Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive248

User Crossswords at BLP page for five-year-old boy Omran Daqneesh


Please see page for five-year-old boy Omran Daqneesh.

Edits include.

He's been adding this over and over again and again.

Citing propaganda link from YouTube.

Citing another Wikipedia language cite in direct violation of WP:CIRCULAR.

A little help please?

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've removed the offending material (completely inadequate sources, mostly well-known Russian propaganda/disinformation outlets and fake news websites). This article needs more eyes, and if Crossswords keeps this up, this should head over to WP:AE or WP:ANI for swift action. Neutralitytalk 05:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * More recent history at Talk:Omran Daqneesh. Isn't it quite troubling to have this article with the real name of a five-year-old boy anyways? Sagecandor (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it feels odd - but maybe this is like a Kim Phuc kind of situation, where the photograph/video is famous enough that it's kind of pointless to try to keep them anonymous? We have Death of Alan Kurdi too. The alternative would be to make it a redirect to the relevant "seige of Aleppo" article (there are a few of those so I'm not sure which one would be best) and to have a discussion of it there. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good points, and yet going back to original topic of thread more eyes are needed at incoming Russia propaganda sources on article Omran Daqneesh that fail WP:RS, fail WP:NPOV, and fail WP:BLP. Sagecandor (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate, BLP in draftspace
Draft:Pizzagate exists and links several identifiable individuals to several unsavoury claims. I'm not familiar enough with BLP or the topic to know if it needs revising but It could probably do with some extra eyes. SPACKlick (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Due to the definite WP:BLP issues and the fact that this is WP:FRINGE and conspiracy theory only, maybe it's best to keep it to the brief mention at Pizzagate and Comet Ping Pong and get rid of that draft page altogether. Sagecandor (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've tried to fix the draft and asked for more admin eyes at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. If I hadn't fixed the draft (rendering me somewhat involved), I'd be throwing discretionary sanctions at more people than I'd like to see involved in a BLP.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The connection of a conspiracy theory to living persons is definitely a WP:BLP issue. Not allowable even as a "brief mention". Not remotely a close call. ‘Pizzagate’ shows how fake news hurts real people They took root in the dark crevices of the Web and took flight thanks to social media platforms, whose witless “who, us?” posture in the face of misinformation and outright lunacy is a civic embarrassment. Collect (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Now moved to Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Sagecandor (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with Collect on this matter. There should not be a standalone article on this matter, and any brief mention anywhere else (such as Controversial Reddit communities) must explicitly state that the claims are false and wholly unfounded. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree with Collect and NorthBySouthBaranof on this issue. The draft should be deleted as WP:BLP violation. Sagecandor (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Another editor re-inserted the offending material with the view that "bad claims", proven to be wertlos, should be presented as long as "good" material is used as well. I demurred on that interesting view, as I find the "mud was slung at the person therefore some of it is probably true" view is all too prevalent in reality. Collect (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can someone start the XfD process? I also agree that this should be deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion now at: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Sagecandor (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Broussard
Aaron Broussard is a politician who has been convicted of corruption and accused of incompetence. Even so, he deserves fair treatment. I ran across his biography and noticed that it's more of an indictment than an even-handed summary. The bulk of the article is taken up by verbatim quotes from news appearances, and the case in favor of a failed recall effort against him. His actual corruption charges get comparatively little space. Could any BLP experts take a look at the article and see if it can be improved? Felsic2 (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:James Dale Ritchie
James Dale Ritchie is a probable serial killer, as evidence places him directly at one murder and links him to four others, as well as one attempted murder, (which resulted in his death). I created this draft soon after the announcement of his death and the police stating the strong probability that he is not only behind these murders in Anchorage, Alaska, but perhaps more in other states. However, the investigation is still fresh and we can't know yet, so we can't precisely call him a serial killer. As a show of good faith and cooperation, I'm bringing this draft here, so the page could be vetted for BLP standards. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 04:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that it is good, it says that he is known as the serial killer, which he is (regardless of whether he is guilty), and then elaborates that he is a suspected serial killer, so it all falls in line, until he is convicted it is good, at which point it should be "convicted serial killer". Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will admit I am not very knowledgeable with the laws in Alaska, do they still try him as if he is alive in order to establish guilt? Or is the matter dropped because he is dead? The answer will obviously change my response. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the evidence prompts them to conclude that he is responsible for the four other deaths, (and possibly more), the case will be marked as closed and he will be declared the guilty party. I like your appreciation of me designating what he is known as, rather than flatly calling him a serial killer, as he is merely a suspected serial killer, though the media is calling him the "Anchorage Serial Killer". If he isn't confirmed to be pinned to at least two more homicides, he won't be declared a serial killer and the page won't go in the main space. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 06:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I added some recent information that states that Ritchie did in fact leave for college and that he was close friends with the family of his (third suspected and only confirmed) victim. The plot thickens with this figure. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 02:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos
This page keeps getting edited with comments that are not neutral and have no factual basis. Under religion it states "Milo is God"Headnogood (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks to have been fixed, but more people watching the page wouldn't hurt. Feel free to go ahead and fix obvious vandalism like that yourself! Fyddlestix (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Kelly Moneymaker
Article reals like a promotional item for the subject, with many dubious references. I'm not even sure HOW to go about correcting or fixing it. The person seems reasonably notable, but the article is a mess. CouplandForever (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ronnie Madra
Ronnie Madra is not a notable person for a biography according to the categories that qualify. Perpetual808 (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've listed the article for deletion.  Yinta n  16:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Most of the biography was pulled work for work from www.ronniemadra.com before it was further edited. Perpetual808 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Freebo
Hey there. , who works for the subject in question, argues that Freebo's real name Daniel Friedberg, which is already covered by reliable sources should be removed from the article. According to the user in question, "all promotional articles use wikipedia as their source and as such, there are articles out there which list him by a name he does not want [to be] used". Examples of this can be found in the edit summaries of these edits, in which his real name was removed. As such, I started a discussion on the talk page. I am a little concerned that this article has a limited amount of reliable sources and possible promotional issues for the article and more eyes on the article would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Dan Antopolski
Vanity page, filled with unsourced lists of comedy appearances, many of which aren't notable. WP:OWNERSHIP looks strong, so removal of content will likely meet resistance. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note the discussion of the topic on my user talk page. seems reluctant to accept guidance on this issue.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * High suspicion should always be taken into account when a subject names themselves in their very own username for the sole use of editing their subject page. Especially when the history clearly shows that multiple attempts under various IP addresses solely used to edit this page alone have been exhausted and abandoned. It would seem that this subject (user) knows exactly what they are doing and the violations they are committing under the guise: "if others do it, I should be able to as well". It seems at best that the page is just one big resume copy stuffed with non-notable inclusions by the subject with absolutely no reliable sources and needs a good cleaning. IMHO. Maineartists (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I.. I don't know how to react to this tone and the cynicism that informs it. I have precisely been cleaning up the wikipedia page about my work - fixing its inaccuracies and providing contextualising links and citations to improve it as an accurate representation - turning red links blue. The skullduggery you suspect in my editing it with different IP addresses is just me stumbling through learning how to edit on wikipedia - it's harder than it looks - I logged in as myself so that the community might trust my authority on my own work! And as for the 'non-notable inclusion' of what - my month long theatrical runs at major arts festivals? - I am trying to standardise the format of my page in line with comparables from my industry to make it a solid reference resource. High suspicion indeed. Best Dan Antopolski


 * There's very little suspicion and no interpretation of skullduggery. There is a familiarity with our guidelines at WP:COI, and the experience that subjects rarely edit their own biographies with neutrality. Month long theatrical runs--and the same is true for radio, tv and movie appearances--don't merit uncyclopedic mention unless they're accompanied by WP:RELIABLE sources. It's preferable that editors who have no affiliation with the subject remove resume material. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are indeed just learning and all of this is naivety, then you need to listen to the experienced editors on WP who are trying to help you in this situation. Danantopolski what you are doing is highly discouraged and a clear conflict-of-interest on WP. You are seriously in danger of being blocked on your page (or even worse) from even editing at all on WP. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 has been very kind so far. If it had been any other editor, far more drastic measures could have been implimented without discussion. You need to read fully: WP:COI and understand why what you are doing is seen as being disruptive WP:DISRUPT and proactive to the process. It is very difficult to be a subject on WP; but if you are notable, allow the process of what WP does best to happen. I see that you have been politely warned on the talk page of your article to not make any more edits. I would kindly suggest you do so. There is no need to try and further justify your reasoning. Best. Maineartists (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * re: high suspicion -- this was not directed toward you, per say. However, there are many users on WP of those claiming to be "subjects" of articles. There is no definite way of knowing this to be 100% true simply by way of talk page or noticeboard conversations. Taking one's word is not enough; thus my wording: "high suspicion". However, your determination certainly leans toward subject reliability. IMHO. But who is to say. Best. Maineartists (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've left a message offering my help. Don't bite the newbies, and all that. He entered Wikipedia the worst possible way, editing about himself, so let's see if we can fix that.  Yinta n   16:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You restored unreferenced material with a summary that implies you thought it was well-referenced. I suggest you undo your restoration of the massive fluff which actually harms the article.  Note also that "Chuckles" is unlikely to meet WP:RS nor are any of the user-generated databases online likely to meet Wikipedia policy.  Collect (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay - I think we're moving towards a less trigger-happy response - thank you. If you take 7 seconds and look at what is on my page it isn't promotional, it's archive - it resembles similar pages. And if you take 30 more seconds and look at the history of my edits of the last two days you'll see I haven't changed much at all. I've been saving my little visual edits as I go along, learning how to do a table etc, so perhaps it looks like manic activity. I will be glad of advice from experienced editors and delighted to be invigilated over the next few days as I add citations to support the facts on the page, enriching and authenticating the long-existing page as a research resource. I mean if you actually look, isn't the information on the page simply too bland to be construed as a 'conflict of interest'? I'm finding it hard not to be arch - Yintan is the first person here to address me without this entitled tone, which considering that in the course of a thread ticking me off about journalistic integrity one of you misspelt my name, is a little galling! Genuinely - I'm sure you deal with rogues all the time and have learned to talk tough, but I'm a geeky archivist and I'd appreciate a little patience while I learn your customs! Look I've got the tildes down now. Best wishes to all - Dan Antopolski Danantopolski (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please - use only specifically noteworthy "appearances" - ones which get more than a single line in the Guardian.  Trust me - fluff actually hurts you. Collect (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Zara Larsson
The "Personal life" section was recently retitled with a heavy handed POV title, and what looks to me like undue weight about personal opinions. Any of this section worth maintaining in a toned-down version or just junking? "Sexist views" seems over the top, but maybe others have another view. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Changes from 08:12, 28 November 2016 to 00:11, 3 December 2016: diff.
 * That changes the "Personal life" section to "Sexist views towards men"—ridiculous. The "Men's Rights" sanctions might be available. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Opened a discussion regarding the section as a whole on the talk page. Seems NOTNEWS trivia; rather than personal life biographical prose. IMHO. Maineartists (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * no. this is not men's rights. this is her views. she admitted of being a happy man hater. plain and simple. I changed the title simply because there was nothing about her personal life, only her views about men.NFLjunkie22 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , "On separate occasions she went on a 'Men are swines' tirade after being insulted online" isn't even remotely encyclopedic language (and did you notice that you seem to be placing blame on a person who was victimized?). I have reverted your edit. You can propose and discuss on the article talk page. If you continue, you may well be blocked for BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * i just realized that was a badly written line, wasn't what i was aiming for. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

John McTernan
A lot of back-and-forth over whether to include material on McTernan's purportedly poor predictions, and related legal action over an alleged unpaid bet. I've blanked it for now, but in the interest of putting it to bed for the time being, invite further eyes/comment. --Hillbillyholiday talk 23:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest anyone commenting here looks at the whole talkpage. The issue boils down to the fact that a political blog (written by a single blogger) with an opposing political view to McTernan has mocked him by repeatedly posting when his predictions turn out to be wrong.  The problem is that, of course, they are cherry-picking their data.  I and many other editors have repeatedly pointed out that if we could have a reliable, neutral source that has commented on McTernan's alleged incompetence, then we would have the basis for a negative section in a BLP.  The SPA editor who has kept inserting the section (seventeen times now, by my count) has found a reliable source commenting on the fact that the blogger has taken McTernan to court for repayment of a bet he supposedly welched on.  Personally I would be willing to let that section in now (as you can see from the history, others disagree) but there is still no sourcing for their main BLP-violating section, which they keep piggy-backing on top of it.  IMO User:Anna_Lertreader is WP:NOTHERE except to disparage McTernan, and a number of others agree. Black Kite (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen 's main sources are a tabloid, Twitter, and a blog. Far from reliable sources. I too would have removed the whole predictions/betting thing as irrelevant trivia. So the guy hasn't paid his lost bet (yet). Big deal. It's not like he is investigated by Operation Yewtree. And he gets some predictions wrong. O dear, as if that's big news (Wrong predictions? Hello, American pollers?). It's tabloid trivia, badly sourced, unencylopedic, and it doesn't belong in a biography. All in my humble opinion, of course. If the court case becomes notable for some reason, then yes, it should be included. But so far... No. We might as well be listing his parking tickets.  Yinta n  16:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though to be fair she has now found a reliable source (The Scotsman) mentioning the betting thing, but there's still no reliable sourcing of the "terrible predictions" bit. Which means it must stay out. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even with The Scotsman as a source I find it irrelevant. Unless it somehow blows up into something bigger. I'm sure I can find a reliable source showing that celebrity X has failed to pay a fine on time. That still doesn't make it notable. Again, in my humble opinion.  Yinta n  18:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the point I was making is that the Scotsman commenting on the betting thing is irrelevant, the editor is inserting the whole negative section based on that. If they were simply inserting the section about the betting that would be something to argue about as to whether it was notable or UNDUE - inserting the rest is simply a BLP violation. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

All the same people commenting here as have been frantically trying to prevent the section being included, rather than "new eyes", I see. The case in favour is straightforward:

- The facts are sourced, undisputed and relevant. McTernan is a political analyst and the fact that his political analysis is invariably wrong is a matter of record, not opinion. The idea that there are no proper sources is absolutely farcical - McTernan's own tweets and newspaper articles are obviously a reliable source of what he predicted, and it is not, as far as I'm aware, disputed that (for example) Labour did not win the 2015 election.

- Nobody has provided a shred of evidence to support any allegation of "cherry-picking" (ie some predictions that McTernan got right). Not a single correct one has been cited, despite repeated requests. Until such times as they are, "cherry-picking" is a totally baseless allegation.

- Wiki is absolutely clear that a source does NOT have to be neutral, so long as its content is reliable. In the case of Wings Over Scotland's articles on McTernan, every claim is properly and verifiably sourced. Wings Over Scotland on its own is a perfectly acceptable source to have the section included under Wiki rules. The fact that some people here may not like it is neither here nor there. Wiki does not disqualify blogs, nor does it disqualify partisan sources.

- Nevertheless, the "bet" story has now been featured in at least FIVE newspapers (the Sun, the Times, the Scotsman, the Herald and the Aberdeen Evening Express). All of those sources pointed out - in their own words, not quotes - that it came about as a direct result of Wings Over Scotland's documentation of McTernan's track record.

- The amount of coverage is not "undue". McTernan's career as an analyst is his primary reason for notability (he last walked the corridors of power a decade ago as an inconsequential SpAd), and three or four sentences mentioning the empirically sub-par quality of his analysis, and nationally-reported events arising from it, is plainly not excessive.

- The claim that "IMO User:Anna_Lertreader is WP:NOTHERE except to disparage McTernan" is palpably not true, and indicates nothing except that "Black Kite" hasn't bothered to check properly. I've edited numerous other pages, at considerable length, before I went anywhere near McTernan's.

- So we have unarguably true and sourced facts, discussed in a reliable source, and with events arising directly and solely from those facts reported in multiple national newspapers, all covered in a brief section just a few sentences long. It's frankly absurd that there's even a debate here. Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have not been "frantically trying to prevent the section being included", I never touched that article. I'm the pair of "new eyes" you wanted. If you don't like what I see, that's another story. Thanks.  Yinta n  13:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The claim that McTernan's frequently wrong political analysis is as irrelevant as unpaid parking tickets is simply wrong. If McTernan was a parking attendant, then unpaid parking tickets would indeed be relevant to his biography page. However, he claims to be a political analyst, so the quality of his analysis is obviously relevant. It's therefore pretty difficult to see why there is such a determination to prevent proof of his poor analysis being listed on his page, unless there is some ulterior motive. Perhaps one of McTernan's friends is keeping watch on his page? Attacking the sources does nothing to change the facts, and I've seen far more trivial things listed on biographies than someone being taken to court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.58.234.250 (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Better reading required. The unpaid parking tickets example was linked to the unpaid bet, not to his predictions. Thanks,  Yinta n  14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The unpaid bet is over one of his predictions. So yes, it is linked to his predictions. Thanks! 32.58.234.250 (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, I must have misunderstood myself completely.  Yinta n  14:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with this. The bet is related to his ability to make accurate predictions, something which he has a poor reputation for. That reputation is well-documented on McTernan's own Twitter feed for anyone who wants to go and look. The bet is even more notable as he has refused to pay up on it. If you recall Paddy Ashdown promising to "eat his hat" during the 2015 General Election when the Lib Dems were predicted to be all but wiped out, there was intense press interest in that story long after the GE results were known. Politicians love to give us their opinions, so it's not surprising that there should be intense public interest in asking them to explain themselves when they have been proven wrong. We could argue over the wording of how the bet is referenced, but I think as it goes to credibility it's a worthwhile entry.RogueCoder250 (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I just checked and, wonderfully, Ashdown's "eat my hat" DOES get included on his Wiki page, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Ashdown#Resignation_and_retirement. So him getting ONE prediction wrong is worthy of mention, but McTernan getting just about EVERY prediction wrong apparently isn't :D Anna Lertreader (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I usually stay away from politics pages, and indeed from anything controversial, but this one caught my eye. Look, McTernan is consistently, repeatedly, laughably wrong in his predictions. It has become a standing joke. People who talk about cherry-picking need to come up with some correct predictions he's made - preferably at least as many as the wrong outcomes being highlighted. I'm only aware of one, in that he correctly predicted a No majority in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. The material on Wings is all impeccably sourced and summarises it pretty well. You can't just reject a fully-referenced source because you don't happen to like the author or something. I'm astonished this is even an issue. Morag Kerr (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the mysterious accounts (RogueCoder250's first ever edit, the previous account GeorgeLL V2 was similar ; Morag Kerr's first edit for 14 months, and an IP that last appeared on McTernan's talk page as 32.58.234.250 - how interesting), have shed any light on the actual issue. Merely parroting the claim that McTernan's prediction skills are terrible are, as we've already seen, not going to get the article changed. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Am I not mysterious enough for you? I said I usually stay away from anything controversial, which is why I don't edit very often. This one is just so bloody stupid that I thought I'd join the fray. The Wings page is meticulously referenced, please explain why it's not a reliable source. Or why a history of infrequent editing is grounds for dismissing my contribution. Morag Kerr (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Black Kite Perhaps you could address the subject of the comments, rather than casting aspersions on those who have posted them? I raised a perfectly valid point; why is the reference to Paddy Ashdown eating his hat acceptable on his page, but reference to a bet here - which relates specifically to the individual's political predictions - is not? Thanks. RogueCoder250 (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is usual. I expect I'll get accused of creating you and banned any minute now. It's the normal approach when anyone supports me and they can't refute the arguments. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, three mysterious account coming to your aid in the space of an hour is fairly remarkable, no? I could file an SPI, but since none of them have added anything useful to the debate it seems a bit pointless. And of course there's always the probability that they aren't the same people and have been canvassed offline.  But regardless, the issue hasn't been advanced - source the fact that McTernan's predictions are always wrong via a reliable source and this will all end. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Well, to be fair, three mysterious account coming to your aid in the space of an hour is fairly remarkable, no?" Yes, astonishing. A request is posted for opinions, and some opinions arrive. What could possibly be more suspicious? But how telling that your first reaction isn't to consider any arguments but immediately cry "conspiracy!" and start trying to discredit the messengers rather than deal with the message. And if people are repeating points, perhaps it's because you keep dodging them. A dozen times I've asked you why Wings Over Scotland does not meet Wiki's stated criteria for an allowable non-neutral source. A dozen times you've failed to answer, because if you admit the truth on that one point your entire argument collapses. Anna Lertreader (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Am I a "mysterious account"? I've been registered as an editor for years.  I do not have the foggiest idea who Anna wotsit is, I have never heard of her until today.  She has however made the reasonable point that people talk to each other elsewhere and this may prompt interventions.  Is this illegitimate all of a sudden? Now please explain why Wings Over Scotland is not a reliable source, given that the article in question links back to original sources all over the bloody place. Morag Kerr (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Black Kite is making two logical errors here. One is to demand that others somehow prove a negative for him - specifically, prove that McTernan has not made an equally impressive number of correct predictions. How does one do that, other than saying that one has looked, and found almost nothing (I know of only one)?  But it seems that's unacceptable to Black Kite.  This is not reasonable.  If Black Kite knows of any other correct predictions, let him produce them.  The other error is in apparently rejecting a fully-referenced source because the author has an opinion on the subject, an opinion based on being familiar with the evidence.  Go down this road and only the utterly ignorant or the terminally indecisive will be acceptable as sources, even of fully-referenced fact.  This is ridiculous. Morag Kerr (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Talking of having an opinion, I think John McTernan is a complete plonker, based on having witnessed his media performances for a number of years. Does that then make any facts I advance on the matter inadmissible?  This is so preposterous I'm thinking about the other side of the coin.  Why is Black Kite so inordinately keen to keep critical or embarrassing material off McTernan's page? Morag Kerr (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because, as you would know if you were indeed such an experienced editor, negative claims in BLPs need to be sourced properly, and as yet none of the anti-McTernan brigade have managed to do that, regardless of whether they're editors in good standing, canvassed offline, or sockpuppets. I am asking no-one to prove a negative, I (and pretty much every other experienced editor that has commented here and on the talk page) are asking for proper coverage of McTernan's alleged failures. This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for people's petty grudges against people. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Morag, that's below the belt. One could equally, and justifiably ask why you are so keen on keeping critical or embarrassing material on the page. --Hillbillyholiday talk 00:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Moragm but at a guess - because it's true? Because it's factual and properly sourced, and Wiki is supposed to be a repository of sourced facts about its subjects? Anna Lertreader (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really care one way or the other, except for the truth. The article on Wings Over Scotland (here, if you've forgotten ) lists something like 13 predictions he got spectacularly wrong, all sourced. I have asked Black Kite about four times why this isn't an acceptable reference, and received no reply, just repeated requests for an acceptable reference! If the quibble is "but there might be another 20 predictions where he was bang on the money" then I ask that someone produce these.  As I said, I can find only one.  That is not an impressive track record.  Allegations of cherry-picking have been made but absolutely not substantiated. Morag Kerr (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wings article, indeed the whole blog, is reliable in that it's (AFAICT) always factually correct, but, love-him-or-hate-him, Campbell is a skilled propagandist who clearly has an axe to grind here; it is wholly reasonable to question whether he has been cherry-picking. McTernan's fallibilty is Campbell's opinion.  Yes, Campbell has shown instances of mistaken predictions, but to judge whether this is something McTernan is well-known for, something worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, we need sources from someone out of the fray, not someone battling McTernan in court over this very subject. I would not object to inclusion of the material with a link to Wings should it be demonstrated elsewhere that McTernan is well-known for his wrong predictions, but that has not been demonstrated yet. --Hillbillyholiday talk 02:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You may ask yourself whether he's been cherry-picking, but unless you can provide some evidence of correct predictions he has left out, you must answer yourself in the negative. Asking others to prove the non-existence of correct predictions is the very definition of asking someone to prove a negative.  If you think he's been cherry-picking, please provide some evidence. Otherwise you're rejecting a perfectly well-sourced article merely because the author has an opinion - an opinion based on the evidence he has amassed! Is "you can prove anything with facts!" now a genuine criticism of such proof, merely on the basis that you surmise other facts might exist that contradict the actual ones presented?  This is ludicrous. Morag Kerr (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not up to anyone here to examine every prediction McTernan has made. The WP article did not say "it is the opinion of Campbell that McTernan is wrong in his predictions", it just said he was wrong full stop. There is an animosity between the two, it is not unreasonable to ask for an impartial source. Before including a claim of wrongness on McTernan's part, we need evidence that it is a widely held opinion. That said, since the betting lawsuit there may now be enough secondary material out there to justify adding that it is Campbell's opinion, or that it is something he has covered, though I would prefer to await the outcome before adding anything. --Hillbillyholiday talk 02:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Couldn't put it better myself. Thanks.  Yinta n  07:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "McTernan's fallibilty is Campbell's opinion"? This is Kafkaesque madness. It is categorically NOT opinion. It is a matter of the most *empirical observable demonstrable fact* that out of 13 known predictions, he got 12 wrong. Since a drunk chimpanzee would get six or seven picking at random, that is a striking, even staggering, rate of fallibility for a professional analyst.


 * But to then say "Before including a claim of wrongness on McTernan's part, we need evidence that it is a widely held opinion" is just mind-boggling. One moment something being just opinion (even though it isn't) disqualifies it from inclusion, the next moment it apparently HAS to be opinion to be included. Can you honestly not see the insanity here? Paddy Ashdown's entry highlights him getting just ONE prediction wrong, in lines apparently included without an agonising months-long argument about it from people screaming for a list of impartial sources proving that the Tories really won the 2015 election.


 * And yes, it IS "wholly reasonable to question whether he [Campbell] has been cherry-picking". The problem is that having raised the question, one finds that the answer is "No, he hasn't". You say the question must be asked, but then in the next breath you say that you have no responsibility to answer, and that the mere fact a question can be asked is justification to exclude. Once again, if those were the rules there would be no Wikipedia, because I can question anything, no matter how strong the evidence for it. If you allege cherry-picking, it is incumbent upon you to provide the proof of the discarded cherries.


 * Finally, you say "it is not unreasonable to ask for an impartial source". True enough in itself, although in politics there's no such thing - which newspaper could be truly said to be politically impartial? - so on that rule we'd never have any entries about politicians or political figures, because no source could ever be neutral enough to support any statement. But more to the point, Wiki's rules are absolutely clear that WHERE AN IMPARTIAL SOURCE IS NOT AVAILABLE, A NON-NEUTRAL ONE IS PERMITTED, so long as its facts are properly sourced. Which in this case they unarguably are - you yourself note that Wings is "(AFAICT) always factually correct". And by Wiki's rules, that makes it a reliable source, at which point the argument is over because Wiki has no rules demanding a set number of reliable sources. More is better but one is enough, if it's reliable. That's rather the definition of "reliable". This point has been avoided about a hundred times. I am unable to explain why. Anna Lertreader (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Love the mutual support network. I honestly don't care what is or isn't in this unpleasant little man's biography. I do care about the bias and prejudice being shown in the editing process here. Campbell has provided a ton of evidence, and it's hardly surprising that there's animosity there given that precise fact. It doesn't negate the evidence.  "It is not up to anyone here to examine every prediction McTernan has made." But that seems to be what is being asked of those who support this paragraph's inclusion.  And then when a reasonable attempt is made, with the outcome that only one correct prediction is identified, somehow that is hand-waved away as irrelevant.  Simply asserting that a factually-referenced source might have cherry-picked, without being able to produce a shred of evidence that that has happened, is a ludicrous justification for dismissing the source. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Calling someone an "unpleasant little man" and then worrying about Wikipedia's bias. Excuse me for laughing.  Yinta n  10:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "I honestly don't care what is or isn't in this unpleasant little man's biography." Well clearly you do, but well done for revealing your bias. The "mutual support network" is also quite amusing considering how amazingly similar your viewpoint is to the others that have chimed in around the same time. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You love to cite Wiki regs. Apparently you haven't heard of WP:AGF. Anna Lertreader (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This gets better by the hour. You call the subject of an article you edit an "unpleasant little man" and then you accuse us of not assuming good faith? I mean, seriously...  Yinta n  13:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it was Morag Kerr that said that, not Anna. The point about AGF does apply, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, my apologies.  Yinta n  13:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that was me. I was trying to make the point that it doesn't matter whether I think he's an unpleasant little man or the next Dalai Lama, the facts should stand on their own. But Black Kite still argues personalities rather than facts. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that someone who's just called the subject of a BLP an "unpleasant little man" but accuses me of arguing personalities may be the funniest thing I've read on Wikipedia for quite a while. Still, nothing surprises me any more. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There you go again. Attacking what another editor has given as their opinion rather than focussing on facts and evidence. It doesn't matter what my opinion of McTernan is, or what Stuart Campbell's is, or anyone else's. All that matters is whether the material for the biography is correct, true, well-sourced and referenced, ans relevant.  It is all those things. Morag Kerr (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, since you're so poorly informed about BLP that you don't seem to have the slightest idea that you've committed a BLP violation calling McTernan an "unpleasant little man" on this page, it's hardly surprising you want to put one in his article as well. I suspect we're probably done here.  Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Wings over Scotland has debunked and ridiculed McTernan's 'predictions' for very sound and verifiable reasons. They are consistently wrong, laughably so. If you care to go back through his written predictions via the press or just his twitter feed you will accrue ample evidence of this. Over the past several years his political pronouncements on Scottish independence, local elections, national elections and most recently, the US presidential elections, have been so far off the mark in accuracy that one might wonder why he is ever asked for an opinion on anything? On the subject of the man himself and his attitudes to fairness one need only look at the laughable reaction to being asked to pay up on a bet he made with Campbell. 'Goes to character your honour' Rab Dickson (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Rab Dickson


 * There are more single-purpose red links showing up in this thread than in a vanity AfD. Guys, just saying, you know this is not a vote? Endlessly repeating the same argument doesn't move the discussion forward, nor does it change Wikipedia's guidelines. Kind regards,  Yinta n  10:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Kate Bush
IP 5.29.102.252 continues to add what I believe to be NOTNEWS trivia (e.g., |1). Editor has a poor history, including blocks for edit warring, and several recent warnings for other policy violations from other editors. Refuses to take it to Talk. All of which makes it hard for me to AGF. Seeking others' opinions, please ... richi (hello) 22:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * mentioning a few editors who recently engaged with the page, in case they're interested: love to know your thoughts


 * Now blocked for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP (and the tabloid press) appear to jump to conclusions. Bush likes May because "it is great to have a woman in charge of the country", which she said relating to Hillary Clinton's defeat by Trump, so it makes me think it's more about gender equality than May's actual political agenda. I could be wrong of course, the quote can be explained in many different ways. The same thing goes for the alleged Brexit support. It's all very vague and, I agree with you, trivial. If she would have send 'cease and desist' letters to stop a party from using her music, or organised concerts in support of a politician's campaign, then her political views might be notable. But this... nah.  Yinta n  09:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * many thanks ... richi (hello) 12:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

David Hamilton (again)
Despite my attempts to explain that I haven't seen any firm, reliable proof that Hamilton killed himself (it's very likely, sure, but no confirmation yet as far as I know) French editors keep inserting this. One of the sources (France24) actually says "the death of British photographer David Hamilton could be ruled a suicide" and the other is a magazine, www.gala.fr, that doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Could somebody take a look at this, please?  Yinta n  14:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Police say the case is an apparent suicide", on the BBC; "A police source told Reuters that Hamilton, best known for his pictures of teenage girls, killed himself in Paris", in The Guardian; "Hamilton has died in Paris on Friday night at the age of 83 after committing suicide, according to police sources", in The Telegraph; "Trois jours après le suicide de David Hamil­ton...", in Gala (and I see no real reason to doubt their reliability--it's a celebrity magazine, but doesn't appear to be a rag). I think we have plenty here to let the statement stand, though with a minor tweak (which I just applied). Drmies (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that.  Yinta n  18:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW,, it may seem like I disagreed with you etc., and I suppose I did to some extent, but the point is that you brought it up here, which is exactly the right thing to do--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries,, I can take disagreement  Yinta n   18:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Has there been or will there be a formal inquest? Collect (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Judging by the reports I think there is but I haven't seen the official results yet.  Yinta n  11:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For a recent death, I think our deadline is flexible enough that we can await some official word on this. The damage done if we wait is nil.  And I would note that "bag over head" with no other signs of suicide preparation is generally not effective, by the way.  Collect (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. Two days ago the Washington Post still wrote "Suicide is the leading theory in the investigation but it has not yet been confirmed" and I haven't seen an update yet. But opinions differ. See also User talk:Gabuzomeuh.  Yinta n  13:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Erika_Schwartz_(2nd_nomination)
AfD on a doctor who specializes in Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy and seems to have enjoyed media coverage based on promotional activity associated with the release of her books, rather than coverage of her as a person. Further input required. Delta13C (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wendy Long
As page creator, I keep this on my watchlist, but rarely edit anymore. While I was on Wikibreak in early November an ip editor added this material: "including her son who is also named Arthur and who was expelled from private school[21]." The citation is the Wall Street Journal and behind a paywall but assuming good faith, the statement was at least sourced. Two minutes later, this was reverted with an edit summary "WP:BLP". Since that time there's been a slow motion edit war, with several editors removing the material and several ip editors reinserting it. This edit with informative edit summary (adding a New York Times source which does check out) caught my eye, auto-tagged as possible BLP vio on my watchlist and (failing to read the recent edit history) I reverted it as coatracking. After seeing my change reverted, I engaged the ip editor on user talk. I was surprised at the response. Could I get uninvolved editors to help assess this disagreement? Thanks. BusterD (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This material does not belong in the article, and I have removed it. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Another ip editor has reinserted the material. I have started a discussion on talk to measure consensus. BusterD (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * An administrator has since changed protection level to auto-confirmed only then hidden or rev deleted all BLP vios in livespace, edit summary or page history. Thanks for the kind attention. BusterD (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Kory Tarpenning
Citation 8 is false, there is no link. There was never any such published clearance given to this person. The following needs to be deleted, "despite an appeals board hearing that he was administered a prohibited substance by a physician's assistant during treatment for a hamstring injury, where the medicine prescribed was a type of cortisone. However, under regulations in place at the time of the incident, the result was a suspension; Under current regulations, this would not incur a suspension"

Not only is the above untrue, and obviously placed repeatedly in the listing by Mr. Tarpenning himself for YEARS, but as a matter of fact today he would have probably been banned for his use of antlers as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.59.74 (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Kevin O'Neill (basketball) (section)


The name Jeff Berkaw is referenced in the article: Kevin O'Neill (basketball) (section). I am not aware of anyone else by this name other than me (Jeff Berkaw) and have good reason to believe this is vandalism. My name is not "linked" and it is not cited. I consider this libelous. Please remove my name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.88.177.68 (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the sources cited for that section include names; I have therefore removed them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The name was added by an unregistered user over two years ago; I don't see where any administrative action can (or needs to) be taken. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen and BLP
is using BLP to justify removing other editors posts from talkpages. Now, if he had used NPA, I might have accepted it (Ok, I wouldn't, because it is still absurd to remove posts you don't like), but using BLP to remove other editors posts really requires that somebody lets him know what BLP is about - especially given the fact that he has a habit of editing his own BLP.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The BLP rule  Contentious material about living persons ...that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion is clear and Maunus is deliberately violating it with a false unsourced statement. Rjensen (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The post you keep deleting is far from contentious and the BLP rules don't apply there. All I see is edit warring over short remark that is barely unfriendly. Cheers,  Yinta n  15:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a false statement (= contentious) and it is unsourced. it violated BLP. I think it's sarcastic to boot but that is not the main issue.)  The rule is emphatic: This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. Rjensen (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And then again: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, (...) you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (WP:TPO). Maunus' post was not a personal attack, merely a sarcastic remark. That's allowed. Uncivility is even allowed and "posts that may be considered disruptive (...) are usually best left as-is or archived." Shall we stop wiki-lawyering now? Cheers,  Yinta n  15:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is false then it is odd that it is one of the few critical things you haven't removed from your biography - but maybe it is because it is in fact your main claim to notability as a biographical subject. Also someone who cannot understand that the biographic subject cannot ever be the arbitrator of what is or isn't a false statement about them should probably not be allowed to edit wikipedia at all -otherwise we would only allow hagiographies and autobiographies. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maunus refuses to provide his required RS and instead misquotes Wikipedia. 1) his false statement = Jensen's claim there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US. 2) He cites the Wikipedia article on me that states Jensen argues that "No Irish Need Apply" signs were mostly a myth and that there was "no significant discrimination against the Irish" in the job market.  3) Actually what I did write was As for the question of anti-Irish prejudice: it existed but it was basically anti-Catholic or anti-anti-republican. There have been no documented instances of job discrimination against Irish men.(FN13) Was there any systematic job discrimination against the Catholic Irish in the US: possibly, but direct evidence is very hard to come by. [Journal of Social History  2002 p 407] Maunus is in deliberate defiance of the BLP rule about verifiability. Rjensen (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And if he would have put that in the Wikipedia article about you, you'd be completely right to object. But he didn't, it was on the Talk page of something completely different. Seriously, this little feud shouldn't even be on this board. May I politely suggest you both give it a rest?  Yinta n  18:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If Yinta wants to help he needs to read the BLP rules more closely (for example 3-R does not apply and talk pages certainly are included)  Instead he makes poor excuses for someone else. It was Maunus who brought this complaint here and yet it was he who refuses to follow the rules or erase his violation. Rjensen (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that you wrote a biography about yourself does not mean that you get to determine everything everyone else writes about you by claiming BLP. You have no right to EVER remove a comment from someone else with whom you are in a discussion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * False. every editor has the right to remove another editor's posts if they fail the BLP rules.  Maunus is in deliberate defiance of these BLP rules: 1)'' " any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source" 2) "Dealing with articles about yourself...Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself."  3) "Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable." 4) "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." 5) "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" 6)  "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Rjensen (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this could, and probably will, go on forever, I strongly suggest you two take this to WP:ANI and have an administrator look at it.  Yinta n  10:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will. I think o course that Jensen is in "egregious violation" of both WP:TPO and WP:COI, so it does make sense to find out who of us in fact are egregiously violating policy here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Rex Lee
Excessive quoting from judicial opinions--our Oliver Wendell Holmes entry doesn't trace the subject's thoughts to this level, which makes me think this is tended by a clerk or other associate of the subject. Are his numerous opinions, interpretations and cases as an attorney all worth mention here? I'm hesitant to start cutting, but welcome the thoughts of someone who's well versed in legal biographies. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Robert Lanza
This article appears to me to be way overly promotional, but I think the subject may be notable. Also issues with WP:FRINGEBLP and a related Articles for deletion/Biocentric universe (2nd nomination) discussion with the idea of merging some of the content of his fringe proposal back into his article.

Help cleaning up with an eye towards WP:BLP would be appreciated as we want to get this article close to WP:NPOV.

jps (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The subject seems certainly notable by way of reliable and noteworthy sources, not to mention the "awards" section. However, after having read the "career" and sub-sections, it reads more like a medical journal than a BLP article on WP; and is drastically sagging in undue weight versus "early life and education". I agree that clean up is needed. Maineartists (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC about cartoon of Supreme Court Justice Thomas
Just using this page to provide wider notice of an RfC, Talk:Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International, and the associated image deletion discussion. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Loretta_Marron
This article is about a resident of Australia however it appears that the editors believe that a reliable source is required to prove that she doesn't have Australian citizenship. From what I understand about the BLP policy this is the opposite as to what should occur. A quote from the talk page "From the average reader's perspective, it is correct to call her Australian because Australia is the country with which she is associated. If someone can come up with a reliable source that says otherwise, then we can certainly change it then, but these continual scrubbings of "Australian" from the article by one editor need to stop until that happens.". SportsMedGuy (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As was pointed out at the aforementioned talk page (where I've noted no participation in the discussion by ) Wikipedia's manual of style MOS:BLPLEAD clearly states that for identifying the person's context in the lead paragraph, quote: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Following that, Loretta Marron is clearly "Australian" for our purposes.  Again, if you can come up with a source that indicates otherwise, please do add it to the article and correct it. But just saying "BLP violation!" is not a magic incantation that lets you remove whatever you want. --Krelnik (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the issue under discussion concerns which categories are appropriate. The article content is not in question: it states that her residence is in Australia, which is well sourced, and it makes no statement about citizenship.  The question is whether the categories should be "Australian women scientists" or just "Women scientists", etc.
 * For the most part categories are for navigation. As there is no 'Women scientists resident in Australia', the Australian women scientist category is the applicable one if you wanted to find an Australian woman scientist. She has lived in Australia since a young age, has done the majority of her work and where her notability has been established, so I cant see a reasonable argument for not including her in Australian women scientists. -edit- I see she has an Order of Australia medal. That means she is an Australian citizen. Non-citizen's are only eligible for honorary medals. The honours people dont mess about with those sort of things. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that you don't need to be a citizen to receive this order. From our own wiki "The Order of Australia is an order of chivalry established on 14 February 1975 by Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, to recognise Australian citizens and other persons for achievement or meritorious service.". BLP still should apply to categories. What is troubling is the opposite to the BLP policy being applied here. The onus is to prove a fact, not disprove it. SportsMedGuy (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you read further down than the lead you can see where it explicitly notes the distinction between normal (for citizens) and honorary awards (non citizens). The lead is a *summary* of the article content. If you want to confirm for yourself her award was not an honorary one, that only Australian citizens can receive a (non-honorary) award, you can check the Order of Australia website yourself where the details of her award (and the criteria for receiving such) are listed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comet Ping Pong attack
As per WP:BLPCRIME I think the name of the alleged attacker should be removed from Comet Ping Pong until he is convicted of the crimes he's accused of committing. Please discuss. Everymorning (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no dispute that the accused is the person who entered the premises and committed the shooting. Indeed, he admitted it to the police. In this circumstance, I don't see any reason to omit the name. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Further, his actions appear to be enough to make him a limited purpose public figure. Given that his name is widely reported, I don't think we're doing any harm by listing his name. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The attacker isn't "alleged" - he was confirmed. Include his name in article. Meatsgains (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). See also thread below on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Draft:Pizzagate_.28conspiracy_theory.29_moved_to_article_Pizzagate_.28conspiracy_theory.29 Sagecandor (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) moved to article Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)

 * at Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) now at Pizzagate (conspiracy theory).

Draft page only recently had a closed deletion discussion due to WP:BLP concerns.

Fresh off that, violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV by at the page. 

Edits directly frame topic to appear more legitimate.

This comes after the shooting in Washington, D.C.

Wikipedia must make it clear this is debunked, fraud, conspiracy theory bullshit.

Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe pending changes would be a good idea? I don't know if that's done on draft pages, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the deletion discussion closed as "Keep", so what normally happens next? Does it get turned into its own page? Redirect merge to Comet Ping Pong ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep would mean it becomes an article once it's as suitable as it's going to be (which, sadly, it is). Merge is its own result.  WP:PC1 does say "administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption" - not just articles, but any page.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Or anyone else watching: Now at Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Large influx of users making same exact change as IP above. The protection level did not seem to work. Users coming to page with agenda to minimize wording that it is debunked fake conspiracy theory bullshit. Trying to add wording to the intro section that says it is not debunked. This already has led to violence and a man shooting up a restaurant with an assault rifle that thank goodness did not result in injuries or death. Need more eyes on this article please. Sagecandor (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As above - if this was a brand new article it'd be deleted as an Attack Page. At the very most, this should be a sub-section of List of conspiracy theories although even that page would end up needing a higher level of protection than the Pizzagate page currently has. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At minimum I would think this page falls under Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 and should be noted on its talk page, though that's not going to stop IPs with an intent. --M ASEM (t) 16:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also a good idea. But right now the current issue is lots of activity at Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) primarily incoming users trying to change the intro to imply the fiction it is factual. Sagecandor (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

is still not getting it, at. Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You understand that in order to provide a source, the source must have genuine proof of whatever it is that you're claiming. You have yet to display genuine evidence that supports your claim that the theory is debuunked. This isnt because of any other reason other than that Wikipedia users must be shown the proof, with no bias. I'm waiting. --Bitsnake420 (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I would point to, say, this New York Times Article, but I think you're slightly mistaken on Wikipedia's role. We don't fisk the evidence used by reliable sources.  We can certainly argue reliability, but after that, we take them at their word.  Fact-checking is their job, not ours.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * blocked indefinitely. Sagecandor (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Brendan Schaub

 * Brendan Schaub

WP:BLP violations by incoming IP address users related to pushing Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Sagecandor (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Page was semi-protected, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Ivanka is listed as a child of Donald Trump. While she is younger than a couple of his kids, she should be listed under his list of spouses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randallhsmith (talk • contribs) 19:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ivanka Trump is his daughter, Ivana Trump was his spouse. That is the way they are listed in the infobox on his page.  I assume that is what you were talking about.  - GB fan 19:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Michael Weiss (journalist)
Coming here from COIN, where the issue was first raised. Subject of article is a journalist and CNN commentator who has been frequently critical of Russia. SPA (apparently the subject or related party) has been removing large chunks of material, which at first blush seemed to be vandalism. But on closer examination his concerns appear to be more or less warranted. Sources, for instance, have included a non-notable Shiite website that simply is not appropriate for a BLP for negative content. Article can use more eyes given negative slant of much of the editing. Coretheapple (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Alan Grayson
The page for Alan Grayson has had a slow-moving WP:BLP revert war going over the last six months stemming from allegations of domestic abuse involving retiring congressman Alan Grayson of Florida. A section detailing the allegations has been introduced several times, in different forms in recent months, reverted every (or at least nearly every) time by Xenophrenic, citing WP:BLP concerns that including the allegations at all violates the policy. There has been very little discussion in Talk, unfortunately, discussing the pros and cons of this issue.

So rather than re-write the section for which there's an active WP:BLP dispute (some of the reverted sections could have been written slightly more neutrally and with less reliance on single sources), I figure I'd seek consensus here first on whether including the domestic abuse allegations concerning Rep. Grayson is a violation of WP:BLP in and of themselves (I'm in the 'not a violation' camp myself, obviously).

WP:WELLKNOWN clearly outlines the standards for allegations for a public figure, which Rep. Grayson certainly is, which explicitly state that for public figures, "if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article." In this case, we have many robust sources for the allegations and their newsworthiness.

First, reporting on the news itself and additional stories stemming from the allegations (including allegations of Rep. Grayson shoving and threatening a reporter asking him about the allegations)

Orlando Sentinel: U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson accused of domestic abuse [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/26/alan-grayson-said-he-never-hit-his-wife-so-he-got-physical-with-a-reporter/ Washington Post: The Fix Alan Grayson said he never hit his wife. Then he got physical with a reporter] Politico: Grayson's ex-wife claimed domestic abuse over two decades Tampa Bay Times: Alan Grayson pushes back on domestic abuse allegations Tampa Bay Times: Murphy refuses to debate Grayson Think Progress: Alan Grayson’s Response To His Wife’s Accusations Of Domestic Abuse Follows A Familiar Playbook Washington Times: Four staffers quit Alan Grayson’s Senate campaign amid domestic abuse allegations

This is just a small cross-section of sourcing for the allegations involving Grayson, from different sources, from different parts of the political spectrum. And this cross-section covers the gamut of angles on it, from the reporting of the allegations to related newsworthy consequences stemming from the allegations, to, in the case of the Think Progress piece, framing the Grayson allegations in the context of the larger societal issue of domestic abuse. (Note that I'm not suggesting the TP piece be included as it's more editorial, but I'm just using it as a demonstration of the newsworthiness of these allegations concerning a public figure under WP:WELLKNOWN.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a mistake to believe that including material of this sort is a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also a mistake to believe that Xenophrenic believes that including encyclopedic content on the matter is a BLP violation. The reverts mentioned above, however, were of BLP violations. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet you've made no effort here to explain your view. So the mere assertions aren't going to do much. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My view on what, exactly? You likely know that I am not one to shy away from explanation - at length - regarding any matter, but I have no idea what you are asking here.  Could you be more specific, Nomoskedasticity? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me try to clarify. Why is this a BLP violation? Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "This"? Could you possibly be less specific?  I doubt it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's see. Can you wax eloquent about the dimension of the edits you've reverted (here and here) that you feel is a BLP violation? Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Waxing eloquent" isn't really one of my strong points (well, not the "eloquent" part, anyway). I think the edit summaries, and the explanation given on the Talk page when those edits were made, say everything necessary about those problematic edits I reverted. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A few observations and corrections about CoffeeCrumbs' original post: There's been no "revert war going over the last six months". There was an attempt to re-add part of the allegation stuff at the end of July and again in October, during election season - and I removed them both times. If Grayson runs for office again in another 2 or 4 years, I'm sure part of those allegations will reappear yet again. Contrary to being a "six month" old issue, this dates back to at least early March 2014. Contrary to the problematic content being removed every time by Xenophrenic, it has also been removed by GeneralIzation, Solarra, Discospinster, FormerIP, AzureCitizen, et al. Contrary to Xenophrenic asserting that "including the allegations at all violates the policy", as CoffeeCrumbs claims, Xenophrenic actually said we can "consider adding an encyclopedic and NPOV entry in this article - and certainly not just one side of the allegation-fest, as was already recently attempted." (See article Talk page.) I've never argued that Alan Grayson is not a WP:WELLKNOWN public figure, but Lolita Grayson and their children, however, certainly are not. If this sensationalistic material is added at all to this BLP, it will be in a complete (instead of one-sided) manner, and that means it will be almost entirely about his ex-wife and their kids, her sorded history of allegations against them, etc. This kind of content strikes me as more suitable for the National Enquirer instead of Wikipedia. If CoffeeCrumbs decides to pursue the addition of content of this nature, my first question will be: What encyclopedic content are you hoping to convey to our readers about these living people? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the content in question: "Lolita Grayson claims that Congressman Grayson physically abused her extending over twenty years, a claim he forcefully disputes." Why do you want that omitted from the article? Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. That is not the content in question.  See Talk page.  Thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean in Archives? Because there is only one section (Talk:Alan Grayson) on the Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We follow the reliable sources. That there were abuse allegations made, sourced to a very wide variety of sources, and these allegations both publicly affected the Senate campaign, also widely sourced, making this a significant part of Rep. Grayson's autobiography.  The idea that we're scrubbing a major news story to "protect Lolita Grayson" is a complete red herring, given that she told Politico in her email comments on the story that "“I want the people to know my story so they know what kind of man Alan Grayson really is."  This was not some obscure tabloid story, but a major straight-news story covered in multiple stories by the most major of newspapers, discussing a candidate for major political office.  This appears to me as a strong case of WP:JDL the breadth and depth of coverage so strong that it would be the equivalent of a Gary Hart entry that removed any mention of Donna Rice or the related affair that bombed Hart's 1988 campaign.  CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, CC. We follow Wikipedia policy.  I'm sorry that you don't like that we might give deference to living people over a "story", but if you feel Lolita Carson and her children don't deserve the consideration and protections of our WP:BLP policy, then this is the proper board in which to make your case.  Your comparison to the Gary Hart & publicly notable Donna Rice episode is far off the mark; Hart actually suspended his campaign, and it actually was a major news story, unlike this one.  While it most certainly was designed and timed to affect Grayson's Senate run, I'm not seeing in the reliable sources that it had any noticeable effect on his run.  The President, Vice President, the Democrat Minority Leader, Schumer, and the largest Democrat super-PAC all threw their support and endorsements behind his opponent, and asked him to drop out, long before she launched her last-month-before-election attack. A couple progressive groups withdrew, but that appears in the sources to be inconsequential.  But it sounds like you want to use Wikipedia to help Lolita Carson get "her story" out to "the people"? Do I understand that correctly?  If so, I think it would be very helpful to see your proposed text along with the reliable sources you intend to cite. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How about some cites to policy then, rather than your constant generic call to WP:BLP? That's the reason I brought it to this noticeboard, to get a consensus from a wider group of people as it has not been discussed in the article's talk itself.  Did you actually read any of the sources?  It absolutely was a major news story, covered extensively by multiple national sources, with multiple angles, from the initial allegations to his opponent pulling out of debates to staffers quitting to the head of his party in Senate calling him to drop out to the allegations that he threatened a national reporter with arrest, all easily sourced from many high-qualitys sources.  And yes, your pretense of protecting Lolita Grayson is WP:CRYBLP at it's finest - we have reliable sources saying she *wants* this news to be public.  That's absolutely not the reason I want to include this information, I'm only using her desire in the context of responding to your claim that you're wiping a major aspect of FL 2016 Senate campaign clean to "protect" someone - it appears that the person you mainly wish to protect is Rep. Grayson.  I've extensively quoted WP:BLP text covering allegations of public figures, if you have text that supports the notion that these allegations not be included, that would be more constructive than using BLP as a magic word. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey CoffeeCrumbs, would you mind throttling back just a little on the unnecessary (and completely inapplicable) abrasive essay-attacks? WP:JDL? WP:CRYBLP?  Stop, please.
 * How about some cites to policy then, rather than your constant generic call to WP:BLP? --CoffeeCrumbs
 * WP:BLP  is  policy, and there is nothing "generic" about the protection Wikipedia affords to living people. It applies to all living people we write about, not just the named subject of a given article.  Are you asking me to quote to you the specific parts of that policy which apply?  (As for whether other policies will also be violated, I can't say until you propose actual content and sources.)
 * ...I brought it to this noticeboard, to get a consensus from a wider group of people... --CoffeeCrumbs
 * Or did you bring it here to get a different consensus? You are already aware that the problematic "spousal abuse" content has previously been removed for valid reasons by me, GeneralIzation, Solarra, Discospinster, FormerIP, AzureCitizen, et al.
 * It absolutely was a major news story, covered extensively by multiple national sources... --CoffeeCrumbs
 * I disagree, but I'm anxious to look at your proof if you'll produce it. I think you are confusing "covered extensively" with "echoed repeatedly", which routinely happens with salacious allegations. And there's nothing more salacious (and common) than both spouses alleging physical abuse during a messy divorce/annulment.  Wikipedia shouldn't be made part of the news cycle echo chamber. But whether it is a "major story", or just a footnote, is not at issue here, and not why I have objected to adding it to our article.
 * Did you actually read any of the sources? ... his opponent pulling out of debates to staffers quitting to the head of his party in Senate calling him to drop out to the allegations that he threatened a national reporter with arrest... --CoffeeCrumbs
 * Yes, of course I did, and I'm quite familiar with the sources. Perhaps you are reading different ones, because while you portray those events as repercussions of a "major story", the sources don't.  Rather than pull out of the debate for some moral reason, Grayson's controversy gave Murphy a convenient reason to back out of debating. With Murphy being the front-runner and the favored candidate by the Democratic establishment, a televised debate could potentially hurt his chances.  Or when you say the head of his party called on him to drop out because of this story, the sources I've read say Reid had long backed Murphy, long hated Grayson, and had been pushing Grayson to withdraw for months before the story. Maybe it's a matter of perspective or mindset?
 * ... your pretense of protecting Lolita Grayson ... it appears that the person you mainly wish to protect is Rep. Grayson
 * I'll keep repeating this until it sinks in: BLP Policy protection And which part of my edit summaries is so difficult for you to understand?  (rvt "claims" about living person (ex-wife) pending sourced resolution)) Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, CoffeeCrumbs, please do propose some text. It's obvious to me that we can and should include something. Don't worry about Xenophrenic's insinuations -- we've been sidetracked here long enough. Let's focus on content. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's obvious to you, Nomoskedasticity, then perhaps you would be the better person to propose the encyclopedic content you want to convey to our readers? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Working on it, but there's no deadline and I wanted to get a consensus first on the nature of the allegations, given that WP:BLP has already been brought up repeatedly. Would prefer to build consensus on their inclusion at WP:BPLN first rather than end up at WP:ANI later. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The allegations themselves seem significant as the "origin" source for the story appears to be from Politico, and Grayson subsequently got into verbal debate with allowing them to further cover his campaign, judging by the news sources. I think it's necessary to note Politico (if this is the case) in the allegations line here. Note that I would see also if the Fox News sources can be replaced with other sources, only because we are talking a Democrat candidate vs the right-leaning news outlet, and that might lead one to see a potential BLP issue, but I think both can be readily replaced. --M ASEM (t) 15:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * --M ASEM, when you say "The allegations themselves seem significant", do you mean just the allegations against Grayson, or did you mean all of the allegations in the Politico report, most of which were against Lolita and their 5 children? Your clarification (in the section below) would be helpful. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Waived their right to privacy and BLP protection?

 * QUESTION: Does our Wikipedia BLP policy protect the privacy and reputation of non-notable, private citizens? Specifically in this case, the 5 children (some of whom are minors) of Alan Grayson, and their mother, Lolita Carson.  Can we add allegations of crimes committed by these 6 individuals to the Alan Grayson biography article?  Sources show that these people were alleged to have committed criminal acts, including Fraud, Perjury, Bigamy, Assault, Child abuse, Battery, Aggravated battery, Vehicle arson, Witness Tampering, although there have been no convictions.  The wording of our policy appears to allow it, as it only warns us to "seriously consider not including" the material; it doesn't actually "forbid" it.  What does the community say? Applicable BLP policy wording:

Background: As discussed in the section immediately above, the whole family of Alan Grayson became the subject of significant allegations of crimes. It started when Lolita Carson emailed Politico News and alleged that Alan Grayson had abused her four times in the past 20 years, and she provided Politico with some police and medical reports. These are just allegations, and there were never any arrests or convictions, but Alan Grayson is a WP:WELLKNOWN politician, so some Wikipedians argue the allegations against him should be in his biography. However, Politico also dug up court records and additional reports which showed that, in Alan Grayson's defense, Lolita had actually allegedly assaulted Alan Grayson (caught on film), Lolita set fire to their car, bitten their son, had their daughter arrested, slashed a vehicle's upholstery, lied to law enforcement, perjured herself in court. Her children have given statements to police (and later to Politico) that Lolita's account of a physical assault was untrue, that Lolita struggles with emotional issues, has physically assaulted and lashed out at the children and Alan, and said their father had done nothing wrong throughout the marriage.

Here's the problem: We can add the alleged 4 instances of abuse by Grayson over 20 years, because he's a public figure - so it doesn't matter if the allegations are true or not. But we would also have to add Grayson's denial and the exculpatory evidence disproving those allegations, which means heavily involving a lot of personal and embarrassing stuff about the 5 children and Lolita. They are not public figures. One Wikipedian in the discussion above says, "we have reliable sources saying [Lolita] *wants* this news to be public", referring to Lolita's email to Politico. But that isn't exactly true; she wanted her allegation of 4 incidents of abuse to be publicized, just weeks before Grayson's Senate election, but she likely didn't sign up to have Politico also dredge up her bigamy, marriage annulment, her physical assaults on her kids and Alan, her perjury and lying, etc. Where does WP:BLP policy stand on this? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're attempting to construct a barrier to inclusion of content that does not exist in the WP:BLP policy. We don't "have to add ... exculpatory evidence" -- certainly not in a way that violates the privacy of his children (and by the way, no-one is proposing to mention them).  It's apparent you want this issue to be very complicated -- possibly so that for other editors it's TLDR -- but it doesn't have to be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity, your comments here are uncharacteristically obnoxious and unproductive. I've been ignoring your running commentary about a fellow editor (i.e.; "It's apparent you want this issue to be very complicated"; "Don't worry about Xenophrenic's insinuations -- we've been sidetracked"; "you've made no effort here to explain your view"; "You're attempting to construct a barrier to inclusion of content") until now, hoping you were just having an off day. I've known your edits and comments in the past to be overwhelmingly reasonable, but here you have shown yourself to be absolutely clueless about my "intentions".  There is a standing request (above) that you propose encyclopedic, BLP-compliant content to help resolve this matter, but you've chosen instead to continue your trollish sniping while not advancing the discussion in any meaningful way. And now you've asserted that we "don't" have to add exculpatory evidence which disproves the criminal allegations against a living person?(!) That's a very revealing comment, Nomoskedasticity, and it explains a lot. You are wrong, of course, and after a remark like that, it would be advisable if you avoid editing Grayson-related material, and BLP issues in general. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't believe this whole divorce deserves more than a sentence or two, and in my opinion the removed text would be acceptable after a copy edit. The "extending over 20 years" line should go because it makes it sound as if she was regularly abused for a long time. But she claims "he hit her in the past four or five times". That's different. Also, I'd prefer to have the Politico report as a source for that instead of Fox. The section about Schumer's statement needs a similar cut. The "saying that Grayson has “shown himself not to be worthy of being a U.S. senator" part can go, leaving the rest. Cheers,  Yinta n  09:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Yintan, thank you for the comment. To be accurate, there never was a "divorce", there was an annulment, and there already exists "a sentence or two" about it in the article.  The link you've provided is to an edit about the Politico hit piece, and is a non-starter for several reasons.  First, it was entered under the "Personal life" section when it should be added under the "Elections" header instead. It also fails to accurately convey what reliable sources say, instead conveying the response by the accused as hardly more than "Nuh-uh".  And as you've correctly noted, "extending over twenty years" is inaccurate and should instead read something like "four times during their 25-year marriage"; and the FOX News echo-media sources should be replaced with sources which have actually done some journalistic reporting. The political hyperbole from Schumer (which predates the Politico piece, and was merely repeated after it) is unnecessary.  I agree with your opinion that an addition should be brief. I'll try to outline what I think it should look like below. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would approach the situation from a media standpoint, and not so much the divorced couple standpoint. That is, it is the fact that Politico published Lolita's account right in the middle of the election run, and Grayson fired back to deny the allegations and tell Politico to stop covering him. The claims Lolita made should remain claims cited to her via Politico. If their children (of adult age) are sourced to defend Grayson, that can be included in a counterargument statement too, eg "Grayson fervently denied her claims, and his position was supported by his children from that marriage." We don't need to attempt to describe anything in any more detail particularly these allegations of what Lolita did against Grayson if they are allegations as well. --M ASEM (t) 15:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your approach has similarities to mine, Masem, in that it isn't a "divorce" or "abuse" thing, but rather a politics and media thing. The Politico hit piece (yup, I'm calling it that) was published in late July, and was carefully timed to coincide with the first day of the Democratic National Convention, in the final weeks of Grayson's campaign for Senate.  Remember this was years after the couple split and Grayson remarried - and Lolita telegraphed her intent: she emailed the publication that specializes in "politics", admitting she wanted the public to know her narrative version of "what kind of man Alan Grayson really is". However, her claims and "evidence" have actually been refuted by law enforcement authorities, witnesses and her own children.  The media, according to the sources, republished Lolita's allegations without bothering to verify the validity of the claims.  All of that is from just a few sources which bothered to do any reporting: Politico hit piece (July), Miami Herald interview about allegations (August), Orlando Weekly on the aftermath (September).  I agree with you that we don't need to cover the allegations of what Lolita did, UNLESS they directly relate to her allegations against Grayson.  And some do.  For example, in Lolita's most recent (2014) claim of abuse, where she appeared at a hospital with bruises she claimed were from Grayson the previous day, it turns out it was she who assaulted him.  And that is according to an uninvolved witness, and Lolita's daughter, and a video, and even Lolita's 911 call in which she actually admitted, after being asked if Grayson hurt her, "no" and said she pushed him instead. She told police she grabbed Grayson by the face and kneed him in the midsection, causing him to buckle over.  If the allegations against Grayson are to be mentioned in his biography, then the exculpatory allegations against, and statements by, the non-well-known parties (ex-wife & kids & staffers) must also appear.  And that where we come up against BLP policy as outlined in the box above.  I'm not necessarily saying we should mention the allegations that Lolita had her daughter arrested for battery over an argument about smoking in the car, or that she bit her youngest kid on the arm and called police on him, but there is no way to leave the private citizens and minors completely out of the biography.  One editor has suggested that we don't need to convey Grayson's evidence in defense against the allegations, but I don't see that as a policy-compliant solution. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And you're broadly demonstrating why the consensus has been against your position. You've drawn your own conclusions as to why the piece went on a certain date and made up your own policy about "reliable source timing."  That is not Masem's position, as far as I can tell.  Again, this is a story that was covered *widely* in high-quality reliable sources.  If you can find a high-quality source covering Politico's alleged desire to publish a hit piece coinciding with the opening of the convention, we could at least have an argument on that basis, but you've provided no such evidence that would undermine Politico and the follow-up reliable sources as being unreliable sources in this context.  Not even original research since as far as I can tell, you haven't even done research to support this point, all we have is your simple assertion that it is so from the simple relationship between the date of the story and the date of an opening of a national convention for the same political party that Rep. Grayson is a member of.  Under your reasoning, we would remove reliably sourced sexual abuse allegations against Donald Trump for nothing more than the reason that they "conveniently" became public in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.  That's an unjustifiable position - there's no WP:CONVENIENT or WP:ULTERIORMOTIVE.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, my point is that the more relevant facts is that Grayson lashed out at Politico for publishing Lolito's charges in the middle of his campaign. Given that any domestic crime aspects accused by Lolita seemed to be refuted by both Grayson and his children, the story here is around the interaction between Grayson and Politico. This doesn't mean the charges shouldn't be mentioned, but they should be framed as part of that media story. --M ASEM (t) 15:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly reasonable position, I feel. Obviously, the utmost care should be taken and we're not talking some giant section that dominates Rep. Grayson's page. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @CoffeeCrumbs: Please exercise more care and reading comprehension when it comes to what sources have said, and what I have said. Summarizing (yet again), just for you, "my position" is and always has been: If abuse allegations regarding Grayson are to be added to his Wikipedia biography, they must be accompanied by the exonerating evidence refuting those allegations (from the same reliable sources). This will result in violations of BLP policy, as some nasty shit and allegations involving Lolita & the 5 kids will be part of that evidence, but they are private, non-well-known people. And there's been no "consensus against my position" unless it was developed in a venue of which I am unaware.  Moving on to your weird claim that I have "drawn my own conclusions as to why" the Politico hit piece was published, and the significance of the timing.  Say what?  And then you double-down on the crazy by claiming, "you haven't even done research to support this point".  What part of the following sentence, cut & pasted from above, did you fail to comprehend: All of that is from just a few sources which bothered to do any reporting: Politico hit piece (July), Miami Herald interview about allegations (August), Orlando Weekly on the aftermath (September). ?  From just one of those sources (and I've seen several which convey the same observations):
 * Some say we're in a post-truth era now, but your attempt to usher that in to Wikipedia is offensive. Anyway, all of the Politico hit piece timing and motivation content is out of the scope of this discussion, and would be better handled at the article Talk page.  The BLP/N issue here is how to handle the BLP-violating content about the non-wellknowns, Lolita and the 5 children. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Some say we're in a post-truth era now, but your attempt to usher that in to Wikipedia is offensive. Anyway, all of the Politico hit piece timing and motivation content is out of the scope of this discussion, and would be better handled at the article Talk page.  The BLP/N issue here is how to handle the BLP-violating content about the non-wellknowns, Lolita and the 5 children. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Masem: I don't disagree with you regarding the framing, but I still do not see a way to avoid the embarrassing content regarding Lolita and the kids. Also, may I ask your opinion as to which reliable source you feel best conveys what happened between Grayson and the Politico reporter?  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have assumed good faith throughout. Your criticisms of including this information are chameleon-like - sometimes it's because you've decided that it's a "hit piece" that was published at a date that you personally felt was too convenient, sometimes you've announced that it's simply tabloid material, sometimes to protect supposed three parties even though it's a simple task to write around children's names and the like.  In response, you direct insults at me about "post-truth" and "double-down on the crazy."  Not that it's absolutely shocking, mind you, given your extensive disciplinary history on political topics.  CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * CoffeeCrumbs, I dislike having to keep calling bullshit on your assertions, but you aren't leaving me much choice. Your pretense of having "assumed good faith throughout" crumbled long ago, with just your second post here in fact, when you began accusing your fellow contributors of disagreeing with you because they "just don't like it", instead of over valid policy concerns.  You followed that by accusing your fellow contributors of gaming BLP policy to "protect" just Alan Grayson (see your WP:CRYBLP nonsense), rather than attempting to understand the actual concerns.  You aren't going to convince anyone that you are assuming good faith.  Let's look at more of your post-truth assertions: you've decided that it's a "hit piece" that was published at a date that you personally felt was too convenient - *I* have decided?  You've tried floating that whopper already, and failed, remember?   The description of the political hit piece, and its timing, are subjects covered in reliable sources.  I've even quoted one of many reliable sources of that information just above, yet you still try to paint it as something I "personally felt"?   I must say, you are good at this Post-truth stuff, especially the detachment from reality part.  Next: sometimes you've announced that it's simply tabloid material - Actually, I never have, as it has never been simply tabloid material.  It is tabloid material, of course, and I've frequently called it what it is, but my objection to inclusion has always been (and as I've always noted) the allegation content in a BLP.  That has never changed. The proposed content always been a "he said, she said" situation, which runs afoul of BLP policy (even when some editors have tried to add it as a policy-violating "she said, so there" portrayal). Next: given your extensive disciplinary history on political topics - (Xenophrenic leans into the mic and interjects:) Wrong.  There isn't an extensive disciplinary history on political topics, but given your recent track record of failing to comprehend what reliable sources say; failing to comprehend an editor's concerns with problematic content; and failure to read simple text (above) with a reasonable level of comprehension, that assertion from you is not shocking at all.


 * Back to the issue at hand. You claim "... it's a simple task to write around children's names and the like.  I would be very interested in seeing your proposed text which includes the necessary information concerning the ex-wife, children, staffer, etc., while complying with BLP policy. (Specifically, with the parts of the policy outlined in the box at the top of this section.)  That would go a long way toward putting this matter to rest.  I don't see "naming" them as the actual issue, as most are named in the article already.  The problem is with their association with negative allegations.  And just to reiterate, I do not disagree with your two assertions: (1) that per WP:WELLKNOWN, Alan Grayson is not immunized against mere allegations in his Wikipedia biography, and (2) that the abuse allegations received enough reliably sourced coverage to warrant them being a part of his Wikipedia biography. I do, however, disagree with the assertions that (1) Lolita forfeited her protection under our BLP policy as a non-public, private person once she contacted Politico, or (2) that we don't need to include the exculpatory evidence which refute allegations made by Lolita (as suggested by another editor). Xenophrenic (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you're going to call me a liar? And other various insults?  Terrific.  I quoted Wikipedia Essays, you toss insults around.  I think I'm done discussing this with you, I brought my concerns here in order to seek a clear consensus as just speaking for myself, I prefer not to get into edit wars that result in me being blocked or becoming the subject of a finding-of-fact in an arbitration case.  Luckily, the consensus here is fairly clear.  Have a great rest-of-the-week!  CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you're going to call me a liar? And other various insults?
 * I'm not a fortune-teller, so I cannot answer that. It will totally depend on what you say, as it has thus far.
 * I prefer not to get into edit wars that result in me being blocked or becoming the subject of a finding-of-fact in an arbitration case.
 * That sounds wise, and is my preference as well.
 * I brought my concerns here in order to seek a clear consensus ... the consensus here is fairly clear. Have a great rest-of-the-week!
 * As did I; and I agree the consensus is clear. I hope the holidays find you in good spirits. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Selma Hayek
There is currently a claim of ADHD in the article Selma Hayek, which has already been removed in the past by, because he couldn't find any reliable sources. When I asked for removing the claim by a semi-protected edit request, User Dane now maintains that the given source is a reliable source, despite the fact that the claim is only mentioned in passing. Because the claim has been repeatedly inserted in the past, I report the issue to this noticeboard. --212.95.7.6 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Irish Times is a reliable source, though it is true that it is not played up in the article. But this certainly does not strike me as a violation of the BLP. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In evaluating the source, it appears to be a reliable source. When attempting to verify the claim online, searches returned results for Additude Magazine and Latina.com which state the same claim. --  Dane  talk  05:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. What the source says is this: Mentioning the diagnosis by itself, without context, gives undue weight to this minor aspect of Hayek's life and verges on voyeurism, in my opinion. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, and Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. If this early diagnosis, which seems not to have affected Hayek's career, is that significant to her life, then it should be given proper context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Rob Graham
How is this worthy of a Wikipedia page? If this is acceptable, it seems like every lawyer in the world should have their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.100.10 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Nominated for deletion. Shritwod (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Lee Joon gi
Lee Joon gi

The BLP article for Lee Joon gi is currently showing material that does not comport with the Wikipedia NPOV. Or WP-BLP guidelines. It exhibits TONE that is negative, lacks BALANCE, and has been challenged and is likely to be challenged. This matter is specific to the section titled 2014-present Domestic Flops and North American debut.

Although attempts have been made to correct the tone and balance by simply removing the negative verbiage such action has been repeatedly blocked by UNDO Edits and by misuse of the Wikipedia Warning system despite the edits having been noted as being subjective and not objective in nature and including incorrect cite translations and content; and more accurately only supported by single citation. (see View History)

Discussion has been added to the Talk page of Lee Joon gi which includes citations that contradict the tone and Balance of the Section.

Corrections are applicable under the WP-BLP based on the following:

The Tone and Balance of the section creates a negative impression that violates NPOV for WP-BLP It uses specific negative language including terms like “flop” and “failure” rather than more neutral words like Disappointing Domestic reception vs Successful International response. It relies on a single source that is incorrectly translated. It lacks Balance because the section overstates domestic TV ratings and understates the international reaction to a work that was specifically intended for an international audience. It has been Challenged and is Likely to continue to be Challenged.

Specifics Words and terms like Flop and Failure carry immediate negative impressions which are not supported by facts and are of themselves contrary to WP-BLP. Several citations exist that prove the use of such terms are inaccurate yet efforts to add balance are blocked under the pretext that such corrections themselves are an attempt to puff the piece. (See Lee Joon gi Talk) A citation has been used inaccurately seeming in an effort to support use of the term flop. Efforts to correct the incomplete translation have been blocked. Discussion of Content not in keeping with NPOV is supported by citation on the talk page for the subject including questions and evidence proving how and why the negative verbiage is an overstatement and inappropriate.

Finally, none of this would be necessary had a contributor not blocked efforts to remove or alter the negative verbiage and inflammatory Section Heading. Permission is being requested to make corrections by revision. Maris Sefiro (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * THOUGHTS: No Change Needed I know it must be saddening for fans, especially those who only edits the Lee Joon Gi page, to see that their idols have flop projects but "flop" and "failure" do not violate any Wikipedia guidelines especially since an article cited in the section itself has declared his recent projects flops. It's not unsubstantiated at all. And I wouldn't call a glorified cameo a Hollywood debut either (Lee himself said it was just a guest role anyway). I would even say calling that a Hollywood debut is peacock and fluff. Besides, the film is produced by international firms, not just by a US-based company. North American debut is more appropriate.AkoAyMayLobo (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Reply to Thoughts: Thank you for your input. It seems someone has already made some changes to the article and it is an improvement however it is still an incomplete picture. Regardless of personal feelings negative or positive language should whenever possible be avoided which I believe is the intention shown in the language of NPOV and WP-BLP.

You have based your use of words that carry a negative connotations on 1 (one) citation while I have provided multiple citations expressing a different view. I believe for balance, and to add interest to the article both the low TV rating and the high international response should be mentioned since the project was originally intended for BOTH markets. Additionally, debut refers not to the size of a role but the industry in which the debut occurs. In this case the companies producing the film Resident Evil: the final chapter are based in Hollywood. Further a citation is given to support the industries use of the term (not mine and not the celebrity). If multiple uses of the term Hollywood debut are needed those can be provided. It is however common language.Maris Sefiro (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about a biography of a living criminal
I am posting here not to report an incident but to ask advice about an article still in my sandbox. Below is a communication I sent and the response I received:


 * I'm working on an article about a prominent Nashville businessman who turned into a major cocaine smuggler (as in Breaking Bad), Russell Brothers. It is a fascinating story but I have had second thoughts about it because the subject is still alive and due to be released from prison in December of 2016. Even though his name and exploits have been on the front pages of many newspapers in Tennessee and elsewhere, something about this gives me pause. He still has an opportunity to live some more years. I'm sure he will eventually be on Wikipedia, but I'm inclined to hold the article for a while, maybe even until his death — he is 78 now. He reportedly enjoys his bad boy image. Anyway, please take a look. Your thoughts ?
 * Regards as always, Eagledj (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Eagledj. As always, you're doing a bang up job in composing the article! By the sources you've uncovered and cited it appears his criminal convictions were rather notorious, with a fair amount of coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. These are convictions so there's no WP:BLPCRIME issue. So I guess the question is, is he sufficiently a public figure? Is this beyond just routine news coverage (I think it is). However, you are not just using newspapers but court cases as sources to verify facts about his criminal history, which seems to be in conflict with WP:BLPPRIMARY. What I think you should do is ask for some more eyes, of people who are very familiar with these issues, to give you their opinion, and the forum for that appears to be the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It's true that that page's statement of purpose indicates it's more for reporting potential BLP violations, but it seems the best place to find people highly experienced in this area to take a look, and I can't imagine anyone turning you away because you're not reporting an incident but seeking advice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Category discussion on commons
Please see commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Pizzagate.

Bringing here due to WP:BLP concerns as the only two images are of Comet Ping Pong restaurant and also it is redundant to have 2 categories with exact same 2 images. Sagecandor (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Tim Gunn
For some months now, someone has consistently edited the Tim Gunn biography and personal life sections to claim he identifies as asexual. The first post on the talk page questioning this is from September 2013. The sources cited for the claims of asexuality are two articles which, if you read through them or CTRL+F for 'asexuality', do not mention asexuality at all in any way. Tim Gunn self-identifies as a gay man who is celibate by choice; asexuality is not a choice, it is a unique sexual orientation one is born hardwired towards, just as homosexuality and heterosexuality are.

I will copy what I put on the talk page for the Tim Gunn article showing discrepancy between asexuality claims and the cited sources:

"If you see the reference they cite for this claim of asexuality, it clearly says he is celibate.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/tim-gunn-celibacy-sex.html


 * "If you watch the above video until the end, you'll see Gunn speaking in halting sentences, holding back emotion, as he explains that his decision to remain celibate by choice followed a difficult breakup and is partly "psychological." He cites health, and fear of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS.
 * "Do I feel like less of a person for it? No!" he said. "I am a perfectly happy, fulfilled individual." He said he started his self-imposed celibacy as AIDS began ravaging the gay community, and that he and many other people simply retreated from that danger."
 * "Do I feel like less of a person for it? No!" he said. "I am a perfectly happy, fulfilled individual." He said he started his self-imposed celibacy as AIDS began ravaging the gay community, and that he and many other people simply retreated from that danger."

Celibacy is not at all the same as asexuality. Celibacy is a personal choice; asexuality is a sexual orientation which you are hard-wired towards from birth, just like heterosexuality and homosexuality.

In the Biography section, someone also edited it to say "Tim Gunn used to identify as gay but now identifies as asexual." They cite this source:

http://www.metroweekly.com/2007/09/naked-gunn/

A quick CTRL+F of this article shows absolutely no mention of the word asexual. I don't know if whoever keeps putting in these edits is doing it as a joke but I think it accounts to vandalism at this point. This has been happening for months and I continuously edit it back but someone keeps inserting unsourced claims of aseuxality."

Every single time I try to edit out the claims of asexuality which directly contradict the articles cited, it gets reversed within a few hours. I'd really like it if this issue could be resolved somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.112.126 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Marina Abramović
Hello, This is regarding Marina Abramović. As described in her "controversy" section, she has gone through a wide range controversies (cited using reputed journals). Therefore, keeping Wikipedia neutrality, since a living or dead personality can be described as "popular", a criminal can be described as a criminal in the introduction; similarly, citing her numerous controversies and nature of art performance, it seems neutral and logical to describe her in the following way- which simply is a neutral and cited reflection of the fact that she has been surrounded by wide range of controversies-

Marina Abramović (Serbian Cyrillic: Марина Абрамовић, ; born November 30, 1946) is a Yugoslavia-born controversial performance artist based in New York. Her work explores the relationship between performer and audience, the limits of the body, and the possibilities of the mind. Active for over three decades, Abramović describes herself as the "grandmother of performance art." She pioneered a new notion of identity by bringing in the participation of observers, focusing on "confronting pain, blood, and physical limits of the body."

However, there have been repeated attempts to keep only her popularity and suppress the not-so popular facts about her. Therefore, I want to know how to resolve this issue. In any way, these citations/texts do not give a declaration or judgement but just provide information on her controversial past and their citations from highly reputed journals. It does not include non-cited and extreme words which violate this-"Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." It is rare for a reputed journal/newspaper to explicitly write an article to label someone as disgusting, but yet http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/arts/design/20marina.html?pagewanted=all helps us know that there do exist people who find it is controversial- "Such visceral, unsettling art used to generate disgust, outrage and the occasional police visit."

Kindly also have a look at the controversy section of her article. Thanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * —is your question whether or not she should be described in the lead as "controversial"? Is that your question? Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the patience to read the entire thing - it was just to support my proposal. Whether using the word "controversial" as above is ok (why) or not (why not) is indeed my question. :) Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think Marina Abramović should be described as "controversial" in the lead of her article. I've responded briefly on the article Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not so much the word "controversial" as almost all the rest of the article that really needs attention. It is written in an unencyclopaedic tone and often (apparently) in Abramović's voice, perhaps due to the excessive number of quotations and the acreage of pseudo-intellectual artspeak.
 * But to answer the question: being controversial is such a routine part of what artists do that it hardly merits a mention in the lead. There shouldn't be a Controversy section either, there should be a balanced discussion of reactions to her work, based on what is written in independent reliable sources. I suggest "Reception" as a title. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "being controversial is such a routine part of what artists do" - artists like singers, dancers, actors, painters etc are not necesaarily controversial. "There shouldn't be a Controversy section either, there should be a balanced discussion of reactions to her work"- calling aboriginals dinosaurs, not crediting artists for inspiring her work, being accused of inviting politicians to spiritual cooking- these are "reactions to her work??"" Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Only one of the things you list are not "reactions to her work" (comparing aboriginals to dinosaurs, although it could be a reaction to her memoir). FallingGravity 09:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the opinion that writing on walls with pig blood (and inviting diplomats to it) and racist opinions, stealing ideas of other artists and not crediting them are attributes solely related to professionalism and work, I want to write an update here that a consensus has been reached on the talk page to remove the word "controversial" from the lead. Thanks everyone. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way,, I think the "Controversy"section of the article is fine. I am only objecting to describing her as "controversial" in the lead of the article. (It could be called a "Criticism" section, but that is a minor point.) Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) Yes, I made the change. Majority always important. I am happy we sorted things out and contributed to the article like it appeals the most. Good day! :) Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good day, Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Spirit Cooking
Now that the word "controversial" has been removed from the lead sentence, can we talk about how the article is written to promote the "Spirit Cooking" conspiracy? has taken it upon his or her self to remove sourced material that disproves the conspiracy because of "consensus" supposedly reached here. FallingGravity 20:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your initiative. Just one point- I am adding sourced material- not removing it- I am adding and you are removing this from the controversy section- ""Another controversy came up during 2016 US Presidential elections when it was leaked via Wikileaks that an email invitation from Abramović read, “I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place. Do you think you will be able to let me know if your brother is joining?” ""Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In the paragraph that I added and you keep removing, it explains about the invitation. FallingGravity 00:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh I am sorry. I just noticed the first edit- in which you removed this content but did not add any new content. I assumed your reverts were just the same. I completely welcome your cited content- but I have conflict when you remove the content from controversy section. Thanks. Please add your content, or I can add it back if you wish. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Robert B. Pamplin, Jr.
Your attention is drawn to the removed references at Robert B. Pamplin, Jr., which I describe over at. I'm not sure what should be done, so I'm leaving it up to WP:ORE and WP:BLP. YBG (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

navid faridi
hi this article is about navid faridi he is an ex football player in iran he's living person and he want people see his biograpy when they search him please help us to do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadegh1993sadegh (talk • contribs) 09:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Badr Jafar
The contested text is:
 * The article was discussed at BLPN October 2016.
 * I put a summary of the situation at Talk:Badr Jafar under Per the above I have removed the "uncle" claim.
 * The point relevant to this report is "OTRS ticket 2016050310022619 states that Jafar Jafar is not the uncle of the subject of this article".
 * Mawlidman has just reverted my edit (diff) with an inflamatory edit summary: "restored from clear censorship and lies".
 * Mawlidman was reported at AN3 October 2016 regarding another claim at the same article.
 * His uncle, Jafar Jafar, is a nuclear physicist who lead Iraq's nuclear programme under Saddam Hussein.

Per the talk page, the first reference (nbcnews.com) does not mention the subject of the article, and the second (thenational.ae) does not mention "uncle". The text asserts a family relationship that is poorly sourced and is contested by an OTRS statement. No publication has commented on the alleged relationship other than Wikipedia. Does the text satisfy WP:BLP and WP:DUE? Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging editors from the previous BLPN: Drmies + Fyddlestix + Mawlidman + Nomoskedasticity + Only in death does duty end + OoBJ. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The source (thenational.ae) doesn't use the word "uncle", but it does tell us that Jafar Jafar is the brother of Hamid Jafar who is Badr Jafar's father. "Uncle" is a perfectly reasonable paraphrase for what the source tell us here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolute whitewash by those who seek to delete the statement. The National article clearly says the following: There is no inference involved, as the other editors like to claim. It is clear from point one that the Badr that is mentioned in the news source is the same Badr in the wiki article and the son of the subject of the news source i.e. Hamid Jafar. It is then clear from the second point that Jafar Jafar is the brother of Hamid and is the same person of the wiki article Jafar Dhia Jafar. Jafar Dhia Jafar is not some distant relative, as some blatant liars are claiming. Let me summarize The National's relevance to this discussion: News source is about Hamid --> Says Hamid is the father of Badr (of the wiki article Badr Jafar) --> Says Hamid is the brother of Jafar Jafar (of the wiki article Jafar Dhia Jafar) --> If Jafar Jafar is Hamid's brother then he is absolutely and indisputably Badr's uncle. There is no inference because there is zero conjecture or doubt involved in this statement that Badr's uncle is Jafar Jafar. I'm not sure what the agenda of OoBJ is in going to such lengths to suppress such clear info or why Johnuniq is his willing advocate but i know that this smacks of nothing other than censorship and i would like to report the actions of all those involved in supporting this egregious removal and abuse of authority. Mawlidman (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These days, Mr Jafar, 63, keeps a low public profile, preferring to leave the day-to-day running of his family's regional business empire to the next generation. His sons Majid, 34, and Badr, 31, are the public faces of Crescent Petroleum. and
 * The general manager of the Dubai-based Uruk Group is Jafar Jafar, a nuclear physicist and Hamid Jafar's younger brother, who headed Iraq's nuclear programme under Saddam Hussein.
 * Well this is fun. We have a source saying one thing, and an OTRS ticket saying another. The National is state-owned, if our article is correct, but that is in itself not yet a reason to doubt this information; on the other hand, I can't see (nor could Mdann, I imagine) what the credibility of the ticket is. Given that source, I am inclined to lean toward inclusion. Of course, if Mawlidman wasn't so eager to press the point in article space, this might have been handled earlier already., what make you of this source now, after Nomodekasticity's comments? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I noted what the sources say on the article talk page.
 * The nbcnews.com source concerns Jafar Jafar and does not mention Badr Jafar or his father.
 * The thenational.ae source does not comment on the relationship between Jafar Jafar and Badr Jafar.
 * The only publication that has commented on that relationship is Wikipedia—that raises WP:DUE concerns.
 * The claimed relationship has been denied by an OTRS ticket.
 * The thenational.ae source can be expected to have checked claims like who is a general manager of what as that is what the article is about. However, there is no reason to believe such a source would carefully check family relationship details, so the OTRS denial is plausible. The text has been edited a lot, yet it still contains the typo "lead"—how much thought has gone into it? Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The National article didn't just state that Jafar Jafar is Hamid's brother, it specifically said that Jafar Jafar is Hamid Jafar's younger brother. Could it be so specific yet wrong? Why should we doubt it has its facts right? Wikipedia doesn't operate upon conjecture, especially when such sources clearly state otherwise. Mawlidman (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We are talking about a business journalist writing in the business section about business. It's not as if it's a genealogy report where family relationships are the point of the article. I'm not saying it's likely the source is incorrect, but under the circumstances that is a reasonable conclusion. Given the OTRS claim, it is not satisfactory that Wikipedia should be the only publication that has commented on the relationship between Badr Jafar and Jafar Jafar—the source did not think that relationship was worth a comment. What is the reader supposed to learn from the article text? That Badr Jafar has an uncle who would be regarded negatively by many in the West? Or that he has a very clever uncle? What does that say about Badr Jafar? Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why your heart is so firmly attached to this when you are not the OTRS submitter. What is the reader supposed to learn from the article text? It learns that Badr has a notable uncle just as it learns that he had a notable grandfather. Why do you differentiate between these two? That Badr Jafar has an uncle who would be regarded negatively by many in the West? Or that he has a very clever uncle? What does that say about Badr Jafar? Whether his uncle reflects posivitely or negatively upon Badr is beyond the point: a reliable source indisputably mentioning a notable close relation has every right to be included and not censored because someone claiming to be close to the subject deems the inclusion would be bad publicity for the subject. That proposition is galling and doesn't belong in wikipedia. Mawlidman (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of us understand the spirit of WP:SYNTH and WP:DUE, and I regard the OTRS claims as plausible. My heart is not involved, and I have not been blocked for edit warring at the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We clearly see this very differently. I strongly believe i have not broken either WP, and i question the motive of the OTRS claim. Mawlidman (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made the change and explained on the Badr Jafar talk page. The issue is factual. Jafar is not Badr's uncle, but a distant relative. Does anybody need an email from Badr Jafar to state that Jafar Jafar is not Badr Jafar's uncle? OoBJ (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What would really put this issue to rest is if The National issued a retraction or correction. Look, I don't have any particular interest in this issue -- I'm just an anonymous editor who keeps track of some of the issues that are brought here.  What matters for me is doing things the way that generally works for Wikipedia: mainly, go with what reliable sources say.  So I'm not on a crusade here about this individual -- but I don't want to end up in a situation where subjects of biographies are able to determine content.  So I'm not going to restore the material again.  But someone else might.  And the best way to prevent this is to deal with the source, get them to acknowledge/correct their error (if error it is).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you . I had contacted Badr Jafar before making this edit asking him to get The National to change the information. I haven't had a response yet - but hopefully The National can publish an erratum. OoBJ (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Hughes (attorney)

 * Andrew Hughes (attorney)

Page seems quite lopsided against this guy.

Not sure what to do about it, so bringing it here for further analysis.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The pipelink to "War profiteering" describing a company that had government contracts in World War II was a particularly nice touch. The article definitely has issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Clean-up and pruning would probably be a good thing, or maybe even WP:AFD ? Sagecandor (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Now at Articles for deletion/Andrew Hughes (attorney) nominated by . Sagecandor (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

R. K. Mudgil
No significance of this person is found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autobotprofile33 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, now at Articles for deletion/R. K. Mudgil. Sagecandor (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Keaton Jennings
This report is not about defamatory or libelous material, but about vandalism on the article where people have have been constantly editing the height of the individual. Was not sure where to report that. If this is the wrong place,sorry. Appreciate if someone can direct me to the right place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaguru (talk • contribs) 07:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I've requested protection at WP:RFPP. Sagecandor (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Reuven Bar-On
Reuven Bar-On is not a notable researcher in this field. In particular, a detailed reading of his papers reveals that his research is complete quackery. Bar-On clearly created this Wikipedia biography about himself for the purposes of self-promotion. Indeed he links to his own website in the External Links section.

The wikpedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuven_Bar-On  should certainly be deleted, since Reuven Bar-On is not a famous or important person.

Therefore please delete "Reuven_Bar-On" in its entirety.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you,, brought to Articles for deletion/Reuven Bar-On for a deletion discussion. Sagecandor (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate drive-by original research tagging
Bringing here due to WP:BLP issues previously documented.

Please see Talk:Pizzagate_(conspiracy_theory). Sagecandor (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also added an edit-request at Talk:Pizzagate_(conspiracy_theory). Sagecandor (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump / Mike Pence
Donald Trump's (and possibly the Mike Pence) article needs to be rewritten by a professional in good faith as someone suggested in Trump-talk. The info box editor(s) do not allow for his "state" of birth (?). If you see how the introduction was written before I started editing there (in good faith), you can see more of what I'm talking about. I (username) was banned (banded) there while referred by an administrator as "they" instead of YS or "he or she". YahwehSaves (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're topic banned from "all things Donald Trump" - posting this here was not a good idea.  Fyddlestix (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Fyddlestix. (The ping didn't work, and I see why in the history, compare WP:ECHO: "if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent.") Warned, since it's the first infraction. I'm surprised the user would go on about the "they" thing again, and on a new board, after I explained nicely, or so I thought, to them that singular they is standard usage on Wikipedia when a user's gender is not known. But it is what it is. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC).

Ana Braga
I have noticed that violators have been posting inappropriate and false information about Ana Braga. For now, her page is accurate and age as 35 years old which is correct. Can you please keep an eye on her page please? I also noticed they have removed her references as well. This has been occurring frequently. You can check the old edits. Thanks so m much for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busyme11 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

José Ramos Muñoz
Bibliography has been vandalised several times — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josemariacarrascal (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Michael Ridpath
Michael Ridpath I am Michael Ridpath and I feel that the last paragraph of the entry referring to me is unfair and inaccurate. The paragraph states: "His works have been subject to some scrutiny, however, notably some Amazon reviewers have noted that his novels are "very short stor[ies]...the book equivalent of about 30 pages".[2] On the other hand, his lengthier novels have been criticised as needing to be "whittled down" by a paid editor.[3]"

These are gleaned from two of the hundreds of reviews I have received on amazon. The average star rating of my reviews is above 4.0, which is quite high. The two reviews quoted, while negative, also happen to be factually incorrect (i.e. the reviewers were incorrect). The first review relates to Edge of Nowhere which is a novella with the book equivalent of 60 pages (not 30). The second review refers to On The Edge, which was edited by Beverly Cousins, crime editor at my publisher Penguin Books, who was therefore paid. The point is, clearly this paragraph has been inserted by someone with an axe to grind who wishes to make my books appear bad. Removal of the paragraph would make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.92.180 (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Amazon reviews are not a reliable source, so I have removed it. The article is not in great shape though, lots of unsourced information - it needs more/better references. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There does not seem to be much unsourced material now. I apologise to Michael Ridpath that these violations of our Biographies of living people policy were not dealt with sooner. MPS1992 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Shaffer (intelligence officer)
Several citations needed, could use some eyes. Sagecandor (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Anthony Shaffer (intelligence officer)

Ahmed Mohamed Mohamoud
In the very first opening section, the following is written:

"Standing as an opposition candidate, he was elected as President of Narnia—a self-declared republic that is not recognized by a single human Delusional region of Somalia—in Somaliland's 2010 presidential election.[2]"

Obviously this article has been tampered with by a malicious user. He was elected President of Somaliland - an autonomous nation that has struggled to receive international recognition and is apparently the target of quite a bit of hatred from some Somali nationals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.142.225.96 (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The most obvious vandalism seems to have been fixed, but the page could probably use more eyes. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Kelly D. Brownell
This article may have been maliciously edited. See these quotes: "and internationally renowned expert at eating." and " He also serves as product tester at McDonald's." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.218 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Back to real state. Collect (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Fergie Olver
This article is protected because of BLP concerns. There was a discussion on the talk page, however an editor added defamatory information (diff) to the article (now removed) and considering the nature of the wording, a revision deletion is probably warranted.  freshacconci  talk to me  18:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See also here where he accuses the person who reverted his edits of being a "pedophile supporter"). I have ceased engaging with him.  freshacconci  talk to me  18:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And he's still at it. I've now warned him twice.  freshacconci  talk to me  18:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And now he's resorted to personal attacks in his edit summary. I've given him a final warning. The article in question will still require a revision deletion.  freshacconci  talk to me  18:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Simon Halabi
This article is being maliciously edited after the arrest of Simon Halabi in a racist incident. RedPlanet321 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * An alleged racist incident is what you mean, of course. I wonder if the material needs to remain in the article at all, until such time as any court proceedings conclude. MPS1992 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

erin fleming movies
This article is about my sister and there are several factual errors. I am her younger brother and she had two older brothers. She had parents--not two men (in fact I don't know who they are) Doctor David Russell Fleming, and Evangeline Fleming. I don't know where they got a fictitious middle name--Erin Leslie. She chose Erin as a stage name but her real names were Marilyn Suzanne.

Another curiosity is that I am on a laptop and get a picture and a short blurb before I click on Wikipedia, and ny wife gets another picture. Hers is the correct one and mine is not.

Everything else appears to be correct.

Richard Fleming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:84E0:631:614F:81D5:263A:1846 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The first source (for the lede) is a US gov source, which only says Erin M. The second source is IMDB, which is not a reliable source. The problem is two-fold: 1.)We have no way of confirming who people such as yourself are, thus we have no way of knowing if the information is correct, and 2.) assuming that you are her brother, there is also a conflict of interest. (See WP:COI) What I would suggest is that, if you have access to reliable sources such as a biography or news/magazine articles, gather them up and present them on the article's talk page. Ask someone for assistance in making the necessary changes, but refrain from making them yourself, due to the conflict of interest. Zaereth (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zaereth's advice about how to address the Wikipedia article. The "picture and a short blurb before I click on Wikipedia" are probably from Google or some similar service, so the incorrect information or photo there will be Google's fault. There is some explanation of this, and advice about fixing Google information, at WP:FIXGOOGLE. MPS1992 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Albuquerque police shootings
I have a concern about this article, which I wrote, or perhaps the word is compiled. Nobody else is taking issue with it afaik, although I have not looked at it in a couple of weeks.

But I would like some guidance about the names of police shooting victims in a BLP context. A few are iconic, such as Shooting of James Boyd and Mary Hawkes, who should have an article imho, and received massive coverage in both local and national news sources. But there is the one-event rule; how does this apply? My thinking is that when people riot because of something about your death, you are a public person, and if there is streaming coverage of litigation about your death then perhaps your death is important.

But there are other shooting victims, for lack of a better word, who were perhaps so dangerous that the police had no choice, such as the man who had his wife in the trunk of his car when he was shot or the man who was walking around with a machete while intoxicated, angry at the person who sent him to jail. Some of these shooting victims survived and may conceivably not wish to be known for being so wigged-out the police had to shoot them, and also got little news coverage at the time. (Until recently police shootings were treated as rather routine in Albuquerque). There is also the consideration that some of those shot, while supposedly very dangerous, did not have an opportunity to tell their side and the Albuquerque police don't seem, given recent revelations, to be all that reliable as a source.

Perhaps some of these names should be blanked, but the references left, since *they* still exist, even if we don't want to add move coverage to them? I am thinking of coming back to this group of articles sometime soon and would be interested in any thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * While I haven't really had time to look at the list, I'd generally ask myself if those on the list have somehow risen from the level of simply being newsworthy to that of being encyclopedia worthy. In other words, if the details and all of the news-fillers were removed, would there still be enough information to make a decent article about each? My guess is that in some cases, yes, but a good number of them, no. My personal opinion of a victim of any sort is to use the utmost of care when it comes to their privacy, and to me this even includes their names. Unless the person I notable in their own right, or cases like Rodney King where the victim is central to the controversy, then there is usually very little gained by giving their names, birthdates or other personal information. That's just my two cents, but perhaps others will have a better take. Zaereth (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That is sort of the concern, although I am not sure why you say Rodney King was central to the controversy. The reason for the list is for those who are unfamiliar with Albuquerque and don't realize that beyond the national news stories mentioned above the police are shooting dozens of people there. The current format is shooter name, shootee name, any brief comments (ie caught carjacking) then outcome for shootee and outcome for shooter, which is also highly material imho -- many were promoted. None were charged. (Except in the James Boyd shooting that was just in court). I think the level of police violence actually merits its own article, but meanwhile a compilation of the references for the more notorious cases may be useful. It *is* highly referenced, btw, I should mention that. Anyway. And yet there are the people are #sayhername who feel that we should remember these people. Perhaps I should ask the question separately for 2 categories a) the national stories, ie Mary Hawkes and James Boyd, and the ones who got 1-2 days of brief coverage and another dollop when the civil case went to court (there is almost always a civil case). Or into dead victims and survivors?


 * This screams to me an issue of pushing a POV about the apparently brutality of the Albuquerque police. Most of the information is sourced to the local police logs, meaning it is based on primary sources. While I don't doubt the validity, pulling the information in this manner is not something that seems to have been done in secondary sources to assert problems with the Albuquerque police, and because that's an identifiable group, it falls pretty much as a BLP problem (particularly as we are naming names). There probably is, with the well-covered shootings, some area to discuss criticism of the use of lethal force and how the notable shootings came into the national limelight on the APD main page. --M ASEM (t) 03:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * are you looking at the list or at the James Boyd article? I am under the impression that the list is referenced by local news sources mostly. There may be links to court filings as well in the outcome section, but the events should be primarily referenced by KOAT and the Albuquerque Journal. The James Boyd article, now, does have a primary source problem, ie a new editor more used to the courtroom, plus the local news station's decision to stream the trial -- but that is a separate issue I am also trying to resolve. Right now on this noticeboard though, the issue I I am raising is what is due to the people who were shot.


 * If you are suggesting that I only cover *notable* shootings how would you suggest that I decide which ones are *notable*? They all had media coverage, and they almost all resulted in lawsuits. But what is notable is the *number* of shootings as opposed to parsing the details of whether officer thus and such should have shot the man with the machete. I understand what you are saying about the APD page, but significant preliminary work will need to be be done, as I don't think it even covers the DoJ intervention or the consent decree. This too should be remedied, sure, but one thing at a time. I actually think a list many be fairer to the police department, if that is your concern, since it does indicate that at least some of these shootings seem to be justified. Not giving you a hard time, just trying to get you to see what I am asking. Last I looked there *was* a lot of POV pushing on the APD page, also. I am not sure if the edit warriors are still watching the page, but the city government has a history of editing wikipedia. But never mind that. Right now I am asking what, assuming there *is* this list -- or the article it may turn into -- is the best way to handle the specifics of someone who is dead or mentally incapacitated and therefore is never going to be trying to be famous for something else. And yet, as one of a series of shootings, their death is notable. (?) Elinruby (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC) PS: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/10/cops-fatal-shootings/15277951/?AID=10709313&PID=4003003&SID=rut774o3ji6k a pretty good explainer here] of the scope of the issue. Elinruby (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the list. Has anyone else (reliable source) published a similar list (perhaps only different in missing a handful of entries?) If yes, okay, that might be reason to keep but there are issues related to BLP1E/BIO1E and privacy of victims as well. But if no one else has published this extensive a list, it's creating a skewing of POV that the APD uses lethal force too often, as there's no context as to whether some of these were justified or if some were just excessive. And to know that requires non-primary coverage, and likely better than local coverage where the issue of each shooting is considered in a larger world view (contrast opinions on guns between the various states). I would really avoid this list until there is a prose section (on the APD article or a standalone) that covers the criticism towards the APD and these types of fatal shootings, as that will then highlight the shootings that have the most relavance to that topic. --M ASEM  (t) 14:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be helpful (and important) to have an introduction to the topic indicating its significance. The link Elinruby has given seems to be an excellent basis for this. Even the police department seem to think there is a problem. Thincat (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a quick GNews search shows that an article or section of APD critical of their more recent approaches is entirely possible. I just note that also by the same spot check that none of those seem to enumerate every single case, only the ones where the use of force was very questionable and/or already determined unnecessary, thus highlighting only key cases. If a police shooting only has attracted coverage from local coverage, that's likely reason not to include here, and alongside BIO1E/BLP1E, reasons to avoid this list in full. --M ASEM (t) 15:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think WP:BLP1E is a distraction because it discusses when we should or should not have an article about a person. I do think these list entries need to be carefully thought about (I'm not sure what I think) but perhaps WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE are the relevant references. Thincat (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely right, BLPNAME would be what I am concerned with. Names of victims and/or officers of cases not discussed at large are problematic. --M ASEM (t) 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux
Stefan Molyneux

Unreferenced sections and issues with statements tagged as backed up to only primary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Scooter Braun
The article for this Hollywood talent agent included a paragraph about an incident at Roosevelt Field Mall where a crowd awaiting an appearance by his client, Justin Bieber, got unruly. It led to the agent being arrested and, eventually, to a plea-bargain that included having Bieber record a public service announcement. I'd helped draft the paragraph a few years ago and it stood in the article since then. Another editor has deleted it, on BLP and UNDUE grounds. I disagree. We've got a thread going on the talk page here. But we're the only ones who've opined there. Please consider reviewing the recent edit history and then joining the discussion. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If the sources do not support the information, as alleged, then it most certainly would be a violation. I don't have time to go through the sources right now, but I would suggest clearing that issue first. The next thing I see is that it most likely is undue simply because of where it is placed. It has nothing to do with his personal life, so it just sticks out like a sore thumb there. Rather, it should be in the section about his career. Otherwise, what you've got is a content dispute that should be resolved on the talk page. Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Scotty Bowers (again)
I don't know whether to nominate it for deletion or boldly merge the page into Full Service (book). Now that the person who created the article is blocked, the time is now to discuss this article about the gossip-y prostitute. --George Ho (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Allen West (politician)
I want to get an outside opinion to avoid edit warring. I have reverted this diff twice now. It seems biased, and is poorly sourced. There's already two sentences about the incident in another part of the article. Following the incident, there have been multiple users coming to the page to either vandalize or add this diff. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 21:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure how protection helps. The incident is well-documented and the version in the article is imho watered down to the point where I can understand why it's being contested.  This should be handled in the obvious way, on the talk page, which nobody seems to have posted to (except for a little bit of reverted vandlism) since an archive bot blanked it in February 2016. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Refers to multiple living people in the article with dependence on poor sources Consortiumnews.com and CounterPunch with has been described as "extreme", "radical", "muckracking", etc.

Both those sources should be removed from this article, especially referring to WP:BLPs. Sagecandor (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed those sources from the article but could use some extra eyes on the article. Sagecandor (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * and . These edits by violate WP:BLP and WP:RELIABLE as insertion of information about multiple living people to sources that fail reliable sources. User added material back, again. Sagecandor (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding User:Sagecandor's claim that

Consortiumnews.com and CounterPunch with has been described as "extreme", "radical", "muckracking", etc.


 * I note no cite for those quotes, which I suspect is because those claims are being made by known rightwing and neoconservative mouthpieces like AEI, Heritage, etc. Tlroche (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those quotes are cited in the article CounterPunch to multiple sources including The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Sagecandor (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's look at those quotes:


 * Boot, Max (March 11, 2004). "The Fringe Fires at Bush on Iraq". LATimes: Max Boot! 'nuff said.
 * The Assange allegations: from Richard Seymour
 * NYT on SoundExchange: "The list has received a lot of publicity online, and the Olsens, the Mormon choir and many others have been paid, but not without criticism directed at SoundExchange. Writing for the Web site of the political newsletter Counterpunch, at counterpunch.org, Fred Wilhelms, a lawyer who helps musicians with royalty payments, accused SoundExchange of moving slowly on purpose. 'What happens to the money they can't pay because they can't find the person to pay?' he asked. 'They get to keep it themselves. Nothing succeeds like failure.'"
 * NYT on electricity deregulation: "Nationally, electricity deregulation involves huge amounts of money. In CounterPunch, a muckraking newsletter published in Washington, D.C., the editors Ken Silverstein and Alexander Cockburn write that the amount is on a par with the savings and loan debacle of the 1980's. They call it a convulsion of huge importance and say that it will cost the public upwards of $500 billion. That is the amount, they say, that utilities have tied up in debt on their nuclear power plants and that they would like to pass along to ratepayers and taxpayers."
 * ISTM you need to work harder on your smear. Tlroche (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

User keeps reverting in info violating WP:BLP to sources that fail WP:RELIABLE at and. I will not revert again, so unfortunately for the time being the info violating BLP is still in the article. Sagecandor (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * was blocked. Sagecandor (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Zakir Naik
I request to Wikipedia that the article of Zakir Naik is incorrectly created. This article violates and provoke violation among religions. Actually he is not preacher as mentioned in his article. He is a Terrorist. You can verify it with this link            http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Zakir-Naik-being-framed-in-terror-charges-SP-MLA/articleshow/55885672.cms. Creator of this article just meant this for Advertisement Purpose. Some contents in this article like his speech against other religions may also harm Wikipedia which is prohibited under Wikipedia policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.247.156.33 (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Beutler
I would like to call attention to the continued WP:BLP policy violation by Karansingh47. The information that Karansingh47 has added twice now, regarding “Bruce Beutler Lab”, is not factual. There is no group of research facilities, named after Bruce Beutler. This also constitutes promotional material inappropriate for a BLP. Karansingh47 had already created a related standalone page "Bruce beutler lab" that was marked for Speedy deletion and has since been since deleted.Drpratt01 (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The content is sourced. If you disagree, raise on the talk page per WP:BRD - do not WP:EDITWAR. GiantSnowman 21:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The promotional content does not have sources. The claim that "Some of these labs have key roles in the latest research in the field of Mutagenesis" is not sourced. None of sources say that. That they work using mutagenesis techniques does not mean that they have key roles in this field, and I would expect articles from scientific literature to support such claim, not puff pieces from Chinese press. Hzh (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also note that the editor had been warned before a number of times before about adding promotional material. Third level warning here -  Hzh (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The sources mentioned and that you are referring to, are not relevant and this still constitutes promotional material inappropriate for a BLP. Drpratt01 (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Jon Kempin
User has repeatedly edited the BLP wikipedia page Jon Kempin since August 2016. I have raised concerns on two separate occasions in December once it was brought to my attention (here and here). His edits, some of which have already undergone revision deletion, consistently have a number of issues (plagiarism, unsourced info). As can be seen here and here, the user is copy/pasting from Sporting Kansas City's biography of Kempin. While I cannot confirm it, based on the user name it may also appear to be a conflict of interest as the subject, Jon Kempin (a goalkeeper who is currently without a contract), has a father named Vance as can be seen here, which makes the user name quite interesting.

Based on these repeated warnings and violations, I would like to see:
 * the user in question blocked from making any further edits to the page Jon Kempin and
 * the page Jon Kempin to be placed under a temporary block in the event that the user attempts to edit without signing in after this action has taken place.

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. GauchoDude (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Mariana Isabel Machado Silva
Hello. There are some problems with the biography quoted in this subject/headline, which is about a woman football midfielder who played for Equatorial Guinea women's national football team. There are contradictions on the sources. On the one hand, Confederation of African Football published on the occasion of the 2012 African Women's Championship the Equatorial Guinea squad for that tournament and indicated that her full name is Mariana Isabel Machado Silva, who was born on 24 February 1994, played at the time for Equatoguinean club E Waiso Ipola and her position is midfielder. On the other hand, there is a Brazilian football midfielder, called Mariana da Silva Machado, who claims she was African champion in 2012 with Equatorial Guinea. However, Mariana da Silva Machado doesn't appear in the 2012 CAF squad list, and instead it appears Mariana Isabel Machado Silva. Moreover, that 2015 source from Brazil regional press also indicated that Mariana da Silva Machado was 26 (27 today), thus meaning that she was born in 1989, a different age of birth than Mariana Isabel Machado Silva's. In fact, Federação Paulista de Futebol confirms that Mariana da Silva Machado was born on 30 July 1989, in Rio de Janeiro, her nationality is Brazilian and she is currently under contract with Rio Preto Esporte Clube. Here is the problem. It seems that African football talk about a player, and Brazil about other one, different to the first. But when the data on both sides is contrasted, it seems that it is the same person, with information adulterated on one of the two sides. I want a solution. However, I do not want to edit the article because user Fram considers that I am violating the BLP, and told me that if I continue to add BLP violations to Wikipedia, I will be blocked, and I do not want to be blocked. So I want that someone else analyze the situation of this football player. Thank you.--MonFrontieres (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

See User talk:Fram. Fram (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: A new source from African side as of November 12, 2012 indicating Mariana da Silva Machado from Brazil, number 7, was part of the Equatorial Guinea's squad that won the African Women's Championship that year. (number 7 is the same as Mariana Isabel Machado Silva's according CAF list of players)--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)