond outrageous. Since he is somewhat irrelevant beyond Russian media sphere, where he serves as a sort of meme generator, there is very little information available about him in the English sources. That should be, without doubt, surprising, given the gravity of his claims (e.g. 7 times winner of Mr Olympia contest, winner of Mr Universe title when he was 20, etc.) Little information is available in Russian as well. However, these two articles should be useful:

https://ria.ru/kaleidoscope/20101101/291521857.html

http://www.infox.ru/sport/fight/2009/12/27/Kulturistyy_vyystupi_1.phtml

The second article in particular is quite interesting, since it quotes prominent Russian sportsmen and sports officials. They all state that Alexander Nevsky (actor) is constantly lying about himself, his past and achievements and support their statements with evidence.

Thus I believe his piece of self advertisement does not deserve space on the English Wikipedia, not unless somebody can find and add proof to his statements.
 * I removed the bodybuilding section as it was promotional and not supported in the source provided. Meatsgains (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sam Mizrahi
Over the last few weeks i have been cleaning up this article when another editor ( Masterofthename ) started reverting portions and adding content that is defamatory in nature to a BLP article. (example edit : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Mizrahi&oldid=740292126 ).

You can see this pattern over the last few days. I tried to have a reasonable discussion on the talk page but the editor started going into a whole conspiracy theory of not verifiable claims instead...

In the last post on the talk page the user agreed that the sentance doesn't belong in the lead section, yet still went ahead and put it there. I have reviewed the BLP rules numerous times and believe this sentance contravenes many of the BLP sections like NPOV. and non blp rule of wp:undue

Further in the People accused of crime section of the BLP it says: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."

So to say that a person is "known for relationship with" a criminal and then to go into details of that in the lead section. Only because that criminal is suing this otherwise successful and pretty famous developer, definitely seems defamatory in nature. Ntb613 (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That was an inappropriate addition; or at a minimum it shouldn't go in via an edit war. Removed.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura
There has been a repeated pattern the past X number of months of various editors, mostly political fanboy SPAs, adding copyvio photos of Ventura to the infobox. The sole motivation for this appears to be their view that File:Jesse Ventura.jpg or derivatives, which had long graced the infobox, are "unflattering". Evidently, they believe that Ventura's status as a speculative candidate for president in this year's election somehow makes the article exempt from the rules, or that we're here to be a part of Ventura's social media team, or perhaps both. File:Jesse Ventura on a FDA poster.jpg and accompanying Infobox professional wrestler were also removed with the rationale that the infobox is "redundant" to Infobox officeholder. With some judicious trimming, I would actually view it as complimentary. With all the harping on the talk page about images, there's no good reason to have removed that particular image, unless the ultimate objective is to deemphasize his life and career prior to his election as Minnesota governor, which I sense would have already happened if not for the fact that adequate sourcing exists. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will admit that the first picture, yeah, it's not the most flattering, but tough nuts to them. lol. It's legal to use and a good quality image of him so it's fine to use. I also agree with the wrestling infobox being complimentary. It has info from his wrestling days about his career that are important, so of course it must stay. Just like Infobox NFL biography for Brian Pillman, Bill Goldberg, Darren Drozdov, etc. (talk page stalker)  Crash Under  ride  10:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't use an appeal to BLP to justify a copyvio. Simple as that.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Enrique Peña Nieto
I don't believe it's normal to have a biography that is so full of negative section. Looks like most is recently copied from other Wikipedia pages. Can this be fixed? Am I in the right place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.141.95 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're in the right place, yes. And it does look like the article needs some work - there's an unsourced accusation of plagiarism in there right now, some stuff on an illegitimate son that might be undue, etc. Nieto is clearly controversial and has undoubtedly done/said/been accused of a lot of unflattering things, but a lot of it needs much better sourcing. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. Some info like the 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping has just been added directly from the other article it seem. -Autosigned by SineBot--> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.141.95 (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Working on it, but it will take some time (and probably the efforts of several people) to clean the article up. It's quite depressing that our article on the sitting president of Mexico is in such a poor state. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh ok I will not remove anymore pasted work. 64.228.141.95 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added 05:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no, don't get me wrong - you're still more than welcome (and encouraged) to edit the page yourself and fix any problems that you see! Fyddlestix (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Saul Alvarez
Win Against Liam Smith on Sept. 17, 2016 is technically a KO, not a TKO. Malicious editors continue to change that bout to TKO when in fact it's a KO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarkainemostly (talk • contribs) 04:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well except the cited sources say it's a TKO. I assume you are defining "malicious" as "disagreeing with you, because you are the arbiter of what is true, not some stupid journalists"? Also, why are you edit warring instead of using the talk page or contacting the editors who have reverted you? Also, are you User:Zboris? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait. "Win ... is technically a KO."  Doesn't TKO mean "Win ... is technically a KO?"  TKO="Technical Knock Out?"  --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Accusations of "maliciousness" are downright laughable. 'Gave me a good chuckle, that did. Though I'll tell you what is laughable—an IP that has never responded to repeated talk page messages and uses only protracted edit summaries, then goes onto to make an account doing the same thing they got reverted for originally, and complains that their edits won't stick. "Ain't no-one got time for that", as some saying goes. The actual KO/TKO issue at hand is relevant, however, and should be addressed. There are several sources claiming both result types, so it comes down to myriad permutations and how to apply them:
 * If a referee starts a count for a downed but clearly conscious fighter, but waves it off early, is that not considered a TKO? That's what happened with Álvarez–Smith.
 * Conversely, if a referee does not even begin a count for a downed fighter and waves it off completely, is that not a straight-up KO? e.g., Márquez–Pacquiao IV, Pacquiao–Hatton, Froch–Groves II, or Álvarez–Khan.
 * Blurring the lines further, if a referee begins a count for a downed and obviously unconscious fighter but waves it off early, which one is that? I've seen both KO and TKO used.
 * More than happy to discuss, as I like my pedantics, but not with unresponsive editors who clearly have no concept of how WP works. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so that the sources supporting the TKO result are here where they need to be: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Whilst there are abundant sources, including BoxRec (never 100% reliable), which state the result as a KO, there's just as much a case to be made for displaying it as TKO in each fighters' record table.


 * Additionally, there are explanations from several popular betting sites (search Google for "betting tko ko"; WP's spam filter prevents me from linking to the sites directly). Again, there's some blurring going on, but it could be interpreted (disclaimer: I'm not attempting to push a WP:SYNTH POV) that if a referee steps in to stop a fight, or ends a count early (regardless of whether a fighter is knocked down or standing), it's a TKO. That would describe Álvarez–Smith accurately: the latter did not get a chance to beat the 10-count due to the referee waving it off, therefore he was "technically knocked out" in the literal sense, but not "knocked out cold and unable to beat a count of 1000" like Hatton or Groves. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)