Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive251

Sippenhaft and Donald Trump
Talk:Sippenhaft.

At Sippenhaft 3 editors are in favour of including from the following source information in that article citing directly D Trump's idea not only terrorists but also terrorists' kin and family should be killed. The article on sippenhaft deals precisely with this notion. The source likens Trump's position to that of sippenhaft.
 * John Fund, Trump’s Call to Kill Family Members of Terrorists Is Quarter-Baked, National Review December 18, 2015,

The minority say that to liken Trump's position (kill terrorists' kin) to that of sippenhaft (kill or punish criminals' kin), even if reliably sourced and used with attribution, is a BLP violation. Is it? Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to expand a bit, on why it might be a potential BLP issue is that the article only includes actual cases of Sippenhaft, not proposed. So in a way, if you include only Trump's statement as a proposed usage of Sippenhaft into an article of actual usage, then that might be BLP and UNDUE. And besides, even if it's not BLP, it should not be in the article since the article is only actual usages and including proposed is off-topic. We don't include every proposed statement made in history and we shouldn't start just for Trump. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You also did not include the required template on the article's talk page. Failure to do so might be seen as trying to hide the discussion from certain talk page participants. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean when you say "the article only includes actual cases." Who decided it includes only "actual" cases? It appears the consensus of editors is that the article should include both proposed, as well as practiced ("actual"), cases of Sippenhaft, and that what constitutes a "proposed" case and what constitutes an "actual" case, and whether each case should be included, needs to be decided by the normal consensus process, not because two editors (SJ and Bradv) arbitrarily decided that only one "kind" of Sippenhaft should be included. Nobody on the talk page suggested that we "include every proposed statement made in history" -- that is a strawman. The consensus is only that a political candidate, who is now the chief executive of the most powerful country on the planet, and has the power and authority to implement the policies he so passionately advocated during his campaign, merits inclusion.   Ijon Tichy  (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no need to rehash talk page arguments. As I pointed out to Nishidani many, many times, if he wants to include the Trump section (regardless of BLP issues) he should follow procedures, namely dispute resolution, mediation, and RFC. A 3-2 is not a consensus. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The proposed text would be a WP:BLP violation in my estimation because Trump's campaign statement is not an example of sippenhaft. Also, citing only one source would be WP:UNDUE.- MrX 12:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is something very odd in all of this. Not only myself, but the very editors who monitor I/P pages with an ethnonationalist defensiveness, editing exclusively in the interests of the image of one party to the conflict, have no problem in listing every remark threatening Jews collectively on the pages related to those people. If Hassan Nasrallah states that Israel: "is a cancer that must be eradicated.” we put in on the page,-I'd be the last person to object- and do not secondguess the source by defensively arguing:’it’s a BLP violation since there is no evidence he would treat Israelis as a surgeon treats cancer cells.' If Dov Lior declares:’ Jewish women should not use sperm donated by a non-Jewish man, and a baby born through such an insemination will have the "negative genetic traits that characterize non-Jews", . .Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring". we put it on his page, and don’t try to censor it. What's so special about the president of the United States?
 * Wikipedia documents scrupulously, when neutral, important statements made by people who direct the affairs of the world, threats or otherwise, because they are part of the notable public record.Attempts to introduce rationalizations to exclude such comments are nothing but tokens of editorial partisanship, wishing to cleanse one kind of political figure’s image, while (invariably) dredging up muck (truthful muck) to stick on the other side. I don’t care what political, ethnic profile a public figure has: if (s)he states (verifiably) something that is widely reported and criticized, it goes into the record irrespective of the costs to reputation or the potential political spin this might lend itself to.
 * I go by reliable sources. If the source is reliable - no one contests that Trump said what he said- and the source states that (a) the kin of terrorists should be killed (Trump) and (b) the notable (conservative) political analyst notes that this is an example of the doctrine of kin liability, which in German and more broadly (in discussions of the practice in North Korea/the Soviet Union, totalitarian regimes etc., is called sippenhaft), then I add that view. It is not our task to say whether 'Trump's campaign statement is not an example of sippenhaft' - that would be an example of an editor making a subjective (and flawed, in my view) interpretative challenge to what a reliably sourced commentator states. Editors do not have a right to challenge the putative veracity of what reliable sources say, unless the interpretation is demonstrably unfactual. Trump said: 'the kin of terrorists can be killed'. Sippenhaft involves punishing the kin of people deemed culpable of some act'. The terms are identical, and the commentator's gloss is not an extraordinary claim. As shown on the talk page, German sources reporting Trump's remark naturally said it was what they call 'sippenhaft'. (Sie nehmen damit eine ganze Religionsgemeinschaft und die Angehörigen einer Religionsgemeinschaft in Sippenhaft.)(2) or Silke Mülherr, Malala verurteilt Trumps „Kommentare voller Hass“ Die Zeit 16 December 2015, which relates sippenhaft implications in other remarks by Trump regarding Muslims collectively.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you are saying&mdash;particularly the part about censoring comments just because he is the president. However, there are several reasons why this statement doesn't fit in the article.
 * 1. This isn't a generic article about kin liability or collective punishment. It is specifically referring to the German concept of sippenhaft.
 * 2. The source you have provided (John Fund's editorial) is the only source that compares Trump's statement to sippenhaft, and it doesn't even make a direct comparison at all. The word sippenhaft is mentioned only once in the editorial, and it's in the context of Nazi Germany, not Trump. If this really is a straightforward example it should be trivial to find multiple sources for this comparison.
 * 3. This article includes exclusively real examples of Sippenhaft or kin liability&mdash;Trump's statement is merely a proposal. Not only has it not happened yet, but it's very unlikely that it will&mdash;Trump says a lot of stuff that is completely preposterous and will never happen.
 * 4. I think that all examples of kin liability that are not connected to the German concept and German usage should be removed from this article. Perhaps there should be a generic article about kin liability, or perhaps these examples should be moved into collective punishment. Either way, it is my contention that they should not be here. Brad  v  15:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Whats the BLP violation? That Trump's views have been compared to Sippenhaft? Unless there is any doubt about what he meant - advocating collective punishment is certainly within the definitions of Sippenhaft. I wouldnt include it based on one source however, as that hits UNDUE. I cant see any BLP violation here though if it was. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sir Joe/Bradv. We come here for third opinions. I don't think it salutary to rehash the talk page here. Third parties will read it, and make up their minds. I'll just note that sippenhaft means 'kin liability', and the page deals with this in several historical contexts, not just Germany (b) I gave you the German links which clearly supplement what the National Interest commentator stated: in German reportage, Trump's remarks were naturally identified as sippenhaft(ung), in prestigious centralist newspapers like Die Zeit, underlining its relevance. You have misread the paper: it clearly contextualizes Trump's views as sippenhaft (c) the distinction 'real example'/'stated belief' has no basis in wiki policy as both of you have been reminded often. (d) as long as the page stands as it is, the fourth objection is hypothetical. In any case, no intelligible case, in my view and that of several editors now, has been made to show why what Trump stated cannot be noted here because it violates his rights to privacy or whatever as a living person. This, as I showed, would mean 99% of I/P articles alone are in violation of WP:BLP, and no one, of whatever political persuasion, has noticed it. Now, can we just wait for further external independent input?Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet you're the one posting paragraphs. You will notice my comment up above, asking not to rehash the talk page. And again, I've asked you not to call me Sir Joe. And again, you need to stop insulting others with your claim of why people edit.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Could we have more neutral external comment please. So far MrX says it is a WP:BLP violation, while Only in death does duty end says it is not.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Besides treading into forbidden BLP territory, the article itself violates WP:SYN. For example, a North Korea prison camp is mentioned as a "modern" example of Sippenhaft, but the source does not make the comparison. Well, we cannot do the same thing WRT Trump. (I intend to revert that material once this issue is settled.) Now if a modern reliable academic source made a connection between Trump's supposed policy and Sippenhaft, then that particular source might be acceptable in a Trump-policy related article. But the topic of Sippenhaft is the historical practice, not un-sourced modern analogies; especially when the analogies have political motivations. We cannot let Sippenhaft be used to criticize (or praise) Trump in Wikipedia's voice. – S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's one of the published sources that directly calls Trump's views Sippenhaft Here is another   SPECIFICO  talk  20:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC) These two sources directly cite Trump's policies in discusion of Sippenhaft so they can be cited to resolve any concern as to SYNTH or OR.  Trump is a public figure who has discussed the issue extensively and there is no BLP violation.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the sources do not directly cite Trump's policies in discusion of Sippenhaft. The "Welt" source mentions Sippenhaft in discussion of a proposed ban on Muslim immigration. The "National Review" mentions Sippenhaft in discussion of terrorists and "take out their families". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (The following is copy-pasted from SPECIFICO's user talk page - Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC))
 * I believe that editors are claiming that no RS connects Trump to Sippenhaft and that the disputed content is therefore SYNTH and a BLP violation. However I believe that the two sources I cited do explicitly link Trump to Sippenhaft, so that they can be used to rebut the SYNTH claim. At any rate, as a public figure who's spoken at length on this topic, I don't think Trump could credibly claim that these sources are libeling him, so I see no BLP violation. Feel free to copy this to the board if you think it helps clarify my remarks. SPECIFICO  talk  22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Not necessarily seeing a BLP violation here. Would editors opining that there is a violation be able to describe, with reference to the policy, that violation? I do consider that there is merit in the suggestion that an inclusion at Sippenhaft, on the basis of only the sources mentioned thus far, would be undue. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Comment  --As a non involved editor,I would state that the inclusion of the disputed content is  not a BLP violation .But, I would strongly object to it being included in the article without something of the sort of a RFC, since I too find it to be WP:UNDUE. Winged Blades Godric 14:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if editors claiming it is WP:Undue clarified why noting on the sippenhaft page that sources identified Trump's twice repeated (Dec.2015/March 2016) assertion as an example of the notion is undue on that page, rather than correlated with the topic of that article. This has nothing to do with Trump per se, but with sourced documentation of the use of the term sippenhaft to define killing or punishing the kin of people deemed criminals.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to state my position clearly for Nishidani above: 1. I do not think its a BLP violation if reliable sources have compared Trumps statements to Sippenhaft - even a fairly tightly defined Sippenhaft covers his statements. 2. It may be an UNDUE issue on any Trump-focused page to include Sippenhaft material - Presidents make a lot of statements, not all of them are worth covering on their biography. 3. I dont think it is an UNDUE issue at all on the Sippenhaft article that the leader of the biggest Democracy on the planet holds those views. Its certainly relevant and encyclopedic that a current (democratic) world leader does so, regardless of who it is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Leader of the biggest democracy on the planet? Narendra Modi might be sad to be so overlooked. :) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is actually irrelevant that it is "the leader of the biggest Democracy on the planet". What matters is the distinction between what is and what isn't. In my opinion Sippenhaft is not language. In my opinion Sippenhaft is an act. Were the United States to at some future time institute Sippenhaft, at that time this issue should be revisited. Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * UNDUE is mostly a 'is this relevant?' test. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Consensus to include?
We appear to have consensus to include with the direct sources cited. Is this correct? SPECIFICO talk  15:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say there is at least rough consensus, likely clear consensus, for "not a BLP violation". Given the concerns about UNDUE, consensus for inclusion seems less clear. NOTE: I have opined in this discussion, above. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not an instance of Sippenhaft. "You have to take out their families" is a reference to an act, that if carried out, would constitute Sippenhaft. But it has not been carried out. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It would be a BLP violation to say "Trump has suggested carrying out Sippenhaft" (even with attribution), as Trump has never actually said that word. It would not be an issue to say "Trump has said 'You have to take out their families', which (some commentators) have compared to Sippenhaft", since it reports what Trump actually said, and then attributes opinion on what that means to a commentator. The question left on the topic is how much of this view point (the comparison to Sippenhaft) is appropriate per UNDUE/FRINGE, which falls outside the BLP arena. --M ASEM (t) 16:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct about attribution. It's certainly not UNDUE and has nothing to do with FRINGE. Trump has repeatedly explained his policy in this matter. The term Sippenhaft is not widely discussed and therefore it's to be expected that there would be fewer reports that use this term. However the sources are respected mainstream sources, not marginal ones as one user claimed.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no other instances in the Sippenhaft article of verbal references to Sippenhaft in the absence of actual acts of Sippenhaft. Why should we break new ground in now including a quote from Trump that does not have a counterpart in reality? The United States has not punished the families of terrorists. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no actual 'act of Sippenhaft' related to Russia in its section either, being as it is just describing them passing Sippenhaft like laws, so this is a non-argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Sippenhaft like laws" warrant inclusion. It is trivial to see the substantiality of laws that legitimize the punishing of the families of for instance terrorists. This has not transpired in the United States. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The UNDUE/FRINGE issue is not what Trump said (it's repeated in many many papers), but it is related to how many commentators (and their relative importance) have compared what Trump said to Sippenhaft. If only one op-ed from a small city newspaper made the connection, it's FRINGE. If several major city paper op-eds have said it, there's enough weight to include it. Same thing if a major Democratic leader/official, or a high-ranking foreign official/leader said it (Which likely will be picked up by a number of sources). That weight has to be evaluated. --M ASEM (t) 18:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * To clarify further, its clear there is consensus this is not a BLP issue if sourced and attributed correctly per Masem. If it *should* be in the relevant article is another question best left to the article talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is no longer a BLP issue. E.g., the concerns about Trump are resolved because Trump is no longer mentioned in the article. Accordingly, let's close this discussion.  – S. Rich (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not it. The concern is resolved because we have RS now making the direct connection and we can reinsert the Sippenhaft/Trump text in the article. That was the purpose of this thread.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When numerous policies are waved, one following the other, in objections to an edit, outside editors should exercise great caution. This was repeatedly objected to on flimsy grounds, WP:BLP, that the majority have determined is wholly irrelevant. But then WP:Undue was mentioned by those who made that 'irrelevant' call. I can't see why it is undue.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that other, uninvolved, editors, who did not object on BLP grounds, consider that there is some validity to an objection on NPOV@WEIGHT grounds. It is likely that those editors do not consider that inclusion would fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. It is likely that they hold such an opinion because in all of the sources which discuss Sippenhaft, Trump's comments are mentioned in a vanishingly small minority; and in all of the sources which discuss Trump's comments, Sippenhaft is mentioned in a vanishingly small minority. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it would be undue in a trump article - its basically one of many silly things he has said. Frankly we should start a dedicated article 'Things Trump believes which dont belong in a civilized society'. Until that time however, his comments on the effectiveness are torture are more relevant. I cant see any real reason it should be excluded from the Sippenhaft article though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see why the fact that Trump is mentioned in relationship to sippenhaft suddenly creates problems. The proposal was made by rightwing Swiss politicians in, I think, 2008, reviving the idea of punishing the kin of immigrants, which immediately rang bells of sippenhaft. If that was included no one would object. But as soon as Trump says a similar thing, on Wikipedia, it becomes problematical. Very odd. I would include it whenever kinship liability policies punishing kin are referred to by mentioning sippenhaft, though strictly speaking, I think this is a confusion of hypernym and hyponym. Conceptually, sippenhaft is the Germanic tradition of kin liability, which is the hyponym of group punishment, which is a subset of collective punishment. To assert that a member of a conceptual set is unique, when it is an instance of a more general principle, is to fall prey to linguistic exceptionalism or nominalism in the loose sense, meaning no language-specific word even if it has close even precise affinities with words for the general idea in other languages, can be explored outside of its specific cultural-linguistic milieu. Thus one could never mention ethnocracy on a page on apartheid unless apartheid was referred to in terms of that word, ethnocracy. (Apartheid is simply the south African version of the general concept of ethnocracy, it is the hyponym.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet the article doesn't mention the proposal by the Swiss. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, cite it. It would only take several minutes of your time. I won't add anything because the page just keeps on getting excised, eviscerated. A reminder to editors of good will. When reverting out large amounts of material, even if the principle is correct, one should try to copy and paste the material removed on pages of articles were that material is unobjectionable. If editors spent more time looking at, and adding sources, rather than raising huge bulldust storms of piffling equivocation that devour serious editorial work, Wikipedia would become a serious encyclopedia. Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's be clear on the issues. I think this BLPNB thread is about whether it is proper to use the term Sippenhaft to describe Trumps' Twitter musings. At the same time, the Sippenhaft article per se has been properly cleaned-up by removing non-Germanic history materials (Trumpian and non-Trumpian) so that the reader has an article exclusively devoted to the Germanic term. This being the case, we can close this thread with an admonition that the addition materials seeking to link Trump to the Sippenhaft article are subject to WP:GS. If this is the decision, we need only repeat that "as per ARBCOM decisions, materials in Trump-related articles will be evaluated in accordance with BLP, UNDUE, WP:5P, etc.". – S. Rich (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They are not 'twitter musings'. They were delivered in interviews with the press, the first time to Fox news.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that's fairly close ... I think the thread, based on the initial post, is more about whether BLP is an impediment to including referenced, attributed content that the authors opinion is that Trump's stated position is akin to Sippenhaft. For mine, there would be BLP problems with stating this opinion as fact, and also with stating it as opinion without in-text attribution; and I believe that that is also the rough consensus of the discussion (noting I am involved in the discussion here). Concur that if the non-Germanic history materials have been removed, and there is no longer an intention to include content at Sippenhaft, then we should be done here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The text proposed, and opposed, on the talk page, had attribution, indicating quite clearly that this was an interpretation of what Trump said. We should try to make policy calls by remembering or checking precisely what was said, where, in what medium, and by whom. This is not about Trump. It is about the use of the word sippenhaft, and that Trump was mentioned by name, and the nervousness surrounding it, perhaps due to the usual POV pushing skirmishing, is immaterial.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The text proposed, and opposed, on the talk page, had attribution, indicating quite clearly that this was an interpretation - Absolutely! That was my understanding throughout this discussion and also the basis of my opinion that it was not a BLP violation; and appears to be the basis of other similar opinions, above. I am simply reaffirming that basis, as it is not clear in the comment by . - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Close this thread. It is not proper to use the term Sippenhaft to describe Trumps' Twitter musings, nor is it proper to add Trumps comments to the Sippenhaft page, not even if you attribute it to anyone, only if Trump himself used the term would it warrant inclusion in that article. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no strong opinion about it, but generally agree with arguments by Nishidani. There is an active related discussion on the page, and I invite everyone interested in this subject to join discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Jaime Rodríguez Calderón
Jaime Rodríguez Calderón

Someone has added, in poorly-written English, a section on the supposedly unfair media treatment of Governor Rodríguez Calderón. I think the whole section bears deleting, but I'm not sure if that's the best course of action.
 * Section removed, and I've added it to my watchlist. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Steve Topple
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Topple

The subject is completely un-notable, merely being a blog-writer, and has a low media profile; Among other offenses in the article are unsourced statements, invective, usage of sources like Buzzfeed and twitter, the entire article seems to have been written by one user, and generally just not following good BLP practice.

Stevo D (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * PRODed. If contested it can be taken to WP:AfD. As an FYI in the future you can take it to AfD yourself or add the WP:PROD tag with your reasoning. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Portland Communications story is very important as it was not only limited to Topple and Canary-readers: Len McCluskey, the General Secretary of Britain's largest union cited this conspiracy, a derivative of Topple's work. HelgaStick (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Paddy Roberts Politician
I do not wish to have a Wikipedia article.

It has been up for years, and it now being used by an individual (outing redacted) to libel me and another member of my family.

(They have) added a claim that I "stalk people online" and that I have a brother who was a drug smuggler.

If you edit it back, but leave it open, he will just do it again.

Please remove this article until such time as you have systems in place to stop it being used for defamatory purposes.

Thank you.

Paddy Robert (contact info redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.102.66 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for bringing this here - we will take a look but please don't reveal other editors identities as that is not allowed, see WP:OUTING. It's also a bad idea to post your phone number here so I've redacted that as well - if you have an issue that needs involves sensitive information (such as your phone number) or requires more direct contact, see WP:OTRS. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've boldly redirected the article to Progressive Nationalist Party of British Columbia as I don't think Mr. Roberts is independently notable. Will probably send it to AFD if reverted. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Not independently notable to have an article .  Winged Blades Godric 08:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Pickering article
I just came across this article. It's worth looking at this article to see if this guy is even WP:Notable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that there was a tiny AfD on him: Articles for deletion/Daniel Pickering. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've done a bit of work on the article. He might just scrape through as he is credited as exec producer on Gerry Anderson's final film as well as another film called Stalled. Feel free to disagree, though! — Iadmc  ♫ talk  15:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Iadmc, thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem! — Iadmc  ♫ talk  19:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sally Yates
First line calls her a "traitor".

As for "Please indicate the reasons why you believe it violates the biographies of living persons policies": Presumably this is self-evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.155.8 (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks for reporting this vandalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Due to a Telegraph article covering the May-Trump meeting, it is now in the article that he has a fear of slopes. All joking aside, while normally we would not look too deeply at reliable sources, I dont feel including in someones biography they have a fear of slopes/medical/mental issue based on an anonymous/unnamed white house staffer is a fantastic idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely. Needs more coverage before it's appropriate.  At best this is a slender reed for inclusion on a BLP; at worst it is an inclined slender reed.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A discussion seems to be ongoing at the article talk page now. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been removed from the article. The talk page discussion does seem to have consensus not to mention it. The allegation is poorly sourced and many of us don't believe it is true. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Starley (artist)
Someone keeps changing the year of birth on Starley (singer) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starley_(singer) to 2000, which would make her 16 years old. The singer herself has posted on numerous occasions (ex: https://twitter.com/starleymusic/status/823969345021710336) and explained in various interview that the information is false. How do I prevent that person from continuing to falsify her year of birth? I've changed it a few times but someone keeps changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elissajf (talk • contribs) 19:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed the birthdate as unsourced and disputed, and watchlisted the article. Please could you also decide which of the three social media links under "See also" is most useful? Wikipedia practice is not to keep all three, we just need one -- whatever is closest to her "official website". MPS1992 (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you mean the links under "external links"?

Frederick Achom
A new editor claiming to represent the subject is asking for this article to be deleted because it contains negative information about him (accurate and referenced to reliable sources, although apart from the legal troubles the notability is rather marginal). Judging from the original flattering version of the article, I imagine it was paid for. Along the way, numerous SPAs and various socks have been attempting to whitewash the article. It was recently subject to the editing of a this declared paid editor and another paid editor who eventually also confessed at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 105. The talk page discussion including my advice re the deletion process is at Talk:Frederick Achom. Any ideas? Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove all the questionable material, to begin with. I sincerely doubt the person's actual notability, and if put up for AfD, I would likely support deletion entirely.  Collect (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is (much like another recent biography with reliably sourced criminal activities) a borderline case. The subject is barely notable (there is reliable coverage of him, appears in a number of articles for Black businessmen, stuff on his business interests etc) but nothing substantial. However his criminal activities probably push him over. He was involved in a widely covered wine-fraud scam as part of a crackdown by the SFO - which was covered in detail in the wine press and elsewhere. Personally I think its worth a punt at AFD as the subject has requested deletion which is sometimes taken into account with borderline subjects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, Collect and Only in death does duty end, I've started Articles for deletion/Frederick Achom (2nd nomination). We'll see what happens. Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

David Malpass
Could some more eyes go to Talk:David_Malpass? Another user posted here a while back because two SPAs were edit warring and now one of the SPAs is bludgeoning on the talk page about including a synthesis of primary sources that portray the subject in a negative manner. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rick Lazio, Deputy HUD Secretary???
Rick Lazio has not been officially named as Deputy HUD Secretary, only rumored. Please remove title or cite source of his nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelDC (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I've removed it. At this point that appears to be just a rumor. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Tarek Fatah
So we had this edit followed by this.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * An editor with a strong POV apparently.  Collect (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's true; the edit provided a second example within a paragraph that already dealt with the subject tweeting conspiracy theories. Is this source adequate, that the cover up theory is unsupported?  Newimpartial (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Mark Wright (footballer, born 1963)
Full disclosure- I am only recent to Wikipedia and have shared a beer with the subject as a Fan of LFC, but I did not write the article. The page [] has had the revisions to it reverted now twice, most recently citing MOS as the reason. It seems to me that the style of the attempted re-write is exactly similar to that of [], is much better referenced (20 original-70 new refs), and contains fewer POV statements than the article it is replacing. I don't want to run afoul of the community- any insight is appreciated. I've read the MOS and POV articles and can't find how the new article might run afoul of them.

References

Jump up ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Wright_(footballer,_born_1963) Jump up ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Owen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnccarleton (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your comments on the article talk page.  Sussexpeople (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe I have taken into account the MOS and POV concerns of Sussexpeople and have created a new version of the article at my sandbox for review to avoid post/revert issues. I welcome further suggestions to make the new article comply with all best practices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnccarleton/sandbox 15:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Johnccarleton (talk)


 * On a quick initial review, my preliminary comment is that the majority of the citations are bare URLs and need reformatting to comply with the citeweb template. Sussexpeople (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you- I will edit to comply with CiteWeb. Johnccarleton (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Chris Oliver (surgeon)
Article written by subject

WP:COISELF WP:SELFPROMOTE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.27.108 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This looks like WP:OWN too. De728631 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Primarily, the concerns appear to be true. Will take a look at the matter soon!  Winged Blades Godric 10:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Paul Nguyen Cong Anh
The article is pure plagiarism, and only a single source, which it plagiarizes. The subject of the article sounds like a very honorable gentleman but the fact that there is only one source, discussing only one aspect of his life, points to insufficient notability. Editors of the parent article, 'List of Righteous Among the Nations by country' can make it clear that one can get details of particular individuals by following links for the official site. Also the link to the official list is broken on 'List'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:8460:96:80DA:8D99:B0A4:4687 (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Copyvio detector fails to detect any plagiarism. As to insufficient notability WP:AFD is the route but I will be taking my own call later. Winged Blades Godric 11:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Carl Bildt
Biography of the former Swedish Prime Minister, recently edited by an account that appears to be that of Mr. Bildt. I've reverted the edits, which removed mostly negative content, but take seriously the claim that there are neutrality issues. Further attention is needed here. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Attempts to redirect the tone of the content go back to last summer: . 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted the page. Definitely seems to be COI but this cannot be confirmed. Regardless, the information Cbildt is attempting to add is completely unsourced. I'm going to start working on providing reliable sources or removing the content that cannot be verified and would appreciate additional help from others. Meatsgains (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm hoping several editors will have a look. There are older discussions at the article talk page regarding neutrality and objective sources, and I'm kind of hoping a Swedish editor or administrator may have some insight as well. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Elliot Sperling (RIP)
For Elliot Sperling, a recently deceased academic, an edit by User:Philocthetes at 21:01 on 31 January 2017‎ posted a massive amount content that in tone and lack of citations, particularly with subjective (especially "peacock") language, doesn't support the principles of NPOV/V/NOR. This [evidently] SPA User account's only Wikipedia contributions appear on this page and one previous, on 8 August 2016 for Yuri Bregel (also faculty of the same university department) - a large amount of biographical detail with no citations at all. Both additions were posted within days of each subject's death. Both appear to be obituary or eulogy content. My assessment: User:Philocthetes is an inexperienced and limited contributor who didn't relate to (nor comply with) WP:BLP. Rather than take any further action on my own - such as adding the "tone" and citations templates to the article page plus adding a comment on Talk:Elliot Sperling and pinging User:Philocthetes, I'm posting here. Kindly advise so I can know what to do in similar future situations (e.g. discovered through Recent Deaths on the Main Page). -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

inaccurate and libelous
The bio of journalist Roland De Wolk states he was "terminated" from KTVU. This is incorrect and potentially libelous:

-- Even the detailed Wiki segment about KTVU points out he had an "amicable" departure, as reported in verifiable accounts. The correct term would be "left" or "departed" KTVU.

-- De Wolk is a private -- not public -- person. He was not on the air, for example. Consequently, following Wiki's own published standards, his DOB (and age) should not be posted. The more serious issue is private parties have libel rights not assigned to public personas. (Pls see Sullivan v. NY Times) As noted in the bio, he has retained legal counsel.

As a long-standing national journalist who has known De Wolk professionally for decades, I would like to take this opportunity to note Wikipedia's reputation among professional news industry people is very low because of these sorts of mistakes. Seeing them correctly immediately and permanently would be instructive to the profession that Wikipedia is serious about its stated mission and worthy of the support is seeks.

Thank you for taking care of these two points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.77.75 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No, there was not an amicable departure, there was an as amicable settlement of De Wolk's legal action. He was fired first, according to reliable sources, so that is what Wikipedia will reflect. Now, there is a problem in that there was never an official statement from KTVU, nor have either De Wolk, his lawyer or KTVU disclosed details about what happened. If there is some good argument to be made about all of the sources getting it wrong, we could couch the statement as a claim, "according to blah blah blah..." As for his year of birth and age, this is a common feature of any BLP, even semi-private persons, though it is often removed at the subject's request. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Most reliable sources states that he was fired and I don't see anything to the contrary. Winged Blades Godric 07:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * New York Daily News? Please add reliable sources or I will blank the problematic content from the BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Just while I am here, for the unregistered editor above, I do not care at all about "Wikipedia's reputation among professional news industry people". I and other editors will never do anything at your behest. A reasonable request for obvious inaccuracies to be corrected, is the best method to achieve that. MPS1992 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe this article is neither inaccurate nor (seriously?) libelous. Here's why: A couple of years ago I did some work cleaning up the article. I later got an email from De Wolk himself, thanking me for my changes. He certainly gave the impression that he was not unhappy with the article. He did not complain about the amount of information that was included, he cited no inaccuracies, and "libel" seemed to be the farthest thing from his mind. I think we can close this referral as "no action needed". --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yves Ekwalla Hermann
This soccer player was born on May 9, 1990 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.35.247 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is currently no article by that name.-- Auric    talk  02:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've investigated and found the following:
 * There is, with the surname spelled with a single "n": Yves Ekwalla Herman. I've created a redirect from the above spelling and will add the variants as aliases to Wikidata for Yves Ekwalla Herman.
 * In Wikidata the year of birth (same date) is 1985 with two references from asia.eurospor9t.com/football and int.soccerway.com/players
 * So until the YOB=1990 has a verifiable reference cited, I've reverted the changes back to 1985 with this explanation in the Edit summary. User:108.18.35.42 will have to provide better references. I'll note the above on Talk:Yves Ekwalla Herman. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! -- Auric    talk  14:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Bart D. Ehrman in Category:Christian fundamentalists
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Bart D. Ehrman/Archive 4, and I thought it would be good to get some help here. Ehrman is clearly a former Christian fundamentalist - so should he be in the category? Strangely, WP:CATEGRS has nothing to say about former religious identifications. StAnselm (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides your query here, see Talk:Bart D. Ehrman/Archive 4 about Wikidata where a sourced claim can be cited.-- Deborahjay (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala [Revision as of 02:17, February 6, 2017]
The edits made on the Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala wikipedia page [Revision as of 02:17, February 6, 2017] is irrelevant and out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macbethology (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Emmett Till RFC
There is an ongoing RFC which may be of interest to the participants of this board. (Although Till is obviously dead, the RFC involves updated information from the Carol Bryant, "white woman" in the incident, who is still living. )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emmett_Till#Emmett_Till_lead_sentence_RFC ResultingConstant (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Linda Sarsour
Please keep an eye on Linda Sarsour, a criticism section on a BLP is odd from my (male) POV. –193.96.224.20 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, additional perspectives on this one would be appreciated. Most of the criticism presented there has received no coverage in independent RSs (the story on Fox was about their own programming), and some editors seem to me to want to cover it beyond due weight. Eperoton (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nivedhitha
the image attached to this page is wrong.. the image is of actress Niveda Thomas who is not Niveditha.. Please change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.205 (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Anish Kapoor


is insisting on adding that Kapoor is of Jewish descent to the opening sentence of the lead. I reverted a couple of times because, without checking policy, I knew that one does not add such things to the lead, let alone to the opening sentence. Headhitter seemed to think initially that the fact it wasn't sourced in the lead was the problem. It wasn't. The Jewish descent is in the body and sourced. I have no problem with it being in the body. I then reverted one last time, quoting from MOS:BLPLEAD ("Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."). That wasn't good enough. Headhitter reverted essentially stating that because Kapoor received a "Jewish" prize, that made his Jewishness relevant to his notability. I personally find that preposterous (he's a sculptor for pete's sake), but I've already reverted three times, which is once more than I usually allow myself. I'll let others here decide what, if anything, to do.

As an aside there are also violations of WP:BLPCAT with cats saying he is Jewish as opposed to of Jewish descent. As far as I can tell, he never self-identifies as being Jewish, either from a religious or ethnic perspective.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kapoor does self-identify as Jewish – see this article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jun/08/anish-kapoor-on-wagner-he-was-antisemitic-and-im-jewish-who-cares which also describes him as a Jewish artist. The description of him being Jewish is in The Guardian's headline and in the opening para: if a respected national UK newspaper can find Kapoor's Jewishness that notable, shouldn't Wikipedia too? Headhitter (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why can't a sculptor be described as Jewish? How is that preposterous? Halina Korn was a Polish sculptor. She is described in the Wikipedia article's lede as being of Jewish origin. Headhitter (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article would take care of the BLPCAT issue if a statement saying that Kapoor describes himself as Jewish were included in the bio. I never said that being a Jewish sculptor was preposterous. I said that being Jewish is not related to his notability as a sculptor. Those are very different statements. As for Korn, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Religion is not usually worthy of a mention in the lead unless the person is/was known in a major way for their religion, eg: martyr, clergy. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Being Jewish isn't necessarily a religious description. There are many Jewish atheists. Headhitter (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not getting into the "Jews as race/Jews as religion/some Jews are anti-Zionists" etc type of arguments. You know what I meant. As it happens, I think it is relevant because of some of his art projects (and he is on the shortlist for yet another Holocaust Memorial in London, to be announced in a few months' time). - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (EC) Well yes it doesnt say if he is an Ethnic Jew or Religious Jew in that Guardian article (the answer could be either or both) which is where the category system falls down. As it stands, his Jewishness is irrelevant (for the most part) to his notability, with some exceptions (the Versaille incident mentioned in the Guardian article). It would generally not be mentioned in the lead unless it was a significant part of his notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the panel who awarded him the prestigious Genesis Prize would claim that his Jewishness is significant to his notability. Headhitter (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Matt Stokoe
Hello,

The following passage has been repeatedly added to the 'Early Life' section of this page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Stokoe&diff=prev&oldid=764361087

This has been included by users 128.86.177.128 79.66.42.215

Please prevent this from being added again.

Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5mooredge (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've placed a strong vandalism warning on the IPs user page. If it happens again please report it at WP:AIV.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sante Kimes
See Talk:Sante Kimes. Mrs Kimes is deceased, but her son is not. This allegation did not come up in any of the press accounts at the time, but has apprently been mentioned in a number of books and tv movies about the Kimes'. Given the inflammatory nature of such accusations, I'd like more eyes to examine these sources and comment on how the article should deal with these accusations, if at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd be very careful to double check those sources. I picked one at random (actually, one mentioned by the IP), which was the Oedipus Wrecks story by the NYPost. This turned out to be a op/ed piece meant to promote a movie. The word "incest" is obviously used in the piece to give a hook to the story, but even the movie only hints at it, as quoted, "No, this version doesn’t show, as much as timidly allude to, the incest. But you’d have to be Ray Charles not to see the body language between mom and son." I haven't check all the other sources, but if they're as unreliable as this one, I'd leave it out. At first glance, it smacks of sensationalism, blurring the line between fact and fiction. Zaereth (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wack Pack lists Irene DeCook as being dead and she's not.
"Deceased Wack Packers The following individuals were determined to be Wack Pack members prior to their death: Irene the Leather Weather Lady (Irene De Cook)"

THIS IS UNTRUE. Irene DeCook is my mother and alive and well, it's very disturbing to see her listed as being dead. I contacted the admin but they refuse to update this. She has a facebook page and uses it regularly.

I am also on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/darlacet with links to her page as well as the rest of our family who is upset that this hasn't been fixed yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Darlacet (talk • contribs) 9 February 2017 14:34 (UTC)


 * I removed her entry from the list because there had never been a reliable source for the claim of her being dead. It was even challengend in 2012 but the "citation needed" flag was removed by one editor in 2015 without adding a reference. Moreover she was not selected into the "official" list in a February 2015 Stern show. Irene is still credited though in the beginning of the Wack Pack article. De728631 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Suzanne A. Rogers
This is certainly written by the subject. Wildly under sourced and pandering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.241.114 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones(Radio Host) correction
There needs to be changes made to the biography on Alex Jones(Radio Host). In the overview there is a sentence claiming that Alex Jones' website, InfoWars.com publishes fake news; "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled as a fake news website." After a thorough source analysis, I've found that none of the sources used factual evidence supporting this claim. You can look for yourself; check the sources of each source. MotherJones.com failed to provide any source material backing the claim that InfoWars.com publishes fake news. MotherJones.com is also a far left source which makes sense why they would publish this without evidence.

The Washington Times also failed to produce any fact based evidence supporting their claim that InfoWars.com publishes fake news.

The LA Times cited a list put together by Melissa Zimdars, an assistant professor of communication at Merrimack College in Massachusetts; but the list was removed due to the "safety" of her students, family, and colleagues. Besides that list(which no longer exists) there is no evidence supporting this, nothing but a mention of Trump calling Alex and thanking him for his help in winning the election. Which is referring to the support hes given him on his show. USNews.com which also cited a list; a list found on FakeNewsWatch.com which also fails to provide any evidence supporting their claim that Infowars.com is fake news. Also FakeNewsWatch.com classifies InfoWars.com as "Clickbait"; regardless they provide zero evidence and their sources either dont mention infowars.com or are not in existence anymore. Except for snopes but snopes was discredited during the election.

This is 100% defamatory and should not be on his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brando 1771 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is called original research, which we do not use. You are also doing a bad job of it, as you present no factual evidence to counter the claims presented by those sources.  If you don't think that the U.S. News & World Report is not a reliable source but that a conspiracy theory website is, you do not belong here.  Snopes was not "discredited" during the election except in alt-right echo chambers. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When Mother Jones and The Washington Times agree on a proposition, it's a pretty good sign that said proposition enjoys broad support across the ideological spectrum. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The term "fake news" is a contentious label. There's a very objective meaning to it: a website purposely trying to appear visually like a reliable site but publishing fake news stories. But there's the subjective meaning of sites that use hyperbole and exaggerations and sometimes false, unverified, or mistaken info to justify a point, and earnestly believe they are reporting their own content, rather than trying to pass off as a different reliable site. What falls into that latter definition is very subjective, so any classification into that should be attributed at the minimum. We shouldn't factually assume it is "fake news" since Infowars does appear to not fall into the objective meaning, so we should carefully handle the contentious claim by attributing that to the sources that make the claim. --M ASEM (t) 00:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Masem, perhaps you could provide some evidence that the label is contentious? As I said above, where Mother Jones and The Washington Times agree, "contentious" does not seem apposite to me.  Dumuzid (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what Masem is saying is that we (Wikipedia) should not be making (or appearing to make) that judgment, but rather say "so-and-so calls it such." Zaereth (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's basically what I mean. We cannot deny those sources broadly call it as such but we should be identifying those sources since there's no objective measure for this definition of "fake news". Same logic for "clickbait" if that was the term. And while we are on a BLP who is the person that operates the website in question and that calling a site that is shaming the site, we should use caution and just be clear that "infowars.com is fake news" is an attributable claim and not fact. --M ASEM (t) 02:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'm basically okay with that, but let's say we chase down 15 reliable sources. Should we list all of them?  Or does it reach a point where we can make the point more generally? Dumuzid (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's more than 3 or 4, then you can say "according to (some/several/many) sources, including, X, Y, and Z, soandso is a fake news site", with the selection of X, Y, and Z being the ones with the highest perceived objectivity/reliability (eg in this case, WA Times > LA Times >> Mother Jones). And of course, one should make sure to distinguish between the novel claim of the work on its own and the claim to another source (like the US News one above, which would support FakeNewsWatch.com as a source verified to make the claim, though I don't know if FakeNewsWatch would be high on the objectivity/reliability list if you had to limit examples). --M ASEM (t) 14:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While I find the claim that the Washington Times is a more reliable source than the LA Times rather remarkable, that's a discussion for another day! What gets me is the fact that we're sort of employing ipse dixit to declare certain terms or concepts "contentious."  I would take the stance that "contentious" is something we should find in the reliable sources rather than applying ourselves.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Short answer: yes, "fake news" can be shown to be a contentious term, , and a lot more, so the next part really doesn't come into play, but it is important to address.
 * Long answer: There is a point where we need to have the ability to use allowable editorial original research into the nature of a topic as to write an article that is neutral, going beyond how the situation is presented in reliable sources (which may require being aware of the broader picture) to determine if we are dealing in the realm of facts or claims. Absent any type of source that describe the use of "fake news" as a label, it is very easy to see that the left and right are equally using the term to call out sources on the opposite site as that, and it should be patently obvious it is a subjective term, and that it is a negative term used in partisan battles, thus making it contentious. It would be similar to why calling someone a racist, even if absent any sources that describe that as a label. Heck, most of what is presented at WP:LABEL could be called "original research" but it is the type that we allow for to meet NPOV policy. --M ASEM (t) 14:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fake news can be said to be contentious in some ways, but perhaps not in others. That's what I mean. Context matters.  "Racist" is certainly a contentious term, but not so much when applied to the Ku Klux Klan.  We should get our context from reliable sources, not from editors.  That's all I'm on about--and I promise, even if you reply, I'll cease my brief jeremiad! Dumuzid (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it is important to recognize context matters, but also how much time we've had as a society to come to grasp with that context. With the Klan we have had decades of time to make that determination, while with "fake news", its been less than a year. We have to be a lot more careful with contemporary issues rather than those that have had years of contemplation and review. --M ASEM (t) 15:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

John W. Loftus
Question: Should a subject's personal blog be considered their "official website" and appear in the infobox?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is absolutely no question about it being their personal blog - it is then self-published and is usable as such for the limited areas where such a self-published source is allowed on Wikipedia. The term "official website" is not well-defined, to be sure. Collect (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Collect! Any other thoughts, opinions or insights? -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 17:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Paul B. Rothman
I am the author of this biography and request that a new section (Section #3 called Class Action Lawsuit: intentional defrauding dying coal miners afflicted with Black Lung) be removed because, per Wikipedia's guidelines:

•	The article is a biography of a living person, and the material is potentially harmful •	The neutrality of the material may be in question; specifically, the headline is factually inaccurate and the language is not objective.

Please let me know if this content adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines for content for biographies of living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apulcinella831 (talk • contribs) 10 February 2017, 16:56 (UTC)


 * The section has been removed by . I agree with the analysis "if anything about this is included, it needs to be neutrally written and reliably sourced, of which it is neither right now." Before such material is reinstated, it needs to be discussed at the article's talk page. De728631 (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion of a pending and unresolved lawsuit against the institution he heads is inappropriate in this biography at this time. The inexperienced editor who added the material last December had been inactive for three years previously and has not edited since. I will put the article on my watch list. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  17:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Facebook post as a reliable source for negative BLP content?
I am having a disagreement with another editor who has reinserted a line into the article Exit Calm that I think runs afoul of BLP given the underlying source is a Facebook post. His argument is that the post constitutes an "official news release" from the band. My problems are...


 * It's Facebook. No editorial oversight or review. It is at best a primary source and for the purposes of negative BLP content an unreliable one.
 * We don't know who wrote the post. It may have been one of the former band members with an axe to grind.
 * It is difficult to treat this kind of post as an official statement since the band had by its own statement just broken up. And at least one member of the band is very unlikely to have had a say in the content of this "news release."

All of which said, I do think it is an acceptable, if less than ideal source for the band's break up. But I do not believe it passes as an acceptable source for negative BLP material.

See also this discussion on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping
 * Well, the source isn't facebook it's Britpopnews. Though looking at the authors page it appears to be a self publication by a couple of writers/editors.  I don't think the site is large enough and old enough to have established a reputation for fact checking and accuracy needed for BLP related content.  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Britpopnews is basically just reposting from the Facebook post which makes Facebook the underlying source. Otherwise I agree with your comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no. If you're linking directly to a Facebook post, there's no internal proof of who controls the account. It could have been set up by a fan, an enemy, or anybody; or hacked. Britpopnews said "The statement, signed off by the band as a whole..." which indicates that they are putting their full faith and credit behind the notion that band as whole has made the post.


 * The question is how good is the full faith and credit of Britpopnews. It seems to be in the shadow dimension between "just some guy's website" and "actual mainstream magazine". Says here "founded in April 2012 as a one man site" by a person who doesn't seem to have any special credentials, but "Since then Britpopnews has grown into a collection of print and digital editors". But then here it looks like there're maybe only two principals, the founder and maybe his wife (same last name); some other names given are, I guess, stringers who may get paid very little or nothing.


 * So. If it was the New Yorker, we can be confident that a fact-checker would have called each band member to make sure they were behind and stood by the post. Here? Not likely. Yet, on the other hand, Britpopnews is immersed in and familiar with the general mileu. They keep up with this stuff, and news of, by, and about these kinds of bands. It is not likely that they would be taken in by a fake website.


 * And there's the internal evidence of the statement. IMO it's just really unlikely that a statement like "It’s with a heavy heart that we announce to all our brilliantly loyal fans, and all the excellent people who have tirelessly invested time and money into our music, that we have sadly parted ways with Nicky Smith..." etc. would have been written by a troll pretending to be the band. Nothing's impossible, but why impersonate just to write something as respectful and boring and anodyne as that? Doesn't make sense. Trolls don't do that.


 * So, all in all... speaking just for myself, I'm confident enough in the source to use the quote. It's borderline, like most of these cases.


 * If the post had said "Smith was a horrible person and embezzled our money" that'd be different. All they're saying is, basically, "we had personality differences". They don't even blame Smith for that. It's not very negative. I think it would be called for to add more from the post: "it takes all members to be in the right headspace to achieve [a third album]... we wish Nicky nothing but success and happiness in all he does... and maybe one day we can all stand on the same stage again" to help take away any sting of negativity, and I've gone ahead and done that. (The entire passage is our course still subject to redaction if other editors feel that source is no good.) Herostratus (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell
Mitch McConnell is far from my favorite person in the world, but "McConnell accelerated cabinet hearings of the 2017 incoming Cabinet appointees ahead of completed background examinations despite objections by the Office of Government Ethics,[8] reversing his 2009 stance.[9] Among the cabinet picks is McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao, nominated to be the next Secretary of Transportation.[10]" which I've just removed from the lead is not kosher. Rest of the article is full of POV pushing and bias but it's midnight here and I'm about to go to sleep. Need more eyeballs on this article please. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * How many edit wars have you been in over American politics last few months? I see in the archives you've edit warred in your defense of both Steve Bannon and Richard Spencer of all people. There are even more discussion of similar edit wars in your talk. I don't know, maybe it's time you just voluntarily stopped edit warring entirely, or at least on all things alt-right/conservative/politics. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ?????? I noticed that for 4 weeks the lead of the article on one of the most prominent politicians in America insinuated that he had changed senate ethics rules to smooth his wife’s confirmation. I suggested that this high profile article needed more eyeballs in future. NPalgan2 (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Over this past weekend I didn’t notice the Monday Night Massacre was under 1RR but self reverted when it was pointed out to me. And back in November, I agreed to take a voluntary two week break from the Bannon article. But how precisely is that relevant now? Who are you saying I'm edit warring with? NPalgan2 (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well right now you're edit warring with . It's just, you joined Wikipedia six months ago, and you seem to get into edit wars on a regular basis, though you've never stepped over 3RR. These three edit wars discussed, and many more I can find in your editing history. It just seems to me like you are on a bad path. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, do you think that, out of all McConnell's hundreds of hours on C-SPAN over decades in the senate, last night's argument with Sen. Warren was so important, his article needed a video of it? Without any mention in the text of the article? Jasonanaggie likes to insert marginally relevant WP:UNDUE primary multimedia stuff into American politics articles like this. It's POV-pushing and just makes the article look bad. NPalgan2 (talk)

I have a different view of the politics of this. I will tell you that adding a video to a BLP that is non-substantial is contrary to BLP policy. The man has a 30 year history of public service. Get a better source.Jarhed (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Hoechlin
I have looked at the page for the actor Tyler Hoechlin. It says that he plays in Fifty Shades Darker. Please can you look at the accuracy of this information since researching this I see he is not in the movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4465564/ Please can this be looked into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.184.139.238 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for raising this issue, I am looking into it right now. MPS1992 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Mary Salas
I am Mary Salas. I want to remove reference to my second marriage to Sal Salas. That second marriage ended in divorce in 2011. Thank you.02:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)02:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC) 02:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)CVMayor2014 (talk)


 * Hello Mary. As far as I can see, no second marriage is mentioned. Am I missing something?


 * Preferably, you should avoid editing an article that is about yourself. MPS1992 (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This newspaper article tells part of the story. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  07:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

João Vale e Azevedo
Article has been tagged re unbalanced for more than half a year; it reads quite negatively. IPs have continuously removed content since 2016, but more so recently. was blocked a half hour ago for making legal threats to a couple users, but, they did raise some concerns that would be worth looking into (see the concerns here, ignore the legal threat at the bottom – it's been dealt with).

I raise this, because I found no citation for a conviction of "money laundering" within article – despite being present within the article since at least 2014. Can someone with perhaps better eyes than mine take a look at said article, and see if there are any other inaccuracies? kind regards, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 12:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yves Ekwalla Hermann
Please be advised that the correct date of birth for Yves Hermann Ekwalla is May 9th 1990.

Legal documents can be provided to confirm this information. The individual himself as als emailed wikipedia in regards to the issue.

Please let me know where to send the documents so that the changes can be made.

Cgnon1986 (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @Cgnon1986: Please review WP:BLPPRIMARY for why legal documents are inappropriate to use as a source: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."


 * If you can point us toward a published secondary source, such as a biography or news story, that would be more acceptable to use as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Providing such a source would be a good idea. I have just now removed the 1985 birth date from the article as being unsourced and disputed, but it will be back if reliable sources are provided and cited. MPS1992 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @C.Fred: hello, the changes have been made on additional pages that reviewed and accepted the information that was given to them. Could please update my husband's Wikipedia page now to reflect his correct date of birth?

[1]Cgnon1986 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Jump up ^ http://int.soccerway.com/players/yves-ekwalla/233026/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgnon1986 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I have now re-added the 1990 date of birth citing this source. MPS1992 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump


This article lists Donald Trump as an example of a person with malignant narcissism and sociopathy. For Trump to be included, there would need to be an official diagnosis from experts who have personally examined him or a personal admission. The claim instead relies on mostly opinion pieces and 3rd party analysis.

Source 1: US News and World Report

It cites the opinion of psychotherapist John D. Gartner. Key quote: "Gartner acknowledges that he has not personally examined Trump...". It might be true or false, but it is not medically valid as a diagnosis.

Source 2: NY Daily News

A letter to the editor of someone who's known Trump in the past.

Source 3: A blog

This is a personal blog.

Conclusion: This is not sufficiently established via reliable sources. Further, such claims could potentially be made about any President by those who oppose him, and backed up by people with degrees but also have a partisan agenda. I have tried removing this information but it has been restored twice. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a WP:BLP violation and poor sourcing for such a claim too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, is an obvious WP:Sock. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't do it. I would stay away from using any living person as an example of malignant narcissism, in much the same way that I don't think the article Asshole should have an "Examples" section listing live people, even if there are refs for it. Anyway, Gartner's not enough -- he may be accomplished (don't know), but he's not even notable enough to have an article here. Let's not go down the path of using what some random professor said to say terrible things about people.


 * (FWIW I don't agree that "The key element is that the cited experts have not studied Trump personally". "Malignant narcissism" is not a medical diagnoses. It's more like calling someone a sick fucker. You don't have to examine someone personally to call them a sick fucker.) Herostratus (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I reserve the right to insult Trump off-Wikipedia as I see fit. But here on Wikipedia, we must adhere to BLP policy and these edits clearly don't comply. We should not be listing individual people as members of highly contentious psychiatric diagnoses. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it
 * Anyone else remember how many doctors came out of the woodwork to diagnosis Hillary Clinton with everything from Tourette's, to Parkinson's, to "imminent death syndrome"? Yeah, we shouldn't be using a living person as an example of this condition. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm still waiting for her to keel over from Parkinsons and to be arrested on a bunch of charges. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that Ad Orientem removed the content and that Harizotoh9 removed the rest of the section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Zack Snyder
An actor, Malcolm Scott, has been repeatedly added to the collaborations section without sources. End credits of the movie have been provided now as sources. However, is that section for notable actors only? The mentioned actor apparently only played minor and/or unnamed characters in those movies. Is that considered as notable collaborations? The actor is not even listed on Malcolm Scott (disambiguation). -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State  ‖ 06:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I was aware those 'collaboration' sections are for where Directors tend to use the same actors in multiple roles because they like collaborating with them. Not just using the same actor playing the same character in multiple films. Thats not really a collaboration as very few directors are going to re-cast a main character mid-series. Its not really a BLP issue as such, if the actor was credited in those films then technically he has collaborated as much as half the other people in that list. However it is generally a rule of thumb that such sections are restricted to notable people yes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller (aide)
There is discussion ongoing at Talk:Stephen Miller (aide) regarding claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election &mdash; specifically, "tens and thousands of illegal voters" being "bused-in to New Hampshire" &mdash; should be described plainly as "false" (as many sources do) or as "widely rejected and described as false by mainstream sources and watchdog groups" (a phrasing advocated by some editors). Comments are welcome, particularly in my eyes as this might be seen as being a BLP issue. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Alejandro Toledo
Can I request some eyes on this article please? Reading a two-day-old AP article in my local free newsrag, I learned that there is an Interpol warrant out for him, and I found the information had been added unreferenced and at length. I've fixed it up as best I am able, including using a version of the same story online at a reputable location, but I'm not perfect and it clearly requires monitoring. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent information
In the summary column under the subject's photo you list a fiance and a domestic partner. In the narrative under Personal Life that woman is listed as his first wife. I believe that the narrative is more accurate than the summary column but am not clear how to verify. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisTBlu (talk • contribs) 07:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To which article are you referring? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Threadbare biographical article - which is the greater BLP sin?
See Talk:Joe_Piscopo. A few months ago someone removed most of the article on the grounds of no citing. The content removed was largely accurate and not defamatory in any way - it just had no footnotes. Now the article is threadbare and gives the reader the distinct impression that the subject never was much and since then has been a complete nothing. Why isn't this a worse unfairness to a living person than the uncited text that was there before? 70.214.78.144 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I will be taking a look shortly. Winged Blades Godric 13:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Onision
Yesterday, the well-known Youtuber Onision posted a video asking fans to vandalize his Wikipedia page. It has been semi-protected to avoid the lion's share of the vandalism, but since that video was posted, the article has grown a Pedophile controversy subsection based entirely upon a single source (whose reliability is somewhat questionable). This is part of an (also brand new) section called Controversies which includes some more information which is better sourced, but of questionable notability. I'm concerned that a few more experienced editors have taken up his call to vandalize his page and are attempting to do so within the bounds of what WP considers acceptable. More eyes on that page would be greatly appreciated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  13:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have rem. the entire section.At the least, such WP:BLP statements need to be supported by multiple reliable sources.Will be keeping a watchful eye. Winged Blades Godric 13:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for watching. I don't know why I didn't revert myself. I guess I can just chalk it up to that plague of complaining-yet-not-doing-anything-about-ititis that's so common on WP these days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Jasbir Puar
The article on Jasbir Puar, a professor who has come under attack for statements critical of Israel, used opinion pieces to source extremely controversial statements of fact about the content of a speech she gave. I removed the relevant statements until and unless better sources can be found, but there's been a bit of a revert-war over it (and looking over the article's history, it seems like this isn't the first time this has come up, although I seem to be the first one to notice that most of the sources for the section were opinion pieces.) Anyway, I thought I'd bring it up here to see what people think. --Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to note that the JNS & observer sources are the same op-ed/article, cites should be consolidated to the observer (original publisher) 92.5.87.122 (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa
Can some of you have a look at this article? It strikes me as completely undue, excessive, a hack job of sorts--something that can be placed in the main article, Jayalalithaa. Mind you, the person is recently deceased, and so I think it's not absurd to post this here, though I admit I come here also because a lot of experienced editors visit this place. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is already a section about this in the main article. So it's probably just a question of whether to delete, preserve, or overhaul the sub-article.  On the surface, the sub-article sure looks well-sourced.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, and thanks for looking into it--my main concern is size and undue-ness. Do you think the section in the main article covers the main points? Drmies (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you and actually got to work--thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The primary significance is that she was the first Indian chief minister to be disqualified from office, so I don't think it's undue weight in the main biography. Just remember, when you commit wrongdoing, don't do it in India if you want a speedy trial!  This thing lasted decades.  She was convicted, tossed out of office, then acquitted on appeal, died, and only later did the Supreme Court of India reinstate the other people's convictions in the case (one of the judge's opinions was over a thousand pages).  So, although her acquittal technically was not overturned due to her death, her properties were fined.  What a mess.  These Wikipedia articles merely reflect the mess.  Thanks to User:Sitush for helping with edits.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Theresa Flores
There's some false info in the "Criticisms" section of Theresa Flores put there by a known "foe" of the subject, all unsupported by the cited references. Could an uninvolved editor please look into these proposed changes to that section?

1. Remove first sentence. "Leon" is Theresa's married name, so there is nothing wrong with her operating businesses under this "alias". :) She still goes by Flores in public though, because it's how most people know her.

2. The Secretary of State of Ohio did not "seize" TraffickFree. It was intentionally dissolved and remade because of Flores' marriage and name change. Please remove this sentence as well.

3. The bit regarding SOAP accepting donations illegally is untrue, and also not mentioned in the cited reference. Please remove this as well, nulling out the Criticisms section. Jake.hoffer (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. The information was added by an IP and removed, once or twice, including by you, but reistated by the IP and by an experienced editor who should have known better. I cleaned up the history as well: the content was entirely unacceptable. Some good work was done along the way by User:Joseph2302--but Joseph, that content, I wish you had flagged it for removal. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree it should stay removed. Apparently the page got semi-protected on the bad version, which meant this user couldn't remove it. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Byron Katie
There appear to be long term NPOV issues here, from opposite directions. I am dubious about the criticism section, which seems to be supported by blogs and online forums. I'd appreciate more eyes on this; if the sources aren't reliable, most or all of it should go for WP:BLP reasons. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:8949:EA87:45B1:DF70 (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅- and took enough care of the matter!  Winged Blades Godric 17:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Winged Blades of Godric, we still have a pretty poor article, though. There's sourcing there, and a better biography is just dying to be written... Drmies (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sasikala Natarajan
The statement the Supreme Court of India held VK Sasikala guilty of amassing illicit wealth worth over 60 crores in the 1990s and convicted her for a 4 year jail term IS WRONG AND APPEARS TO STATE SHE HAD AN ILLICIT WEALTH WHICH IS TOTALLY INCOORECT. She was only accused of laundering Jayalalithaa's money of over 60 crores.

Sasikala and other co-accused who were accused of conspiracy with Jayalalithaa to launder her ill-gotten wealth were sentenced to four years of imprisonment in the Disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa and also fined 10 crore rupees each.The case against Jayalalithaa who was accused of being the mastermind was abated after she died  but  she was fined Rs 100 crores and the Supreme Court of India ordered the seizure of  he rproperties. 182.65.208.44 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * --✅--Thanks for pointing this out.The corrections has been incorporated accordingly. Winged Blades Godric 05:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

camila batmanghelidjh
Thank you for responding to the issues I raised with you regarding the misinformation generated predominately by the Mail newspaper about Kids Company.

I can see that a great deal of the misinformation was readjusted on Camila Batmanghelidjh's Wikipedia page. There remains one outstanding and important issue which relates to the numbers of clients the charity served.

The media misrepresented the facts. The charity operated over 54 sites across London, Bristol and Liverpool. This included therapeutic programmes in schools, as well as through 11 street level centres.

Kids Company received self-referring children from all over London. They kept a detailed database and a breakdown of numbers of clients who used the service. They would be happy to share the information with you to help you understand the misrepresentation that has emerged. This is partly driven by individuals turning up at one Kids Company centre and thinking that's the whole of the charity, but also there was confusion as the charity referred its most vulnerable clients to local authorities post closure with the media understanding that those were referral sheets involving multiple family members. 1,717 sheets were handed over of high-risk individuals and families, and this has come mistakenly to be representative of the whole client group of Kids Company.

To help you evidence the scale of Kids Company's clients, there is a letter from the official receiver showing how many files of clients they took over. Just those related to their street level centre work amounted to 18,000 family files.

I can see that as a team you are exercising great integrity to maintain Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, and therefore I am very keen to help you scrutinise this remaining issue related to Kids Company's client numbers.

A book is being released in May published by Biteback in collaboration with Tim Raymond from the Sunday Times, who has reviewed all these issues and will be producing the evidence for it. Therefore it is important for Wikipedia to be aware.

With thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinklight (talk • contribs) 13:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Without going into longer detail, the amount of clients served by Kids company was partly the subject of a Spectator feature (and the followup). Its not technically a BLP violation in my opinion (although I have removed the lower figure because I cant find it in the relevant source, I suspect it may have been in one of the removed ones), but it certainly was covered in the news generally. It may be UNDUE on her biography, but as it stands that is not a particularly large section anyway - with most of the detail reserved for the charity article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Lou Williams
Lou Williams has not currently been traded to the Milwaukee Bucks and is still a member of the L.A.Lakers. All references to him being with the Milwaukee Bucks should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.21.241 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅--Another IP user has reverted the unsourced additions. Winged Blades Godric 18:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

unsourced BLP-violating text on Kevin Coughlin
This message is in regard to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Coughlin. Over the years there appears to have been a war of insertion and deletion of un-sourced BLP-violating text on this page.

Specifically: "A 2008 Cleveland Independent article alleging that Coughlin had an extra-marital affair with a staffer, at times taking her to Ohio State football games using money from his campaign accounts. The article also revealed that the Summit County Sheriff's Office was investigating Coughlin for allegedly altering petition ballots [7]" Clicking the citation reveals that no such source exists. This should be removed and blocked from being re-published.

In addition: "Coughlin threatened to sue the author, but the author sued him, eventually dropping the charges.[8]" The article linked to this statement does not, in fact, report that Coughlin threatened to sue the author. It says that the plaintiff and his attorney accused Coughlin of the threatening legal action. Big difference and not portrayed factually on the Wiki page. Again,, this should be removed and blocked from being republished.

It appears that attempts to correct this type of violation in the past have been corrected by Wiki administrators. However, the items listed above continue to be an issue.
 * Why are you saying that this is unsourced? It had two references right in the text. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 19:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've restored the text and altered it to conform to the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The reference to the Cleveland Independent in the text is no reference at all. "Cleveland Independent" was a personal blog,  certainly not a media source.  The second citation was a link to an empty page, not an "article."

Sera Cahoone
Numerous accounts claiming an association with the subject have persistently removed 'personal life' section, citing a desire for privacy. Given that the content in question regards romantic/marital status, I think they have a case. Doesn't appear to be of great importance here. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (Talking to self now) Though the planned marriage was with another notable person, we don't generally favor mention of who's dating whom, so that's what I had in mind by opening a thread here. Given that the betrothal appears to be on hold, I'm inclined to at least pay some respect to the privacy request. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions
Looks like some political bias here. Beware. Could someone review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B276:4A80:6C4D:8156:816F:B102 (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific? Like, specific things that are worded improperly, or covered too much, or not enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Antón_Gazenbeek
This article is partially dependent on a non-existent or deleted page (the link at the bottom of the page in the sources http://www.antontango.net is not valid). It appears to be advertising, self-promotion or publicity with no reliable sources. There is only one source at the bottom which goes to a dubious site where there is a very small bio and nothing else. It either needs to be deleted or needs a lot of work.
 * Agreed, this is a very shaky article. He might be notable, but there's nothing to support the claims made. I have put a PROD tag on it. Jellyman (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Pavo Barišić
The last passage in the Biography section and especially the linked article is posted yesterday to blacken the Croatian Minister of Science and Education Pavo Barišić on the international level by defamation and libel. The authors of the article in Nature (Tatalović and Dauenhauer) are well known in Croatia for perpetually attacking the character and work of Pavo Barišić since he became a minister in the Government of Andrej Plenković and are in no way inbiased reporters. Removing such content from the Wikipedia article has now been made impossible with the argument that such removal is an act of vandalism! The truth is that not removing this content or not making it more neutral (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pavo_Bari%C5%A1i%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=765700473) means letting Wikipedia be misused for libel and defamation. Do not let this happen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ime.novo (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the sky-high reputation of the site means it's no strange that removal of the cited source could count as vandalism.Anyway, the source seems perfectly reliable.If you want to call them biased, cite secondary sources which call them biased. Winged Blades Godric 09:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ryan McGowan
A fairly detailed paragraph was added to this article detailing the recent murder conviction of the subject's (non-notable) father. While this material was factual and sourced, its inclusion is at best questionable given that it has no proven bearing on the subject's career and notability. At most, only a passing mention is warranted, certainly not full details of the case. I reverted this, giving my reasons on the article talk page, only to find it reverted back. These edits are the only two to date from a new account, and they haven't responded to my talk page discussion, so it seems like there might be some sort of agenda here. Jellyman (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as we do not include cruft about non-notable progeny, we do not include cruft about non-notable parents either unless it is directly pertinent to the BLP. Collect (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis
TO BE CLEAR: This is the version I am contesting as violating WP:BLP https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=761098181 I suspect that even what I have edited down to needs attention. Joe6Pack (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is constantly being edited to discredit Robert Sungenis (WP:BLP) using inadequate and inappropriate sources, original research (WP:NOR) and other malicious techniques. I have created a fair and balanced article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=764601530 ) and posted a "Dispute" tag. Please go through the older archives on the Talk page. This is a recurring issue. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The article describes a pseudoscience peddler as a pseudoscience peddler, this is both true and verifiable. The fact that he got a degree from a diploma mill is also true and verifiable, there is no original research of any kind in stating it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. I just stated the facts. The fact is that Robert Sungenis is a geocentrist. That fact stands. Where is the pseudoscience? I edited material out. I added very little. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Whitewashing pseudoscience peddlers is still WP:PROFRINGE. There is no WP:BLP violation in describing why Sungenis's viewpoints are WP:FRINGE. On the contrary, that's what WP:PSCI tells us to do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see you are not accusing me of adding pseudoscience. Sorry. Still the fact is that he is a geocentrist, and his books support that, etc. What do you want to do? Discredit him in an encyclopedia? This is WP:BLP. Just state the facts.Joe6Pack (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The facts are that he is a pseudoscience peddler and Wikipedia will report such fact and tell its readers why serious scientists consider it pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please edit from my template and add your proposed material. Much of what I changed is not related to science or pseudoscience, but charges of anti-semitism, etc. Please keep in mind that this is WP:BLP. Also, There is already an article on The Principle, so "new theories" do not need to be expounded on in this article. I put a link to the article. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

In addition the level of detail employed in the article before my changes is superfluous, and not in keeping with the notoriety of the WP:BLP subject. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this person even notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? He's a pretty minor character and all the sources I see are to pretty minor discussions. There doesn't seem to be a lot of in-depth sources that indicate that he is notable. The last Articles for deletion/Robert Sungenis was closed as no consensus. Perhaps it's time for a new one? jps (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say he is. He is well known within Catholic apologetics communities including for his books, being on EWTN, etc.; he has been singled out by the SPLC; he is involved in a controversial documentary The Principle that gained notoriety after Lawrence Krauss and others reacted to their inclusion in it. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * None of this have anything to do with BLP violations. If he is not notable AFD it, but the article (as long as it remains) must obey policy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether the artciel is deleted or not is a separate issue, I agree, but the edits I made were to counter WP:BLP violations.Joe6Pack (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

At least two of the contested sources do not say what they are being used to support, as best the user wanting to add this is engaging in Synthesis, except for the fact that no source he links says anything about Calamus International University. Thus (in fact) he is misrepresenting sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are talking about one issue. The WP:BLP issue concerns the entire article as it was written. I edited it down to a fair and balanced starting point. Please consult the 5 archives, and oyu will see that this is a recurring problem, and that the administrators eventually agree that the editors are not staying within the bounds of WP:BLP. Joe6Pack (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I like ti discus one issue at a time, when that has been dealt with we can move onto the next.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I will let that stand for a while, but given that this is WP:BLP, I think it should not even be present without a source. I think the description without the accusation of it being a "diploma mill" is more accurate, and fair to the WP:BLP subject. Joe6Pack (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead of the article currently fails to mention his views on geocentrism. That does not seem very neutral, given that he appears to be primarily notable for advocating geocentrism in his film.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, and it is now there, but lets not accuse him of things without RS to back it up.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It was there previously, but it is now more prominent.Joe6Pack (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I question whether the SPLC is a valid, neutral source for BLP. I think we need to limit the Jewish section to the WaPo Article, and maybe the way to do it is to incorporate it into the US Catechism section (the WaPo article is about the catechism). I do have to note that his notoriety is partially because of his views on Judaism/Zionism, so another option is to combine the two and express that. I will make and edit, and let others evaluate. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I also question using Raw Story as a neutral source. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You could check RSN for previous discussions of the SPLC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok: This fits, and is recent. I will post here, then follow-up on the Talk Page


 * Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 130 (section SPLC examined by RSN and by outside experts)
 * The SPLC is certainly a reliable source for whom the SPLC classifies as hate groups. The real issue is WP:WEIGHT - how important is it that the SPLC ::has
 * 263 KB (37,280 words) - 14:03, 3 November 2016

I think this version is reasonable: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=765476598 I question including the SPLC link, but without it there is no support that Sungenis was accused of anti-semitism (which he denies). I proposed merging the Jewish section with the Catechism section but other editors disagreed (note that I am the one that initially separated them). My logic is that the only unbiased third party source is the WaPo article and it concerns the Catechism issue. Joe6Pack (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC) ←
 * Made the change. I think this version is reasonable, neutral, and fair based on Sungenis' actual notoriety, with proper weight associated to sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=765466353 Joe6Pack (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Other editors disagree, and keep leveling charges of anti-semitism using poor sources. Can someone else please review. Here is what I consider balanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=765476598#Jews_and_Judaism


 * Here is what other editors propose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis#Jews_and_Judaism


 * Wikipedia is not a personal vehicle to punish people for perceived wrongdoings. My version clearly states there is a controversy, then allows Sungenis to deny it. Their are not sufficient sources to go beyond that and stay within WP:BLP Joe6Pack (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The user who started this thread has now been indeffed:. jps (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Noel Ignatiev
- an editor has inserted dubious sources in the lead - Glen Beck's TheBlaze and an unsigned article in the Unification Church's The Washington Times are rarely suitable sources for a BLP, and if better ones don't exist then they shouldn't be used. And his religion doesn't belong in the lead, IMHO. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Putting aside their quality for the moment, neither source supported the assertion added to the article that Ignatiev is Jewish. His parents were Jewish; we have no sources concerning his religion.
 * For what it's worth, the Washington Times article is used as a source four other places in the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, for BLP (and beyond) the Washington Times is a problematic source. El_C 04:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Eric Allen Bell COI edits
Just a heads-up to note that the subject of the above article, an anti-Islam campaigner who has created a Wikipedia account at, has been making a series of autobiographical edits to "his" article and a number of potentially defamatory edits to Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, as well as adding linkspam to the latter article and to David Duke. I've reverted them and advised him on his user talk page, but it would be helpful if others could also keep a watch on this. Prioryman (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Karp
Hi, I'm Dr. Harvey Karp and I'm asking again for help with the biographical article about me. I am concerned it violates the biographies of living persons policy because a user named Mr. bobby, who seems to have an agenda, is having too much influence on the page. Please see all editing history on the Harvey Karp page and talk page for Mr. Bobby's comments and reversions. I've included many strong sources about the latest in my career. I just ask that my page be updated with the facts, in a neutral manner per policy so the article about me is fair and more encyclopedic. Thank you in advance for any time and effort you put in.Harvey Karp MD (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Mike Lupica
I'm attempting to correct and develop the description of Mike's early life contained in the first sentence of this article/section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lupica#Biography. My proposed correction/enhancement is as follows,

''“Lupica was born in Oneida, New York where he spent his pre-adolescent years, having attended St. Patrick's Elementary School through the sixth grade. In 1964, he moved with his family to Nashua, New Hampshire where he attended middle school and subsequently Bishop Guertin High School, graduating in 1970. In 1974 he graduated from Boston College in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.”''

This article is semi-protected and as such, I'm unable to get to any "edit" links. Could someone advise me on how to proceed, in order to implement the above mentioned change? Thank you. --Thricipio (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE:  This issue has been resolved. The "edit" links appeared and my changes have been made. —Thricipio (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Kris Kobach
This article contains false information. Specifically "False claims about voter fraud." While one said of the argument believes the claims are false, the other side believes they are true. Thus, the title should simply be "claims" with what Kobach believes and what the opponents believe. I removed "false" because it is advocacy, and then received a message that it was being reverted because it is apparently "bias" to remove "false." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.75.144.166 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Laurie Stone
Relevant articles:

Poorly sourced material about a controversy involving allegations of censorship. All the sources cited, none of which satisfy WP:IRS in my opinion, were clear about their support for one party in the dispute. A single editor created articles about the two disputants (one has been deleted) and added the same material to the article about the radio station where the alleged censorship is said to have taken place.

More eyes would be welcome. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

PS: In comments on the articles' talk pages, an IP editor who seemed to be the previous editor said he copied the material verbatim from the sources, raising potential WP:COPYVIO problems in addition to the WP:BLP issues. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Mark Hamill
In the "edit page" section of Mark Hamill, someone put that his death date is "Soon." Is this a possible threat someone made to the actor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.163.3 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Simple vandalism. It has since been reverted. Maineartists (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis
Please see Talk:Robert_Sungenis -- Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Louise Mensch
A Comcast dynamic IP from Laurel, New Jersey with prefix 2601:140:C004 has been engaged in a very slow edit war adding unsourced or poorly sourced or trivial incidents to this BLP, making a case for her being a cyber-bully. They've been reverted by five or six editors since October, but they just wait till no one's watching and add it back. Consequently, the material has spent more time in the article than out. Perhaps an admin would consider semi-protecting the article for six months. Or should I take this to WP:RFPP? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * RFPP would probably get swifter action. As long as you can demonstrate with diffs its an ongoing issue. Alternatively if the dynamic IP is a small range, a rangeblock might work. How dynamic is it? (The third option is an edit-filter if its a specific piece of information they are trying to put in) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want admin action, this isn't the best place to request it. You could request semi-protection at RFPP (I would suggest requesting one to two months to start, because other IPs have actually made decent edits within the past six weeks, and six months is not warranted. If you want to request a rangeblock, WP:ANI or WP:AN would be better than this board. Also, they aren't "just wait[ing] till no one's watching and add[ing] it back", they are edit-warring to add it back as often as they can. In any case, most IPs get bored after finding a page semi-protected for more than a couple of weeks. Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✅ 1 month protection. If I've fouled up or it needs to be extended or changed in any way, ping me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, no protection is showing up on the article , or on your activity log , so I've disabled the "Done" template to prevent this thread from being archived. Could you re-check the Louise Mensch article and apply the semi-protection? Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooh, that was weird. Should be 'done' now... --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Bernard Lafayette
2601:602:9B03:F5F0:60A5:4C06:FE0:25D3 (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Hello,

Having just come from a 2-day workshop with Bernard, and purchased his book, I now know that his last name is Lafayette (i.e, the F is also capitalized). Please change this out of respect for him.

Thank you. Ruby Phillips
 * Hello! I looked at some sources, and Lafayette/LaFayette are both used, even in sources who should know how to spell: . The WP-way here is WP:COMMONNAME, but I´m not certain what´s best here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME we can go by self-determination, if his own book capitalises it one way, thats good enough. (Sometimes biographies are named according to the subjects wishes even when WP:COMMONNAME would say otherwise.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Siraj Fergessa
This is just to inform you that the title refers to the person as 'Siraj Fergessa' while the his actual name is 'Siraj Fegessa' as noted in the introduction part of his Wikipedia page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirtech101 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Bill Schuette
Flint water crisis section should be created to clarify recent past edit about comments made by a federal judge. Tachyonbeammeup (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

richard rios
RepublicanRoots is apparently editing this entry to serve as a vanity page. Removed relevant, substantiated content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PearlSBuck (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Um no. You restored material relating to an arrest. This is gossip-mongerering, and I've deleted it, and don't restore it please. We generally only report convictions (and then only if its germane). Herostratus (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That may be PearlSBuck, but with your recent joining here at WP and only 3 edits on the very same page in the past 3 months without any other activity ; along with your knowledge of reference citing and WP verbiage for a newbie -- it may appear to some editors that you would have a WP:CONFLICT yourself. No? Maineartists (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Enh, why do we even have this article? The person is not notable and IMO easily fails WP:BIO. I've nominated the article for deletion so problem solved. Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrey Artemenko
I stumbled upon the Andrey Artemenko. Reads like a fluff PR piece with lots of irrelevant info and nothing sourced. The article was created in one block by a single purpose account, that only edited this article and was active only for one day: Special:Contributions/UkrCon. In the days afterwards the article was edited by the subject himself Special:Contributions/A._V._Artemenko and since then nothing has happened. Especially no sources/references were given/found. Question: should the article be pared down radically to remove all the fluff and unsourced stuff (that's around 95%) or should be it be outright deleted as unsourced PR-piece? Thanks for any input on this topic. noclador (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * AFD-ed it.Let's see. Winged Blades Godric 17:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

RE: Robert Lantos - inaccurate posting
Robert Lantos

The portion of the article: "On January 10th, 2017, Lantos announced he is retiring after numerous films that failed to achieve box office success. He plans to write his memoir and teach film production." is inaccurate. There is no evidence to support this claim and no references made to it anywhere. I am affiliated with the person in this article. The claim is entirely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.64.61 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Clay J. Cockerell
I have this article on my watchlist. There is/was a scandal involving this person which has been reported widely and was the subject of multiple "special reports" and newspaper articles. There is a ref to the 60 Minutes episode but there ARE more available. In fact, the reason that I looked at the article in the first place was due to watching a repeat of a tv report about the incident with this Dr's business. I thought that our article was a very fair BLP, but now today the "negative" info. has been deleted twice and refs rm three times so far by two different SPA editors including the one who created the article. Would appreciate opinions, advice here-thanksTeeVeeed (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC) editTeeVeeed (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Was there any ongoing coverage? All I am seeing is news items at the time indicating it was being investigated, but nothing to indicate an outcome or any further/ongoing coverage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Can't find any updates since August, yet repeats continue to air on TV about the scandal. To be fair, the DR did say that he himself was a victim of scammers himself,(our article reflects that and I thought it was very fair especially considering that other readers will be drawn to the article to find more info. and updates to the scandal)-- and it is possible that he could be innocent, although his company is featured prominently in all coverage of the story.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Amy Goodman
An IP user and have been adding information about Amy Goodman's salary. The information is exclusively supported by a primary source, i.e. a form to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). I have reverted the edit twice already, and have started a discussion on the talk page Talk:Amy_Goodman, laying down my concerns. Could somebody weigh in on the issue? Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are exceedingly rarely usable in any BLP. If a secondary source mentions the same fact, use the secondary source. Collect (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Collect. --Edcolins (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Floriana Lima
Records accepted by a wiki admin show Ms. Lima was born in 1981 but there is some confusion based on an unverfied source stating on IMDb that she was born in 1983. Can wikipedia find the correct date and permanently fix it so people stop changing it back and forth leading to confusion? Movieeditor546 (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked into it. I concluded that we don't have a good enough source to be confident of any birthdate sufficient for a WP:BLP, so a just removed mention of birthdate from the article; there's more blather from me on the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Marcia Bernicat
Marcia Bernicat

Hi, I have been reasearching Ambassdor Bernicat and noticed that her wikipedia article has the incorrect birth year. According to the Department of State, she was born in 1953. 

Your prompt help is very much appreciated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.194.1 (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be some online discrepancies regarding her birthdate. Most Wiki-related sites, of course, are showing 1957 simply because it's in the system. However, articles such as this: reflect the 1957 date. However, their sources were/are State.gov and All.gov as well. Not sure who to side with here. Regardless, the article now states 2 conflicting dates of birth 1) 1957 in the lede and infobox -- and -- 2) in Early Life and Education. You could try raising the issue on the talk page with gathered reliable resources for consensus; and in the interim simply placed 1953?/1957? in lieu of one date until the matter is resolved. Maineartists (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Alleged but not convicted
Per WP:BLPCRIME, should Larry Nassar exist? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Jeez, I don't think so. Isn't WP:SINGLEEVENT in play here also? WP:NOTNEWSPAPER kind of comes to mind. I removed a sentence from the lede that was just piling on. But I mean WP:BLP... I get that the guy is in bad trouble; I don't see why absent a conviction we need to put this guy's troubles into the world'd greatest encyclopedia for future generations to know about and ponder over. What if he's acquitted or charges are dropped? Are we going to keep the article, and just add a "Never mind!" section at the end? If not, then why do we have the article now.


 * I dunno. I think winning a deletion debate would be awful hard. It was in the news a lot, and I think a lot of voters are going to focus on that. You're welcome to try. You've maybe got my vote. Herostratus (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A splendid case where Wikipedia shows why it ought not be a newspaper. More to the point, any jury pool could be contaminated by anyone reading such an article.  Wikipedia does not have a newspaper deadline to meet, and this is a case where delay would do no harm. Collect (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * And even if he was convicted, BLPCRIME and BLP1E would say we wouldn't have an article about him. There's no clear indication of notable outside of this trial. --M ASEM  (t) 15:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably could/should be WP:G10-ed. Definitely a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, and seems like an WP:ATTACKPAGE to me. I'd say get rid of it as fast as possible, before WP gets hit with a lawsuit. Softlavender (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Without question: delete. Maineartists (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * delete I think that after/if he's convicted there should be an article because he's fairly notable in the gymnastics community, but so far, he's only been charged. This is premature. Natureium (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not a candidate for G10 -- it's entirely objective in tone, impeccably sourced, etc. It might not survive an AfD (on grounds of BLP1E), but that's the right process for considering deletion.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This is an article on WP? a "Timeline" of events directly taken from a newspaper? I think we can do better than this. Maineartists (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Now at AFD, please weigh in there. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Bruce A. Hedman
This article violates the Autobiography policy in that the subject wrote it himself (bahedman@earthlink.net).

Also, there are apparent citations in the article, but nothing in the References section of the article. Clicking on one of the superscript numbers in the text ([8]) took me to a page outside of Wikipedia that required that I sign in to go any further. I didn't try any of the others: there should be a list of references, if the article remains at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B118:128A:58B0:27DF:E164:D8D6 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Did some basic cleanup and warned the user about COI and username policies. Would be interested to hear if others think he is notable or not, I think his scholarly publications are the only thing that might make him notable but personally I'm skeptical the article would survive an AFD. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to err on the side of [WP:AGF] (considering the subject) and say that he simply did not know that Wikipedia was not a resume site. However, the real head-scratcher in all this is that actual WP editors have tried to assist in this article. There is nothing notable about this subject to warrant its inclusion. This needs to be put up for an AfD; sorry to say -- poor fella. He has a very friendly smile. Maineartists (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Cahir O'Doherty (musician)
The article claims that its subject is "the heir to the Earldom of Huntingdon". No reference or source is provided. Another article on Wikipedia entitled "Earl of Huntingdon" gives the heir as "the Hon. Simon Aubrey Robin Hood Hastings-Bass". Should the assertion in relation to "Cahir O'Doherty" be removed in the absence of and supporting evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryJoy (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * HenryJoy This article has suffered from numerous recent vandalisms. Be Bold and revert whatever you feel is not reliably sourced content. (It would seem the entire Early life is vandalism. Maineartists (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Trudy Harrison
Birth date incorrect - Trudy Harrison is not 17!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.190.163.40 (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes_check.svg Fixed. A simple fix, fixable by anyone or addressed on the article talk page, no need to come here. Herostratus (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Gheorghe Hagi
Not from an ethnic Macedonian family (as stated) but romanian from thessaloniki, greece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.66.202 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Dan Markel
It's been suggested at Articles for deletion/Wendi Adelson that the content of Dan Markel is not fully in accordance with our BLP policy. That's not an area where I have any great expertise or experience, but it does seem to me that, for example, the content added with is negative in tone, about living people, and based on speculation or suspicion rather than solid fact. I've started a talk-page discussion, and am posting here for wider input. Note: much of the content was later copied to Wendi Adelson and Charles Adelson, both of which are now at AfD. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Fourth/Fifth opinions requested at Talk:Sebastian Gorka
This person I guess recently got a high profile job in the Trump administration and there is a discussion about whether the current sources are sufficient to basically call him antisemitic. Additional input would be greatly appreciated. Timothy Joseph Wood 20:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed some "material" about being a plagarizer, since it wasn't really covered that well. --Malerooster (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Rhys Meyers
Why is this person's page allowed to keep inaccurate information? His film the Rising hasn't been made yet, but the page states that the film will be released at Easter in 2016, but that's a lie. http://irishpost.co.uk/anticipated-star-movie-1916-easter-rising-wont-released-2017-earliest/

Also the actor's latest projects keep getting taken down, although they've been released, like ROOTS and VIKINGS. The actor said that his fiancee is actully his wife http://etcanada.com/news/200730/jonathan-rhys-meyers-on-his-new-vikings-role-and-why-it-kept-him-away-from-his-pregnant-wife-and-unborn-son/, but I was told that wife is a colloquial term that means girlfriend. Since when?

I called the person delusional for putting up such wrong info and I was told I was harassing that person. They're allowed to put up wrong infor on a living person's page, but info that came directly from the actor's mouth is wrong? I really expected better from Wikipedia. No one ever bothers to answer my questions. It's like you all get happy to have the wrong info put up. Is Donald Trump running Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmakarma123 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the claim that The Rising will be released in 2016 as this proposed release date has clearly passed without any release.
 * As for the rest of your issues: you were not told that "wife is a colloquial term that means girlfriend"; you were told that you had not provided a reliable source which called Jonathan Rhys Meyers' partner his wife, and that people sometimes say "wife" to describe a partner that they have not officially married.
 * And regardless of how right you are, calling other editors delusional is not going to help your case. It's a violation of wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, and it's not likely to make other editors sympathetic to the points you are trying to make. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC))

User:Vicky Sutherland & LGBT in South Africa
User:Vicky Sutherland has been editing "enthusiastically" on LGBT matters in South Africa, creating categories such as. I've got to dash off now, but could someone take a look - I'm not really sure whether it's merely misplaced enthusiasm or if there's more to it.Le Deluge (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Pushkala Prasad
This may be the wrong place to ask this but here we go. The page for Pushkala Prasad was recently created and quite extensive. I looked for references to check for notability and could not find anything in-depth that talks about her. There are profile listings and the normal run of the mill type references you find for professors, but nothing that would support the content on the page. I think she would meet WP:PROF on the technicality that she is a named chair of a university, but what would be the route we take for such articles when there is nothing but directory listings and CV-type references to verify what is in the page? In my opinion, there isn't anything that can be used yet she still passes notability based on WP:NACADEMIC (#5). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Richard Gutjahr
I have made a few changes to the grammar and style of this article, which looked like a machine translation from the German version. What I find odd is the expression "creator of mainstream media" in the head entry. "Mainstream Media" is an ill-defined term, which has been used polemically on occasion. In the German original of this article, no such term is used; RG is called a German media host, journalist and blogger" However, I seem to be unable to edit this head entry at all. What can be done?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1A1:4620:7D74:EA57:5F94:34AB (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I've removed the editorializing from the lead but am also in the process of trimming down the promotional tone. Meatsgains (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Imre Vallyon
Several unsupported claims on child abuse by spiritual leader Imre Vallyon have been removed over the years. On February 26th NZ newspaper The Sunday Star Times uncovered that the subject has been convicted in court for sexual child abuse on several accounts. The Sunday Star Times is a reliable news source and the biggest print and digital news outlet of New Zealand. I added this information to his wiki but it gets edited out again by an anonymous user. As stated in the original article by SST members of this organization actively try to bury this information. How to deal with this?

marley_1f (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)ma.atken


 * I have opened a discussion for debate of consensus on the talk page here: Talk: Imre Vallyon. It is the best way for this matter to be resolved and not contested again. More reliable sources need to be added for this not to be a violation of a WP:BLP. Maineartists (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

BLP article on holocaust denier Vincent Reynouard
Ran across and noticed that most of the sources are blogs and random websites. I removed a couple but I don't have more time. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This actually looks like an "attack page" or at least heavily without NPOV. I cannot find what his notability is for inclusion on WP from the content or sources. This may be an article for AfD. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Charles Murray (political scientist)
The text in question is:

with a section title: White Nationalism

It is based on two sources:
 * 1) SPLC
 * 2) Slate (blog)

I'm not aware of a persistent problem but there is an RFC in progress with keep/remove at 2/1 so I'd like more input before removing it. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * SPLC is a primary source for its own opinion, but it is a recognised *notable* opinion on stuff like this. If it was the *only* organisation/person who thought this way about them, there would be an argument for exclusion. As it stands even a brief search shows a lot of sources that have the same opinion/view of the subject, published in otherwise reliable publications, so it is useable in the body of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is being considered via a formal RfC on the talk page there -- would you want to include your view there? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Sean Hannity
There is a question about "material", added very recently to the body of the article, which is now being placed in the lede section. There is an RFC going on about it on the talk page, but in the meantime it seems like we should keep the last stable version. Can some non politically motivated folks take a look please? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Last stable version" is not a Wikipedia policy. Indeed, it is often a thin cover for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The only relevant question is whether the material is well sourced. And it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Strange, I often see administrators use it. thanks for the heads up. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When it's appropriate. Not when it's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's policy when it's "appropriate" but not policy when it's not? I think the word you meant to use was "convenient", but that's a discussion for another forum. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, when it's appropriate it's perfectly fine to say "last stable version" (for example reverting drastic changes which are borderline vandalism". It's not fine to say it when it's just "I don't have a good reason to revert you but I wanna do it all the same" (which is the case here). In neither case is it policy. Clear? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Now it is clear. You resolved the confusion of an editor who never claimed last-stable-version was policy or even mentioned the word "policy" by explaining it was not policy. I will also assist by pointing out last-stable-version is not one of the five major food groups.
 * Could an uninvolved editor please hat this tangent? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a non-politically motivated bloke and I don't see understand the question? What is the BLP violation you have identified. Can you describe and document it for us? The content underlying the RfC language seems to be very well sourced to mainstream references.  The horse is already out of the stable, so I what is the BLP question?
 * I believe this content (being added) is the problem. And I would agree that as it is written, it is written derogatorily against Hannity, even if it claims to be summarizing points in the body. There might be appropriateness to summarize criticism of him in the lede, but not written like this (particularly as written in WP's factual voice). BLP tells us to remove BLP-violating content until consensus is determined. --M ASEM  (t) 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That sentence accurately summarizes this section. So the question is - is that section well sourced or not? If no, then it's BLP-violating content and can be removed. If yes, then it is not BLP-violating content and should not be removed, because then all you got is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. So is it well sourced? Yes, indeed it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, it violates BLP because its saying these things in WP-factual voice, like "his overly favorable coverage of Donald Trump". Who made that determination? Not WP, as that would be both NPOV and NOR, but it sounds like that. The paragraph can be reworded so be "The press have been critical of Hannity for his seemingly favorable coverage of Trump..." for example, which is far more neutral and in line with BLP. Also, emphasizing "false and unsubstantiated voter fraud claims" and " promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories" in WP's voice is the same several problem. You can summarize and probably need to summarize that section, but it must be done with the attributions to take it out WP's voice and with far less "passionate" language. --M ASEM (t) 19:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of it can be reworded. But for thing like "promoting falsehoods" by Trump we've had an RfC or a dozen about it already so that part's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming that's the typical language of the press, that's fine to use in the lede as attributed text. There's no attribution in the noted diff, making it an accusation in WP's voice, which absolutely cannot be made and is a BLP violation. --M ASEM (t) 21:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, OP has cited the RfC but I don't understand how it entails any BLP violation, given all the sources in the article corpus. It may be a bit over-long for the lede. I've addressed this now that I've seen the RfC, but I think that at BLPN we need a specific violation (unsourced or defamatory content) and without that, there's no way we can address OP's concern here.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that we do not need to get into subjective narrative such as "overly" "favorable" and "seemingly" -- they are not descriptive.  On the other hand, I think it is well-verified by the cited RS that "false and unsubstantiated voter fraud claims" and " promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories" is fact, per mainstream reporting. I think that content is acceptable.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, adverbs bad anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of fact-checking and extensive RS sourcing, why would the article not state the facts in WP's voice? These are not partisan or personal opinions; they seem to be facts reported by media with rigorous fact-checking and sourcing policies. And I think we need to be careful not to project any disapproval on Mr. Hannity. He is a notable media figure. So in strictly objective and encyclopedic terms, his decision to present various conspiracy theories and other disproved narratives is really no different than Lady Gaga's choice of wardrobe or repertoire. I don't see the BLP problem with verified content. SPECIFICO  talk  22:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We are talking partisan politics in the current political climate. The type of comments made by the media at large towards him are subjective, regardless if 99.99% of the reliable press share the same sentiment. That's the opinion of that subset of humanity, not the whole of humanity (compared to something like "the Earth is round"), and thus cannot be stated in unattributed WP's voice as an "accepted fact". --M ASEM (t) 23:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The view that the Earth is round is not held by "the whole of humanity." See Modern flat Earth societies. Therefore we cannot make such a claim in Wikipedia's voice. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Masem, everything is subjective at an epistomological level, but at the mundane level of journalism and encyclopedias, we're just dealing with facts as presented by RS, and these particular facts seem well cited. The possibility that RS as a whole are mistaken is beyond the scope of our editing policy here. It's not really a matter of opinion that the voter fraud meme is false, is it? Can you prove to me that the earth is round?  I bet that if you recited the statements of all the US state attorneys general who dubunked the voter fraud lie that 9 out of 10 aboriginals in Australia, Africa, Alaska, and the Canadian Arctic would tell you that Mr. Hannity presented a false theory.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  Remember, we're not saying it's a sin. Just that it's not true.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Being subjective and being mistaken are two different things, and there's certain things like the motivation of a person that we can never affirm if an observer is right or wrong about. Further, reading the details, while most of the theories have a strong amount of evidence to show they are very likely false with a high degree of certainty, they are not 100% disproven, nor will ever be disproven (as you cannot prove the absence of something that many of these theories rely on). Yes, they are very much into fringe theories, and there's plenty of sources to say his statements are bogus, no question, but we shouldn't be trying to judge him by what the press has said - that violates NPOV and BLP. All that requires use to do is 1) use attribution as to who is calling out Hannity on these issues, and 2) use a tone that is more clinically neutral. Instead of that current paragraph, I would write something like "Hannity has been criticized by the press and many conservative pundits for favorable coverage of Trump, as well as promotion of Trump's assertions of voter fraud and refuted conspiracy theories regarding Hillary Clinton." Same information but with attribution (outside of WP's voice) and far less in a "critical" voice as required by BLP.  (Not that the body section is perfect; there are definitely "subjective opinions in WP's voice" problems there too. --M ASEM  (t) 05:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Clark_(American_football)
He is deceased. See http://www.nfl.com/player/alclark/2511517/profile and http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/ClarAl20.htm. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBoninJr (talk • contribs) 22:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Both citations mention the subject is dead. The NFL website seems definitive enough. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Victor Salva
This person, primarily notable as a director, is also a convicted criminal. Specifically he was convicted of "sexual misconduct" involving children and possession of child pornography. His conviction is outlined in the article and is pretty straightforward. However, there has been some attempts to add the information in the article lede, in the first sentence. Part of the problem is the wording: that he is a "child molester". That isn't the charge or conviction wording. I am uncertain if the correctly worded info should be in the lede. I am unable to find guidelines about someone who is notable for non-controversial reasons but is also a convicted criminal. I have no idea if he is also notable for his crime. It's there in the article but my suspicion is that it is WP:UNDUE to mention it in the lede. What are the guidelines on this? As this is a BLP issue and the subject was convicted and served his sentence, I'm not certain what the right course of action is.  freshacconci  talk to me  17:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The first new link that showed up when I searched for his name is an article in the guardian which refers to him as a pedophile in the title and another from deadline which also mentions it in the title. He seems to be at least as notable for it as for his film work at least in my oppinion.★Trekker (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It belongs in the lead. It is a substantial part of his notability and has been widely reported, and he wasn't just convicted of "sexual misconduct". As the article says, he "pleaded guilty to lewd and lascivious conduct, oral sex with a person under 14 [a 12-year-old], and procuring a child for [producing] pornography". See Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead section should summarize the topic and the article content, "including any prominent controversies". It should not omit anything on purpose just because it is unfavorable to the subject. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent what I wrote. I did not suggest omitting something because it is unfavourable. I am also very aware of WP:MOS. I brought this here because I could not find specific policy on crime and notability if the subject is notable for something other than the crime. In this case first notability is as a director since the conviction came later, and given his established notability as a director, would he be notable as a sex offender alone? In other words, if he were not a director, would we have an article on him based solely on his crime? The crime is notable because it was committed by someone notable. According to the MOS, "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." Under First Sentence it states: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." My concern/question was this: is he equally notable for being a director and a convicted criminal, and if so, where does that information go? The way it was included (the part that I reverted) placed the information in the first sentence and labelled him a "child molester". Colloquially he is, yes, but that's not a legal term. My feeling is that if we determine that both aspects of his notability are equal, how do we write it? If, following the sources, the conviction is not as notable, does it belong in the lede and if so, where? Certainly not in the first sentence but rather further on in the lede plainly stating what the section in the article on his conviction states. And yes, according to what is currently written, he was convicted of sexual misconduct. The paragraph then goes into more detail about what that means. In the case of the lede, we would state the conviction, however we determine it to be worded ("sexual misconduct involving children and possession of child pornography" or something along those lines).  freshacconci  talk to me  21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not restricted to the phrasing of the law, as we are not writing a law book (any more than we are to avoid calling someone a "convicted murderer" rather than "convicted of an act of homicide in the first degree".) We can find reliable sources that refer to his crime as child molestation, such as Deadline here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Child molestation perhaps, but it was worded as child molester which I think is problematic. If we follow the article categories, sex offender, child pornography offenses and child sexual abuse would probably be better. I'm also thinking of NPOV language -- I realize this sounds absurd given what he was convicted of (and plead guilty to) but I want to make sure we get this right from the stand point of an encyclopedia. (And yes, I realize we use his mug shot as the photo, which kind of sets the tone for the article).  freshacconci  talk to me  22:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We have no problems calling someone who has written one book a writer or an author; someone who has directed one film a director. I don't see where that changes for molesting one child. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably needs to be more in line with the source. So convicted paedophile per the Guardian rather than 'child molestor'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * People aren't convicetd as pedophiles, it's completly leagal to be one, people are convicted for child-molestation, pedophile is just a catch all term for people with a sexual intrest in children.★Trekker (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note BarrelProof added text to the second paragraph of the lead that reads fine and simply summarizes what is already written further in the article. Unless there are further concerns, it looks like this is resolved.  freshacconci  talk to me  15:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Neal D. Barnard
The article contains criticism that shouldn’t be there because the sources are self-published blogs. Relevant excerpts from the Reliable Sources section of the Biographies of Living Persons article:

1)	[…] contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. […] When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. 2)	Avoid self-published sources: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see #Using the subject as a self-published source). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.

Diff 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neal_D._Barnard&diff=755862563&oldid=755861721 Diff 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neal_D._Barnard&diff=755861656&oldid=755861381

PaperHydrate (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this is being discussed I'll comment. It seems, unless I'm greatly misinterpreting the situation because of my own admitted vegan and vegetarian bias, that the pages of vegan and vegetarian doctors and other vegan and vegetarian topics (Macrobiotic diet, etc.) have been influenced, in part, by editors intent on discrediting the topics. There are too many focused editors watching those pages to hold much promise of neutralizing the language without using a very large amount of time and editing energy. Look at the history and differences in the lead and article in the last few months on Macrobiotic diet to get an idea of where that page used to be and where it is now. The Neal Barnard page is just one of those being watched by both them and the editor above who should have mentioned here that he is a paid editor for the page subject. My comments here are partly from my own bias, as I think Barnard and his organization have done amazing work in the field, and both pages here have been further made to seem like they are adherents to fad diets who mislead the public about the benefits or harm of their particular diet preference.Randy Kryn 14:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies, even after edits my language above is a bit harsh and accusatory. Which reflects my bias. I was a vegetarian activist for several years, and do try not to go all out to "get my way" on vegetarian pages. So I guess I'm asking if others can see bias on the pages or if I'm imagining it through bias-colored glasses. Thanks.Randy Kryn 22:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Roy Budd
Musician Roy Budd is not a living person. He died in 1993. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.61.197 (talk) 05:43, March 2, 2017‎
 * Nothing in the article indicates he is living. The very first version says so.-- Auric    talk  00:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Simon Callow
Daily Mail is used as a source to verify Callow's marriage to Sebastian Fox. Due to the recent events on the newspaper source, I want to replace Daily Mail, but I don't know which source to use. What about The Guardian, Radio Times interview, Irish News, Islington Gazette, The Telegraph, or The Times interview? --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason any of those couldn't be used? I don't see what the issue is.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @Nomoskedasticity: Per common sense, we must be careful about categorizing someone, living or deceased, based on sexual orientation. There have been past case-by-case discussions about verifying their orientations. Normally, rumors about one's sexuality should be avoided. Also, WP:BLPCAT says that notability of one's sexuality must be verified. Some past discussions, like the "James Dreyfus" case, cases about "George Maharis" and Talk:Aaron Schock, prove this. Even one "highly reputable" source may be avoided if such gossip is baseless. Also, recently, the consensus decided that Daily Mail is generally unreliable. I hope I cleared up the gap for you. --George Ho (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @George Ho: per WP:COMMONSENSE?? Are you proposing to "ignore all rules" here?  Anyway: to report on someone's marriage is not to report on what their sexual orientation is -- the two things can diverge.  And BLPCAT wasn't in play, according to your original question -- you were asking about what source to use for text on his marriage, you didn't ask about adding a category. The one hardly implies the other, certainly not in Wikipedia practice: we very commonly say whom a person is married to without adding a category for "heterosexual writer" or "heterosexual politician", and we don't require that the person (said to be married to someone who is the opposite sex) has self-identified as straight.  We can certainly say that Callow is married to Fox without adding a category or infobox entry on sexual orientation. So -- improving the article by replacing a Daily Mail source was a very good idea -- end of story.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do any of them say they were married on 23 June? The Daily Mail doesn't seem to. The Daily Telegraph reports on 23 June they were married on "Monday" so that would be 20 June, maybe. Some other papers say "June 2016". The Times might be OK but I can't check because I am paywalled. Thincat (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Any of those would be fine if they source the text, though the Islington Gazette is a local newspaper/source whilst the others are national. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I added two references and then tagged "Daily Mail" as unreliable. --George Ho (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no need for it now, so I just removed it. It is, as per usual for the DM, a terrible article anyway ("marries toyboy lover"? Give me strength). Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When I looked at this it seemed likely they had sold the story of the wedding to the DM (DM reported before the wedding and other papers were quoting the DM) so maybe "toyboy lover" was part of the press release! Thincat (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging Bearcat about Nomoskedasticity's response, i.e. categorizing persons based on marriage. George Ho (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue in this instance isn't the basic notability of the marriage itself. It's perfectly appropriate to mention it, so long as it's reliably sourced — and he's been out as gay since the 1980s according to his article, so categorizing him as LGBT isn't in dispute since his outness doesn't depend on the wedding per se. The only actual issue here is the sourcing that's provided for the wedding itself — Daily Mail is problematic, since it seems to strike a sensationalized tone and we're iffy about sourcing things to tabloid newspapers at the best of times, but several of the others seem perfectly fine. When I'm in a situation where I have several different potential references to use for the same piece of information, I try to go with the most reputable option — for example, if I have a choice between the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun, the Star wins. Or alternatively, if my choice is between publications of comparable reliability, then I'll pick the option that diversifies the sourcing more — so that in a choice between the Toronto Star and the Calgary Herald, if I already have several Star citations but no Herald citations yet, I'll use the Herald so that I'm increasing the range of publications being cited.
 * But again, there's no dispute to be had here about whether to mention the marriage at all, because it's no different from mentioning an opposite-sex marriage, and there's no dispute about categorizing him as LGBT, because he was already openly gay long before getting married. All that's actually up for discussion here is what's the best source to use to support the marriage, and the answer to that is that as long as you're picking a reliable source it really doesn't matter which one you pick as long as you pick something. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Maxine Waters
The section in the Maxine Waters Wikipedia article titled "Criticism of President Trump" may have been written by a partisan and sarcastic critic of Maxine Waters. Refer to the second of two sentences in that section, which reads "In February 2017, Maxine Waters called for the impeachment of President Donald Trump on the basis he supports the Russian invasion of Korea.[53 ]"

CNN, the source at note 53, cites numerous concerns Waters has with Trump, of which "Korea" (Crimea) is only the last. As the CNN article states:

"Waters said that she's concerned with [1] Trump's travel ban executive order, [2] "the way he's talking about Muslims," [3] and his friendly relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"She also said that [4] Trump 'is wrapping his arms around Putin, while Putin is continuing to advance into Korea' -- apparently meaning to reference the Crimea."

—CNN: "Rep. Maxine Waters: Trump's actions 'leading himself' to impeachment

The Wiki author's description of Waters' statement is erroneous, it is misleading and insulting to the subject. The first sentence of the lede paragraph in the sourced CNN article plainly states, "Rep. Maxine Waters said Monday that President Donald Trump's actions are 'leading himself' to possible impeachment."

The article displays Waters' actual Tweet regarding Trump in which she told a news magazine, "my greatest desire was to lead @realDonaldTrump right into impeachment." There is a difference between "I desire to lead Trump to impeachment," and "I call for Trump's impeachment" which is too big to ignore.

As well, the glaring attempt to embarrass Waters with a reference to an obvious slip of the tongue ('Korea' for 'Crimea') is juvenile and vindictive. If it is not a partisan smear, it is an amazingly inept misreading of very plain language. This "Korea" mixup by Waters is the subject of much low-information trolling on the part of many conservatives.

I would check to see if or how many more claims in this article are skewed to embarrass and libel Waters, but I am tired. Thanks for your attention to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilipede (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the section was pretty clearly written by a POV-warrior anon. I've rewritten it to reflect the reliable sources cited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Miles Doleac
Is it just me, or is this article subject to industrial scale resume-padding? It's a paid advertisement, so that would not be at all surprising. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Lauren Passarelli
Whole article, which seems to be nearly entirely written by the subject, clearly fails some standards -- namely, probably non-notable, and reads like a press release/resume with a great deal of self-promotion. This editor's removed a maintenance template addressing some of these issues as well. --RaygunShaun (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Nigel Twiston-Davies
I have noticed several inaccuracies in this article, presumably added by someone deliberately:


 * 1) I can't believe his first winner was called Pighead.
 * 2) He hasn't trained over 250,000 winners (no-one has!).
 * 3) He did not train Snotbags to win a fictitious race (the Heinz Baked Beans Chase). 79.69.102.176 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reporting this. All of these errors were introduced in this edit by an IP . I have reverted their edit – anyone can revert obvious vandalism – and added some citations. Politrukki (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Max Keiser
Our article on Max Keiser has recently been subject to a number of malicious edits:, ,. In my opinion these changes could be considered defamatory. Could anybody kindly advise how best to tackle this problem? --Salimfadhley (talk)
 * Salimfadhley The edits in question have been reverted: Max Keiser History. However, any editor can revert what they feel to be "acts of vandalism" toward an article or subject. My advice: if you see something that just doesn't belong, be bold and remove / revert the content. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, as you correctly state - the malicious edits have been rolled back. Are there any other appropriate countermeasures if this should become a prolonged attack? --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You may request page protection using Twinkle or writing a request here. In practice administrators will apply page protection only if disruption is persistent, and usually they will protect the page for a couple of days at a time. Politrukki (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

James J Busuttil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J_Busuttil

Persons unknown are posting libellous statements on the above article James J Busuttil as well as a related one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Square_Publishing Russell Square Publishing

Controversy relates to a dispute involving trademarks

Davebc1980 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, pretty clearly inappropriate. I've removed links/sources from an attack page targeting the individual. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Necmi Sönmez
The person is too insignificant for an entry, has itself registered itself. So the article can be remove. TheRumourman 11:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you any proof that is the same as the article subject?--  Auric    talk  18:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)