Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive250

Javed Malik and Haider Qureshi
These two bio pages contain questionable and non-reliable references which question the neutrality of the pages. I tried several times to tag the articles but User:Justice007 keep reverting my tags and accusing me for being personally against the subjects of articles. Rather than going into edit warring I prefer to leave that matter to other editors. Please look into this. --Saqib (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I asked you to discuss on the talk page that issues, you think the sources are not reliable, which ones are that. You are also tagging the articles with the template of COI. It is serious blame to those editors, who are very neutral. I have edited and improved the article Jave Malik several times; it means you are blaming me. It is not the way to edit the Wikipedia, and you are an admin too. It looks strange. You also disclose my real identity, knowing that, it is dangerous for the editor. It raises doubtful concerns. About this, the admin professor and few others knew. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Justice007: I'm not blaming you or anyone. Kindly provide the link here where I have blamed you? It is you who was personally attacking me on my talk page and accusing me that "I'm here for some purposes". I was merely tagging the article because I think the some cited references are not reliable but It was you who kept on removing the tags rather than removing the questionable references and fix the page. And I don't think there is a case of outing or disclosing personal information here. You had yourself in the past voluntarily provided this information that you're connected to the subject of Ehsan Sehgal. See this this and this. I just cautioned you to please avoid editing this particular page because it seriously raise COI. Ehsan Sehgal seriously contains a lot of unreliable references and too much promotional material. You will soon find me fixing this entire page. If you want to contribute neutrally to Wikipedia, just avoid editing Ehsan Sehgal page. See your top edits and meanwhile see my top edits and don't forget to review the quality of pages that I edited recently. --Saqib (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Why you are focussing that article, while I am not editing that, and that is also not the issue. Please stop that and focus that you are illegitimately tagging the tags, where simply need the templates. I do not think such edits exhibits constructive edits. Your such edits were also shown to the mainstream media as disruptive; it is disgusting and you are aware of that. Please demonstrate as a responsible admin. I do not accept to harm the project in any direction. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I never wanted to spent my time focussing on pages like Javed Malik, Haider Qureshi and Ehsan Sehgal but since you advised me to avoid these pages, I became more interested. And since No one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, including you has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page so please don't suggest me to avoid editing these articles. You're more than to welcome to criticise my work and If you think I'm moving in wrong direction, you can ways report it. --Saqib (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I really protest that you have disclosed my identy here too. In this regard previously I have privately informed the admin LadyofShalott. I take it very seriously. You have no any right to do such thing on the Wikipedia. Justice007 (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I repeat "You had yourself in the past voluntarily provided this information that you're connected to the subject of Ehsan Sehgal. See this this and this. I just cautioned you to please avoid editing this particular page because it seriously raise COI. " Also see this. --Saqib (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please stop, you cannot dig the old things; and why you did that? To stop me from editing because that you may know? It is information to entire Pakistani and Indian media that, who I am. Please, anyone who can take that matter seriously??? Justice007 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you getting so upset. I apologize if something really offended you. Please do not take it too seriously. --Saqib (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not only the matter of apologising. You have done a very serious thing, holding the responsibilities of an admin. I take it seriously. You have plainly offended, instead of discussing the related dispute. Justice007 (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why you accusing me of harassing you? Please read your comments on my talk page. It was you who harassed me. You without any clear evidence accused me of targeting some specific pages and that I'm here for "some purpose" . I too think that your harassment should be taken seriously as well and I call assistance for administrators here as soon as possible. I've also filed a dispute resolution at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard.--Saqib (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not accusing you. You have committed serious attempt revealing my privacy that was an old issue, accrued by my immediate family, with mistakes in unfamiliarity of Wiki-rules. You especially dig there; otherwise, editors have no any clue of such things. Justice007 (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You cannot call it a dig. --Saqib (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I just want to let know the project that edits of Saqib were blamed as vandel and disruptive on the mainstream tv programme in Pakistan. He was accused of working on the agenda. Let's watch the video TV channel Bol, 4 January 2017., here Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes my edits were discussed on a TV show because I had removed the promotional material from the article Shahid Masood and the subject of article criticised me and my work but thats have nothing to do with this case. But could you please stop calling me a vandal stop accusing me for being "working on the agenda" ? You're getting too personal. --Saqib (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read carefully, I just translated sense of the Urdu version of the talk in the programme. I am not telling that. Justice007 (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Malik article (now) appears to be reasonably soured and neutral. The Qureshi article however contains biographical information sourced to what appears to be an uploaded google-docs document. While some of the other sources in that are probably okay, looking at both there is a clear difference in quality. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * :Only in death does duty end: Could you please take a look at Talk:Javed_Malik. In my opinion, the few sources in the article are not reliable while some text is not being supported by any sourced cited on the page. --Saqib (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note-Since the discussion has commenced here, both the articles(along with that of Ehsan Sehgal)have been heavily edited by me and on one of them by another admin Drmies.  Light ❯❯❯ Saber 06:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

William "Wild Bill" Wykpisz
This page is a joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.90.211.9 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow what a mess. I've cleaned it up (removed joke content and depuffed).  Will leave it to others to assess if he's notable or if it should go to AFD (I didn't remove any sources, so WYSIWYG). Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Im assuming you just removed the unsourced stuff, I took a look at what was sourced and *none* of the sources supported the content. Either not mentioning the subject or not supporting his role. From doing an internet search, everything appears to be mirrors of the wikipedia article as it previously appeared. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I only removed the worst of it. My assumption was that the whole article would get deleted pretty quick.  He does exist, just isn't notable. Since you've blanked what was left I just prodded it (is there a valid speedy criteria for this situation?) Fyddlestix (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've speedied it per WP:A7. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC).

Campus Reform
This mentions a student with no article who evidently shouted at someone and an associate professor, again with no article, although this story did gain more traction. However the Guth comment if kept should have more context. Doug Weller  talk 15:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section about the student per BLP because it's clearly sourced to a non-neutral source. I'm actually unconvinced if the website itself is notable, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we really even need the list of "notable stories?" It seems like it's there to ward off any suggestion that the pub isn't notable, but we could just as easily reduce it to "some of the publication's stories have been picked up by other news media," and a couple citations. The stories in question aren't watergate or anything, I really question the need to include/summarize them in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Strange sources for potentially libelous material on Otabek Mahkamov
seems to have some serious claims added last April. As the sources are in Uzbek and not English, I am not sure of their validity. Needs to be checked by someone with skills in Uzbek. Two sources are 404, one source is a scanned letter on Google drive. The accessdate is not the date the ref was added. This diff appears to be where much of the information has been added. Several attempts have been made to remove with no comment. It appears to have been replaced. I undid a few removals via Huggle and got this message w/ contact info on my talk page which was later deleted by the same IP: diff No idea how to proceed here. So, I added this ticket. Jim1138 (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * cite letter |first=Adri |last=Bruckner |recipient=Nodir Ataev |subject=RE: False claims about academic qualifications? |language=English |date=29 April 2014 |url=https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByOxv4-eIic5NkljT2Z1eFlnSVU/view?usp=sharing |accessdate=12 April 2015
 * Are those claims actually a relevant thing to have an article about an actor anyway? It seems more like gossip, and it's odd to see such a large part of the article given over to that controversy. Given the problems with the sources, it may be simple just to excise that section or reduce it to a sentence of two if reliable and comprehensible sources can be found? Shritwod (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed the criticism section as many of the sources were 404. The google drive link is not RS as ownership is unknown and it could easily have been doctored. Jim1138 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Rachael maza long
To whom this may concern,

The article headlined Rachael Maza Long Is incorrectly labeled. I am writing on behalf of my mother who this article is written about. She has been divorced for some years now and her name is now "Rachael Zoa Maza" or just "Rachael Maza". Her last name is no longer "Long". If this could be changed that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Ariel Maza Long — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariel Maza Long (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, I've moved the page to Rachael Maza per this request and confirmation from an external source (http://www.rgm.com.au/portfolios/rachael-maza) -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 11:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Simon Howard
I am the subject of this article. I am not very familiar with editing Wikipedia, and while I have read the policies on editing, editing articles where you are the subject, and biographies of living persons, I am not quite sure where I stand on some of my concerns about this article about me. My concerns are broadly in three parts.

Firstly: I am not a particularly well-known public health figure, and not sure that I am sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia page. Similarly, some of the work cited in the page is not at all noteworthy (e.g. presentation given to a small group at Cumberland Lodge, or poster on invasive group A strep presented at a conference).

Secondly: The tone of the page does not appear balanced, but appears to be constructed to portray me in a negative light. For example, copy in the page editorialises beyond quotes (e.g. "Howard has also criticised investment in cycling facilities as an anti-obesity intervention" and "Howard has claimed that there is an association between suicide and the use of social media", neither of which is supported by the quotations and sources cited). Authorship of some sources is attributed disproportionately to me, even when I was not the lead author of the work in question (e.g. "Simon Howard et al, Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer"). To be in a list of acknowledgements in the book The Drugs Don't Work hardly merits a description as a 'contributor' to the work, which implies authorship.

Thirdly: There are many factual errors in this page. I am not an academic. My editorship of the CMO report was certainly not "only the second time someone other than the Chief Medical Officer of the day has edited the statutory Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer". I am not cited as a contributor to all of Dame Professor Sally Davies's other annual reports. My blog (which is still active!) is referred to in the past tense - and I am not aware of anyone 'citing' the discussion on the blog's comments section about aborted foetuses (and no source is provided for this claim). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjhoward (talk • contribs) 19:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see why there are concerns. There are quite a lot of non-neutral descriptions within this article in its current form. There seems to be multiple instances of individual papers being interpreted and extrapolated. Some of the claims don't look as if they are adequately supported by sources, such as the example of the strange claim based around the CMO report authorship (and what is normal procedure). Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did a bunch of cleanup and some major trimming. The primary problem was that he's worked closely with Sally Davies in the past, and someone who takes issues with her official/public positions seems to have decided to make him look bad any way they can. Most of the criticisms were blown way out of proportion and a lot of the sources linked were about Davies rather than Simon Howard. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I should add: after cleaning it up, I'm left with doubts as to whether or not he's notable and have tagged it. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - Thank you so much! 17:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , I have to say I find your approach to this issue very impressive and commendable. I hope you´ll stay around and edit things that interest you, you could certainly be of help! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - Thank you - I certainly will stick around and edit where possible, I really feel I owe you guys one! 17:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

C. Cyvette M. Gibson
is trying to maintain a promotional version of C. Cyvette M. Gibson. The subject is a living, currently-active politician in Liberia. I and provided warning about the BLP discretionary sanctions on their user talk. Regardless, Jani Kadiyatu Jallah Kollie has reverted me twice today and. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have started a 2nd AfD for that article with a better rationale than the 1st one from September 2015. Feel free to comment there. GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 18:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Linda and Terry Jamison
There is a question on the talk page of this article regarding the sources used in the Partial list of television appearances section, and some discussion on the matter on the article talk page. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Swadhyay Parivar
Recently subject to a large amount of vandalism, I have stubbed this page because of the unsourced claims of violence and murder against members of this sect. There are indeed some sources, but the existing article effectively blamed one person for the murder of one person and violence against others. There may well be reliable sources for the claims that this was the case; if anyone is more familiar with the case I would urge them to add them in. Otherwise the article as it stands cannot claim as such. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

David Malpass
An economist called David Malpass is apparently unfortunate enough to have one WP:SPA adding WP:SYNTH negative implications about him in the Wikipedia article about him, and another SPA removing them again. More eyes would be useful, especially because the negative one recently reached autoconfirmed if I understand the rules correctly. Many thanks. (One of the SPAs posted here on this noticeboard before, but there was no response.) MPS1992 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just alerted both of the users to the post-1932 US politics discretionary sanctions on their user talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * And now Swizer has gone ahead and restored the information that was reverted by AureliusVerus ‎ in violation of the WP:ARBAP2 remedies. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Berry (baseball agent), ‎ Brodie Van Wagenen, ‎ Joe Urbon


A triple play. All three are puff pieces, apparently written by the public relations department at CAA Sports. Thoughts and assistance cleaning these up are welcome. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not really a BLP issue as there is no real controversial material on any of them. A bit of puffery yes, but thats not a BLP problem. What you are looking for is WP:COIN due to the user who created the article sharing a very similar name with a baseball media liason for the CAA group. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I confess that these reports tend to wither and die at COIN, which deters me from going there. But I can remove this and copy it to that noticeboard. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Depuffed. Collect (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett
I have a question at RSN that crosses multiple policy issues. The question is at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and it is about whether a dead YouTube URL is a reliable source for a previously published video of a kid now being unavailable. (It's possible that this source is unreliable but that the content will remain because the others might be, but I specifically want to know whether this one source is reliable for this claim about a BLP.) Please consider looking at this request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe a dead link whose contents cannot be determined in any way remotely qualifies as being a reliable source. If the material is not available elsewhere, maybe on archive.org, then I would have to say that the material should be removed. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing, no one claimed that the dead link verified anything in itself, and you damn well know it. It has been explained to you by two different editors. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I invite any person interested in this to contrast today's statement against your words at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, where you inquire whether a dead YouTube video link can verify the contents indefinitely, on the grounds that Wikipedia editors viewed the contents back when it was working.
 * In other words, if this dead YouTube link is not, and never was, meant to verify anything at all, then you need to explain why you went to WT:V last month and tried to convince everyone that a dead link could verify something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's already been pointed out that this is just a red herring, at WP:RSN. In the four weeks since that discussion took place, additional sources were added to the statement in question.  But nowhere in your comments is there any indication of that.  Your failure to mention the existence of secondary sources, and continued insistence on their non-existence despite several editors pointing this out, has become disruptive.  Finally, I see no point in continuing this inquest, since not only has every involved editor (myself included) agreed with your position at RSN, but the current article no longer mentions any dead videos.  Can someone please close this disruption per WP:STICK?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Vonda Phelps
Hello. I posted a concern on the talk page of Vonda Phelps after claimed to have contacted a relative of the individual to supply birth and death information and bolstered it with primary sources. While I assume good faith and don’t doubt that this is true, I’m concerned that it runs afoul of WP:V for reasons listed on the talk page. Since the user who added the material originally disagrees, I thought I would bring it up here to get a third opinion (I consider it a BLP issue because, as noted on the talk page, there’s no ‘’verifiable’’ evidence that she is deceased, even though it was likely, thus why she was in the possibly living people category previously). If consensus is that the new information is fine to include, then I’m happy to withdraw my challenge. Canadian  Paul  19:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing that Avonda's daughter said is in the article, she only changed my typo in her grandfather's name when she edited the article. I am saving all the biographical information they provided for another venue. Every sentence in the article has a reliable reference. The note in the article details all the primary sources confirming her death that match the details in interviews she had given to her hometown paper when she was alive. Not every notable person gets an obituary online. The death was discovered when another editor made the connection that her birth name was Avonda, not Vonda, and that was confirmed in interviews she gave newspapers under her birth name. Every detail matches in the census, where she listed herself as an actress; her place of birth remains consistent across all documents, the name of her parents remains consistent across all documents, her birthday remains consistent across all documents. We even have her Social Security application. Their is no ban on using primary documents for dead people, just a warning to not confuse two people. We are not to use primary documents to dox living people who may not want their birthdays or addresses revealed. Even with an obituary it is possible to confuse two people with the same birth year, living in the same state, that have the same occupation, but we use Occam's razor to distinguish the possible from the plausible. If some contrary information comes along, we edit the article, just like we do every day. That is why we have an edit button.  --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * She's dead. Various people have posted sources. We've heard from her daughter. You're being pedantic. Czolgolz (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Unless a reliable source (no census record synthesis does not qualify for this sort of information) clarifies she is dead, 'I spoke to a family member and they confirmed it' fails WP:V. The family member should be directed to contact OTRS with the info that needs to be updated. At which point it can be used. (Granted it is highly likely that she is dead, however the current sourcing is inadaquate for this) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a census record, it is a death certificate under the name "Avonda" instead of "Vonda" matching all known info on her, and she gave interviews under the name "Avonda" to her hometown paper and a California newspaper. Primary records are not banned, we are just told to be careful with them, and careful we were. The current sourcing is quite "adaquate" [sic]. By my count the SSDI or a death certificate is used in over 1,000 articles as the sole source for a birth date or a death date, or the name of parents. Her daughter reading the article and correcting a spelling is just icing on the cake. None of the additional information she provided or images provided by other family members are included here, I am saving that for another venue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Pho
The article was recently deleted via G11 by editor. I believe this was not a correct invoking of the G11 policy. I'd argue that the article was written in a mostly neutral point of view, which you can examine from this archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20151128223554/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Pho

It's also a problematic deletion because the subject passes GNG quite easily. Although, the sources in the article were pretty sparse, there are many available:


 * https://qz.com/68833/whats-keeping-your-doctor-off-twitter/
 * http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/08/tech/social-media/netiquette-online-diagnoses/
 * http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/doctors-hospitals-rethink-electronic-medical-records-mandated-by-2009-law/article/2554622
 * http://stateofreform.com/news/industry/healthcare-providers/2016/10/qa-physician-social-media-leader-kevin-pho/
 * http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/cleveland-clinic-doctor-fuels-vaccine-debate-again-n704821
 * http://www.medpagetoday.com/practicemanagement/practicemanagement/44435
 * http://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2014/12/19/are-online-physician-ratings-any-good
 * http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics/news/why-social-media-story-sharing-vital-physicians-today
 * https://www.statnews.com/2015/12/30/18-twitter-feeds-health-medicine/
 * http://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2014/03/04/technology-is-interfering-with-your-doctors-visit-and-its-driving-physicians-crazy/#83ebb8e73596
 * http://www.techtimes.com/articles/167755/20160630/more-women-shave-their-pubic-hair-for-hygiene-but-practice-poses-health-risks-doctors.htm

And many more...

Medicalreporter (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * rather than argue about it, I will restore it and check, and then most probably send it to afd for a community decision., please add the sources you have if you really think them substantial.  DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! Medicalreporter (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Update: I encourage others to take a look at the improved version of the article with better sources and to vote at the AfD: Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Pho — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicalreporter (talk • contribs) 12:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Master DeRose
Non-urgent: I don't think there's an edit war going on that I can see, so maybe here is not the right place to note it - just a jumble of dubiously sourced promotion for a Brazilian yogi. Would benefit experienced BLP editors to trim and de-peacock. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This article looks highly problematic. Delta13C (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Much of what is written about him is in Portuguese, making it difficult to make much progress. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Requesting help with Gary Vaynerchuk
This article has had problems with highly promotional, WP:SPA editing since it's creation that hasn't let up. has responded to my concerns, and I think this is a good time to get others involved. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted the page and will keep an eye out for SPA promotional activity. Meatsgains (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Rafael Cardoso
About content of the movie From Beginning to End and biographies of Brazilian protagonists Rafael Cardoso and Joao Gabriel Vasconselos[edit source]

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT NOTICE

The movie from Beginning to End HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH INCEST OR HOMOSEXUALITY, as mentioned in the biography of Brazilian protagonist Rafael Cardoso. This movie is a COMPLETE ALLEGORY and a portrait of the healthy integrated person and their development. The brothers represent different sides of the same person. The water, omnipresent throughout the movie, represents the subconscious, where the Self swims and emerges from. The scene in the movie where they undress in the white room (representing the psycho-mental interior) represent the stage where the person integrates intimate Truths about her/himself to create continuity of the Self.(1) The scene where they explain why they love each other is how a person with a healthy self esteem relates to themselves. The Mother represents the Higher Self, who is completely non-judgemental and guides the person with solutions(cures) about everything. The man who comes to warn the mother about the sexual aspect of the boy's relationship is what we call the Devil, he comes to create disharmony and problems because he is very jealous, he can not integrate-he can not stand up to his responsibilities. The movie has a happy ending, because the future for a healthy person can only be bright, loving and full of happiness.

(1) See The Living Book of Nature. by Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov,Chapter 7-The Naked Truth

Eleutherius1 (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The movie revolves around both topics. It might be an allegory, but it obviously deals with both homosexuality and incest. Not sure what changes you're looking to be made. APK whisper in my ear  08:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with APK. Even if it is an allegory, the issues of homosexuality and incest are central. I don't see any other way to phrase a film that involves a relationship between to brothers. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Harold C. Lyon, Jr.
I removed a claim that this person "developed" Sesame Street since I have been unable to find a reliable source for that other than his own promotional materials. The article has many other problems, possibly including the fact that he is called a "sex criminal" at the beginning. Yes, he was convicted of three sexually related misdemeanors in 1982, and was sentenced to nine months in jail. My concern is that the article may devote undue weight to those misdemeanors from 35 years ago, without providing explanation or context. I would appreciate the opinions of other editors. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

dianne houston
THE INFORMATION ON DIANNE HOUSTON'S LIFE AND CAREER IS FALSE AND MISLEADING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:91CB:4D00:79A1:F3A8:6209:4E9F (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a real problem at but it seems to involve probable meatpuppets trying to create an "official version" - eg "User:SunshineAllDayEveryDay‎ . . (4,642 bytes) (-6,790)‎ . . (The text was revised to accurately reflect Dianne Houston's life. These changes were made at Ms. Houston's request. The author of this n=revised content is her personal business manager. All of the newly submitted text is factual per Ms. Houston." and an earlier edit by the same editor "This information was deleted because none of the links worked. New links will be provided in further editing." These edits followed attempts by User:Raindownmusic, User:Chaibaby and User:72.203.100.202 (whose edit summary said they were editing on behalf of the subject). These are all single purpose accounts. I haven't actually looked at the content.  Doug Weller  talk 08:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * who have also been involved. Doug Weller  talk 08:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Much of the content does not have inline references. There are a number of unassociated refs. It needs much work with adding refs. There doesn't seem to be any entry that is outright derogatory. Jim1138 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is effectively an unsourced BLP. It should be stubbed back to the first paragraph. Black Kite (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sherrie Rose
Can someone please help me make a page. I'm not that versed in how to do that. My page is up for deletion after many tabloid rumor postings. I guess I'd rather have it deleted than have tabloid lies up about me but I would prefer to have my work speak for its self. Here are a few articles I found and IMDB has a list of most of my credits. Any and all help would be appreciated. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0741672/publicity?ref_=nm_pdt_pub_sm Thank you, Sherrie Rose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.165.65 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Gregor Wenning
I think the article Gregor Wenning should be removed. It contains information which are of no interest for the reader. For instance: "was born on 21 March 1964 to Karl-Heinz Wenning, a school teacher, and Elisabeth Wenning (née Terwort), a secretary. One of his brothers is the German church musician and composer Martin Wenning." or "In 1995, he married neurologist Roberta Granata-Wenning; they have two sons (Maximilian and Marco)". Such kind of information is simply ridiculous. Prof. Wenning is neither Freud nor Charcot. He is Authors of several scientific papers. However there are hundreds if not thousands of neurologists who published more outstanding studies without necessarily having been the subject of a Wikipedia article. Clearly, this page was written as an act of self promotion, is of very little (if any) utility to the general reader and, as such, should be removed. Quixote12 (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The short answer is no. Providing background information in biographical articles is commonplace on Wikipedia. A quick Google search reveals he meets WP:PROF and just because someone else doesn't already have an article on this site, doesn't mean we'll delete the Wenning article. APK whisper in my ear  12:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have removed the sentence about his private life - needs a reliable source and currently his bio contained names of non-notable and (possibly minor) children. As it stands, this article has one reference (his own CV) which cannot be used as an indication of notability. However he has (according to a quick google) won some awards, so there is an indication of notability. If you think the article should be deleted, WP:AFD is the place to go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Saraju Mohanty
I think I listed this article here before, but it did not receive any attention. The subject is no doubt notable, but the article is part CV and part hagiography. There are not one but two galleries of images, and other lists of information that I believe do not belong in a biography, such as the masters theses he has supervised. I would like a second opinion before I start paring it down. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Depuffed a bit.  Likely could be trimmed even more. Collect (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Rael Levitt
Rael Levitt is a South African auctioneer who had a dispute over an auctioned property. The dispute was well covered in the media and Levitt was accused of various wrongful acts (fraud / auction rigging / etc). In several court cases that followed, Levitt was found NOT GUILTY of all charges laid against him and was acquitted of all allegations. His Wikipedia page edited by Bbb23 makes fabricated references to tabloid TV programs which painted Levitt in a negative light and references articles written by Fiona Forde (a tabloid journalist) in the main body of his Wikipedia page. This version of the page has been constructed in breach of Wikipedia's Biograohy of Living Persons Policy. It is advanced that Levitt's page should read like this:

In 2012, a dispute arose over a property that Rael Levitt brought to public auction. The dispute was covered extensively in the media and Levitt stepped down as CEO of Auction Alliance and as a member of the national auction association. In a series of court cases that followed, Levitt was vindicated of the fraud charges laid against him. Various local and provincial divisions of South African courts held that Levitt was not guilty of fraud.

In contrast, Bbb23 has written his page:

In 2012, Levitt stepped down as CEO of Auction Alliance and as a member of the national auction association.[13][14] The National Consumer Commission found that Rael Levitt had transgressed South Africa’s new Consumer Protection Act and issued a compliance notice in favour of Wendy Appelbaum[15] The ruling was overturned by the National Consumer Tribunal on 11 July 2012. Levitt won a number of cases against the Consumer Commission and the Estate Agency Affairs Board.[16] In 2012 the investigative TV programme Carte Blanche twice featured Rael Levitt. In the first part, Levitt was seen driving away at speed out of the garage of the Auction Alliance offices in Johannesburg after being told that they were there to interview him. In a follow up segment a few months later, a voice on an intercom at his apartment building allegedly changed to an African accent when told that they wanted to interview him.[17] On 23 June 2012 Wendy Appelbaum laid an attempted fraud charge against Rael Levitt. In August 2012, Levitt's apartment and Auction Alliance offices around South Africa were raided by the South African Police's Hawks crime unit [18] In April 2015, Levitt and Auction Alliance lost their battle at the South African Constitutional Court over the search warrants used to seize documents and the hard drives. The Court ordered that Levitt and Auction Alliance bear the legal costs.[19] The dismissal of the legal challenge to the search warrants has now allowed the police investigation of alleged fraud and money laundering by Auction Alliance and Levitt to proceed. The South African police conducted an investigation into fraud and money laundering as well as all auctions Levitt and Auction Alliance handled between January 2003 and February 2012.[20] On 13 May 2016 Fiona Forde wrote another 7-day media series that published an investigative report on alleged suspicious activities at the company that she alleged had been commissioned by the Auction Alliance Board in March 2012. Levitt and Auction Alliance lost a court bid to prevent the publication of the report.[21]

(David Ricksonberg (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC))


 * Depuffed and copyedited. I find no reason that the excess detail about a controversy adds to the BLP value here. "Driving away" from an unarranged interview does not seem to be of paramount importance.  At such time as any positive findings of guilt get published, we can still meet the "deadline." Collect (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to make it clear, Bbb23 did not 'write' the above article. They merely reverted largescale blanking of sourced content. (no comment on the suitability of the content or not) -edit- Actually from looking at the edit history I would say quite a bit of that material should stay out until better sourcing is found. When the author of a news piece adds their own work to a biography, its not a fantastic sign of impartiality there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Víctor M. Marroquín
Would it be possible to get some more experienced BLP editors to watch Víctor M. Marroquín? There has been some IPs editing and a claim was made that they might be doing so for personal reasons. I first came across the article via this Teahouse post, but am not sure whether this is a "notability" problem or something which can be cleaned up. The IP who made the above has also been removing maintenance templates without explanation or addressing the issues. I've encouraged them to use the talk page or discuss their concerns here, but not sure if they will. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Depuffed a tad - still too many "references" which are not relevant to any specific claims in the BLP.  Collect (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Nolan Crouse
there are repeatedly derogatory comments being posted about me

I am Nolan Crouse and someone continues to post incorrect and derogatory comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.243.32 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Depuffed, and I suggest the bit about the "court case" is not sufficiently notable per se. Collect (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that sources are being used for claims not made in those sources, and that I am barred from doing a damn thing about it. Collect (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Several people had worked to clean it up pretty well but there's an SPA that keeps adding attack material that is either unsourced or improperly sourced. Left a warning, we'll see what they do next. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

steve byers
Date of birth is wrong by 5 years.

Steve Byers was born in 1974. I attended school with him for several years (all of high school) and can assure you he was in my grade.

He was actually older than me by almost a year as I had skipped a grade in elementary school.

I am also fairly certain he was not born on New Year's Eve. That would be a detail that nobody would forget.

You can confirm this information by obtaining a copy of "The Howl", Unionville High School's year book. You will find Byers in the class of 1993.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.160.45 (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can find a source (reliability unknown - I don't edit TV articles) that says it's December 13, not 31, and 1976, not 1979. Not exactly what the IP says but more like it. GiantSnowman 19:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Dan Wagner
I am appealing for an editor to review the intro section to the Dan Wagner page which has been repeatedly vandalised by a particular user using multiple pseudonyms. The intro was altered originally in 2014 having been accurate for more than a decade prior, the edits have materially misrepresented the subjects' achievements. In particular, as can be seen clearly by the body of the page which describes the numerous business' set up by the subject (of which two became market leaders and sold for in excess of multiple billions of dollars), the intro centres on the drop in share price for one of the companies (during the dot com crash - which affected 99% of all tech companies in the world) and another of the many companies founded by the subject which went into administration (the only one that did so in fact).

According to 'WayBackMachine' the intro to the page read as follows between 2000 and 2014: "Dan Wagner (born 28 July 1963) is an English entrepreneur and businessman. He was one of the first British-based Internet entrepreneurs, having founded M.A.I.D (Marketing Analysis & Information Database) in 1984, a company which provided online information services. It made over 200,000 publications available from 192 countries. He was educated at Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood and University College School, London. After briefly joining Richer Sounds as a salesman he went to work for WCRS advertising in 1981. In 1984, Wagner founded MAID (Market Analysis and Information Database) which was one of the first online information repositories and Wagner as CEO was responsible for its development and growth, building it from zero to 26% of the global on-line information market."

In 2014 and subsequently, User:Ol King Col (and the same user under the guise User:185.145.156.53) has made numerous disparaging edits to the page which have been subsequently undone and re-worded by numerous other wiki contributors but often resulting in an edit war. The impact of Wikipedia cannot be understated and these edits have now been referenced as factual by various lazy media outlets who use Wikipedia to get background on subjects. These articles are now being used to support the disparaging edits and so it becomes fact when, in fact, it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.233.208 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This version from 2014, which you likely approve of, was quite rightly tagged as being overly promotional -- and perhaps someone has been over-compensating in fixing that problem.


 * There may be problems with tone and neutrality of the current article, but alongside that, would you like to point out any aspects of it that are factually incorrect? MPS1992 (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Rather ironically, a bunch of users with a similar POV to 85.255 have been blocked for socking Sockpuppet_investigations/Startupnation. I've been checking the article and the sourcing is relatively solid now, unlike previous promotional versions. SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Gregor Breinburg
Someone has edited this article to say he died while setting up a television, as well as messing up the formatting and editing the article to say he's already signed with the LA Galaxy, a rumored transfer which has not yet been officially confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.174.142 (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those edits have been removed. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Charlie MacDonell
Please note that the correct name spelling is Charlie Macdonell. I have corrected the content of the article, but cannot correct the title. Your primary source for this article (ESPN Cricinfo) has also spelt his name incorrectly. My name is Michael Macdonell - I am his father and am therefore uniquely-qualified to know his name!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.93.88 (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

✅ I would think so. It's been moved to the correct spelling. --Hillbillyholiday talk 10:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Abduction of Kamiyah Mobley
Abduction of Kamiyah Mobley

Under the section titled "Investigation and recovery", I made this edit and deleted this unsubstantiated claim:

"Mobley contacted police, explaining that she suspected she had been abducted."

A user undid this edit to make it appear as the original, which is this :

"Mobley contacted police, explaining that she suspected she had been abducted. A DNA sample taken from Mobley after she was born was matched to a swab taken from the potential match.[1]"

Here's is [1] article for reference :

Sanchez, Ray. "Newborn abducted from hospital found alive 18 years later, sheriff says". CNN. Retrieved 13 January 2017. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/us/abducted-newborn-found-alive-18-years-later/index.html

This user who undeleted my edit :

02:21, 17 January 2017‎ Gourami Watcher

(date and time of their edit included).

He/she should not have undeleted the edit. All the article above, that "supposedly" supports this claim that "Mobley contacted police", says is that DNA was taken, not "how" it came to be that she gave it.

This user is being an "ass" by putting it back in when he/she can read it and see it's not in the article.
 * Actually - I saw that story on my local knows and that line stating Mobley contacted the police herself was said on my local news, so as far I'm concerned, that's accurate. HOWEVER, you have a point, the source they used dosen't say that.  That line needs to be removed unless a reliable source is available to back that up, per WP:RS and WP:BLP.  I'll remove that line with and place a note on their page as well explaining this.  Kosh  Vorlon }   15:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Jabre
Hello,

This is my Wikipedia page and I am having trouble having adding my headshot from IMDB. I have full copyright to my photos. Is there a way that I can get the photo added?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Jabre

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3712810/

Any advice you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelsea R (talk • contribs) 23:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If in fact you do have the rights to the image, I'd suggest going to Wikimedia commons and follow the steps to upload your image there. Meatsgains (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dean Shiels
This article about a Northern Irish footballer has recently been subject to editing by an SPA who repeatedly removes removes large quantities of information referenced to quite reliable sources, e.g BBC Sport, Irish Mirror, RTÉ, etc.) with the fake edit summary "typo". The editor in question,, recently resorted to making this legal threat on the talk page of an editor who reverted their mass removals. Despite being urged to discuss the issues on Talk:Dean Shiels, they have simply attempted another mass removal. On the basis of WP:Don't overlook legal threats, could editors here take a look at what's going on. There may be legitimate reasons for removing some of the material which are not immediately apparent. Voceditenore (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: a newly registered account has just removed the material again with the edit summary "The person (dean shiels) who's asked me to correct this information regarding personal inaccurate information". Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The basic facts appear to be well sourced, but the context in which they are used appears to be overly-editorialised. So the sources support the comments and facts of his injuries/disability/games missed etc, but then there is prose stating things like 'failed to find blah blah blah' which is not quoted and does not appear in the source. This isnt a huge BLP issue I would say as a sportsman who signs for a team, has a number of injuries and then is transferred/moves elsewhere can reasonably be described as failing to find their feet. But its editorialising which should be done by reliable sources, not us. Ideally someone who is good with football articles should take it on and re-word a lot of the (now excised) prose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was struck by some of the editorialising as well. This is completely out of my area. Hopefully someone with knowledge and interest in football will be able to do something with it. If not, tant pis. Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for warning the editor re legal threats against me, Voc. I only came to the article after it was flagged up by a tool I was using: WPCleaner. The version I was looking at seemed suspiciously messed up so I open the page and reverted rather than edit via the tool's interface. I know/care nothing of British footballers (or soccer, for that matter) so I leave it those with knowledge is such matters to fix the actual BLP issues rather than the syntax errors I was concerned with. Perhaps WikiProject Football? — Iadmc  ♫ talk 23:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (coming from WP:FOOTY), I have reinstated the bits that were sourced, removed some of the previously unsourced stuff and left in the edits made correcting their current status. Some of the edits they made were contradicted by the sources (e.g. being offered a contract extension by Rangers – Sky Sports and STV state otherwise, whilst Soccerbase says they only scored six goals in 2009-10 rather than the nine they claim. The BBC state that the transfer fee from Doncaster was £50k rather than the £150k they claim). Hopefully this will be sufficient to end the dispute. Number   5  7  07:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Number 57! I'll leave it to your and WP:FOOTY's good hands. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks also: that mess seems to be dealt with now. Legal threats aside... — Iadmc  ♫ talk 01:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Leonard Lance
Leonard Lance

I removed content created by user Tomwsulcer that was not neutral in its point of view or was unsourced. This is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonard_Lance&type=revision&diff=760939057&oldid=760934326

A local paper, the Mount Olive Chronicle, ran an editorial based on an interview with the subject of this page. It suggests that Tomwsucler's content is not only subjective opinion, and therefore questionable, but possibly even inaccurate. Here is the editorial: http://www.newjerseyhills.com/mt_olive_chronicle/news/reluctantly-lance-still-backing-trump-for-president/article_5c3b2155-74f3-5c8c-ac83-588d1f195710.html

The information I replaced Tomwsucler's partisan content with with was factual.

In less than an hour after I made the change, Tomwsucler reverted the page to the previous version, which was based on subjective opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northnj1994 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Claudine Longet
Is it appropriate that "murderer" is listed as an occupation for Claudine Longet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzopks (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 18:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty good old SNL sketch, but not exactly a reliable source. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump
Not a lovely topic I know, but on this page people are adding Trump's name to the list of "notable" participants. The most recent reference added was this piece from Newsweek. The article states "The veracity of the report and its sourcing have not been verified." I know it's all over FB right now, but until there's some very solid evidence of this taking place, I strongly urge others to monitor this popping up on WP. APK whisper in my ear  08:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There's this as well. Taking a look at the edit history, it won't be a fun page to deal with if kept. APK whisper in my ear  08:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * And I've just found this mess to deal with. It's the guy 4chan claims they duped into circulating the report. Assuming they actually wrote it and it is a hoax. Already had to clear some vandalism so it might get ugly too. I've left a brief explanation, hopefully that will keep them at bay. Liberivore (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The case at hand is a clear case where Wikipedia should in no way whatever contribute to such "allegations" per WP:BLP on the first place, and may be a good reason to revisit the WP:RS status of those who presented such allegations as fact in any way. Collect (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is sadly a combination of a couple of issues. Whats not 'fake' is that Trump was given a briefing about Russia compiling compromising material on him (surprise). What is 'unsubstantiated and unverified' is the content of that compromising material. What the press are reporting are the unsubstantiated allegations that definately should not be in any article (at this time). Should at some future point the intelligence community confirm the nature of the material allegedly compiled against Trump, that probably would be pass inclusion after extensive discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * We should report the claims made by those who claim to have seen the dossier, as long as we make it clear these are unproven allegations. This looks like censorship to remove material a given politician does not like.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about having Trump's name under a section called "Notable urophiliacs". Is that what you're saying is fine as long as we say it's unproven? Because that's a massive BLP violation. It's not censorship, it's WP policy. If you're talking about reporting on the dossier in general, then yes, mentioning it exists on an appropriate page seems fine (as long as all of the unproven, derogatory rumors like urolagnia are not included). APK whisper in my ear  19:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep the unproven, derogatory claims out of Wikipedia pages as clear BLP violations - even if we weasel around it by reporting what someone else says the dossier says. There have even been several uploads of the entire 35 page document into Wikipedia articles, which I have reverted. Now someone has created an article which spells out all the unproven derogatory stuff and includes the 35 page document; it is at Donald Trump Russia dossier. I have nominated it for AfD and I have requested that the deletion be speedy since IMO it is a gross BLP violation to include this stuff here. This is not a matter of whether someone likes or dislikes Trump; this is a matter of adherence to core Wikipedia policies. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a hell of a lot of unsubstantiated allegations on a number of pages. These include Clinton's rapes, Pizzagate, et all. The fact is we often report on allegations if they have received enough coverage to make them of note.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because Wikipedia is not censored, doesn't mean we have to address the topic in a non-neutral manner. Healthy use of "alleged" and "unsubstantiated" and sticking to the facts as reported in reliable sources will allow us to discuss the topic without violating BLP. I don't see the problem with mentioning the contents of the dossier as long as we are clear about its origins. gobonobo  + c 20:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, we can include anything that reliable secondary sources tell about content of this dossier. As about linking directly to this dossier (which is available all over the internet), I think it does not really matter precisely because it is available all over the internet. I would make a link simply for convenience of a reader. We do not claim that the content was "the truth" or highly reliable. It only matters that the content is highly notable and therefore arguably "due". But the source is actually credible. Otherwise no one would pay attention. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not make a link for the self same reason, precisely because it is available all over the internet. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing I objected to was not just a link - it was an actual 35-page PDF posted in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, we can opt to not include highly contentious BLP claims that may even be published by RSes, if the claim is extremely contentious at a personal level and lacking any supporting evidence. Case in point, during the Gamergate controversy, at least a handful of RSes republished several claims by one person (person A) towards another person (person B) that were not central to the main GamerGate situation. One portion of these claims were extremely contentious towards B that we opted not to include any mention of them because they were very much off-point from the topic. In this situation, the claims in the 35 page document are similarly contentious so we shouldn't have a separate article on that to begin with, and if we are to include any claims, they should be given in very broad strokes and avoid speaking directly about any highly contentious claim. --M ASEM (t) 03:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

We have the dossier, we have RS saying it is the dossier, we have Donny Tweeting about the dossier. I agree that we must be careful how we use it. It's contents must not be stated to be facts (so no including Donny on certain pages) but to exclude mentioning what Donny is accused of would make Wikipedia worthless as information about this subject.

Also what is it that is being objected to, the fact it contains unsubstantiated allegations? or the fact that the unsubstantiated allegations are unsubstantiated?.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of its contents and the veracity or appropriateness thereof, the "dossier" can not be on Wikipedia per WP:COPYVIO and WP:F. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:2017 Trump dossier by Christopher Steele — JFG talk 15:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, we cannot publish the dossier, but that is not what is under discussion here. Talking about and and reporting what RS have said about is violates neither WP:COPYVIO or WP:F, or are we discussing just it's verbatim inclusion? Can we have a clear statement as to what we are discussing?Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just commenting on the verbatim inclusion of the document. Discussion of its contents based on commentary by secondary sources is certainly appropriate, while being mindful of WP:BLPVIO and WP:BALASP policies. Good luck with that! — JFG talk 15:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At least for myself, no one knows who actually wrote the dossier with any type of confidence. It would be one thing if it was affirmed to have come from, say, the FBI, even if the claims were contentious, because then we could say "According to the FBI..." but at this point, the ownership of the dossier is a big question mark (they have an idea, but that's not confirmation). As an encyclopedic site, where we are not supposed to be a newspaper, and we take great care in BLP issues, it would be much better to wait some time to allow those evaluating the dossier to make their conclusions before we get too far into details about it; if it turns out it is fake (there's some aspect that this might be a 4chan prank), we don't have egg on our face; if its legit, then we can work that in using what is determined to be the most basic elements. --M ASEM (t) 15:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose to discussion of any details of the dossier involving Trump's alleged sexual activities/proclivities in any article until/unless their accuracy is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. I note that we do not permit discussion of a subject's sexual orientation unless they confirm it themselves, even if it is common knowledge and has been reported in reliable sources. As one recent example it has been widely reported in multiple reliable sources that Shepard Smith is homosexual. But the community has firmly rejected introduction of any discussion of his sexual orientation until such time as he confirms it himself. The existence of the dossier is certainly a fair topic and I don't think we could ignore that it reportedly contains allegations of a salacious nature. But that is about as far as I think we can go without severely undermining BLP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sexual orientation and Sexual activity is not the same thing. This is a total red herring.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well you have a point there. The former is not that big of a deal in the modern world. The latter in many cases still is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this is all described in policy:
 * 1) Not including the contentious primary source directly is fine per WP:RS, exactly as MelanieN said,
 * 2) Please see this example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Note: it tells "allegations", it does not tell "the truth". So, yes, this must be included based on multiple good secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What are we discussing
I think at this point we need to know what is being suggested, what do people support?

Blanket ban on all mentions of the dossier

 * Oppose per my above cmt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the existance of the dossier and specifically the role of Buzzfeed and others in reporting it are definitely fair game for some article. --M ASEM (t) 18:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Clearly this has been reported, and is of noteSlatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The existence of the document and the associated reporting is not contested. Only its sources and the plausibility of the contents are in doubt. — JFG talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think anyone has suggested this.--MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the dossier at this time is not a reliable source, its existence and its contents are very notable and therefore should be discussed in appropriate contexts. Brad  v  19:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. One might as well attempt to expunge the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the impact of the document does not depend on its lack of veracity. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I do not think anyone was trying to ban all mention. PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Qualified inclusion must meet BLP standards. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Even if the document itself is unsubstantiated, the fact that Trump has been briefed about it by US intelligence remains, which makes Schrödinger's Dossier notable in it's own right, even if it doesn't exist like the basement in Pizzagate. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above - we should treat this like high-quality sources treat it: i.e., report on the facts of its existence, and the basic claims that it makes, without implying that contested information is true, and quote/paraphrase/attribute the relevant experts/scholars' views. Neutralitytalk 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This would violate multiple policies and the very reason for the existence of Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This would not be in accord with Wikipedia policy.- MrX 14:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ban would conflict with policy and amount to censorship. Untenable.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Violates policy. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ban on it having its own page, but we can mention it in other articles

 * Support per my above cmt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support at this point. If it true out it is a fully legitimate document, that would be a potential to reopen, but that's crystal-balling. --M ASEM (t) 18:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified Oppose I am in two minds, but this is very notable (look at the coverage. It would seem odd we have pages on far less notable subjects.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – This document is just an element of the ongoing media/political circus about a purported Russian propaganda campaign targeting the US election. There's an article for that. — JFG talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose I initially felt this way, and in fact I was the one who nominated it at AfD. (And that is where we should be having this discussion, not here.) But based on the changes that have been made to the article to make it neutral and BLP-compliant, I now favor keeping it - while watching it closely to make sure it stays neutral and BLP compliant. (The article has been semi-protected due to an onslaught by IP sockpuppets, and that will probably continue to be necessary.) There is currently a lot about this subject in the article 2016 United States election interference by Russia, but if the "dossier" article is kept that can be trimmed down since it isn't really the same thing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Currently there are several different places where the dossier is being discussed. It may be helpful at some point to consolidate this information into one article, per the usual rules surrounding WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Brad  v  19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We should not waste our time for discussing page that does not exist. This should follow normal procedures. If anyone wants to create such page, they can do it. Than it might follow normal AfD process, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The fact that an article might not be appropriate now does not foreclose the possibility that, as events play out, it might be appropriate in the future. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As long as it stays BLP compliant should be fine. At this point until shown otherwise it is notable. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If we go into detail about the facts of Schrödinger's Dossier in the article about Russian election interference, it would push the article prose well beyond the 50 kB mark where a split is usually warranted anyway. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, and on procedural grounds: this is an AfD question. Neutralitytalk 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose a ban on policy grounds (it's notable, end of discussion), AND per the current snow keep at the AfD. Donald Trump Russia dossier is totally justified. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Neutrality and BullRangifer. - MrX 14:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - even if there were no article, we cannot assume that it won't become notable enough for one (CRYSTAL).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no good reason to ban this from having its own article if it's a notable topic on its own. If it weren't notable, standard rules would apply. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ban on actually repeating any of the accusations

 * Qualified Support per my above cmt. I think mentioning the doessier in Trump's article is acceptable. I also think it is not out of line to note that some of the unverified contents are of a salacious (or fill in your favorite euphemism) nature. But no actual details until/unless they are confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified support per Ad Orientem. Broad statements, that the dossier discusses potential ties between Trump and Russia, is needed, but anything highly specific seems unnecessary under BLP at this point. --M ASEM (t) 18:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified Oppose Again it seems odd if we discus the document, but not what it says. It all seems very Raputinesue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified support – People who care to read the document can see a multitude of allegations of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russian operatives. Such stories can be mentioned, analyzed, supported or debunked when covered by secondary RS. The gratuitous golden shower smears can't, per BLPVIO. — JFG talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support a ban on repeating any of the specific accusations. In fact I have revdel'ed some of the more outrageous and sensational claims as BLP violations, and will continue to do so unless this discussion tells me otherwise. However I do think general characterizations of the TYPE of allegation, as published by Reliable Sources, can be used. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified oppose The dossier should be considered a primary source. It is not to be used as a reliable source for any claims itself, but we can definitely summarize and reference secondary reliable sources that discuss the dossier. Brad  v  19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified oppose - We should, as reliable sources do, refer to the fact that the document alleges that Trump & his advisers have close ties to Russian intelligence operatives, and that Russia holds kompromat over Trump, but we should absolutely avoid referring to any of the specific salacious claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This contradicts BLP policy on public figures . My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My sense is that much of the resistance to including any of the accusations centers around the hotel shower incident. I just worry that a blanket ban on mentioning specifics from the dossier (as reported in reliable sources) would deprive us of the opportunity to report on the debunking of the claims. For instance, if discussing Michael Cohen's alleged August 2016 meeting with Kremlin representatives in Prague is off limits, then would we be prevented from mentioning that Cohen tweeted an image of his passport and said that he's never been to Prague in his life?  gobonobo  + c 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral Not really sure how I feel on this currently, but feeling the need to comment. I was all for a prohibition on mentioning the specifics a few days ago when the only way to access the claims was by intentionally going to BuzzFeed and seeking them out or going to 4chan/reddit, neither of which is a reliable source. Then SNL happened, which seems to me to have broken the US media's informal gag rule on the subject. Its starting to be mentioned in other press now (Newsweek alluded to it when discussing SNL ). I'm fine with having a waiting period, perhaps, as I had supported on the Trump page re: inclusion of the intelligence briefing story by CNN, but really, when what is arguably the most notable political comedy show in the US starts discussing the contents, you're fighting a losing battle in the long run I think. So I guess, I would have a qualified support at this time, with the recognition that pretty soon it will probably become next to impossible not to include them. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No reason to conclude this can't be handled under existing BLP standards/ And what would we do if someone writes a notable satirical song on the subject, or if an SNL sketch goes macroviral? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on just block quoting the document, but generalizations of accusations by RS should be okay. PackMecEng (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support - We need to adhere to BLP and only use information that meets RS criteria. Therefore we can use reliable secondary sources to describe the dossier and any allegations being made. We cannot use PRIMARY sources. -- HighKing ++ 18:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support per Ad Orientem and MelanieN. Let's see where top quality print newspapers and periodicals go with it, and toe that line ourselves.  As others have noted, WP:V and NPOV already provide a useful guide. Edit with caveat: it goes without saying that by refraining from restricting discussion of the allegations, we'd be relying on the maturity and resposibility of our WP editors to not write obnoxious nonsense like this. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified support - Until the allegations, if true, are verified, it is certainly a BLP vio to repeat them. However, if they turn out to be facts, they should be reported as such here. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified oppose per all of the above - we should treat this like high-quality sources treat it: i.e., report on the facts of the document's existence, and report on the claims that it advances, without implying that contested information is true, and quote/paraphrase/attribute the relevant experts/scholars' views as to reliability/veracity, etc. It would be bizarre and confusing indeed to reference a document, yet give the reader no indication of what it actually it says. Now, I agree that very specific information may present undue weight problems - but that's a fact-intensive inquiry that needs to be hashed out on the relevant talk pages. Neutralitytalk 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose a ban. We have good policies which dictate how we mention and quote unverified accusations, lies, rumors, conspiracy theories, unscientific nonsense, etc. If RS mention it, we MUST report it. It's just a matter of how we do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if a particular piece of content is widely discussed in reliable sources then per NPOV we need to cover it. Of course due care needs to be taken and the subject matter has to be approached carefully. But that's best achieved on a case by case basis which is why a blanket ban is counter productive (and contrary to policy).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Neutrality and Volunteer Marek. - MrX 14:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as ditto MrX  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ban, but apply standard restrictions on how much can be quoted at a time in accordance with WP:COPYVIO. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you propose we treat this situation any different concerning COPYVIO, and if so, why? Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 20:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think this should go under standard copyvio rules (don't quote more than a few sentences at a time, and give a footnoted source and the quote's speaker in the body). epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per neutrality. We strive to use the best sources and if any of them lend credence or discuss specifics we should (I would like to say "are obligated") to discuss them in the leveled manner in which we treat any information. WP:RS trumps all. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 20:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see a lot of support for this proposal, but would it extend to repeating accusations currently listed in the article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations? FallingGravity 08:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ban on stating any of the accusation (either directly or by implication) are true

 * Strong Support per commonsense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Duh Core of BLP, NPOV. These are accusations of vague origin, they must be stated as claims and definitely not facts. --M ASEM (t) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support This would be a massive BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Only mention them as attributed and unverified allegations (unless later proven otherwise). — JFG talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course. Did this question even have to be asked? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. As per usual rules, we should only reference reliable secondary sources, which the dossier is not. None of these accusations should be repeated in Wikipedia's voice. Brad  v  19:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Of course, as reliable sources have not stated them as true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I would even support requiring a qualifier stating that the claims have not been verified should they be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified support. There are accusations in the dossier that are plausible, even likely to be true. The first page of the dossier asserts that Russia has been trying to "cultivate" Trump and unsuccessfully tried to ensnare him with lucrative real estate deals. Common sense calls for treating statements regarding relatively routine political maneuvering differently from sensationalistic kompromat. Ordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support It would be a clear unambiguous BLP and NPOV violations. PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support - Until the accusations, if true, are verified, it is against the very core of Wikipedia's policies to repeat them here. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified support - this is really the only position that is consonant with our policies and guidelines. I do agree with 's comment. And of course, this would not prohibit us from including relevant analysis from relevant experts (i.e., "Professor John Doe, a scholar of Russian studies, writes that some of the claims are likely to be true and others false. Former high-ranking intelligence office Jane Smith says..."). Neutralitytalk 02:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For future reference, I should further qualify&mdash;as others have below&mdash;that if the reliable secondary sources state a particular allegation as true, then we obviously should follow the sources. Neutralitytalk 00:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified support - unless of course something else pops up and they do turn out to be uncontroversially true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support that we state they are allegations, but we do state them. We state what RS state. These are allegations, so we state they are allegations: "It is alleged that he hired prostitutes to put on a golden showers show to defile the bed which the Obama's had used." Now, was that so hard? We have plenty of very RS which document that that allegation is made in the dossier. That is only one instance. Other sources than the dossier also allege that sexual activities occurred and were filmed in other places than Moscow: "U.S. intelligence agencies warned Donald Trump about claims Russian operatives held potential blackmail information against him involving alleged “perverted sexual acts” during stays in Moscow and St. Petersburg, according to reports." Note how "claims" and "alleged" are used? That's how we are required to write. We do not refuse to write. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. "It is alleged that he hired prostitutes to put on a golden showers show to defile the bed which the Obama's had used" would be an obnoxious, childish, and wildly inappropriate bit of WP prose, and even mentioning it here as a joke is pretty obnoxious and childish.  Please don't continue.  Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 14:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a joke, but practically quoting from RS. The prose is very accurate. Those are the exact allegations. Keep in mind the topic of this subsection: "Ban on stating any of the accusation...are true". No, we should never say such a thing "is true" without proof. In this type of situation we may never know the exact truth, not because the allegations aren't true, but because the author and sources must be protected because their lives are in danger. "Unverified" does not diminish the possibility that the allegations are 1,000% true. The degree of trust we place in the content is totally dependent on at least three things: (1) The impeccable reputation of the author; (2) The character and history of Trump, which makes this type of behavior totally in character; (3) Outside verification from numerous independent sources which say this is true, and that there are other witnesses and videos, including from other cities than Moscow. We are supposed to say what RS say. They say that these are the allegations, so we are required to say the same. That's how NPOV works. It's about editorial conduct. Editors are not allowed to censor what RS say. We are required to faithfully present the content without diminishing or enhancing it. I have been here since 2003 and my fingerprints are embedded in the NPOV policy. I have also written an essay about this subject, so take a look: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Qualified support - If the accusations are described as true by reliable sources, then we too can directly or implicitly write that they are true in articles. That is common sense and common practice.- MrX 14:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified support - qualification being that we already do not allow negative allegations to be claimed as true per BLP without caveat (e.g., specifying that they're allegations). However, should current allegations come to light as true as reported by RS, they no longer become allegations but merely statement of fact in which case we can say them as fact (so long as they're sourced appropriately). I fear this discussion generally assumes no single allegations will be substantiated, which seems dubious to assume.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support unless sources prove otherwise. Per BLP, there are no sources saying this is true now, though this can change in the future. If such sources come up, then this is invalid anyway. However, don't let this preclude mention of it at all. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose If reliable third party sources corroborate the information we must report this. I understand the intention of this point, but it risks being misinterpreted to say that we may never state that any of the information in the dossiers is true even if explicitly mentioned in other reliable sources. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 20:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ban on including the actual text (either partial or in full) of the document

 * Support per my cmt in the above discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support at this point, yes, as per the ban on discussing any specific aspect of the document. At the level of broad claims, inclusion of any specific quotes is a problem. --M ASEM (t) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified Oppose There is some dispute an to it's copyright status, and we do include the text of other documents in other articles. If (however) this was a copyright issue this would change to support.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support per WP:COPYVIO — JFG talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support per BLP regarding unverified material - and regardless of its copyright status. There have been repeated attempts to upload the entire document, in PDF form. I strongly oppose that and will continue to oppose it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There may be contexts in which the dossier should be quoted, keeping in mind WP:NPOV, and especially WP:UNDUE. A blanket ban on quotes from the dossier is not helpful at this point. Brad  v  19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per our BLP policy on public figures . My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose barring brief quotations of the dossier as reported in reliable sources. Per policy, we of course won't be using the dossier as a source for claims, but, where appropriate, we should be allowed to include brief quotations of the text when reliable sources are doing the same. gobonobo  + c 23:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It would be inappropriate to include the unverified actual text of the document at this time. Its a BLP and this material is unverified as true, and is a primary source that is not quoted directly in any reliable source, even the BuzzFeed article that just did a document dump. Copyvio issues are also a concern. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There may very well be circumstances where stating exactly what this document says is the best way to achieve encyclopedic goals. However, given that our NFC policy and general fair use principles require prior authorized publication, we should not cite the document directly, but only excerpts from it presented in reliable sources, and only when verbatim text is particularly useful, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support unless any of it gets verified beyond a reasonable doubt it cannot be included. PackMecEng (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gobonobo and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Quoting a document does not imply truth, and a quotation with proper context might in some cases be the best way to achieve encyclopedic goals. We should of course be mindful of weight and quotefarm concerns - but a flat ban on quoting finds no support in our policies and guidelines. I think a good guidepost is this: Have the reliable secondary sources repeated the quote used? Neutralitytalk 02:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose unwarranted censorship. If the allegations are mentioned in RS, we are required to include them, but must also make it clear they are unproven allegations, albeit from an impeccable source. The ex-spy is a highly respected expert who has an excellent reputation in the intelligence community. They consider him very credible. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - again, needs to be dealt with on case by case basis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Neutrality, Volunteer Marek, and WP:NOTCENSORED.- MrX 14:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blanket ban. Again, we cannot predict the future of the allegations, so preemptively banning them makes no sense. Moreover, there may be cases (however rare or nuanced) where quotation is appropriate. We have enough protection with BLP and LIBEL that any unwarranted or inappropriate quotations can be dealt with as needed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See my comment under "Ban on actually repeating any of the accusations" above. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose only as much as WP:COPYVIO dictates. WP:QUOTEs are allowed, and any denying this right is in violation of policy. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 20:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No restriction of any kind
Note I know that number two maybe a bit broad, but you can still also vote elsewhere (and the at one is included just for completeness, I doubt anyone will vote for it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We can't ignore this. But it needs to be handled with the greatest possible care, and pending confirmation the details must not be repeated on Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is clearly a BLP/NPOV issue that has to be handled with care, so not having any restrictions is a problem. --M ASEM (t) 18:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose More or less what all the above say.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Obviously. — JFG talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and while this may seem obvious, I"m glad to have it formalized here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia's policies are sufficient to address this, but yet we need to be extremely vigilant and enforce these policies consistently. Any new rule or restriction that specifically applies to this event would itself be an indictment of Wikipedia's existing policies. Brad  v  19:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Its a notable topic that needs to be addressed in some capacity, but it is also a BLP and needs to be carefully presented. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As written, this carves a loophole in BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is notable, just needs to be presented with caution for all the BLP and NPOV issues. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is a very sensitive political matter and we must tread lightly about it. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No special rules or restrictions are necessary. Our existing policies are good enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - We already have policies and guidelines that cover this type of material. There's no need to reaffirm them.- MrX 14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - we already have restrictions, lots of them. Perhaps what is meant is "no special restrictions", but it's unclear. Regardless, the dossier and allegations are already subject to strong restrictions. What we need to do is make sure we enforce them.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose a no restriction. See my comment in "Ban on stating any of the accusation (either directly or by implication) are true" above. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, I'm treating this section as a ban on additional restrictions beyond those that apply generally to articles and topics under BLP. It is not neutral to level additional restrictions on content (not behavior) only because the topic is controversial. We must strive for neutrality and respect of WP:RS. Additional restrictions do not serve that goal. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 20:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I disagree with blanket restrictions here.  Whether specific content should be added depends on whether it meets our policies and guidelines.  If the dossier is discussed in reliable sources in relation to a topic, then so can we, in proportion to the WP:WEIGHT.  This may not be easy; it seldom is with contentious topics.  It seems totalitarian and antithetical to our principles to decide, without any reference to sources, whether the dossier should be discussed, and in what context.  On the other hand, material that violates our policies and guidelines should not be allowed.  But this has little to do with whether or not something appears in the dossier, and more to do with how it is covered in secondary sources, etc.   For example, suppose that some of the items in the report are validated by reliable sources.  Then it would be absolutely wrong to have a ban in place preventing us from reporting that content as factual.  In contrast, it would be equally wrong to report content in the dossier as true if it is not independently verified by reliable news sources.  As to the contents of the dossier, likewise our coverage should try to be neutral and proportional.  I don't see any kind of banning as supportive of that goal, especially since this continues to be a developing story, and at this point we don't even have a completely comprehensive picture.  Things could change at any time, and it's important that we remain flexible.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Also I know this is not AFD, my purpose was to try and find out what people are actually talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we now have an idea about what we are discussing. I will collapse those options that clearly have zero support.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
I think this event (among countless others), show the need that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there is no deadline to get content into WP. In a case like this, given how much BLP there is involved and that this is a story about the media itself (Buzzfeed among others), we absolutely should hold off on detailed coverage until we have better hindsight of the importance of this event. Editors on recent events are far too much in a rush to create articles or insert materials without considering that we have many other policies and aspects that weight heavier on content than having up-to-the-second content updates. --M ASEM (t) 14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. We should consider introducing a policy or guideline imposing a 3-day cooling period before inserting detailed coverage of any sensationalist stories that happen to make the news. This is not censorship: such stories can be mentioned briefly, but hopefully we can avoid the "breaking news – NOTNEWS discussion – saucy details – BLP discussion cum revdel emergencies – article fork – AfD fight" cycle which wastes everybody's energy, readers, editors and admins alike. — JFG talk 17:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the discussion above, nothing of importance was decided. This is waste of time. All such matters should be discussed on the case by case bases on talk pages of specific articles. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While everything similar to this should be case-by-case, there is a general lack of anyone working in these areas to consider NOT#NEWS and DEADLINE. We need that to be kept in mind when covering breaking, controversial information that we should sit and wait and not try to be up to the minute. --M ASEM (t) 02:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And consider whether any news story might have a chance to pass the WP:10YT. — JFG talk 04:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Just my 2¢, but I think what we need is vigorous enforcement of policy and guidelines, even if it means being deletionist or bitey when it comes to the dossier and allegations. To me, this is one of the "act first, ask questions later". We can always undo a deletion or restore an edit. But we cannot undo BLP harms or allow them to linger due to bureaucracy, wikilawyering, or indifference.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that I've seen people acting on trying to at least take a conservative (cautious, not the political sense) and get set to ANI/AE by those that insist the information must be kept (not on this dossier issue, but several times over the past year). A lot of it has to do with left-vs-right politics, where because of the media's general left-leaning bias, that BLP issues favoring the left or against the right are said to be fine to include because they are backed by the left-leaning sources. This type of approach (that is, taking a much more cautious if not deletionist view) needs to be used alongside the caution that we don't need to be first to report breaking controversial events as they happen. --M ASEM (t) 07:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen some of what you refer to. I'm not one to buy into the "liberal media" narrative, but I've seen folks try to use media sources to justify POV and blp-violating edits (like trying to say the dossier is true, for example). That behavior is not acceptabled and what I meant by wikilawyering... they argue DUE (inclusion likely is warranted at times for divisive issues) but the wording is the real issue usually. I absolutely agree with you about the breaking news problem. Every politician's passing gas and every bureaucrat's burp seems to get news coverage these days. I'd almost like to see a guideline about a delay, especially with things like shootings where the initial reporting is invariably incorrect.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Seth Rich
The BLP policy is being cited in this edit, but that BLP argument makes absolutely no sense to me. The removed material is longstanding, there's no consensus whatsoever to remove it, so the editor in question seems to be imagining some "conspiracy" that somehow triggers the BLP policy. More eyes requested, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the editor might be prevailed upon to explain how BLP applies. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Essentially the argument is that by including details of the reward offered by Burkman, it is publicising/bringing attention to the conspiracy theory that the search/reward for the killer is a smokescreen designed to cover that he (allegedly) leaked documents (a criminal act) to wikileaks and was then (allegedly) assassinated by Hilary Clinton. The BLP issue being a)it implies he was acting illegally, b)Clinton was acting illegally, c)Burkman etc are acting illegally. Its conspiracy-nutjobbiness all around.
 * I generally reject that argument as its certainly relevant that an extremely large reward has been offered for info on the killer. The conspiracy crap can easily be completely left out of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are also some arguments that his family are not involved in the reward, which in light of this (see video of Burkman and Rich's parents near the bottom) are a bit out of date. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit in question did not remove any conspiracy crap at all. The mere fact that Burkman offered a reward is no more suggestive of a conspiracy than that the D.C. police offered a reward (or that Wikileaks offered a reward).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I know, but the argument is that including the reward leads onto it. Dont look at me, I think its a silly removal too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a completely implausible argument, and an abuse of the BLP policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That is a pretty elaborate theory and reminds me of the sort of logic conspiracy theorists use. I do not see how Burkman offering of a reward for "providing information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible for Seth Rich's murder" is acting illegally or alleging that Hillary Clinton has.  TFD (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not neccessarily all of the above, some people go with just one tinfoil hat, others use the entire roll... Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be refreshing some day in the future if editors who bring questions here for community discussion would start by presenting a balanced and reasonably complete summary of the issue. We can start sorting this out as a community when all the facts and views are clearly and neutrally presented. I'll try some of that but not all, as it's a long story: A young man was murdered in the course of what the Washington DC police call a botched robbery attempt around 2 AM in an area of DC where there has been a recent spate of street crime. The victim was employed at the Democratic National Committee in DC. Shortly thereafter, out of the blue, Julian Assange of Wikileaks was being interviewed on European TV and stated to the amazement of his interviewer that Wikileaks would double the standard reward of the DC Police for information leading to the conviction of the killer(s). Assange then went on to make some crafty remarks about how Wikileaks protects its sources. According to RS coverage, this stoked conspiracy theories and what one account called "tinfoil hat" Reddit chatter about how the Clintons had plotted the crime. There is no evidence or any credible suggestion to link the crime to the victim's employment at the Democratic Committee. Subsequently, a Republican lobbyist and provocateur, host of a Newsmax podcast stated that he would offer an even larger cash reward, along the lines of Assange's. The statements of these two, unrelated to the crime, are being used (according to numerous RS) to insinuate the Clinton conspiracy theory into the narrative. In the process, they are suggesting that Mr. Rich betrayed his employer and possibly committed criminal acts sharing privileged DNC information with Assange. The stuff about the "rewards" -- assuming the grantors even have access to these amounts of cash -- has nothing to do with the topic of the article (the murder) and WP does not detail the statements of unrelated parties when they smear living or recently demised victims of crime. There is ample policy to support that, and the burden for inclusion cannot be demonstrated, hence this excursion to BLPN. SPECIFICO talk  23:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As you know, User:SPECIFICO, the edit in question did not remove all of the info about rewards, for a very good reason: we already had an RFC about that. The issue now is why it's okay to mention some rewards but not others.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the sources that say Burkman is promoting Clinton conspiracy theories. Then I would like to see sources that say his $105,000 reward money is promoting Clinton conspiracy theories. As an aside, this source has text and a video that shows Burkman and Rich's parents are in agreement with using the reward money to solve this case. Here is one quote "The Rich's, who live in Omaha, Nebraska, are in D.C. to bring attention to a $125,000 reward. $100,000 of that reward has been put up by Burkman".  I might not believe the text by itself, but the video clearly shows them in agreement (for lack of a better word). Also, Rich was shot on July 10 - seven months have passed. If the family were in distress BLP applies from up to six months to two years. But the family is not in distress about Burkman's reward. I doubt BLP applies to Seth Rich, who is deceased. Additionally, I think this reward is a small item compared to larger issues surrounding this topic. The reward money as bare factual information is of minimal importance. If some editors were actually trying to add conspiracy theories then that would be a different matter altogether. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You would need a source to say that Burkman was doing this in order to stir up a conspiracy theory. Even if that is his motive, there is no reason not to mention his offer.  Also, the D.C. police have not called it a "botched robbery."  When asked if it was a botched robbery, the chief said maybe.  That gets reported as police saying it was "possibly" a botched robbery.  TFD (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As you know, the family sharply repudiated Burkman's ploy at the outset. Now, with dwindling public attention, their only hope of shaking loose any unreported public knowledge is to take advantage of his showmanship and access to the media. Is it a deal with the devil? I wouldn't go that far, but it doesn't change the views they and their family and Seth Rich's friend earlier expressed to RS.  After all, Pres. Obama was willing to ally us with so despicable a character as Putin in order to get the historic Iran nuclear deal done.  These are the choices people make in extreme circumstances.  We can't infer that Obama and the Rich's endorse Putin and Burkman.  None of this changes the BLP issue or the UNDUE/off topic issue.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please clearly explain, with specific reference to that policy, how BLP applies to the information removed in the edit linked by the original poster. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've explained it roughly a dozen times in various threads, so I'm willing to accept the fact that I am an inarticulate wretch. Therefore I will let someone else take a shot. SPECIFICO  talk  01:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think SPECIFICO's position is that Burkman's offer was made to promote a conspiracy theory that implied Rich had leaked DNC documents, which would be a breach of trust and that people in the DNC ordered his murder. By mentioning the reward we would be helping to promote the conspiracy theory.  There is some merit to the argument.  The media held back on the Trump Moscow hotel story because it was derogatory and unsubstantiated, just as the claims about Rich and the DNC are.  Where I differ from SPECIFICO is that I do not think editors should make that call because they are not journalists and should accept the media's decision to report stories following "Balancing aspects."  TFD (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't recall that the family sharply repudiated Burkman's offer (or "ploy") at any time. Could you please provide sources that show this is so. I think you are referring to WikiLeaks and mis-remembering. Burkman has the family's support as shown by this source . If they had a problem with Burkman in the past, it is not relevant to "now". Equating Obama's relationship with Putin to Rich's parent's relationship with Burkman is spinning yarn, is probably a false equivalence, is not related to presenting sources and not presenting policy based arguments. Well, maybe there are sources that equate Obama and Putin with Rich's parents and Burkman. If there are please produce them. Even to claim this is a BLP issue, sources are required to back up that argument.---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I left notes about this BLPN discussion at the article talk page, and at User talk:Volunteer Marek.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - The discussion above is rife with all sorts of theories and assertions. Would an editor supporting the removal, on the basis of BLP, please make a clear articulation of how that policy applies. It is suggested that at a minimum such articulation would require:- reference/quotes of relevant sections of the BLP policy (what applies); description of the content removed (to what it applies); a link between the policy secitons & the content (how it applies). Absent such, it is difficult to make a determination on inclusion or exclusion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will restore the info, because no one has articulated why a BLP exemption plausibly bars mention of this reward but does not bar mentioning other rewards.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You know better than to do that. You recently came within a hair of a TBAN for this kind of stuff. Let this thread arrive at a consensus. SPECIFICO  talk  17:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment above (the one in which you said "I'm willing to accept the fact that I am an inarticulate wretch"). It seems that User:Volunteer Marek does not want to come here and explain why removal of one reward is required by BLP but removal of two other rewards is not required by BLP.  I would not want to defend such an odd position either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And what did the rest of my comment say? Oh?  Cherrypicking isn't really effective when it's so easy to see the comment you misrepresent. I know that WP is a full time job for some folks, so you may have a distorted sense of time. In general, these noticeboards are intended to allow the community to come together and comment. Anyway since the burden is on you for inclusion and since there is a BLP violation in the content if you do make good on your threat to edit war it back in, you're not really helping resolve the issue, are you.  The purpose of these boards is not to replay the talk page. It's to get thoughtful fresh input -- something you are not in a position to do.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If you were to ask yourselves "why does this article on a sad but routine crime exist" you'd be led, as if by magic, to the right actions. I won't hold my breath.Dan Murphy (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * BLP compliant - Assuming that the statements above from, and  are an accurate reflection of the case for BLP violation (I have no reason to doubt that they are, and I thank them all) , it is difficult to reconcile this position with the policy itself. In summary, the position articulated is that "conspiracy theorists" have used (continue to use?) the reward offer as "evidence" for their conspiracy theories; that, based on this (mis)use, information on the reward offers should be suppressed; that this is despite the reward offers being well sourced to, and (apparently) broadly covered in, reliable sources. Even assuming that this is true, BLP policy does not mandate suppression of well sourced information on the basis of potential misuse by "tin-foil hattists". The information removed in the edit provided by the original poster is limited to simple facts of reward offers, and does not include any mention of any conspiracy theories themselves. The information also appears well sourced - to a local TV affiliate of ABC News and to Newsweek. Looking through WP:BLP, I am unable to find any section of the policy which provides a basis for removal or suppression of the information - there is no apparent issue with writing style, sourcing, or privacy. I am happy to comment further if solid policy based arguments are put forward; but without a clear articulation of which parts of the policy are considered to form a basis for removal, and how they are considered to form that basis, removal per BLP is not supportable. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If the question were "should this article on a sad but routine crime exist?", my inclination, both personal and policy, would be to answer in the negative. The article is at AfD. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Why does this article exist?" Because people like to read/hear about murders and news organisations like to write/report about them because it makes them money. Since WP for the most part is based on what is published, that we have an article about someone who was murdered at a sensitive time (even if totally unrelated) and was widely covered is not a surprise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No BLPVIO – When the victims of the alleged BLP violation (Seth Rich's parents) publicly support the reward, it is not the job of WP editors to speculate on their motives. I see no merit in the argument that mentioning this reward factually and neutrally somehow would trigger vast conspiracy theories in the minds of readers. Quite the opposite: arguing vocally against inclusion draws undue attention to such theories! — JFG talk 09:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Axel Bergstedt
In the article Axel Bergstedt about my person is used much libelous tabloid jornalism. My children are suffering bullying in the school because of the articles in wikipedia in four languages. So I think, it should be the best to delete the article or to delete the harmful parts. As you can see, someone changed in november the portuguese wikipedia writing a hateful article, and hours later the articles in spain and english were changed, too. The articles are full of lies and mistakes. Still today there is no accusation against me. No website of mine were deleted, no picture were deleted. I am reporting about raped girls in some muslim countries, what they call "pedofilia", but still today google and microsoft didn´t delet any picture in my blogs. So it´s only for revange and hate that someone is writing such a libelous article about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel Bergstedt (talk • contribs) 10:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever the BLP implications here, it's an English Wikipedia article with zero English sources. I'd say nuke the article on that basis alone.  Let a more appropriate language community fisk the sourcing.  Just a thought.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've just removed an inappropriately-titled section that contained incomprehensible (in English) accusations like "Brazilian police also found issues of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.", lacking inline citations to most of the specific accusations. User:Fbergo has reverted the section back in, commenting in edit summary that the information comes from "brazilian and german news groups [sic]". Last month Fbergo was edit-warring names and ages of living non-notable minors (at time of the mentioned incident) back into the article, using "RVV" as his justification. I think page protection or some other measures might be necessary. MPS1992 (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * All information in the article was properly sourced. The pedophilia section was backed by news sources by major brazilian media group Grupo Globo, in portuguese (as the crime occurred in Brazil) and by a major german newspaper, Die Welt. I will no longer revert your edits, have fun protecting the privacy of a murderer who keeps ISIS beheading videos on his personal notebook. Fbergo (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

✅ I've copy-edited Axel Bergstedt and checked the sources. What is there now is well cited. The accusations of paedophilia have not yet been proven and anyway needs far more WP:RSs per WP:BLP, and anyway accusations should not be introduced until proven in court (WP:BLPCRIME) so I have not reintroduced them — Iadmc  ♫ talk  17:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Erik Angra
Can someone help to make this living person's biography more neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.49.198 (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Nicholson
Bruce Nicholson This article is poorly written although it is not inaccurate. It also needs updating. I would rewrite the article as follows: Bruce Nicholson (born 1948) is a visual effects artist who has won 2 Academy Awards for The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), and also nominated for Poltergeist (1982). Nicholson was born and raised in Los Angeles, CA and entered the film business in 1974 after attending film school at UCLA and Sherwood Oaks Film School. He was hired at ILM to work on the original Star Wars (1977) after working at a small optical effects facility, Ray Mercer & Co. He remained at ILM for 19 years, and then went on to work for Sony Imageworks, Digital Domain, Rhythm & Hues, and Tippett Studios as a Compositor and Visual Effects Supervisor on nearly 50 films. He currently teaches Visual Effects at Academy of Art University, and is actively engaged in independent filmmaking. Nicholson is married to the Set Decorator Gretchen Scharfenberg.

sources: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0629785/?ref_=nv_sr_1 https://admin.academyart.edu/myProfile?18

I can provide a picture, but don't see an attach icon. Please advise. Thanks, Bruce Nicholson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnichols6 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I see the article is unprotected and that means you are free to directly incorporate the sought edits in the article.
 * As to your sought-after edits, the language is pretty neutral and encyclopedic, if I assume them to be factually correct.But here in Wikipedia, IMDB is seldom used as a reliable source and generally in biographies we like every statement to be sourced to a WP:RS as far as possible.Thus, it would be better if you could find some indepent reliable sources(newspapers etc.) discussing about you or your work and then accordingly add and cite statements to the article.
 * Also, assuming (from your username) that you are the subject of the article you intend to edit, I will advice you to go through WP:COI before venturing in the task.
 * As to the question of attaching the photograph, WP:TEAHOUSE is the appropriate place to get help on such issues(and many more). Winged Blades Godric 09:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Linda Sarsour
A lot more eyes and perhaps an admin may be needed. IPs are being persistent. We have an edit war going on at the article Linda Sarsour in which badly sourced claims are returning over and over due to a Reddit discussion, YouTube video and then a political blog. The information cannot be verified and is based entirely on a set of social media "tweets" that do not qualify as RS and do not support the inflammatory claims being made.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts.I have watchlisted the article and will check back frequently for any violation.(Non-admin). Winged Blades Godric 09:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to point out that a primary source (such as a verified twitter account - assuming it was verified) is a reliable source for the views of the owner. It may be undue, or description of their views may be incorrect, but if Person A says 'I support thing' we can state person A supports 'thing'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Joe Lhota
(Please feel free to move this to any other more appropriate Noticeboard, COI, NPOV, etc.) I have tried to work along with the user (both at User talk:JoeLhota and User talk:Lindyharmony) to help him understand the conflict of interest in editing his own biography. At first I thought it was a fan for the use of phrases such as "Use Mr. Lhota's proper name, not his nickname." as an act of deference, when WP:COMMONNAME suggests the article say "Joe" everywhere except for the beginning of a BLP when we always give full names. I've incorporated quite a few of their requested changes, but have tried to draw the line a few times. E.g. the individual does not want to be called a politician, but that is unfair to the encyclopedia that someone who was a major candidate for one of the most high-profile positions in the US, Mayor of New York, not be listed as a politician, or as a compromise "former politician". The user also has been removing well-sourced data, quotes from interviews, and references left-and-right and adding things like LinkedIn profiles. I don't want to keep fighting this user and a few times let it sit for a day (the 17th and the 19th) in the hopes that another disinterested party would come along and take up the mantle. It seems for the most part the user is, perhaps in good faith, seeing this as "his page" which is why he is focused on refactoring it as more of a prose resume and less of a biography, so it will fit his image of how he wants to be presented rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. JesseRafe (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored the article to the last good version.For such blatant baseless POV pushing section deletions etc. revert the edits and if the behaviour continues unabated report the user for edit warring. Winged Blades Godric 10:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Salam_(Taliban_governor)
Hi,

This article mixes up Abdul-Salam Hanafi, a Taliban governor from the 1990s, with Abdul-Salam Baryalai, the current Taliban Qunduz shadow governor. They are two different people. Hanafi sits on the Taliban political shura at Pakistan (see UN sanctions reports which are filed yearly), and Baryalai operates at Qunduz. Most of the information here pertains to Baryalai. Hi,

This article mixes up Abdul-Salam Hanafi, a Taliban governor from the 1990s, with Abdul-Salam Baryalai, the current Taliban Qunduz shadow governor. They are two different people. Hanafi sits on the Taliban political shura at Pakistan (see UN sanctions reports which are filed yearly), and Baryalai operates at Qunduz. Most of the information here pertains to Baryalai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A21F:F435:2C9A:D1A9:DD7A:5F69 (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a serious enough issue.Maybe you can provide some sources(the U.N. Sanction reports you mention etc.) here, so that the articles could be bettered and the alleged mix-up removed. Winged Blades Godric 12:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, the article is about Hanafi and all the informations best to the information available to me is the same as in the article and is about Hanafi.Can you please refer a non-correct line about Hanafi in the article. Winged Blades Godric 13:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And info about the other one--Baryalai seems to be scanty at least in English media. Winged Blades Godric 13:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Trans man
Editor is continually (re-)inserting an unsourced addition to the list of notable trans men (1, 2, 3), despite being warned. Edit filter log activity suggests there may be a language difficulty. Funcrunch (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I reported this here because it's not clearly vandalism, and as I've already reverted twice I don't want to risk violating 3RR. The edit filter log does suggest the subject is a living person. Funcrunch (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's some major outing and BLP concerns here. WP:WTAF applies as well. I've reverted and warned.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we report celebrity dating?
Is reporting when a celebrity is dating another celebrity (or for that matter, non-celebrity) appropriate content for the Wikipedia articles for those individuals? I'm thinking no. I don't think a encyclopedia is the right place for such tabloid reporting. It's also something that's likely to become outdated and inaccurate.

I'm not talking about long-term non-marital relationships like the one between Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel, which has gone on for decades and resulted in children. I'm talking about the kind of dating reporting that is usually reported on blogs and in tabloids.

The specific issue that raises this for me (although my interest is in general, not just these articles) is the reported dating relationship of singer BoA and actor Joo Won: "In January 2017, it was revealed that BoA had been dating actor Joo Won since mid-2016." Leaving the issue of whether PopCrush is a reliable source, is this appropriate Wikipedia coverage? TJRC (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Such relationships should only be included if the couple at the center of it have affirmed they are in such a relationship with a reliable source (which does happen). We absolutely want to avoid media speculation that because X was seen with Y at a dozen-some places, that X is dating Y (something tabloids readily jump on). --M ASEM (t) 00:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Working consensus has been that (1) well-sourced reports concerning current relationships maybe included, but (2) non-current/defunct relationships should not be included unless of demonstated significance to the subject's life or career. Having deleted hundreds upon hundreds of such claims with very few objections, I admit that there are a few articles where attempts to have such fancruft expunged have been unsuccessful, but over the long run the principles have held quite strongly. A few years back, when a similar discussion spilled onto Jimbo Wales' talk page, he declared that chronicling the "twists and turns" of celebrity "relationships" was not part of an encyclopedia's mission. I'm not really thrilled about the "currently dating" exception, but I suspect that allowing well-sourced information of that type is generally harmless, while debating such claims on a case-by-case basis would not be productive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to confirm that the general practice (when noticed) is as Wolfowitz says. Current reliably sourced relationships are generally included. Past/Ex relationships unless specifically relevant are not. If the ex-person is non-notable, you can generally remove the name in most circumstances anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Note  For the umpteenth time, "celebrity gossip" is intrinsically rumour, and is not encyclopedic, nor of any long-term value to readers and users of any encyclopedia. It is the bane of BLPs, and is a mine-field at best, and, in my lone opinion, should be excised utterly. Collect (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair it is not always rumour. Quite often there are primary sources where celebrities confirm details of their relationship. And a professional biography of a person would contain details of their spouse if their relationship led to children or there was some other relevance (charitible foundation work etc in both their names being one example). I agree however the vast majority of 'X is dating Y' stuff should just be punted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. From the varied inputs here, it sounds like there is not a Wikipedia-wide consensus on whether to exclude the "who's dating who" information, provided it is reliably sourced; so I guess it's on an article-by-article basis. Although I don't think it belongs -- I do not view it as encyclopedic content -- I seem to be the only one seeking removal in the two articles I mention, so I'll step away from the issue there. TJRC (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Genevieve Nnaji
The Awards and Nomination Section was accidentely removed durring Edit, Please Help Restore Nnaji's Award and Nomination Section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britenydaniels (talk • contribs) 20:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been already ✅. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Alex Merced
Person does not meet notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:500:965:E4B0:7F55:264F:AB2 (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Create an user account and go the WP:CSD /WP:AFD /WP:PROD way.  Winged Blades Godric 08:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Carlos Gershenson
My participation in this conversation was initiated by an OTRS ticket, I am not a frequent enwiki editor and am not overly familiar with policy here.

The subject of the article feels that the page is being used to attack him with unsupported claims. I tend to agree, the person or people who are adding accusations of impropriety are using a single blog post (which appears to be the only post on the blog) as support. There has been quite a lot of discussion on the talk page about whether or not this blog post is a valid source, I contend that it is not. I would appreciate it if editors who are familiar with Wikipedia policies around BLP and verifiability could take a look at the article, the talk page conversation and the blog post itself and take whatever action is appropriate. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Already removed. Watchlisted. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Beat you to it ;) Allegations were sourced to a wordpress blog which is (even without looking at it) unsuitable for contentious info in a BLP. This will not gurantee they will stay out - if there are better sources out there, but I am not looking for them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since when a leaked document on a blog post is not a reliable source? Moreover, such a source has contributions from both parts, thus legitimizing the issue that should be mentioned in the WIki article as informative of the potential misleading actions of certain scientists. In particular, it is a very grave offense to purport the title of Professor, if it is not awarded. The blog post now has a screenshot of Dr. Amy Brand, director of MIT Press, acknowledging the issue and legitimizing the claim that such a letter exists and was sent to MIT Press. Thanks. Here the blog post: https://scientificmisconduct.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/carlos-gershenson-and-tom-froese/ One of the arguments is that the blog post title is "Reporting worldwide scientific wrongdoing" and only one post is in there, I do not find this offensive or fishy, it tells that either this blog post was designed for this purpose, of that it is the first of more posts to come. It is obvious that the website has been created by colleagues of the accused that fear retaliation from Gershenson as it is common in science to be reviewed by peers, etc. Wiki editors should be concerned to reflect truth and not to conceal it. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLPSPS - basically wordpress blog = no. WP:BLPPRIMARY would also generally prevent the use of leaked documents (as a primary source). Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr. Amy Brand, director of MIT Press, has verified it, thus legitimizing the source. But if everybody agrees then, let's wait for the newspapers, only notice you are not making anybody a favor, you are misleading Wikipedia readers just as Gershenson is misleading the academic world claiming to have titles that he does not have. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Abu Dhar Azzam
Article is mainly sourced using primary sources from jihadist and terrorist websites, videos and documents; not very verifiable or reliable sources in my opinion. Centre Left Right ✉ 05:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will be shortly looking into the article.Most of the concerns seem to be true. Winged Blades Godric 11:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ to the best of my ability. Winged Blades Godric 13:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Nauman Niaz
The article "Nauman Niaz" is an autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tala hayat (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm working on cleaning up the page and removing unsourced content. Meatsgains (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅--I've cleaned and copy-edited the article.But the article is still in glaring need of sources. Winged Blades Godric 14:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

David Robertson (footballer, born 1986)
David Robertson (footballer, born 1986) and David Goodwillie were found in a civil case to have committed rape.

Could someone establish the proper way to describe and flag this in the article. Some people seem to downplay it as 'personal life'.

Media coverage is rather different. 

is there a balance between blp and minimising sexual assault/rape vis a vis the victims of said rapes? Sumbuddi (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is very dubious to use the term "rape case" in this example because it is based on a civil trial, rather than a criminal action. The Scottish legal authorities determined there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction. Also, Goodwillie has had other incidents in his personal life that have been widely reported (two convictions for assault) so it would make no sense to use "rape case" as a collective term for all of these items. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What? legal case "A legal case may be either civil or criminal." it's a rape case. there is no other legitimate term for it. Also you reverted to the rather misleading 'personal life' heading on David Robertson. I am not really sure what your point about insufficient evidence is. The two men have been found by a court of law to committed rape. Very specifically I find that, in the early hours of Sunday January 2, 2011, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and because her cognitive functioning and decision making processes were so impaired, she was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.  per Lord Amstrong. Ergo they are rapists and should be described as such. The fact that a named judge has ruled in a court of law that they are rapists is far more persuasive than an administrative decision not to prosecute. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "They are rapists and should be described as such." Is O. J. Simpson described as a "murderer"? No, because he hasn't been convicted of murder. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From what our article says, in that civil cases here that there is no need for the plaintiff to have strong evidence as to file damages on charges of rape, this is far from what we would normally use to call somebody a rapist. If it were a criminal charge, yes, but civil courts aren't the same. I do believe that it is reasonable to describe that the civil case and the resulting fine should be described as leading to retirement all in the lede, but you can't call him a "rapist" on the civil court charge. --M ASEM (t) 18:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the burden is certainly different as between criminal cases and civil. In criminal cases, the burden is the familiar "beyond a reasonable doubt."  In civil cases in the UK, the burden is usually described as a "balance of the probabilities" (often called "preponderance of the evidence" in the U.S.).  But civil cases involve findings, which are legally binding in certain ways (though civil cases are not binding on criminal cases).  Here, the judge explicitly found that "they each raped her."   I am not sure this demands we call the two in question 'rapists,' but I think saying 'civil cases don't count' is a bit too pat.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh? The courts can say that "they each raped her", and award £100,000 in compensation, but you feel that Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard? That's bizarre. Also the situation here is that they were never brought to criminal trial. So we cannot directly compare this with OJ Simpson, who was found not guilty in a criminal trial. There was an administrative decision here not to prosecute. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To both Dumuzid and Sumbuddi: the issue I see is the subtle difference between saying "A (civil) court ruled he raped her" and "He is a rapist", and this has to do with how a term like "rapist" or "murderer" is a label that has to be used with care. Someone convicted in criminal court of being a rapist means that a great deal has gone into the investigation before that sentence as to favor the innocence of the defendant, so subsequently calling that person a "rapist" is a non-controversial because of the court's decision. On the other hand, the same situation in civil court, which moreso favors the presumption of the plantiff, the level of investigation is far far lower, especially here with the lack of the need for Corroboration in Scots law in the civil suit. So while the court found them guilty and charged them a fine, applying the label "rapist" is controversial because the civil suit has a very low threshold to levy the decision against the defendant and the true nature of events is far less clear; WP should always play a very conservative (middle-ground) tone very much in particular around BLP. There's no contest to the statement "A civil court ruled he raped her", but it would a BLP/Label issue to jump from that to say "He is a rapist" because of that. If this was all criminal court, it wouldn't be an issue. --M ASEM (t) 00:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that's exactly what many reliable sources are saying.   Sumbuddi (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Especially around BLP, we don't repeat contentious statements verbatim. We are better in how we handle these types of claims to BLP. --M ASEM (t) 02:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you could get less contentious than a judge making a ruling in a court? The judge said they raped, ergo they are rapists. There is no other definition for rapist. Sumbuddi (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the best approach here is actually first principles -- forget what the judge said and the differing burdens of civil and criminal court. Let's see what the reliable sources call them and go with that.  Just a thought!  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Given how some of these same sources are lashing out at the judges that ruled about the Brexit and labeling them as criminals (see here), no we should not follow RSes on contentious labels, at least in the short-term. Five, ten years from now, it makes sense to see how they are looked at with time between events, but news today is far too sensational on breaking topics to rely on them for justifying contentious labels, particularly when the labels are being applied in the wake of breaking news. We have to take a middle ground here. --M ASEM (t) 15:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, but when taking that middle ground is pretty much WP:OR, then I'd say we need to be a bit careful. I confess that I cast a jaundiced eye on any advice that begins "no we should not follow RSes."  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Taking a middle ground against what RSes say is policy per WP:YESPOV and BLP. There is no OR, not contested statement, in stating "he was charged in civil court of committing rape". --M ASEM (t) 16:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I think "found liable for committing rape" would be a better descriptor. But I would agree, simply by following the RSes here, that your formulation is better.  As applied, I don't think there's a difference between us here.  My concern is that it would seemingly be your stance that if 99% of sources described the two as "rapists," we should somehow resist that appellation.  As usual, I'm drifting off in to theory land, so feel free to ignore.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Also I feel that given that this case has apparently ended the career of both men, then the incident belongs in the introduction. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting ahead of yourself in respect of Goodwillie. Robertson has retired, but his career was basically winding down anyway (he was playing in the semi-professional fourth tier of Scottish football). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Goodwillie has been dropped. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes he has, as a temporary measure pending further consideration. We don't know yet what the effect of the case on his career will be. Even if Plymouth decide to terminate his employment, he may seek to continue his career elsewhere. So we can't say at present that it's "career ending". Jellyman (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Worth noting in this context that Plymouth presently have a player (Luke McCormick) who was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A bit irrelevant, because there's no word for that offence. Simple conclusion: using "A civil court ruled that he raped her" is fine, but using the word "rapist" is not;  it would have been had it been a criminal court, but it wasn't. I realise that seems completely illogical, but it really isn't. Civil actions depends on the balance of probabilities not proof as a criminal trial does.Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a minor quibble -- civil courts depend upon proof as well, just to a different (and lesser) standard. Both are with the mindset that perfect epistemic surety just isn't in the cards.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Goodwillie has been released by Plymouth Argyle, so I have re-written the article to a significant extent. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Allan Rock
This page has a section on "Controversies" which detail what appear to be two minor issues between a university president and two students. Neither have reliable sources to back them up (one is linked to a 404, the other a blog), the language is far from neutral (esp the section about Marc Kelly which gives this person's personal POV with no source), and I believe both should be removed. I am still a new editor and didn't feel confident removing it altogether, so I am looking for other editors for their input. (NOTE: I see that these issues were raised years ago in the TALK section of the page, but not resolved). Thanks.Aphra (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You're right, that section is a horrible mess. There are quite a few primary sources, and nearly an entire paragraph written in the first person (with a lot of emotion and obviously by someone with a grudge). I'd say everything referenced to the blog or the primary sources needs to be cut. Secondary-source coverage is what we need to show that these events are notable. Zaereth (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

✅--The unwarranted parts were removed.On reinstation, talk page discussion is the best way out. Winged Blades Godric 14:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hoodrich Pablo Juan
The biography Hoodrich Pablo Juan was tagged for AFD deletion, but should have been a speedy delete (G12) as it is entirely a cut-and-paste from this source. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 15:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Josh Zepnick
User:Joplinplayer has three times inserted unsourced sensationalistic, inflammatory, and potentially libelous material to this article. Although there is a source at the end of the paragraph where the material was inserted, it in no way supports the questionable text. I have deleted the text once. It's unclear, but given Joplinplayer's assertions here, it may be an eyewitness account. Does the statement in question belong in the article? I don't want to get into an edit war with Joplinplayer, so I'm looking for some oversight here. 32.218.152.233 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * BLP Violation - This appears to be a simple case of "unsourced, contentious content about a living person", which should be removed per WP:BLPDELETE. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since there is an ongoing ANI thread, it may be best to keep all of this in one place. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What Ryk72 said. I've removed the material with an appropriate edit summary. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing the material is fine, but since it's potentially libelous, can we get it removed from the page history? 32.218.152.233 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As someone non-familiar with the purview of the rev.del. policy, I don't think the reverted edits were utterly defamatory or libelous to warrant a removal.But again, I may be wrong. Winged Blades Godric 17:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox person/Wikidata
There's a deletion discussion about Infobox person/Wikidata that could affect BLPs, in case anyone here is interested. SarahSV (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Russell Brothers
Russell Brothers is a draft article I have written, still in my sandbox. I am posting here to ask advice about it. Below is a communication I sent to a more senior editor, Fuhghettaboutit, and the response I received: Eagledj (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

Mike Renzi
I have been attempting to explain to an editor that material based on personal interviews and knowledge cannot be added to this article unless it is also supported by independent reliable sources. Now looking over the article it appears largely to be overly promotional and extremely poorly sourced. I would appreciate it enormously if other editors with an understanding of our policies regarding living persons could take a look and help bring it at least somewhat in line with WP:BLP/WP:RS requirements.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Jezebel's Ponyo: RE my edits of Mike Renzi, I wrote the original article. I am not affiliated with Mike Renzi. I am a much-published author and journalist (jamesgavin.com) who has interviewed Mr. Renzi for books. I disagree that the article is at all promotional; it is straightforwardly factual and almost free of adjectives. In many cases this information is available nowhere else. Does that bar it from inclusion on Wikipedia? The edits were so minimal - a few career updates - that I can't believe they're causing all this drama. The subject of the entry can make edits but an outside party can't based on his information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrForager (talk • contribs) 23:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I will be definitely on a copy-edit mission. Winged Blades Godric 08:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ,---✅ It seems was the sole contributor towards adding all these unsourced/ill-sourced facts about the subject to the article in a massive edit dating back to 2011.The edits that took place subsequently all appeared to be pruning and copy-editing the huge chunk of info added by him.Thus,I've reverted the article back to the edit before he added all those info.I would also like to state MrForager may not indulge in tendentious edit-warring, readding the deleted info based on flimsy references of personal interviews and may only re-incorporate selected contents, provided they are well supported by a WP:RS.  Winged Blades Godric 08:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I've done a bit of tidying as well. There is significant information that could be imported back in to the article if written neutrally and supported by reliable sources.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Leonard Lance
There is a discussion at Talk:Leonard Lance as to whether particular text is supported by sources or an original interpretation of them. Editors are invited to discuss either here or there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Really don't see what the big deal is. Lance said publicly, quoted in the Star Ledger, that he's an enthusiastic supporter of Trump. So a partisan GOP-er has been systematically removing that phrase here and here. Come on; leave politics out of this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what either the Star Ledger or the source they use, Observer (which has a fuller, and more qualified statement), quotes the article subject as saying; it's an original interpretation of the sources statements. As for the accusations: Please take your WP:ASPERSIONS elsewhere. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Alexandra Savior and her real name
See Alexandra Savior. I reverted her publicists changes and restored her real name which is in several media profiles of her. Now I wonder. If I did the wrong thing you can undo and hide the name again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B11C:899D:156C:E53:AB15:BE48 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They were right about the bit in a book - it is irrelevant to them. I would say if Savior is how she is titled per commonname - then she should probably be referred to as 'Savior' in the article rather than her given surname - which would stay in the article where appropriate. I gather this is generally the case with entertainers with stage names. See Jon Bon Jovi for an example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Input accepted
I just walked into an article about Dr. Oz and there's some discussion about whether or not we should include the statement "Psuedoscience promoter" or not in the lead. You opinion is being sought to gain a consensus one way or another. My argument on keeping it out is very much a WP:BLP argument. &#408;&#415;  S&#294;  21:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noting that those who support the inclusion have their own concrete reasons too.Err...A bit fairer to both sides. Winged Blades Godric 17:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Tom Brady and deflategate
RfC about deflategate in the lede or not going on now. --Malerooster (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Jack Renshaw (far-right activist)
This entire article is hyperbolic beyond belief, and uses youtube, facebook, Huffington Post, and some left-wing activist group as primary sources, which seems to be heavily POV.

Also, Despite his attempt at gaining fame, I just don't think this bloke is notable enough to be included on wiki, and definitely not the way his bio was written.

Stevo D (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He has enough coverage in reliable sources that he might pass WP:GNG. If you want to push the deletion argument I think WP:AFD would be the best place to take it. If you do decide to take it there, be sure that your arguments are based on policy and guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

David Bradish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bradish This page is a vanity living persons biography. The page is an orphan and pretty much all the material is unattributed, aside from links to the individuals personal website. Seems to be mostly POV. I don't think he has done anything that deserves a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.236.248 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for the report. I am in a degree of agreement - page seems to have a problem with WP:PRIMARY links, there are no Secondary or tertiary sources and the article is very large considering that concern (35,650 bytes) - 22 of the 23 http links in the article are to http://www.davidbradish.com the other one is to discogs. The article, more or less exactly as it stands today was written by a single user in his sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Agata_Mayer and moved it to article space from there. In thirteen months no wikipedia editor has checked its credentials to exist at all. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm about to PROD it. Concerns are valid, and I doubt the deletion will be contentious. If it is, it can be taken to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article creator left me a message contesting the PROD. I have since moved it to AfD. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, it would probably be best done there. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)