Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive254

Erik Prince
In this edit I removed a section discussing Erik Prince's meeting in the Seychelles which was alleged by "unnamed officials" in the Washington Post to "create a back-channel to Russia for Trump" but has been firmly denied by both Mr. Prince and the White House, as the source quotes: "Erik had no role on the transition team. This is a complete fabrication. The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump." Subsequently reverted the text and accused me of "blatant POV vandalism and a DS violation". Am I mistaken in calling this section a BLP violation? Was also mistaken when removing the same story from Erik Prince's bio, arguing WP:BLPCRIME? — JFG talk 23:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have already sought admin help to deal with this DS violation. See DS violations by User:JFG. DS violations and 1RR violation call for a block and possible topic ban. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Pres. Trump also said Manafort had nothing to do with his campaign. Should WP purge references to Manafort as Trump Campaign Mgr? SPECIFICO  talk  00:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculous straw-man: Manafort was Trump's campaign manager for several months, so I don't see how Trump could say he had nothing to do with his campaign. Besides I have not removed any material pertaining to Manafort. — JFG talk 00:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought my meaning would be clear enough. When Pres. Trump's people get in hot water, he denies any association with them. E.G. last week, Trump downgraded Steve Bannon to just some guy who came along late in the campaign.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are drifting further off-topic: the contested edit and my BLP/N question have nothing to do with Manafort or Bannon. Trump's utterances are also irrelevant to answer the BLP question on Prince. But for my education, I'd love to see where Trump claimed Manafort had "nothing to do with his campaign" or where he stated that Bannon is "just some guy who came along late in the campaign". Got sources? — JFG talk 00:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They are to be treated like any hostile witness, IOW their word means less than nothing in these cases. Regardless, we document what RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because there's controversy over this meeting, WP:YESPOV must be followed, identifying this as a claim made by the Washington Post, and noting that the adminstration has denied this. Alternatively, because the nature of this meeting is in question, WP:RECENTISM may also apply and it may make sense to not include it until the full investigation by the FBI is completed. --M ASEM (t) 01:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding the 3-4 word denial would have avoided the DS violation of the second revert.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't the meeting, the problem is that Prince is the only named person. It's definitely negative and without knowing who was there.  The UAE source is who thought it was a backchannel avenue but again unnamed.  This was a one day newsstory that hasn't gained any traction and purely based on WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP regarding poorly sourced negative information, it needs to go.  WaPo ran the story attributing to sources we can't identify and the lack of follow-up is indicative of an innuendo campaign that Wikipedia does not need to engage.  More substance will arise if and when when it becomes noteable.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is silly - the story got front-page coverage in the Post and was widely covered by other major newsorgs too, so this is clearly something that the article (and Prince's article) should address. If there are BLP concerns, just add "on x date, the Washington Post reported that..., " note the denials, and maybe note that nbc et al also reported the same thing. There's an active rfc about the same issue (but with different proposed wording) at Erik Prince btw, strongly leaning to include at the moment. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Fyddlestix that this presents no BLP concerns. Of course we should appropriately include denials (a spokesman for Prince acknowledged there was a meeting, but said it "had nothing to do with" Trump), and of course we should carefully phrase it, but this is well sourced and highly relevant to the article topic. (The invocation of WP:YESPOV by one user, above, puzzles me: this is a front-page Washington Post news article, not some op-ed, but in any case adding the words "The Washington Post reported..." should assuage any doubt.) Our policy here is quote clear (WP:PUBLICFIGURE, part of WP:BLP):


 * "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

That is what we should do here: document what the sources say, fairly and accurately. Neutralitytalk 02:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but this BLP thread arose after the DS violation was pointed out. SPECIFICO  talk  02:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you kindly stop talking about imaginary DS violations? You've been accusing me at least 5 times since January, all without merit. Time to drop the proverbial stick; much appreciated, thanks. — JFG talk 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't imaginary. You violated 1RR on an article under a 1RR restriction. When someone pointed that out, you came running here (without notifying the person who included the original text) and tried to make it a BLP issue (it's not).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I beg to disagree: no I didn't violate 1RR, and yes there is a BLP issue. After I removed this section from the Russian interference article, I noticed that another editor independently removed the same story from the Erik Prince article 10 days ago, with a BLP rationale, so apparently my reasoning is not unique to my little head, and coming to BLP/N for clarification is the appropriate forum. Oh, and please remember to bring your AGF towel next time you decide to dive into the pool with me. — JFG talk 07:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "I beg to disagree: no I didn't violate 1RR" - 1 revert, 2 revert.
 * " I noticed that another editor independently removed the same story from the Erik Prince article 10 days ago, with a BLP rationale" - link? Cuz, ten days ago would be April 6th or 7th. I don't see anyone doing that. I do see your buddy Thucydides trying to gut the article in general but nothing about BLP.
 * My AGF towel is in the wash cuz getting bleached it's been so soiled by all the times I AGFed and then got burned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Only the second edit (which you list first) is a revert, as already explained to my usual accuser.
 * If you bothered to read my initial post here before rushing to doubt my word, you could follow the link I provided. But I'm happy to repeat it for your convenience: . PS: Nobody is my "buddy".
 * I can understand that. Depends who you mingle with. I keep towels clean. — JFG talk 08:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (aside) Looks like  never edited the Erik Prince page, so could you kindly strike your accusation of him "trying to gut the article in general"? — JFG talk 08:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see, you were talking about the Erik Prince article, not the Russian interference article. Ok. But we are discussing your 1RR violation at the Russian interference article so you can't claim that that was ok because "someone else did it first". Additionally this "explanation" is not an explanation for your vio at all, but rather it's just a "go ahead and report me" taunt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this particular 1RR accusation has been repeated in so many places that I'm losing track. Here's where I have defended my edits. Now how about you strike your mistaken accusation of Thucydides? — JFG talk 15:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because a RS (the WaPost in this case) published something does not make it a fact, particularly when the people at the center of the issue can be also documented countering that accusation. This is not say the WaPost is right or wrong, but when there are highly controversial claims that haven't been proven out in a court of law or by proper authorities, we should be taking the most conservative (middle-ground, not political position) route per YESPOV and RECENTISM to avoid BLP and POV issues. Also, given that this is Yet Another Trump Admin vs the Press Issue, the idea of the "hostile witness" aspect of the media must also be kept in mind here (and its well known that WaPost are not happy with Trump, and vice versa). --M ASEM (t) 02:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first sentence &mdash; I've already said that we of course should identify any relevant denials, specifically.
 * Regarding your last sentence &mdash; this is more of a WP:RSN issue, but I very strongly reject the idea that we should discount news accounts from the Washington Post, the New York Times, or other extremely well-regarded sources out of some sort of sense that "they don't like Trump." The high-quality media is aggressive in its investigative reporting because (1) that's the job of journalists (to ask questions) and (2) because this is an unusual and complex point in U.S. politics in which there is more to investigate than ever before. The Post and Times have won many, many journalism awards and have a long and proud history of reporting the news. Should we avoid getting sucked into day-to-day back-and-forth on politics? Yes. But Wikipedia should certainly not fall into the trap of accepting the delegitimatization of the media, especially when it comes to stories of historic significance. Neutralitytalk 03:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said we should dismiss them as reliable sources nor ignore what they say (though again, how relevant this story is within scope of RECENTISM should be taken into account). But we should avoid blind faith that just because these are established RSes that this must be taken as fact; this is even more so when we have 1) almost no other corroborating accounts, the story seems all based on WaPost's study and no one else's 2) there is documentable counterpoints/denials from the people accused by the WaPost 3) there is an established history of bitterness between the WaPost and the Trump admin. That's why my first point here: simply document this as an accusation made by the WaPost and to document the counterclaims by Prince and Trump's admin is the appropriate action under BLP and POV, rather than how it seemed to be originally added, as a claimed fact in WP's voice. (And if RECENTISM was used, we'd not be including this at all until its determined to have been relevant to matters in some years' time down the road). --M ASEM (t) 03:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The WaPo is certainly a reliable news source. What they did is publish a one day story about a meeting.  It has negative connotations with hints of an investigation by a law enforcement agency.  What it lacks is "legs."  What historic significance is known to us at this point? Prince had a meeting in Seychelles?  We don't know who he met or what was discussed or why.  We don't have any information on any investigation. Cut to the chase, the newsiness hook that makes this a story is that Prince is a provocative figure from Blackwater and the brother of Betsy DeVos. Either of those facts plays well to an audience that has already vilified both.  The fact that the Russian he allegedly met with is unknown should raise giant red flags that this has less to do with the meeting and more to do with who Prince is.  There is no historical merit in this news article until more details are learned.  If it's encyclopedic, that will happen.  If nothing more happens, it's not encyclopedic and we never should have included it.  "Any day now" is not a valid argument for concluding it has historical significance.  90% of news is just news.  We are not the outlet for single day news articles.--DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about the Washington Post's reliability. They have historically been very highly regarded, but recently, their quality seems to have gone downhill quickly. They've made some absolutely terrible decisions: publishing the PropOrNot article and hastily reporting that Russia had hacked Burlington's electric grid, when some rudimentary investigation could have alerted them to the fact that that story was bogus. The PropOrNot article was especially disturbing, because it lent legitimacy to what was essentially a McCarthyist attack on the press. Other outlets (like the New Yorker) thought that PropOrNot was an amateurish group making wild accusations, and wouldn't publish it, but the WaPo decided to go with it. The Washington Post is probably still mostly reliable to report simple facts, but with the very clear editorial line the paper has been taking, and the more than questionable decisions it's made recently, I think some caution is warranted with WaPo, especially if other outlets have not confirmed its reporting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This has pretty much zero relevance to reliability. Both the electrical grid story and the PropOrNot story have editors' notes/corrections; this is exactly what high-quality sources do &mdash; make clarifications and corrections when there are mistakes. The Post has not retracted the Prince story; no other reliable sources have questioned the story's veracity; and indeed several of the actors agree on major points of the story. (For example, it's not in dispute that a meeting took place.) As to the claim that the paper has "gone downhill"&mdash;the Post won a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2016 and 2017. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Neither the electrical grid story nor the PropOrNot story should have been published in the first place. The latter, especially, was extremely troubling. The WaPo put a story on its front page citing a McCarthyite blacklist at length. Even the retraction itself is problematic: the retraction tries to downplay the significance of PropOrNot to the article, even though the article relies heavily on PropOrNot, it doesn't renounce PropOrNot, and the article hasn't been edited to remove the PropOrNot citations. This is not indicative of a high-quality source. The WaPo ran a below-the-belt hit piece meant to imply that journalistic outlets that don't toe a certain line are Kremlin propaganda, and then when the WaPo got hit with a storm of criticism, it put up a one-paragraph explanation on its website.
 * I don't buy that the WaPo winning an industry award cancels out that sort of behavior. In the future, we should be very cautious about citing WaPo on issues where they now have a track record of publishing dubious material. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that WaPo reported it. As Masem pointed out, the relationship between Trumpworld and WaPo is pretty common knowledge. FWIW, I don't see a DS violation, just standard removal of content that would take place through organic bold editing. If someone thinks that DS were violated, take it to WP:AE. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is under 1rr FYI. SPECIFICO talk  03:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WaPo is the only source that didn't derive the story from other coverage. Virtually every other news source referenced what the WaPo reported as an attributed conclusion.  There is virtually only one source if we discount the eponymous phrase "According to the Washington Post..." there is only a single source.  There is no independant coverage.  It was a one day news story apparently highlighting how the Trump team, with all it's Russian connections needed a backchannel connection with a highly controversial, widely known person as well - and no one else named.  It's a nutty conspiracy theory that started from what an UAE anonymous source said.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WaPo is independent coverage, no? And so what if other sources also quote WaPo? It just means that they broke the story. This happens with most stories - one outlet breaks it, then others repeat it and maybe add a bit to it. Sometimes more than outlet breaks the story at the same time and you got a couple of them, but this right here is pretty much how it ALWAYS works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, WaPo is a reliable source but is the only source for this. No other details have broke.  Compare it to say, the United Airlines flight incident.  For days we had multiple, independant sources (independant from each other) breaking new information.  Within days we had backfrounds on the passenger, updates on the officers, responses by United, stock market, etc, etc.  This was a single source that had their attributed opinion repeated.  Nothing new though.  Two weeks and the WaPo story is the complete version.  That leaves us with no justification for inclusionn.  "It was in the Washington Post" is not enough to make the case for including a single day news blurb with negative BLP allegations.  Think of it this way: How would Prince ever be vindicated if our standard was publish the first allegation using a single news article that mentions an investigation?  There's not enough information to even conclude there will be a followup.  We don't have a crystal ball to see if this will be significant or not.  We would be left with an unsubtantiated accusation with no way to clear it. If it is significant it will generate more coverage. If it's not significant, the story will remain dead on the vine.  Either way, it only deserves to be added if there is followup because I think any rational personal would conclude that the "next step" is what cements this addition.  As it is, there is no nothing to write that doesn't require a follow up.  He has meetings all the time with various nations and DUE weight for this one hinges on stuff we don't know.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a BLP violation to report allegations against someone as if they were facts and furthermore we should follow the sources if they decide to publish denials because we are supposed to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." TFD (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No. If source says "alleged" we say "alleged". If a source says "according to" we say "according to". We can also sometimes say "according to" and then name the source. But we don't decide what is "fact" and what is not "fact".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and if we stick to that we would be pitting the views of an unknown UAE government person and try to connect it to an FBI investigation without any details. And then we would conclude that our BLP sourcing policy would require us to wait before we publish this "connect the dots story." The WaPo does not claim causality or any connection, rather it provides facts on background without relating them to this meeting.  When peeled, this onion is empty until there is a next a step.  We routinely pass on publishing allegations prior to indictments especially when there is no indication that anything further will happen.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're going on about. Nobody's peeling any onions. Nobody's pitting any views. Or plums. Or fighters. Or stops. Nobody's trying to connect anything. Though if you get four in a row you win. And what the hey does "causality" have to do with anything here? Causality of what? You are simply interpreting what a reliable source says in some strange manner and then claiming we can't use it. Some weird new twist on doing original research it seems - some kind of "if my original research is cryptic and incomprehensible enough, maybe no one will notice I'm doing original research" tactic. Look, we stick to what the source says. If it says "alleged" we use "alleged". If it says "according to" we say "according to". Etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As soon as a reliable source comes out that says any of the things you mentioned we can add it. But that hasn't happened yet.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey User:JFG, thanks for notifying me since I'm the one who added the text you're removing. Oh wait! You didn't? Gee...Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't check history before removing that stuff (and other stuff with it) – just doing an article cleanup pass. No offense! — JFG talk 07:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My personal feeling is: I don't personally see that this falls under WP:BLPCRIME, as no specific crime per se is being alleged or charged; merely illicit or suspicious activity. WaPo isn't stating "Eric Prince committed X." Mention that the WaPo (which is definitely a RS) reported the actions/activity (and that Prince denied it). WP:NOTCENSORED. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They said a police agency is investigating the meeting. It's the newspaper way of inferring a crime may have been committed with no way to ever remove the investigation.  The FBI investigates crimes and if we learned anything from the election, "investigation" is an accusation.  The FBI purposefully mentioned the end to the investigation of Clinton emails to remove the cloud.  Re-opening the investigation was met with lots of backlash.  Saying that the FBI is investigating a meeting is indeed covered by WP:BLPCRIME and unless there is more followup, there isn't enough to casually toss that into the article based on the WaPo's one day news story.  Normally, the FBI doesn't announce investigations (and they didn't comment for the story) or when they close so if it's nothing, we may never hear another word. We don't park dark clouds on BLPs precisely because of this.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, neither WaPo or the wiki article are alleging any crimes. The meeting clearly took place, as the information came from U.S., European, and Arab officials, who also revealed the results of the meeting and the planned follow-up meetings which were subsequently dropped. Moreover, the wiki article in question is Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, not Eric Prince. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While there is no technical crime committed, it is clear they (the WaPost) seen this as something treasonous and are calling out his role, particularly if it is proven that Russia interfered in the election. It's not a crime, yet, by any book, but we should be a lot more aware of what the WaPost is trying to pin on him, and even if BLPCRIME doesn't specifically apply, BLP does. --M ASEM (t) 13:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "it is clear they (the WaPost) seen this as something treasonous" - people! Really, freakin' read WP:NOR again. If it was "clear" then they'd freakin' say it. But they don't, so it's not "clear" how they "see it". Maybe they don't even "see" anything, maybe they are just reporting a story of interest. Stop trying to read the source' mind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As soon as you find something worth reporting, we'll add it. But as you noted, the mental gymnastics required to see this as notable are too much without multiple independent sources making a notable claim/finding/whatever.  Hasn't happened yet, though.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * NOR applies to what goes into an article as in we cannot include our own OR), but we are allowed (and in fact, do all the time) use original research on talk pages and discussions to evaluate sources and claims made about those sources to determine how to apply policy to them and include (if appropriate) as content. No source is going to tell us if something is a BLP violation, for example, that's something of our own invention. And in a case like this, it is perfectly acceptable to consider the nature of the story and identify that it falls within WP:YESPOV as a highly controversial claim with counterstatements available, so we should treat it as such. Too many editors suggest applying a blind eye to sources, which makes us an echo chamber of non-objective journalism that exists today, when to stay neutral and objective, we have to understand the larger picture and use appropriate caution (eg attributing statement rather than assuming as facts) while we still are within the RECENTISM window. --M ASEM (t) 14:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents here, unneeded though it may be: the mere fact of this publication on the front page of the Washington Post is, in and of itself, notable. That's one reason why the coverage in the post was mentioned in multiple other publications. I think properly couched, the information deserves to be both in the "Russian interference" article and likely in the BLP. I would say that whether factual or not, the whole episode of publication is worthy of inclusion. But I also think we're straying a bit here from WP:Verifiability. I think it's best when we are agnostic as to "fact." Fisking sources beyond their reliability is a dangerous road to trend, in my opinion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In today's media, and with how we have defined our reliable sources, we absolutely need to be more cognizant of what is happening in the media circles if we are going to post information as soon as it is reported in light of WP:NOT and WP:RECENTISM. If editors weren't so much in a rush to post these types of news story and instead wait several months or years before determining if they were valid, then we'd not have to worry too much about the source. But if editors want to rush in and add, all the elements of RECENTISM must be taken into account. --M ASEM (t) 13:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "all the elements of RECENTISM must be taken into account" - Yeah like this one "Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news event".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Masem, again, I think you are overly focused on "fact." Wikipedia is a distillation of reliable sources, and so, will occasionally be "wrong" since even the most reliable source is not infallible.  The standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of the evidence."  The standard is verifiability, which here means the claim is traceable to an agreed-upon reliable source.  Whether it is "valid" or not is beyond our bailiwick.  If we waited for claims to be 'proven,' Wikipedia would be much poorer for it.   Now I quite agree that since there is a dispute here as to the meeting, we should cite the source -- "The Washington Post said/Erik Prince said," but I don't see a cognizable reason for jettisoning the material entirely.  Thanks.  Dumuzid (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * VM: Recentims works fine when the event is actually occurring and a lot of eyes are on it, such as disasters or terrorist attacks, or even things like the United Airlines incident last week (the only issue that then is a problem is notability per NEVENT). Here the media is simply documenting without commenting, so there's no question that we should also be able to document these at the same time. Where RECENTISM is a problem is a situation exactly like this WaPost report, it's not an activity current event (these meetings were in the past), and they had little visibility or corroboration from other sources. Yet it is being treated like breaking news. It's not, and because it is presently unclear how it fits into the larger picture of the Russian involvement of the US elections, we should be a bit skeptical if it is needed right now.
 * Dumuzid, "If we waited for claims to be 'proven,' Wikipedia would be much poorer for it." I strongly disagree, because of the general rush for people to use en.wiki rather than Wikinews to cover breaking news despite WP:NOT, we are much worse off, we are failing to consider the encyclopedic nature here and instead acting like a newspaper. It is much much better for stories of questionable nature to adopt the wait-and-see approach, rather than force every juicy detail into a heated story like this. I don't have a serious problem if the information is kept as long as, as you say, attribution and counterclaims are included as that takes the bite off any BLP issues, but if it were up to me, I'd simply wait for inclusion until we knew how these meetings impacted the larger story and avoid the BLP issue altogether. Readers really interested in the whole picture around the election interference can research elsewhere to get more details than we opt to provide. --M ASEM (t) 15:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Masem, we've been around on this before, and I don't mean to belabor the point, so I'll be brief. The article is notable in and of itself, whatever the facts behind it turn out to be.  We certainly should not report it as settled fact.  But keeping it out entirely is, to me, a disservice.  Reasonable minds can differ.  And sometimes almost-reasonable minds, like mine.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, BLP's core premise is all about being cautionary towards inclusion if the material may be seen as harmful, regardless of how widespread the information may be. We are not trying to be a news service here and there's no DEADLINE to get it right, hence why I'd lean against inclusion for the time being, but if it has to be included, making sure to frame it as an assertion and not hard facts (again, a cautious approach) --M ASEM (t) 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This isn't really recentism. The meeting, which was confirmed by U.S., European, and Arab officials (who also revealed the results of the meeting and the planned follow-up meetings which were subsequently dropped), occurred more than three months ago, before the presidential inauguration. The WaPo article is simple, straightforward, and neutral: . -- Softlavender (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The recentism is not related to the meeting itself, but what it means in the larger picture, and that's where, in lieu of having the full knowledge of what (if any) actions Russia had in the election, this is jumping the gun. Ideally, as WP editors following RECENTISM, we'd wait until a final report had been written by the FBI/CIA/whatever organization, documenting the full extent of Russia's involvement, and then come back to actually add content to WP at the relevant articles in light of what the final report said, avoiding any intermediate claims and suppositions made by the press and others that were not involved with the investigation. (Here, while the WaPost doesn't actually say it, they are clearly highlight this meeting as a pivotal point to presume Trump's admin was involved with Russia's interference, which is supposition.). Thinking how the articles will look 10-20 years down the road would tell us this is the best approach. Unfortunately, editors do not follow this, and so they are jumping the gun on any bit of news, and in that light, we must be taking these sources with a bunch of grains of salt since they are not the authority here to determine if there was interfere or the guilt of anyone involved. That is how RECENTISM applies here, to think about what the pertinence is of the information, of which most of this is just a lot of hand-waving rather than anything concrete and thus reasonable to consider for exclusion for the time being. --M ASEM (t) 15:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The WaPo is a collection of disjoint pieces. For example, the paragraph The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladimir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials. isn't saying that all facts are corroborated by all the officials.  The "apparent effort" part is only attributed to UAE who were interested in getting tough on Iran and "apparent" is a qualifying word for opinion (i.e. apparent to whom? - UAE is the only entity named as having a goal of creating a back channel).  UAE source said it was based on Prince presenting himself as an unofficial envoy of Trump but they expressly say the backchannel was UAE's goal, not Prince's.  It's not stated how this was accomplished.  The Russian is not named.  The "former U.S. officials" involved in briefing the Trump team were political appointees from the Obama administration charged with transition and left after inauguration.  WaPo is very vague on exactly who is confirming various aspects.  That is crucial for attribution.  It's sloppy to say "U.S., European and Arab officials" followed by just "officials" when they have various pieces that are specific to certain sources.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're misreading that. The sentence makes several assertions as a whole and then concludes "according to U.S., European and Arab officials". The officials also revealed the results of the meeting and the planned follow-up meetings which were subsequently dropped. I have no desire to repeat this again, so this is my last comment on the matter. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So given all the thoughtful discussion above, it seems clear that there is no BLP violation with the content and that removal of that content, although it may arguably be contested for other reasons, is not entitled to the safe harbor of BLP with respect to 1RR restrictions. SPECIFICO talk  16:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's pretty clear there is a substantial BLP issue and the precautionary principle applies. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to offer another data point, from Bloomberg:  Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumuzid (talk • contribs)
 * That's a good example of a non-objective article, reading almost as an attack piece, unlabeled with any op-ed statement (and I would normally take Bloomberg as reliable), which we should be cautious of using under BLP and RECENTISM. Statements like "Among those his aides turned to was Prince, a man whose specialty is paramilitary security forces, and whose company is best remembered after its employees were convicted of killing Iraqi citizens, including children, in the notorious 2007 Nisour Square gun battle.", while factually true, set the tone early that the writers have no respect for Prince (as they are focusing on those details early on), and as suggested above, should be considered like a hostile witness, bringing into question if we should be trying to document that meeting now, but at least assigning it as attributed claims and counterclaims. --M ASEM (t) 15:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh please, Bloomberg is a RS with a large amount of weight, and that's clearly a news article not an opinion piece. Deal with it. The amount of IDONTLIKEIT and the OR criticisms of obviously weighty RS in this discussion is ridiculous. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally yes, but this is an example of subjective reporting, the "new norm" that is prevalent in all RSes today. There are clearly opinion statements nestled among statements of fact, so we have to be very careful about using the source blindly and accepting everything as fact. Again, I've said that it seems fine to include the meeting as long as, to avoid BLP issues, the existence of it is attributed to the WaPost and the counterclaims are included, but realistic, this is why more than ever RECENTISM should be considered and avoid documenting new information that has been brought to light until the larger context is well documented by authoritative figures on the matter, as to avoid any potential BLP. --M ASEM (t) 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, should we be running all RSes by you Masem, or is there a list of publications which we should pre-clear with you? Dumuzid (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, editors need to be aware that 1) this type of news reporting exists and is prevalent through media today as the new norm, 2) that editors use common sense and consensus to understand when such articles are engaging in opining rather than reporting, when it comes to evaluating BLP and POV (noting that opinions can still be included, but they have to be marked as such) 3) that editors need to be aware of their own personal bias that may tint how they see such articles (eg: if an editor really really dislikes Trump, they will probably see no issue with that Bloomberg article since it aligns right with that disliking) and 4) NOT#NEWS, DEADLINE, and RECENTISM are very good reasons not to rush and document every single event in a current story if the reporting media is not remaining objective about it or the situation is clearly contentious. Prince's situation here is just one example that we're failing as an encyclopedia because we're not waiting for the long-term picture but instead trying to be a news desk, and thus pushing on the bounds of what BLP would be accepting. It's a global awareness that has become severely lacking over the last few years. --M ASEM  (t) 16:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Rumors and innuendo are not encyclopedic and WP:BLP applies to all equally regardless of politics. Masem is simply reiterating guidelines in WP:IRS, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. This should be uncontroversial. Exclude. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Mr. Lambden, it certainly becomes uncontroversial when you remove comments with which you disagree. Enjoy your day. Dumuzid (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Masem, this board is strictly for BLP issues, and it's clear there is no such violation here. The other issues belong on the article talk page. SPECIFICO  talk  17:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, to be fair, many have gone a bit far afield (myself definitely included). But I think you're right.  There are better places to carry on the conversation.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see that you are a thoughtful contributor here. In general, I am disappointed in how BLP threads recently have devolved into general content or behavioral disputes, and this one is full of it. The origin of this thread has been duly noted by various editors above and need not be rehashed. SPECIFICO  talk  17:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * However, I still think there is a resolvable BLP issue here. Contentious claims about BLP needs exemplary sourcing, and the claim that this meeting by Prince was to connect Trump and Russia is contentious so we do need to evaluate the sourcing. And arguably, while we are talking normally RSes in the WaPost and Bloomburg, the quality of writing on these particular articles does not inspire confidence that these are to be taken objectively, and thus begs if they are "exemplary sourcing" to meet BLP's requirements. And this is the type of thing that needs to be done for many recent BLP/N entries, instead of assuming blind faith that "this RS published it, thus cannot be a BLP violation". --M ASEM (t) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but of course OP did nothing to try to find better sourcing or better conformity to the cited references, and instead deleted the content. SPECIFICO  talk  19:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While in good faith I would assume the OP tried to look for corroborating sources, if there were none to be found (and this does appear to be the case, Bloomberg's still referencing the WaPost report), and the material appears contentious, BLP says it should be removed and discussed before readding. --M ASEM (t) 19:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

OP speaking: I did look for further sources and noticed they all referred back to the WaPo piece; I found none with independent reporting which would confirm some of the innuendo with hard facts. To be clear, the WaPo report says that a meeting happened and proceeds to speculate on the meeting's agenda and outcome based on hearsay, therefore it is not encyclopedic. Repeating on Wikipedia the accusation that Erik Prince was somehow complicit in an unspecified geopolitical plot related to the Trump administration would constitute a BLP violation, hence my decision to 1) delete the material per precautionary principle 2) refer to BLPN for guidance. After a few days of abundant discussion here, there seems to be an equal split between commenters who see this story as a BLPVIO (JFG, Masem, DHeyward, Thucydides411, TonyBallioni, TheFourDeuces, James J. Lambden) and commenters who don't (BullRangifer, Specifico, Fyddlestix, Neutrality, Volunteer Marek, Softlavender, Dumuzid). When in doubt, we should be cautious and keep the material out. — JFG talk 07:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote, and a lot of the "leave it out" arguments are either OR, misrepresent the sources, or have no basis in policy - as has repeatedly been explained. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not even close to being a WP:BLP violation and there is no reason to remove it from the Russia election interference article or Prince's bio. It has been reported in several reputable sources at this point. I would suggest omitting the speculation about why he was not in Trump's inner circle ("...and although his past affiliation with Blackwater most likely made him too controversial to be considered for a formal appointment or an official adviser position,..."), in the Russia election interference article.- MrX 12:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true. There is exactly one source for the existence of the meeting, being WaPost: every other RS reporting on the meeting refers back to WaPost's story. And I'll point out the previous evaluation of the WaPost story by DHeyward that show that alone it is questionable and does beg BLP; it's not as black and white as some editors suggest it should be. Now there is a secondary story here: it is the reaction to the WaPost story, which is the fact it gained attention across the media, and that Prince and many others denied the allegation from the WaPost it was connected to linking Trump and Russia. That itself is a verifiable news story. But at this point, it is just brickering between the media and the Trump administration, and that's why, per NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM we shouldn't be rushing to try to include it until the full weight of the implications of the meeting are known (likely as a result of the current investigation into the election interference), as both encyclopedically it it poor content at this stage, and it is precautionary to keep extraordinary claims (that of the WaPost) about BLP out of WP. We should not be trying to document petty squabbles between two political sides that have no immediate bearing on the world at large. --M ASEM (t) 13:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "two political sides" ??? what? No politics on the table here. SPECIFICO  talk  14:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely a politically driven issue. Those on the left (which includes the press) that deplore Trump want this Russian interference to be a real thing that they can use to contest the results of the election, and the Republicans are having to defend themselves. And having Trump have contacts with Russia as to engage in interference, on presumption this was true, is purely a politically driven goal to win the election. Right now, because we have no idea what actually happened throughout the course of events, this issue with Prince and other issues around it are all bickering to try to gain public support for their side. Something we should not be trying to engage in. --M ASEM (t) 15:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "The world at large," Masem, is OR. We should be trying to document what is in the reliable sources to the extent of Wikipedia's remit.  Dumuzid (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Within the context of WP:NOT, which includes WP:NOT (and again why RECENTISM exists). We should not be trying to document every news story, even if its in context of a larger notable event, especially when it is one that lacks the ability for multiple sources to corroborate and objectively observe the situation (as would be the case for a disaster or terrorist attack). This is a battle of words, and we should be waiting for the smoke to clear - that is, when the final report on the investigation into Russia's role - before trying to document every tiny element in detail, so that we avoid NOT and BLP issues. --M ASEM (t) 15:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct, if your definition of source is "a publication that investigates and breaks a story". For Wikipedia purposes. a WP:SOURCE is any independent publisher that we deem to be reliable based on their reputation for fact checking. The fact that the Washington Post article was cited by CBS, CNN, Bloomberg, and the Boston Globe amplifies the credibility of the Washington Post as explained in WP:USEBYOTHERS. Also, Bloomberg expanded on the original story with their own research. The article does not violate any of the four examples of WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. This scandal has persisted for months, with new revelations on an almost daily basis. The media is not a political side, but if you think it is, I at least understand why you have taken the position you have.- MrX 15:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The interference story is certainly enduring and we should cover it, but individual elements may not be, such as Prince's role in the events (as we only have WaPost's claim that the meeting was tied to it), hence why this is a failure of NOT:NEWS to document every twist and turn of the interference story, as we don't know yet if those elements are enduring themselves. That's where RECENTISM expands upon where we shouldn't be trying to document this at this level of detail now if there's potential harm (in this case, BLP) to it. Consider the Watergate article, that it is written with strong sense of 20/20 hindsight rather than as the news broke and coverage intensified. That needs to be the ultimate goal for the Russian Interference article once the story is completed, and the current PROSELINE approach to add every breaking event does not help.
 * And absolutely the press is part of the politics here, given the current spats between some like the WaPost and Trump, among several other issues; the media today is a far different beast than it was a decade or more ago. It does not help to ignore political connotations of stories published by the WaPost (or any of these other papers that Trump has blacklisted) in light of their spat with Trump; it does not unmake them an RS in general, but does require us to use caution on this particular article. And I do want to stress: the fundamental facts that the WaPost story has - that Prince had a meeting oversees at a correlating point in the scandal's timeline - don't seem to be in dispute, but it is it the implications of that meeting and ties to the Russian interference, where WaPost is making their educated guesses, that is highly questionable. It may be true, it may not be, but until we have an authoritative source to state it, we should be handling that claim with extreme caution since it does involve a living person and highly contentious claims. --M ASEM (t) 15:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well Masem, all we can do as editors here is to check and evaluate the mainstream view and give it due weight in the article. The mainstream free American press is leftist? If that's your view, I suppose you might also think that WP or our editorial pillars are leftist, but that discussion belongs on another page if you believe our policies are dysfunctional. Anyway, that view would not be an excuse for violating 1RR, which is the real editing question on the table here. SPECIFICO  talk  15:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To the bottom line, an editor thought a statement was a BLP violation, removed it (on April 16), it was reverted, but it wasn't re-reverted further. They started this talk page discussion, and after 3 days, removed it again still on the stance that it was a BLP violation. Where's the 1RR violation? It's not a "true" 1RR with the 3 day spanse, and there is legitimate concern there is something with BLP involved in the edit, which is an exemption if one honestly believes there is a major BLP issue at play. Perhaps JFG should have waited a bit, but I certainly don't see a hard 1RR violation here under the DS. --M ASEM (t) 15:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Check that, I see there was an earlier edit that including the Prince section among other issues. That said, at the point JFG reverted only the Prince section, they still cited concerns with BLP (which as this discussion shows, wasn't 100% either way and needed discussion), which is still exempted under even 1RR. --M ASEM (t) 15:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When he removed this bit at 23:20, 16 April 2017‎ it was his second revert within 24 hours. Another editor notified him of that violation. Instead OP filed this thread after he was called out on his violation. He is continuing to edit war this bit out of the article, despite his defense having failed here. I'm not going to get deeper into that editor's history, as such is not the purpose of BLPN.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, if an editor has a strong opinion that something is a BLP violation, (as JFG said at the 23:20 edit summary), that is exempt from 1RR. The only next time it was removed was 3 days later, on the unclear result of this discussion, which may be questionable if this discussion had a conclusive answer to remove, but it was far outside 1RR and still based on BLP issues. I would point out that despite agreement here by those wanting to keep the information, that identifying this story as claims from the WaPost, nor the counterclaims by Prince and the Trump admin, have not been properly added yet, still making it part of a BLP issue but one that is easily resolved. --M ASEM  (t) 16:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're an admin, so I wish you wouldn't spread misinformation about policies. A bona fide BLP violation is a legitimate exception to edit warring. A strong opinion is not. Editors have been topic banned for such behavior. JFG's repeated removal of this content, even after this discussion substantially rejects his claims of BLP violation, suggests an obstinance that frequently results in a trip to AE.- MrX 16:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am well aware that my contributions on procedure are worth even less than those on substance, but I would say that I don't see this as necessitating punitive/deterrent/corrective action. While I certainly find some arguments more persuasive than others, I would chalk this one up to "reasonable minds can differ" and move along trying to get a consensus on how we will deal with the information.  Thanks, I think. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The BLP issues are real and not rejected by this discussion. Not by a long shot.  The source even has to bend some pretzels to implicate all their apparent targets. (WaPo initially says the meeting was arranged solely because of statements by Prince to UAE, then they state that the meeting would not have happened without direct approval by Trump and Putin.  Can't be both but implicating both Trump and Prince for the same meeting required a logical fallacy.)  We have one source on a single day alleging this was improper with no followup. That's not enough to satisfy BLP requirements particularly regarding Prince.--DHeyward (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to descend into minutiae here, DHeyward, but your logical fallacy doesn't strike me as such, either as you present it, or re-reading the article. Just food for thought.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Of the 15 editors commenting here, five editors (JFG, Masem, DHeyward, Thucydides411, and James J. Lambden) believe that the content violates WP:BLP. Two editors (TonyBallioni and TFD) have not voiced an opinion about whether the specific content violates WP:BLP. Eight editors (BullRangifer, SPECIFICO, Fyddlestix, Neutrality, Volunteer Marek, Softlavender, Dumuzid, and MrX ) believe the content does not violate WP:BLP. All commenting editors are experienced and have made reasonable, policy-grounded arguments. A significant majority of editors in this discussion do not view the content as violating WP:BLP.- MrX 18:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And some of the exculpations of JFG's deletions seem downright weird to this observer, mostly relating to the BLP Five's denigration of the mainstream US press (WaPo) or their personal convictions that they are not only WP editors but are also qualified and authorized to improve on WaPo's editors' oversight of that distinguished publication's raw reporting. SPECIFICO  talk  18:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As an encyclopedia, yes, as editors, we do have the ability to evaluate controversial material published by even the highest of RSes and make sure if it appropriate to include at the current time given that we are looking at the long-term coverage of a topic and not day-to-day, or if it is one of those topics we should not include because of other policies like NOT or BLP. We are not to be narrow minded nor are not beholden to take controversial statements at face value per WP:YESPOV; we can't change or disprove what they say, but we can make sure that inclusion identifies such statements as claims and not facts. But this all requires that editors avoid blinding accepting everything an RS says as fact. RSes can be wrong, RSes can opine or speculate in everyday news reporting, and that's what is happening with the WaPost article here is that they are making controversial conclusions that affect a living person from disparate sources; it's not a completely-off-the-wall conclusion, and they have fair justification for why they present that conclusion, but it is still speculation and paints the BLP in a harmful light if they are true. At minimum it must be reported as a claim to the WaPost along with the counterclaims. Preferably, I'd not include it until we knew the full extent of its importance as part of how we are meant to summary historical events and to respect the caution needed for BLPs; however, I do recognize there is a strong desire to include it by those actually working on the article, and accept that as long as the attribution to WaPost is made along with Prince's and others counterclaims, it at least is not a glaring BLP to include at this time. --M ASEM (t) 18:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (Sincere) Thanks, Masem. So, would those of you opposed to inclusion be okay with a short line or two, explicitly sourcing the claim to the Washington Post, and explicitly including the denials?  Any chance we could reach consensus around something like that? Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that something like that would be okay - a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials. The problem right now at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is that there's an entire section on Erik Prince, without explicit attribution to the WaPo, and everything is stated as if it were established fact (e.g., "the purpose was to establish a back-channel link between the Trump team and the Kremlin"). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Short answer: yes, I am fine as long as attribution and counterclaims are included per Thucydides's comment. That gets past any immediately major BLP-affecting problem. The secondary issue of whether we should be covering this now in the first place is far less a BLP issue, something I would hope is considered, but does not need immediately attention. --M ASEM (t) 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Danza Organica
Would someone mind taking a look at Danza Organica? I occasionally come across articles like this where the primary topic is some kind of organization/company, but part of the article is sort of an embedded BLP within the. It seems perfectly fine to mention individuals who founded or have significantly impacted organizations such as this, but not sure if the mini BLP approach is warranted, especially if the person does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO on their own. Technically, the notability guidelines do not apply to article content per WP:NNC, but this does seem a bit excessive. Is there anything specifically in WP:BLP which addresses this type of thing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would consider the whole of the section at WP:DUE, particularly WP:BALASPS; and the essay WP:COATRACK. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed per WP:NOTCV. Her name is listed in the lede, if there is more than needs to be added, it can be added in a way that is more consistent with Wikipedia's style. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks and  for checking into this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC with a BLP angle
Please see Talk:Plummer_v._State. The BLP issue arises in a parenthetical comment in a citation. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Only in your imagination, and primarily because you don't understand the citation style used. There are no BLP issues. GregJackP   Boomer!   07:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a worthwhile issue to comment on, please do, these two experianced editors are both concerned to get the content policy correct. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * GregJackP, thanks for bringing up here, that you actually believe that using some citation style creates a magic bubble that gives editors the right to violate WP:OR and WP:BLP in a reference. That is just so... wrong. Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't identified anything that was a BLP violation. Merely jumping up and down and shouting BLP, BLP, doesn't actually provide any evidence that there was a violation. I see nothing that is about a living person that is untrue, negative, derogatory, or in any way a BLP violation, and although you've been asked, you've refused to specify what the violation is. Every time you go to a legal article that uses Bluebook, you have a cow over the use of parentheticals and have alleged either OR or BLP, and every time the consensus has been that you were wrong. Specify the violation and it can be addressed, but merely crying wolf won't do anything. GregJackP   Boomer!   08:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You cannot comment on sources and say that people have no legal education, which is obviously discrediting them, on your own authority. That is not OK in WP, and doing it in a citation is not OK either - BLP and OR apply there too.  This is one of the reasons why we don't toss up FRINGE primary sources and then swat them down with other sources.  We look for secondary sources that do both things for us. Jytdog (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * W.r.t. the parenthesis; it is not exempt from WP:NOR and still needs to be sourced. W.r.t. WP:BLPREMOVE, material does not need to be untrue, negative nor derogatory; it need only be unsourced and contentious. In this instance, the material is unsourced. The question then remains, is it contentious? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am very familiar with Bluebooking (I still remember the proper format for citing U.N. resolutions!), and, indeed, parentheticals are routine in legal scholarship. That being said, the parenthetical at issue here indeed strikes me as both OR and BLP.  Parentheticals usually involve some brief summation for why the citation is used, but here, it is a metacomment on the sources.  As such, it really should be cited.  I don't see on whose authority we are saying the citations are wrong and that there's no legal training.  After all, though the Bluebook is standard, it's not the only possible citation regime, and there are some very bad law schools in the world.  I'd say the parenthetical should go unless there's sourcing.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this stance: the parenthetical commenting isn't the problem, but the comment within it reeks of OR and BLP without a source itself and still must meet WP guidelines; it seems fine to present the list of sites that present the case in that language without having to comment on their nature as long as it is pointed out that those citations are not reporting the case as actually documented in case law. --M ASEM (t) 13:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Jytdog: You have jumped the shark with over-zealous enforcement at that page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This started when Guy was making one of his sweeps removing unreliable sources from WP like Infowars, and folks at this page actually edit warred to retain Infowars as a source. Jytdog (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that before commenting here. It is also clear that there is no engagement with GregJackP's view, namely that the whole point of the article is that various internet echo chambers parrot a false account of the legal result. Forcing the removal of the text in question is an excellent example of over-zealous enforcement of guidelines with no thought for the article. Can't you at least acknowledge that your version would be a disservice to readers? Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if editors allowed the use of unreliable sources there is a bigger problem. The proposal includes original research. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 14:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's lot of layers here: identifying that "citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary" is not part of the cited case law, that several websites appear to parrot that language, the nature of these websites that parrot that, the legal authority (or lack thereof) of the authors of those cites that parrot that, and a few others. The first two points are supported by the Cubby article (eg no OR), and it seems fair to add in other well-known (if fringy-sites) of examples beyond the one quoted in the Cubby article as where that language is parroted (which, while "original research" is easily verified and far from problematic OR); that does include Infowars in this case. The last two points are definitely venturing into OR and subsequent BLP issues and should be avoided or, perhaps using language from the Cubby article to attribute them as right-wing sites. --M ASEM (t) 14:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions for improving the current text? I want the section expanded using reliable sources. See Plummer v. State. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 14:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Day-care sex-abuse hysteria
Editors are invited to participate in Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria, where there are potential BLP problems that might necessitate a major structural overhaul of the article, or even deletion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman
Could the editors please take a look at my requested edits for Ann Louise Gittleman? I have attempted to address the opinion and bias expressed in the BLP page. The tone and balance of some of the statements do not comply with WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV. These edits likely need assistance from administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnh429 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you for the editors' consideration. Looking to reach a consensus on these requested edits. Mnh429 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the responding editors there have pretty much summed up the issues with your proposed edits. Incidentally, can you tell us what you mean by the statement "Our proposed edit (and as revised) factually represent [sic] responses that experts have given to Gittleman’s work...".  "Our"? Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mnh429 has disclosed a financial conflict of interest, which I assume is why "our" is used.
 * Given this is a BLP that falls under WP:ARBPS, and the editor has a financial conflict of interest, Mnh429 has an incredibly difficult job trying to change the article to fit Gittleman's worldview and marketing. I've already notified Mnh429 about this, and requested help at FTN. --Ronz (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ronz. I appreciate the editors' thoughtful consideration of the requested edits.  For additional consideration by the editors, could you take a look at the use of "especially fad diets" in the first sentence?  That term is unsourced and seems to go against the tone and balance required of BLP articles WP:BLPSTYLE.  I think that this should be removed.  Mnh429 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Same request for additional consideration for the last sentence of the first paragraph:
 * "Her work is inconsistent with the best understanding of health and nutrition" is presented as a fact, but it is really a biased opinion of the source's author. The tone is not neutral and does not seem balanced.  It is also unclear what is meant by the "best understanding of health and nutrition."  Can this be edited, removed and/or moved to the controversy section?  Mnh429 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The second part of the sentence "and she has been criticized for promoting pseudoscientific views by presenting scientific research in an overly simplistic and one-sided manner" does not accurately reflect the sources. Neither source uses "overly simplistic" so I think that should be removed.  The tone also does not seem neutral.  Again, this seems more appropriate to be included in the Controversy section if it is to be included at all. Mnh429 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * These are all WP:FRINGE issues, and extremely typical in these types of articles. People working from an in-world perspective have rarely encountered the science, want their viewpoints to be presented on a similar footing as the actual science, and think there's some sort of inappropriate bias happening when science is given prominence over fringe theories. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am still unclear which issues Ronz is referring to as WP:FRINGE issues (and I have noted my disagreement with this characterization on the talk page), but agree that there is an inappropriate bias going on generally in the tone of the article. The "Treatment of living persons" section on WP:FRINGEBLP is helpful.  From this, I think we can find a consensus on edits that present Gittleman in a factual, neutral tone and discuss criticisms in the Controversy section.  I am just trying to get consensus on how to present facts in an unbiased and fair way.  WP:BLPSTYLE.  Currently, the article fails to achieve that.  I am open to suggestions from the editors on how to achieve this.
 * My first suggestion relates to an unsourced term "fad diets." WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:BLPREMOVE, []  Why shouldn't this be removed?
 * My second suggestion also relates to the unsourced nature of the statement. What is meant by "best understanding of health and nutrition" and where is that referred to in the source?  "Overly simplistic" is not used in the source and is not neutral in tone.  It is my understanding that unsourced statements should be removed.  WP:BLPREMOVE.
 * Thank you again for addressing my questions. Mnh429 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're still unclear at this point, I don't think I can help further. Take a look at WP:PAYTALK. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * After once again looking over everything you've written, if you could simply focus on verification issues, which you seem to be turning toward already, I think we could make some progress. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that you've not mentioned "fad diet" on the article talk page. Please distinguish new requests from existing ones, and make sure that the new requests are included on the article talk page. I've started a discussion about "fad diet" on the talk page, including a source that I believe could be used for it, and perhaps more. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ronz: I will respond to your fad diet discussion and distinguish new and existing requests on the talk page. Thank you.  Mnh429 (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Nationality of Rosie Malek-Yonan
Rosie Malek-Yonan had to be protected due to dispute over nationality. Unfortunately the dispute has continued. I tried to start a talk page discussion without success. The dispute centers over whether her nationality should be as described by reliable source (U.S. State Department) or by the subject, who seems to have supporters coming to WP to change it. Bri (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the issue is in question, I've removed nationality. The source given for nationality was 404-not_found anyway.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is also discussed at the talk page. As to removing the nationality, it seems we now have a couple of RS supporting the Assyrian-American (including one scholarly and one article in NYT). The Iranian-American text taken down at the State Department's website most likely referred to her as "Iranian" based on her birthplace. Which more often than not leads to misunderstandings (see Polish death camps for another example of why it's a bad idea). All in all, I'd rather go with the scholarly source than with what the DoS wrote years back. Also, please don't remove sourced content.  // Halibutt 08:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The O'Reilly Factor and unreferenced info on BLPs
Repeated violations of WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN:







Wholesale reversions.

Zero attempt to source the unreferenced material.

Violation of WP:BLP.

Violation of WP:BURDEN.

This is a controversial topic.

This is contentious material due to its mention of multiple different WP:BLPs in relation to individual fired due to accusations of sexual harassment.

All material added back to the page, restored to the page, or newly added to the page, MUST have sources. Sagecandor (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is not the answer. needs to stop edit warring and stop adding unsourced content, otherwise I see a block in their future.- MrX 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit warring is definitely not correct, but that said, I also don't see any real "gross" BLP violations here. The biggest chunk being added back in is a list of regulars on the program, and that's probably something that can be sourced (I know some of those are valid because while I don't watch the program, my local gym always has one TV set to Fox, and I've seen people like Beck and Miller on it). It should still all be sourced, and absolutely the editing warring must be stopped, but I don't see a situation here for the BLP/N. --M ASEM (t) 21:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Totally agree that edit warring should be avoided here, . But really I didn't add unsourced content, I undid a massive removal of content that has nothing to do with BLP.  After a bold edit, I reverted, and then suggested we discuss on talk page.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to add that on the Bill O'Reilly page itself, roughly 1/3 of the lede is devoted to the recent news regarding his firing for the sexual harassment claims. While not a BLP violation, it is surely afoul of WP:LEAD and could use some help. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There should be a new article for the recent claims otherwise it should be kept in the lede because of the massive press coverage.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 07:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not how I understand WP:LEAD or WP:UNDUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with here; that's not how WP:LEAD or WP:UNDUE work. Though I do think that BLP requires adherence to NPOV, including DUE, and would suggest that an undue level of focus on a particular aspect is in compliance with neither. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments above by. For the time being I've moved the unsourced info to the talk page.

I've asked the user to work on sourcing on the talk page. 

If and when the material is properly cited, it can then be added back to the article. Sagecandor (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert James Thomson
I outlined an edit request over at Talk:Robert James Thomson a week ago. I realize the requested edits list is backlogged and that "there is no deadline." However, was hoping one of the editors who regularly visits this noticeboard might be willing to take a look and give feedback. Please note I have a declared COI with the subject of the page. Thanks in advance. NinaSpezz (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yuri Volotovsky
Такие страницы имени себя нужно удалять. Википедиа, это что-то более серьезное, чем для тех, кто просто накачал свои мышцы. Спасибо. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.17.96 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Но мы не можем говорить по-русски. Что не так? Почему это плохо? Herostratus (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The editor is saying the article ought to be deleted -- on what basis I don't know. It looks OK on a quick scan, However, there are swaths of the BLP that are unref'd (although they're not negative or anything). Perhaps the unreferenced stuff should be deleted? Herostratus (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger
I submitted an edit request of a sentence that I believe is libelous.

Please review that request. I suggest the sentence be removed and then the page be fully protected so that no one can add opinion for or against the ministry without an admin approving:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ralph_Drollinger#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_22_April_2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Cor1614 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Content reference appears unreliable. Removed. Watchlisted. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Bai Baihe
Editor insisting on adding something about some scandal sourced to gossip rags and not responding to messages so far; I've reverted three times so I've fouled out. Herostratus (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Reverted. NB: Removal of unsourced or poorly sourced, controversial information about living persons under BLPDELETE is exempt from 3RR. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In theory. Herostratus (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The editor has responded, and is making the point that, in the name of being culturally sensitive and inclusive, we ought to treat Chinese actresses different from Western ones.

Based on also on stuff I've read, I guess the point is that.... you know, with say Jennifer Lawrence, her personal life is of interest, but not core to why we have an article. What's core to her article is what roles she played and how well she played them. Who she is dating and so forth is peripheral to her core notability, and while we might include some of that, not to the degree of invading her privacy or including negative material, as a general rule. And if she gets married, its not like all her male fans will stop going to her movies -- it will make the papers, but it won't really affect her career.

With Chinese actresses it's different. It' more like Kardashian thing maybe if you will -- who the person is dating and gossip about their marital status and so forth is the main thing the person's fans are interested in and is core to their notability and why they have an article. What roles they happen to play in what films is what's peripheral. Therefore we ought to allow more leeway in describing private lives, even if it is invasive.

I don't buy it myself, but it's not sheer nonsense. Certainly the case could be made that it's Western bias to just dismiss it. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In order to be "sensitive" we should include poorly sourced controversial information about a living person? No. I think not. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Devin Nunes
A new user made some bizarre edits to Devin Nunes bio about a month ago. Some of these edits still remain in effect. I was doing some cleanup, but the article was put under WP:ARBAPDS a week ago (though I can't find anything in WP:DSLOG) and now I can't do shit without potentially violating 1RR or active arbitration remedies.

The weirdest thing I saw has to be Koch brothers and Citizens United section. Yes, Nunes voted for this bill. Yes, Koch brothers may have supported this bill. But as far as I can tell H.R. 5053 did not even pass Senate. Politrukki (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Shelley Bridgman
Looks promotional, non-neutral language & is well larded by many refs that contain just a mention, or are blogs & interviews and her own sites/other nonRS. Was created by overwriting a page Shih-t'ou and moved, which was then recreated? Done to obfuscate it's creation?? Nothing links here so it should have an orphan tag. Article creator worked on nothing else.Experienced editors please check thankyou --92.2.38.59 (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Article deleted, editor blocked per discussion at WP:ANI. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I had no idea this was an established MO for hiding page creation from NPP. I was going to do some cleanup/rm poor sources & see if there was anything worthwhile left, good thing I mentioned it here first :) --92.2.38.59 (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Yeardley Love
Is this a BLP violation? It's been removed as such. Thanks, St. claires fire (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  04:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely yes. The removal was well within BLP policy, IMO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) I've just added this to their talk so we have gotten to the right place.
 * Eggishorn, care to give a rationale? Whose biography is implicated here, and how? Aren't these newsworthy public figures? St. claires fire (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh oh. Somebody just went all pointy by advancing to remove other names because they couldn't add what they want. That probably won't go well.
 * , if the long posting on your talk page doesn't enlighten you as to why a local politician's comments are not relevant within BLP, then I suggest that you re-read the policy. You might start here: Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You actually didn't have a lot to say about it on my talk page. You mostly focused on an essay, COATRACK. So apparently you have no rationale that would explain how the rules apply to the situation; you're just going to say, "Read the rules." Okay, bye. St. claires fire (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Short version: we do not use articles about person A to shoehorn in negative material about non-notable third party B. The place to include criticism of Lander would be on Lander's biography. Should he ever become notable enough to get one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible BLP violation (Infowars)
Infowars and other sources were restored to another page. Others have concerned with using Infowars. On another talk page please read this related comment by User:Capeo. Similar content was rejected by the community on another talk page. What should be done about Infowars and other sources? See Bad_Elk_v._United_States. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my ignorance, but I don't see what the BLP violation is. Can you please explicitly lay it out? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While the text included at "Bad Elk" is ostensibly the same as the text included at "Plummer v. State", it does not repeat the parenthetical which contained unsourced, arguably contentious information about living persons. Those parentheticals made "Plummer" worth bringing to this forum; "Bad Elk" does not, imho, have the same issue w.r.t. BLP. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We can start with removing the unreliable sources. Infowars does not have consensus per this. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 07:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, you're pointing to an RFC that was withdrawn by the OP,  that doesn't show consensus one way or the other.  Are you sure you're pointing to the right thing?  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ   15:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was withdrawn because consensus was against including the unreliable sources. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it was withdrawn to attempt to address the concerns of the community. Please state, with particularity, exactly what is a BLP violation. As far as the Infowars reference, as noted on the Bad Elk talk page, the discussion will be held at Plummer, and then applied to both articles to avoid multiple discussions on the same issue. Without a specific BLP violation, this appears to be forum shopping, and if QuackGuru does not outline the specific violation, this thread should be closed. GregJackP   Boomer!   15:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You stated "it was withdrawn to attempt to address the concerns of the community". The latest RfC does not contain Infowars and other unreliable sources rejected by the community from the previous RfC. Part of the concerns were Infowars. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why there's a report about this on this board. El_C 16:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Same. The two cases are over a century old, and everyone involved is long dead. The only thing approaching a BLP issue that I can see in any of the links or any visible revision is the claim that the misinterpretation and misquotation of the two cases constitutes "fabrication" (insofar as the word has a nefarious connotation). This is honestly more one of those situations where we need a law equivalent to MEDRS. I ran a quick search and didn't find anything in the legal literature obviously addressing the pseudolegal claims regarding those cases. And, annoyingly, the ADL seems to have purged its archives page, removing Sussman's Idiot Legal Arguments (though from what I can see in an archive, it's unlikely Sussman directly addressed this). There is, of course, a ton of case law that addresses these points. Holloran v. Duncan, No. 13-1050, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47717 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2017) pretty directly criticizes the mistaken reliance on Bad Elk on a national scale, rather than a local scale like most authorities seem to do. It looks to decisions of several other circuit courts of appeal. That said, there does appear to be some remaining vitality in Bad Elk and related decisions in the Fourth Amendment context, but certainly neither of the character asserted nor to the degree claimed. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sussman's article did not address either Plummer or Bad Elk. I had already checked it. I was unaware of Holloran and will look at it, thanks. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

One of the big problems with these pseudolegal sources is that they tend to actively go out and find cases that have not been explicitly overruled despite, as in these cases, being superseded by statute in every jurisdiction. And of course, the documents that do acknowledge the existence of inconsistent statutes will argue that those statutes are unconstitutional (and often give off the general indication that statutes in derogation of the common law are unconstitutional). And, of course, when they find a good bit of case law, they tend to take it in a direction that nobody in the literature has. I'm just grumbling at this point, but someone really needs to take the ideas from Sussman's book and start a looseleaf service or even a law journal that tracks and debunks these arguments. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If I could figure out a way to monetize it, I would, but I haven't figured that out yet. GregJackP   Boomer!   08:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to ask one more time - User:QuackGuru please state explicitly what you think the BLP violation is. I would like to help but I'm unable to find it. Or else let's close this section as irrelevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's start at the beginning. First, Infowars is unreliable. If it is not removed from the page then we will not move to step number 2. There is no point to continue here if others don't agree. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While Infowars is definitely unreliable, using it to source content about itself is completely reasonable (Eg similar to how we have limited the Daily Mail, and here, citing Infowars' version of the mistaken take on the Bad Elk decision does not seem to be a gross violation wrt to BLP or RS. Original research, maybe (seeking out the sites that misquote the Bad Elk decision could be seen as that), but as the text clearly frames that what Infowars is cited is not what is cited in the actual decision, it's certainly not a severe problem. --M ASEM (t) 15:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing an answer to the *basic* question "what is the BLP issue here please?" Would it help Quackguru if I rephrased that as 'Please provide a living person to which including this material causes harm'. You seem to be making this about a reliability issue (which is something for RSN to deal with), but as Masem points out (and I agree with him) the source is being used to show that websites (of which Infowars is one) cite the Bad Elk decision, infowars is perfectly reliable as a primary source on material Infowars has hosted online. If you want to argue *that* take it to RSN, otherwise unless you can come up with an actual BLP issue pretty sharply, I am going to close this as a waste of time as Mr Ernie suggests above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly thanks for clarifying. Who is the living person involved here so we can help? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Michael W. Fitzgerald


There are problems with new material added to this article. I've reverted twice and rarely revert more than that unless it's an egregious policy violation or I'm acting as an administrator. I've told the editor to take the challenge to the material to the article Talk page per WP:BRD. Instead, they continue to revert and left a long post on my Talk page, not the place they should be.

The problems with the new material are two-fold. First, the material is not neutrally worded. Second, the material itself is not neutral. If you read the sources, some of which are more reliable than others, you get a much more balanced picture of Fitzgerald's rulings in this case. Instead, it's presented as if he is anti-rape-victim and a complete outlier on what's permitted at trial and what isn't.

I know the public likes to pick on judges when they issue rulings that are not popular with some segment of the population, but Wikipedia is not "the public". As the article now stands, the material violates BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted again. The sources wouldn't meet our normal RS violation. I can't view the claimed Washington Post source because my browser see it as a security risk for some reason, but it links to a MSN website while claiming that it was from WaPo. That alone is a big enough error in citing that I felt comfortable making the revert until someone can clarify it. I also agree with on the NPOV and BLP concerns here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except for the Washington Post, I didn't like the "sports" sources and have no idea how reliable they are. I rarely use MSN, but it comes up as a Washington Post article displayed at MSN. It would be more straightforward to link to the actual Washington Post article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see the MSN source because I think my browser thought it was phishing or something since it claimed WaPo but linked to a different website. If it was WaPo, linking to it would be fine, but a direct link would be preferable. Think Progress isn't exactly NPOV, and I consider borderline RS on some things. The Complex article looks to be a blog post submitted by a guest freelancer. I can't find anything else on the other source linked. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Easy enough to find alternative sources. I left reports from the LA Times and Daily Mail on the talk page. There's also a good ThinkProgress piece, easily accessible, that does argue that the ruling was a complete outlier on what’s permitted at trial and what isn't. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is a reliable source? In any event, the most important part is that the material, if included, needs to present first a fair representation of the ruling itself, and to the extent we want to include commentary, it should come from legal scholars, not periodicals - without transforming this into an WP:UNDUE thesis.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Daily Mail wouldn't be acceptable here. I'd be open to a note about the controversy surrounding this case, but it would need to be balanced with commentary from legal sources to put it into context. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Edward Scolnick
User:Intelscience has removed sourced material from this page 6 times, and made no other edits to any other articles. I have left several messages on their talk page. I tried AIV, but was told it's not vandalism. I'm not sure the best place to bring this to someone's attention, so I'm posting it here. Natureium (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that dropping the big red hand template a few times on this editor's talk page is the best way to communicate. In fact I think it is quite inappropriate to place that template threatening a block when there aren't necessarily any policy violations. Per WP:BRD this issue should have first been discussed on the article talk page. User:Intelscience please open a discussion on the talk page about why you believe the material should be removed, and User:Natureium please try to work it out there. If there's no progress it would probably be the time to seek some admin intervention. There does not appear to be a BLP violation in removing the material. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually the more I look at this the more I think that you, User:Natureium need to justify inclusion of the material. I don't think it belongs in the article, per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. I have reverted it from the article until you can justify its inclusion. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Vioxx scandal is one of the main reasons Scolnick is notable in the first place. I've shown examples on the talk page of the many articles on the subject, including its use as a case study at a major business school. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The issues here is not just the inclusion of content (which BTW has been confirmed by another editor on the Talk Page as necessary to the article). The issue was the editor blanket removing content as a user without any prior history except these edits. It had reached 3RR in its motives of intent and suspiciously depicts sock puppetry or COI. Regardless of the discussion on the Talk Page or the merit for inclusion, it is the speculative removal that is in question first and foremost. Maineartists (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that the collaborative process is in progress at the talk page. Once consensus has emerged there we can move forward. Thanks for bringing this here instead of edit warring, and thanks to the editors participating. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Deutsch
A number of users have noticed suspicious edits of this page by its creator who has repeatedly removed well-sourced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihunter6 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources have been called into question, you need to demonstrate on the talk page that they meet our reliability standards. Per WP:BLP, the material stays out of the article until the sources are accepted.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Bharat Aggarwal
After giving all the information to support the word "retirement", the editors of this page are still not fixing the wrong reporting. They need to remove the part "resigned under pressure" to retired from MD Anderson. Also some people are giving their personal opinions rather than sticking to the reliable news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Richard Hambleton
Richard Hambleton Hello, My name is Kevin Whipple. I work for Woodward Gallery in NYC. Woodward Gallery represents the artist Richard Hambleton. I am trying to correct his birthday on his wikipedia page. I have documentation to prove his corrected birthday. How do I go about correcting this?

Thanks, Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We generally can't include dates of birth unless they are widely publicised and known about anyway, for privacy reasons. I appreciate Mr Hambleton may be perfectly fine with people knowing his birthday, but we prefer to be consistent across the board, as you can never be entirely sure if somebody is happy with it, or will continue to be so indefinitely. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

His date of birth is already posted on his Wiki page, however it is incorrect. I am trying to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have found a source for the correct DOB and added it to the article - can you check it's now correct? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That is correct! Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, My name is Kevin Whipple I work for Woodward Gallery in NYC the gallery that represents Richard Hambleton. We noticed that his website was changed back to richardhambleton.com. However that is not his official website. His official website is actually richardhambleton.art which has all of his biographical information, artist resume, exhibition history, a large selection of his works and news articles of past and present. The other website is promotional material to a documentary film going on at the Tribeca Film Festival and is not his official website. How do I get his official site changed back to richardhambleton.art?

Thanks again for your help, Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Kwhipple90, you should stop editing that page please. Your addition of several promotional links for the Woodward gallery, where you work, is not needed. We are not here to advertise your artists. I removed those. Please leave it to the non-involved editors.96.127.244.11 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I might also not here that I just removed several sections of the article that were designed to promote the artist's value: multiple mentions of the Woodward Gallery, "all of the work sold out", auction results and so on. The DOB mentioned above was also removed as ARTSY is not a reliable source. Sure, it's nice that the gallery asked for help in fixing the DOB, but this ignores the many promotional edits they have made ot the page over the past years. 96.127.244.11 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Dan Donovan (politician)
The Townhall controversy section is clearly not objectively written. In addition, reference #45 is not a real source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.194.82 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert Fisher (New Hampshire)
Need some eyes over there, interesting news is breaking, lots of edits being made and reverted today. Beach drifter (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

william orrick
Check the recent entry under "notable cases" and notice the characterization of the rulings as "overreached his authority" when clearly that has not been determined by higher courts, etc. Trump trolls at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:C000:BD82:C55E:56AE:68C9:2D36 (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Svetlana Tulasi
Svetlana Tulasi, born on 30 August 1991, is an Indian Classical & Bollywood dancer, choreographer, actress and model from Moscow, Russia. Svetlana is of mixed ethnical origin: her father was a Telugu businessman from Hyderabad, India, and her mom is a Russian, from Moscow.

Svetlana is a trained Kathak dancer, she learned the dance from a Russian woman named Ekaterina Selivyorstova, disciple of one of the most prominent Kathak Gurus – Smt. Urmila Nagar of Kathak Kendra University (Delhi, India). Svetlana’s Guru ji came back to Russia after graduating from Kathak Kendra University in late 90’s and continues teaching Kathak dance to her students till today. Svetlana is her senior disciple.

Since the age of 10 Svetlana was learning Kathak thanks to the efforts of her parents. When she was 13, her father suddenly passed away, and Svetlana remained dancing and promoting Indian Classical Dance and Indian culture in the memory of her father. She now has become a professional Kathak dancer with a Bollywood-type appearance, being one of the most popular artists of Indian Dance both offline – in Russia and CIS, and online – on Youtube. Her videos from Ukraine’s Got Talent TV show where she danced in a traditional Kathak dance style gained millions of views and hundreds of comments from different people across the world.

Svetlana’s dream is to encourage as many people of Indian origin as possible to remember their roots and contribute to their nation’s rich culture through Indian Classical Dance instead of following the western culture imposed by the mass media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svetlanatulasi1 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This article does not currently exist. You may wish to create it as a draft.-- Auric    talk  10:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sahar Nowrouzzadeh
Article introduces her as an "Iranian American" in the first sentence even though she was born in the U.S. Juxtapose that with introducing the Italian American governor of New York state this way: at best it would look silly; at worst it would look prejudiced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.214.3.94 (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the ethnicity from lead unless she has dual nationality or ethnicity is reason for notability. --Malerooster (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Tom Lackey
Having a little trouble with the bio over here. Someone removed his religious preference (Mormon) and also some info I sourced, linked, referenced then added about his history while serving in the CA State Assembly. The article info was about bills he authored or sco-authored if they passed or not and clarification that a specific lobbying group is not a public organization or under the public purview.

I have undone the removal of the information, however the person who is removing information from this page may try to remove the info again. Please help me keep an eye out on this article and check for removed content ro poorly sourced additions or flat out omissions (for whatever reason).

Page @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lackey

Thank you, Msqared80 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The religious preference is not, on its own, objectionable if it is cited correctly. The other material you added had possible WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT issues and I would suggest bringing it to the talk page per WP:BRD before re-adding it.   Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Nolan Crouse again
Was wondering if some others would mind commenting at Talk:Nolan Crouse. The article needed to be protected a while back and was cleaned up a bit per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive250, but the protection has run out and it appears the POV editors are back, including the SPA. I have been unable to find anything more about Crouse's legal issues, so I am beginning to have concerns that it might now be a case of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. Any input would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I tried, but:


 * You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:
 * You cannot move a page to this location because the new title has been protected from creation.


 * And based on the sources in the article, it doesn´t fulfill WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Now at AfD . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Lefty Driesell


Biography is undergoing a major makeover with admirable puffery, apparently connected to a public relations effort to get the coach into the college basketball hall of fame (I'm trying to do this without outing the editor, but he appears to be using his real name, which is associated with said p.r. firm);. Needs oversight and editing of promotional content. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed much of the puffery from the lead, but left the rest alone until I have more time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've reverted two sections to their earlier versions, removing promotional and editorial content and restoring sourced text. I'm sure more can be done. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've pretty much restored the pre-COI version. Please have a look and see if I missed anything substantial, or if I've inadvertently removed anything important. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the changes you made and made two others. There was a part in the awards section that was duplicated from the Maryland section and poorly-referenced, so I summarized it and added a reference to a Sports Illustrated story.  I also removed the section about his most recent non-election to the HoF sourced to PR New Wire.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I also went back and added a one-sentence "nominated but not selected" reference to the BBHoF, citing the HoF itself and the SI article mentioned above. With WP:RS citation, I believe this meets WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Bloom "comedian?"
Someone put 'comedian' in quotes, which seems uncalled for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crooked Wookie (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So remove the quotation marks. Doesn't strike me a Noticeboard topic unless someone keeps putting them back. I think there's something in the style guide that using quotation marks in that context violates WP:NPOV as it signifies sarcasm unless for some reason the person in question is actually being quoted (as in it's someone self-describing themselves) in which case the quotation marks need to be accompanied by a citation. 136.159.160.8 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ron James
Also known as "Rev Ron" the comedian. Ron is an ordained chaplain. State Chaplain of the MD. VFW. Ron is retired from Lockheed/Martin Corp, where he was a Project director in his last assignment. Ron is the Mayor of Galestown, MD. (dorchester Co.) Ron teaches Character Counts, does Hospice work, serves as the President of the Eastern Shore Veterans Cemetery Committee, Was a founder of the Vets Rifle Squad, and acts as director on the Vets helping Vets Eastern Shore Association. Ron is a Radio personality for Vets Helping Vets on radio WCEM AM 1240 with a weekly hour show Mondays at 10 am. Ron is a graduate (B.A. Christian studies) of Suffield University, and U of MD College Park, MD fellow degree in government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.179.249 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This appears to be an attempt to create or request an autobiographical article. This noticeboard is not the place to create one. Before proceeding, I suggest reading the Conflict of Interest guidelines. If you still would like to see an article created, you can request another create one.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

coronation cup 1953
Can anyone verify Vale of Clyde won Coronation cup circa 1953? Tom Getty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.189.43 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yahel Chirinian
Long term spamicle tended by COI accounts--one was just blocked and a new one popped up. A request for speedy deletion was declined. My question here is whether the article is worth keeping; if so, it needs drastic pruning. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:C916:D06E:BD60:82B4 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominated for AfD. Seems purely promotional.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Konner
Hi everyone,

I just created this page for American director, writer and producer Jeremy Konner and I need some help bumping it up from Start-Class! If anyone has any tips on how I can get this page more official, that would be helpful. I am new to wikipedia and editing and am not terribly confident in my usage.

Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terualexa (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In order to bring the page to WP:GA status, you should read through the criteria here. Hope this helps! Meatsgains (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I fixed the template for the article. One tip: You may want to consider adding Template:Infobox artist to the article. Thanks,  caknuck °  needs to be running more often  16:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Nicola Horlick
I am a long-standing editor, but haven't tackled anything like this before, so am seeking guidance.

We have an article on Nicola Horlick, a British woman who achieved quite a high profile as a successful fund manager and mother of six children. The tabloids called her "Superwoman" and in 2008 she got a Wikipedia biography. Today the woman herself has appeared on the Help Desk, requesting the deletion of a section about Madoff, the convicted fraudster. It seems that this paragraph was added by User:Nikete a month ago. It summarised the situation when Madoff's Ponzi scheme was uncovered, and financial institutions around the world were affected. Horlick at the time received media attention, and was interviewed saying that none of the male fund managers who were also victims of the fraudster were subjects of similar attention. From what I can see, there's no implication of any wrong-doing on her part - except, and this is what took me aback, by *one* cite from a personal blog that bills itself as eccentric ramblings! I quickly removed that half-sentence as per WP:BLPSPS. Without that spurious "balance", it seems to me that the whole subsection sits badly. It is the only subsection in the whole article, so doesn't that give the non-issue undue weight? Reading Reliable sources and undue weight: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Should the whole subsection go? It's hardly the main part of her decades-long career. Could it be summarised in a sentence? Please advise. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that once the dubious source and the generic content is removed the subsection contains too little substance to merit inclusion per WP:UNDUE. A brief mention that the fund was affected by Madoff might be included, but I don't think it's needed.Martinlc (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice, Martinlc. I've acted on it. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Linda Yueh
Some additional eyes on Linda Yueh would be good please; an SPA has been removing cited content; and there is an issue with one source that was used, which may or may not be about the same person. Both issues are described on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Jack McCauley
A single purpose account (SPA) has been turning what was a mildly promotional BLP into full-on hagiography. I made some efforts at trimming it back, only to find some of my work reverted by the SPA and additional laudatory material added. Much of this stuff is sourced to a profile of the subject on the website of his alma mater (at which, the article notes, he has established a charitable fund) and to blogger, and gaming and tech industry sites.

Additional eyes on this article would be helpful. I'm kind of aggravated about it and am going to refrain from re-engaging for a couple of days. David in DC (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And now he's adding non-free images. David in DC (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:duffbeerforme and I don't seem to be getting through to the editor who's puffing up this article in contravention of WP:NOTPROMO. I don't want to edit-war or wheel-war. We could use some help on the McCauley article and it's talk page. David in DC (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Lana Zakocela
This really needs oversight; even semi-protected it's a nest of edit warring, mostly over unsourced content. I can't touch it, and wouldn't want to join the endless fray if I could, but the BLP contentious content needs to be weeded out and the sparring parties removed. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Reyes-Chow
A user whose name is the same as the last name of the subject of the article has made edits. This may constitute a conflict of interest. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User's edits have been consistent with a single purpose account, to advance the notability of the subject of the article in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * COI aside, judging by the calibre of the refs, the article is ripe for AfD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Article is now AfD due to non-notable status and references / external links that are either dead, fake or misleading in content. Maineartists (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For those who are interested: AfD Bruce Reyes Chow. Maineartists (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Bill Dix
I work in the Iowa Senate and someone added to our Senators' pages partisan views of their voting records in 2017. I am currently working on a neutral summary to replace this section. My actual concern is with the biography information that was removed due to copyright violations to the page Bill Dix. I used the bio our team wrote and posted on our website: http://www.iowasenaterepublicans.com/senators/bill-dix/ and also referenced on the state website: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/legislator/legislatorAllYears?personID=22. I cited the the articles and removed partisan language, but was still given noticed of copyright violations. I am planning on using the similar information we wrote for the other 28 senators in our caucus and wanted assistance before making major edits. I can reword the language we already drafted, but major highlights in his life won't change. Also, how do I add the birth date without being hit with copyright violations? Would it be okay to write: According to his biography posted on Iowa Senate Republicans, "post website content" [citation]?SE Iowan (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Taking facts (such as birthdate) from an appropriate source is not a problem. You run into copyright difficulty when you take wording from the source. Since there are only so many ways to state a date, copyright is not a concern in that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Rodger Maus is dead and the Wikipedia picture of him that pops up in google is incorrect.
Rodger Maus is dead and the Wikipedia picture of him that pops up in google is incorrect. This is the correct picture of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.201.34 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We cannot list Maus as dead until we can find that in a reliable, citable source - a news report, something like that.
 * As for the photo: Symbol move vote.svg Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Rodger Maus Obituary LA Times. Maineartists (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not sure why that didn't show up in my gnews search, but I've now put the basics into the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Simon Cohen (communication expert)
Hi Wikipedians

I just got my article on Simon Cohen approved and assessed as start-classed but flagged for promoting the subject. I alone have not written the article but I am responsible for publishing it and to follow the process of improving it. I have a conflict of interest as I am currently working together with the subject of the article. I am grateful for any advice from more experienced members of Wikipedia on editing the page and making sure it is written in a neutral tone and objective tone. Thank you MatildeZ (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given your conflict of interest, thank you for coming to WP:BLPN. I'll do a once over but additional eyes are appreciated. Meatsgains (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Meatsgains Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. Fingers crossed someone else with experience can help us out as well MatildeZ (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Karen Koslowitz
"OFFICIAL WEBSITE" UNDER HER PICTURE IS LINKED TO THE WRONG COUNCILMAN  (sorry for the caps)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.197 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

CAROL TAVRIS
...this whole article reads like a self-promo, PR, w/o only laudatory details, vs. anything else about her...personal details or of interest. Has anyone recognized how many self-promotions are listed as 'biographies' when they are clearly a complimentary piece for their own other uses ? When I am curious of someone, like this person seemed to be, and all her honors, degrees and successes are the only info revealed, I wonder about self-testimonials...and have seen people refer to this Wikipedia pages to prove their importance and relevance. Not. I am not so computer writing savy as to be able to do more than report and request someone more techy check out my concerns. thanks. Activistrep (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)activistrep


 * This Wikipedia has no article I can find on anyone named Carol Travis. By any chance did you mean Carol Tavris? If so, could you give some specific examples of what you find wrong with that article? --Krelnik (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it is pretty gushing. And surprise surprise it has been edited by ...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And your evidence that is actually Tavris is ... Sgerbic (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't an inquisition, Sgerbic. Back on track, the article is indeed gushy and needs to be overhauled for WP:PEACOCK. I'd say that the mainstay of the sourcing is weak, but probably enough to establish WP:N, but the WP:PUFF is unjustified and unencyclopaedic WP:PROMO. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Bryan Loo
This article reads more like a press release by the subject than a Wikipedia article. It should be written in a more neutral way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.255.71.106 (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Tommy End
Sorry for my english.

Now that Tommy End (wrestler) is signed with WWE and performs with the ringname Aleister Black, it's better to continue with his former ringname or it's better to change in Aleister Black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonf89 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Michael Pearl
I have removed what I consider to be BLP violations at Michael Pearl: content not supported by reliable secondary sources. I have claimed a BLP exemption to 3RR, but it might be good to have another pair of eyes there: see Talk:Michael Pearl. StAnselm (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This user has a long history of edit warring and 3rr. He has only posted here after his 5th revert and is only posting here to try and use it to cover his edit warring and editing in bad faith. You can read here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:StAnselm_reported_by_User:ContentEditman_.28Result:_.29  ContentEditman (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

WLPGROUP scope
There is a dispute at Talk:EuropaChorAkademie with User:Walter Görlitz who insists that that article falls under WP:BLPGROUP; in my opinion, it doesn't. None of the choir members' (30+) names are mentioned, which would be pointless as they have of course changed since they were founded, and they still change regularly. The text of WP:BLPGROUP supports my opinion because this is a) not a small group where individual members are, or could be in future, identified; b) there are no "harmful statements" in the article and not likely in the future. On the other hand, no specific reading of any policy or guideline has been offered at that article's talk page to support the inclusion of BLP-related templates. I would appreciate any input here or at that talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article mentions a living person in the 1st sentence, so I would support BLP tagging. What is your objection? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merely mentioning a living person is not what WP:BLPGROUP specifies, it says "it's complex" and depends on local consensus. Where else then does it say that every orchestra, choir, opera company, every contemporary opera performance, every article about a musical recording, falls under BLP rules and has to bannered as such? My objections are a) pointless cluttering with banners of articles and their talk pages; b) the application of inappropriate levels of required citations; c) impossible classification (class) for the BLP project. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

What failed to mention is that it is clearly a musical group and as such, falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, which is a sub-project of BLP, and which has been my argument all along. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That "WikiProject Musicians" is a sub-project of "WikiProject Biography" was never disputed. However, "WP Musicians" has only one vague statement about their treatment of groups: "This WikiProject was originally intended for individual artists, but has since been expanded to include musical groups as well. This aspect of the project is currently in progress." That doesn't amount to any argument. The only guidance I could find is WP:BLPGROUP, which IMO doesn't support RichardWeiss's notion that every article that mentions a living person falls under BLP guidelines, and certainly not the article in question, EuropaChorAkademie. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not stating that you disagree about the inheritance of the two projects.
 * Do you agree that it's a musical group? I believe you do.
 * What I understand your argument to be is that
 * this particular article does not discuss individuals
 * the musicians project does not clearly define how it applies to musical groups
 * so BLP should not apply to this particular group.
 * Is that a fair summary of your argument? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article does discuss individuals, though, that is why tagging for BLP is not incorrect, any article which mentions people is BLP and thus can be tagged, normally only when the article or its content is controversial. According to Michael we can ignore the safeguards that BLP provides to living people merely because an article isn't a bio. That is a recipe for BLP abuse, and contradicts the BLP policy as well. Justbecause an article doesnt currently contin BLP vios does not mean it isnt subject to BLP either. Just somebody else not wanting to see BLP enforced and not wanting living people to have its protection. Perhaps you should avoid any articles mentioning living people if that is how you feel. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the BLP violation being reported here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * None. The discussion was opened to determine if BLP applied to a group and what WLPGROUP applies to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Walter Görlitz: That's basically it, except for #3. Of course BLP policies apply to any contentious statement about a living person; I just don't understand the purpose of BLP-bannering the article and its talk page. In this case, the banner says: "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification." a) It's not a biography; b) the article mentions the name of the founding conductor – what additional citations could possibly be needed? It doesn't say "the world famous conductor" or "the tone deaf conductor", and such statements would always be removed under normal NPOV/V/NOR rules.
 * RichardWeiss: "not incorrect"? Wiki-lawyering much? In practice (and despite WP:BEANS), which of the articles in Category:Symphony orchestras have been BLP-bannered? How is the article in question controversial? I'm not suggesting that BLP standards can be ignored anywhere. I'm just surprised by the categorical statement that any article that mentions a living person must be tagged with BLP templates – which brought me here.
 * Only in death: I'm not reporting any BLP violation; I'm baffled by the BLP-bannering of an article where it seems unusual and inappropriate and unhelpful. Walter Görlitz suggested to discuss my concerns "at the WikiProject". As WP:BLPGROUP is part of WP:BLP, and as the hatnote at that page's talk page says: "To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard", I'm here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wallace Roney
I told you I am no longer married to Geri Allen! We have been divorced since 2007! You were suppose to change it! When can we do it? And Can we at least call me a AfricanAmerican Progressive Jazz Trumpeter, I studied with Sigmond Herring for 3yrs, Langston Fitzgerald for 1 1/2 years and Dr. Donald Reinhardt for 1 year and take out that lie about Maestro Eugene Ormandy, and I made my first record at. 15 yrs with Nation and Haki Mahbuti, and before athat time at 12 years old met some of the greatest musicians in the world including Dizzy Gillespie, Clark Terry, both who personally mentored him, Bill Hardman, ValeriePonomarev, Woody Shaw who befriended him, Johnny Coles and Freddie Hubbard! He played with Cedar Walton Quartet with Billy Higgins and Sam Jones and Philly Joe Jones at 16 yrs with the encouragement of his High School teacher Mickey Bass and also began a friendship with young guitarist Rodney Jones through his relationship with Dizzy Gillespie. He joined Art Blakey's big band in 1980 but didn't go to Europe to obey my Father's wishes, Joined Art Blakey Jazz Messingers in 1981 replacing Wynton Marsalis making a record Killer Joe with Art Blakey. Played with McCoy Tyner Billy Harper Walter Davis and Chico Freeman all in 1982 Freelancing through lean times between 1983-85 played on Kenny Barron's record Phantoms and asked to rejoined The Jazz Messingers! During that time made a record with Tony Williams and Tony loved the repport so much he decided to build a band around Wallace who at that time was hanging frequently with his mentor Miles Davis which started in 1983 when Davis heard Roney the Radio City Performance for him in which Davis also performed and got a honorary degree from Fitz University. Roney had to choose between the Messengers and Williams band and choose Williams because he felt he was help building it from the ground up, and Tony's insistence on playing forward thinking! From then that led Roney to play in the historic concert at Montreux where Miles for the first time since the late sixties played straight ahead jazz, and asked Roney to play with saying "I want you to do this with me, because you play just like me, only perfect! We going to be like King Oliver and Pops, but I'm King Oliver because I'm the Chief!!!" Afterwards Roney played with VSOP which Roney said is the Greatest Band he's ever played with!!! And played with Ornette Coleman who he had been playing and studying with since 1983 when he played Ornette's symphony The Sacred Mind of Johnny Dolphin. He played with Ornette again in place of Don Cherry at Ornette's request and NOT as a replacement for Wynton Marsalis as Francis Davis erroneously said in his book without asking Ornette, his source was Stanley Crouch! Davis has since apologized. Since then Roney has been dedicated to contribute to this artform he loves by playing his trumpet and leading his band and playing beyond and pushing the boundaries of the highest level the music demands and hoping to lead and inspiring the young artist while evolving himself the lesson of the iconic masters before and lesson of evolution!n can we do it? Can we at least call me a AfricanAmerican Progressive Jazz Trumpeter, I studied with Sigmond Herring for 3yrs, and Langston Fitzgerald for 1 1/2 years and Dr. Donald Reinhardt for 1yr and take out that lie about Maestro Eugene Ormandy, and I made my first record at. 15 yrs with Nation and Haki Mahbuti, and before that time at 13 yrs old met some of the greatest musicians in the world including Dizzy Gillespie and Clark Terry, both who personally mentored him, Bill Hardman, ValeriePonomarev, Woody Shaw who befriended him, Johnny Coles and Freddie Hubbard! He played with Cedar Walton Quartet with Billy Higgins and Sam Jones and Philly Joe Jones at 16 yrs with the encouragement of his High School teacher Mickey Bass and also began a friendship with young guitarist Rodney Jones through his relationship with Dizzy Gillespie. He joined Art Blakey's big band in 1980 but didn't go to Europe to obey my Father's wishes, Joined Art Blakey Jazz Messingers in 1981 replacing Wynton Marsalis making a record Killer Joe with Art Blakey. Played with McCoy Tyner Billy Harper Walter Davis and Chico Freeman all in 1982 Freelancing through lean times between 1983-85 played on Kenny Barron's record Phantoms and asked to rejoined The Jazz Messingers! During that time made a record with Tony Williams and Tony loved the repport so much he decided to build a band around Wallace who at that time was hanging frequently with his mentor Miles Davis which started in 1983 when Davis heard Roney the Radio City Performance for him in which Davis also performed and got a honorary degree from Fitz University. Roney had to choose between the Messengers and Williams band and choose Williams because he felt he was help building it from the ground up, and Tony's insistence on playing forward thinking! From then that led Roney to play in the historic concert at Montreux where Miles for the first time since the late sixties played straight ahead jazz, and asked Roney to play with saying "I want you to do this with me, because you play just like me, only perfect! We going to be like King Oliver and Pops, but I'm King Oliver because I'm the Chief!!!" Afterwards Roney played with VSOP which Roney said is the Greatest Band he's ever played with!!! And played with Ornette Coleman who he had been playing and studying with since 1983 when he played Ornette's symphony The Sacred Mind of Johnny Dolphin. He played with Ornette again in place of Don Cherry at Ornette's request and NOT as a replacement for Wynton Marsalis as Francis Davis erroneously said in his book without asking Ornette, his source was Stanley Crouch! Davis has since apologized. Since then Roney has been dedicated to contribute to this artform he loves by playing his trumpet and leading his band and playing beyond and pushing the boundaries of the highest level the music demands and hoping to inspiring the young artist while evolving himself the lesson of the iconic masters before and lesson of the evolution!

When can we do it? Can we at least call me a AfricanAmerican Progressive Jazz Trumpeter, I studied with Sigmond Herring for 3yrs, Langston Fitzgerald for 1 1/2 years and Dr. Donald Reinhardt for 1 year and take out that lie about Maestro Eugene Ormandy, and I made my first record at. 15 yrs with Nation and Haki Mahbuti, and before athat time at 12 years old met some of the greatest musicians in the world including Dizzy Gillespie, Clark Terry, both who personally mentored him, Bill Hardman, ValeriePonomarev, Woody Shaw who befriended him, Johnny Coles and Freddie Hubbard! He played with Cedar Walton Quartet with Billy Higgins and Sam Jones and Philly Joe Jones at 16 yrs with the encouragement of his High School teacher Mickey Bass and also began a friendship with young guitarist Rodney Jones through his relationship with Dizzy Gillespie. He joined Art Blakey's big band in 1980 but didn't go to Europe to obey my Father's wishes, Joined Art Blakey Jazz Messingers in 1981 replacing Wynton Marsalis making a record Killer Joe with Art Blakey. Played with McCoy Tyner Billy Harper Walter Davis and Chico Freeman all in 1982 Freelancing through lean times between 1983-85 played on Kenny Barron's record Phantoms and asked to rejoined The Jazz Messingers! During that time made a record with Tony Williams and Tony loved the repport so much he decided to build a band around Wallace who at that time was hanging frequently with his mentor Miles Davis which started in 1983 when Davis heard Roney the Radio City Performance for him in which Davis also performed and got a honorary degree from Fitz University. Roney had to choose between the Messengers and Williams band and choose Williams because he felt he was help building it from the ground up, and Tony's insistence on playing forward thinking! From then that led Roney to play in the historic concert at Montreux where Miles for the first time since the late sixties played straight ahead jazz, and asked Roney to play with saying "I want you to do this with me, because you play just like me, only perfect! We going to be like King Oliver and Pops, but I'm King Oliver because I'm the Chief!!!" Afterwards Roney played with VSOP which Roney said is the Greatest Band he's ever played with!!! And played with Ornette Coleman who he had been playing and studying with since 1983 when he played Ornette's symphony The Sacred Mind of Johnny Dolphin. He played with Ornette again in place of Don Cherry at Ornette's request and NOT as a replacement for Wynton Marsalis as Francis Davis erroneously said in his book without asking Ornette, his source was Stanley Crouch! Davis has since apologized. Since then Roney has been dedicated to contribute to this artform he loves by playing his trumpet and leading his band and playing beyond and pushing the boundaries of the highest level the music demands and hoping to lead and inspiring the young artist while evolving himself the lesson of the iconic masters before and lesson of evolution! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallace Roney (talk • contribs) 20:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Bette Midler
Emmy nomination for GYPSY missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.214.142 (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see under sections: 1990–97: Some People's Lives, further acting career, and television appearances: "Her television work includes an Emmy-nominated version of the stage musical Gypsy"; and under Television 1993 Gypsy: "Nominated — Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress – Miniseries or a Movie". Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Herman Blair
I wrote some comments under his (Dennis Blair) wikipedia page and a meddler named JDCOMIX deleted it all and accused me of vandalism! Everything I wrote can be verified, if the accuser had been professional and asked me.--Statickitten (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Pretty much what GoldenRing said. Your additions were completely unsourced, but feel free to add them back in with a citation, thank you and have a good day. :) Jdcomix (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * A straight revert was a bit harsh, perhaps, but you provided no sources for the information you added to the article. You can re-add the material if you also provide sources (preferably as inline citations) backing it up.  GoldenRing (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

My source is Dennis, he is my husband. He looked over every word I wrote. I feel it is important for kids to realize, even though he was drafted out of high school, education is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statickitten (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, that isn't a reliable source. Jdcomix (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I left you a message on your talk page with more information about reliable sources and biographical articles. I hope it helps.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The material in question is largely the sort of non-controversial material where we would accept your husband's word on it, so long as it could later be verified in reasonable way that the information came from your husband. If he, perhaps, has an existing facebook account that that information could be posted to, then we could use that as a source. (If he was claiming to be the strongest man in three counties and to be the illegitimate child of Abe Lincoln and Angelina Jolie, that's the sort of thing where we avoid taking someone's word for it, but for matters that aren't particularly boastful, more the technical details of their life, we generally accept their own writings and blog postings.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Brandman
This article has been extensively edited without linking to any other sources of information within Wikipedia to have outrageous titles, biased, jargon, and inflammatory writing styles. It is full of libel, and as can be easily drawn from the last sentence of the entry, was written expressly to influence a political election that Jordan Brandman was involved in, seemly by one of his opponents or their supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.169.10 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Vadim Novinsky
I am concerned about the content in this article, in particular the sourcing for the accusations of criminality, and a derogatory quote from another political figure.  DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Florentino Perez
The following information is absolutely not true and biased. Possibly posted by someone against Real Madrid.

"During the Champions League 16/17 Semi-Finals against Bayern Munich,Papa Perez paid the linesman and the referee Victor Kassai who later gave a wrong red card to Arturo Vidal and let Cristiano Ronaldo score 2 offside goals.Madrid Fans started chanting "ALL HAIL PAPA" after this incident"

This should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubiofranj (talk • contribs) 07:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I undid the IP's edit because such a claim needs to be supported by a citation to a reliable source per WP:BLPSOURCES. For future reference, you can also remove such claims yourself if you truly feel they violate WP:BLP or is clearly a case of vandalism. Just make sure you leave an edit sum clearly explaining why and also mentioning which policy/guideline you feel has been violated. On the other hand, if you think the information is accurate but just lacks a citation to a reliable source, you can add the source yourself (if you know where to find it) as explained in WP:REFB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Missy Franklin (Swimmer)
Her alleged weight of 785 pounds (356 kilograms) is obviously an error. The author might have intended to write 78.5 pounds or 35.6 kilograms but looking at the picture supplied of her from the 2012 Summer Olympics even that weight seems to be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.4.247 (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Simple vandalism which has been reverted now (it is 165 lb, btw). Next time you can be bold and revert obvious vandalism yourself. Lectonar (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ben Schlappig


The article Ben Schlappig has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Not a notable figure, and seemingly caught up in POV contributors

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 2605:E000:1300:8202:CC4:BD98:CBF5:DA0C (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You have posted the standard courtesy notice that is generated when an article you created is proposed for deletion. Are you asking why? If so, the reasons whay are probably located in the Deletion Policy and Notability Policy. After looking at the article in question, I see that most of the references are to the subject's own blog or passing mentions in articles about something else. The notability policy asks for three things: significant coverage, coverage in independent sources, and coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources in that article, only one, the Rollng Stone article, satisfies all three criteria. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not asking "why," and I didn't create the article. I just think it should be deleted and was trying to follow whatever protocol needs to be done to get something deleted. 2605:E000:1300:8202:CC4:BD98:CBF5:DA0C (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, then you already did the right thing by using the proposed deletion template on the article itself. There is no need to also place a copy of that template text here.  It is, however, encouraged to notify the article creator.  In this case, User:Anti I A. The proposed deletion notice had already been added to their page the last time it was proposed for deletion this March.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this should be prodded since it has already be de-prodded once before, even if the first time was a WP:BLPPROD. Generally, an article can only be prodded once as explained in WP:PROD and WP:BLPPROD. If you have concerns about the article that you feel warrant deletion (i.e., concerns about a lack of Wikipedia notability), you probably should bring them up for discussion at WP:AFD. If your concerns are just that the article content is not neutrally written, then you can try to fix it yourself or ask for help at WP:NPOVN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PROD and WP:BLPPROD are two different processes. In the lead of WP:PROD it says; "A special case is BLPPROD: an article which has had the BLPPROD-tag removed still can be PRODed via the process described here." ~ GB fan 12:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Michael Keane (footballer, born 1982)
I just removed unsourced and potentially libelous content which had been in place for months, if not several years. More eyes on this appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * May merit rev/del. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Bloom
Rachel Bloom

I don't know how to edit this, but when you google search Rachel Bloom, the little wikipedia information that pops up on the left has some very antisemitic content. It says "Rachel Leah Bloom is a Jewish American gas chamber inspector. She is best known for dying in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp."

The actual wikipedia article itself does not have this antisemitic content.

I believe this violates Wikipedia's policies because the information is both a lie, and is antisemitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:18E8:3:28B6:F14C:CE0C:E9B:B83A (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This was in the article for a short period of time earlier today. It was quickly reverted and I just made it so that it is ot visible in the edit history any longer.  We will need to get Google to reindex the page before it goes away.  ~ GB fan 17:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just searched again and it looks like it is fixed. ~ GB fan 17:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Diane Kruger
The personal life section of the article has contained a passage where Kruger has admitted a certain condition, but there has been a bit of an edit-war about whether it should be included (diff: most recent restore). On the surface, the material is sufficiently sourced to a television interview with Kruger. However, the interview is in French, and this has raised a point of contention with at least one user, who feels that an English pull-quote from the source is required for verification purposes (diff: request quotation and verification). Can I get some more input here, especially from somebody whose French is up to watching the interview and translating the relevant passage? —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak sources for medical conditions which are questioned fall under WP:BLP for sure. Collect (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The source in French was only discussed in the Talk section, five years ago. The sourced used in the article was in Spanish and aired on EITB.  I could translate the relevant portions of it, but the complaining IP seemed really impatient about it.  I will re-add it later on with the quotation. Brritna456 (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * French or Spanish, the relevant core policy is WP:V (subsection WP:NOENG). Editors are entitled to ask for a translation/brief quote of the foreign language source in English to satisfy verifiability. Now if this was not a BLP/not involving a medical condition, the material may be left in the article until it has the appropriate translation. As it is a BLP, all material that could be controversial stays out until it is sourced appropriately. Medical conditions certainly fall into that category. An interview of a subject where they reveal they have a medical condition would be a reliable primary source - they are the person most likely to have the relevant information. This does not mean it needs to be in the article, a mention in an interview that has got no coverage otherwise, and has no bearing on their notability, just because something can be sourced, does not mean it is encyclopedic. As an example - If the subject started doing charity work for people with the same condition, that would be a good reason to include it in the biography. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There was some other coverage of this, as mentioned above. It was notably revealed to the public in La noche de on EITB with her authorization, to raise awareness for the condition. Brritna456 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

William Happer
The section about Dr Happer's views on climate change are highly negative, contentious and may be libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.68.7 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed one statement saying that his research was "worthless". The statement was referenced to a blog.  Everything else appears to me to be well sourced.  Further review is, of course, welcome. Sperril (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * A discussion about recent contentious edits has started on the William Happer talk page section "Secondary Sources?". I assume that the person who started that discussion was not aware that this WP:BLPN notice had been made 2 hours earlier. I propose that anyone concerned by this should go to the talk page, unless protocol dictates that we carry on here instead. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Paul Barker
Hi. Looking for a second opinion on our biography of Paul Barker, former bassist for the band Ministry. The article seems to be slanted heavily toward negative claims made by a former bandmate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Heavily trimmed. The quote is excessive as are Jourgenson's sniping, and the claims of financial fraud can't stay there (especially framed in Wikipedia's voice). Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman
I have been attempting to request edits to make the Ann Louise Gittleman BLP page fair and balanced (see talk page). However, for the past month, no substantive changes have been made to resolve the negative tone of the article. I have incorporated feedback by the editors and offered revised edits per their comments. The editors have not accepted a single proposed edit nor have they attempted to work with me towards presenting Gittleman's biography with a fair, unbiased, and neutral point of view. As currently drafted, the article is littered with unfair treatment of Gittleman, is demeaning of her education and career, and associates Gittleman with criticisms that are irrelevant to her biography.

I tried seeking administrator assistance by posting on the Admin Noticeboard [], but was told that the administrators could not help with content of the article. I am trying to post the issue here. I need help to make edits to the following statements to achieve neutrality and to create some credibility for this article (It is my understanding that due to my COI I cannot make these edits myself):


 * Gittleman is a noted promoter of pseudoscientific ideas on health and nutrition.
 * Overly and unnecessarily negative. Sources do not support statement.
 * In 2002 she was given a PhD in Holistic Nutrition from Clayton College of Natural Health, an unaccredited and now defunct institution criticized as a diploma mill. In 2010, it closed due to financial difficulties. Clayton College did not provide clinical training.
 * Everything after "Health" is negative in tone and deceptively associates Gittleman with the closing of Clayton College.
 * In 1994, she became a spokesperson for Rejuvex, a "natural" menopause product that lacks sufficient evidence for safety and effectiveness.
 * Everything after "Rejuvex" is irrelevant to Gittleman as a spokesperson.
 * Gittleman's works have been criticized as being inconsistent with the best understanding of health and nutrition and for presenting scientific research in an overly simplistic and one-sided manner.
 * Overly and unnecessarily negative. Sources do not support statement.
 * According to Healthline, Gittleman's Fat Flush Plan is a fad diet that relies upon "convoluted science and gimmicky logic to sell its products" and that the bulk of the plan should be skipped because "a two-week juice fast is never healthy."
 * Overly and unnecessarily negative. Source is taken out of context and is misleading.  Source contains incorrect facts about the Fat Flush Plan.  Source is given undue weight.
 * Gittleman's suggestion to detoxify as part of the Fat Flush Plan has made her diet the subject of criticism from some nutritionists and medical doctors. Dr. Judith Stern, vice president of the American Obesity Society, has called the Fat Flush Plan "pseudoscience" that promises everything, but is "a fantasy".
 * Overly negative as it does not provide the other view by nutritionists and medical doctors who support Gittleman's work, such as Dr. Mark Hyman. Dr. Stern is a competitor of Gittleman, so the source is inherently biased.
 * Gittleman's 2010 book Zapped has been met with some skepticism by reviewers who claim the book incorporates non-scientific concepts to assert the danger of electromagnetic fields, as well as presenting evidence in a biased manner.
 * Overly negative as it ignores sources that have provided positive reviews of book.

In addition, the edit that removed "nutritionist" from the first line of the article should be undone. Gittleman is notable precisely for being a nutritionist as supported by multiple sources in the article. The removal of this term illustrates the non-neutral attempt to discredit her career as a nutritionist. Mnh429 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given this is the third different place you have put this identical complaint/request, you might want to read WP:FORUMSHOP. Agricolae (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not forum shopping. I was told on the Administrator Noticeboard that my request would not be responded to.  The BLP Noticeboard is appropriate if I am concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material on Wikipedia WP:BLP.  BLP pages must adhere to the WP:NPOV.  I have outlined the above reasons why I do not believe the  Ann Louise Gittleman page achieves this core content policy.  I invite neutral editors for their input.  Thank you.  Mnh429 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As a neutral editor, my input is thus: WP:NPOV does not mean:"removal of all negative information," as the above request seems to state. In requesting a "fair and balanced" presentation, this appears to be a request for creating a false balance.  We are not Fox News and "fair and balanced" is not a policy.  Some of what you want to remove, in fact, is fully within the Verifiability policy, which is just as important a policy as NPOV and also non-negotiable within BLP.  For example, the statement: "Everything after 'Health' is negative in tone and deceptively associates Gittleman with the closing of Clayton College," asks for verified, documented facts to be removed just because they reflect badly on the article subject.  That's not balancing the article, it's obscuring important fact.  For a person who presents themselves as a certified expert on a certain subject, examination of their professional qualifications is a neutral, vital, and routine inquiry.  There is nothing in the above litany of requests that appears necessary under BLP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the complaints I agree aren't valid - sourced criticism about a person or what ideas they support from RSes is a reasonable, as long as it is attributed (like the Healthline statement). However, two statements stand out as coatracking negative aspects of different topics onto Gittleman: the one about Clayton College and the one about Rejuvex. Does it matter that Clayton College was unaccredited and went out of business in discussing Gittleman? Not really. Similarly, does the fact that Rejuvex didn't live up to its claims affect Gittleman? No. Both do seem like statements to negatively affect Gittleman's background, so unless those factors are ascribed by RSes to reflect negatively on her, we should not be adding that info. --M ASEM  (t) 19:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * When Wikipedia describes a person as having obtained an advanced degree, the natural conclusion of the reader is that the degree is legitimate and holds its customary meaning. In this case, the degree is meaningless; the college was not really a college.  When someone is a spokesperson for a pharmaceutical company, the natural inferences is that they represent a firm that provides pharmaceuticals; in this case, there is no evidence that the supposed pharmaceuticals were actually not quack medicine and every reason to believe they were. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Making the assumption that having an unaccredited degree or being spokesperson for a product of questionable benefit begs a person's expertise in that area is absolutely POV/OR and fails BLP. We need sources that make that leap of logic and to attribute those connections. We do actually have one for the college issue (the Tech Times article), but I've yet to see one for the menopause supplement, so that statement should be eliminated until one is found. --M ASEM (t) 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting is that Mnh429 is a paid editor working for Gittleman. I commend the editor for their disclosure on the article's talk page. Also worth noting is that Gittleman created this article many years ago as a promotional puff piece. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no proof of that on the user or talk pages for user . Is there some proof of this? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , as I said above, the disclosure is posted on the article's talk page. Please read the second yellow box at Talk:Ann Louise Gittleman. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. . Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what Gittleman wrote about herself here on Wikipedia in June, 2010: "Ann Louise Gittleman PhD, CNS, (born June 27, 1949 in Hartford, Connecticut) is affectionately known as “The First Lady of Nutrition.” A health pioneer and highly respected trend setter, Dr. Ann Louise is one of the most prolific nutritionists of her era. She is an award-winning New York Times bestselling author of over 30 books on natural health, beauty, internal cleansing, and weight loss including her internationally acclaimed Fat Flush Plan." And so on. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Young (endurance runner)
I need y'all's help. I just deleted this article, which was a BLP disaster, and rewrote it as the Worst Stub In History. Please see the commentary on the talk page, where I have saved the external links and the references from the article, with no guarantee that all of them are reliable. Please pitch in to write/rewrite/expand: one look at the sources will reveal even to non-admins why this was problematic. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "even to admins"!!! Is it to be assumed that non-admins are creatures of a lesser intelligence?  This is an extraordinarily arrogant comment. Kevin McE (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No,, admins can see the deleted versions--non-admins can't. Drmies (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw  and that was enough. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One would really need to have been aware of all the earlier versions of this article written a string of sockpuppets to realise that the only source of any biographical information (the subject himself) has not been entirely unreliable. If there are noteworty sporting achievements that merit an article, let the article be founded upon those independently verifiable sporting facts, but in considering whether biographical claims are reliable, it is reasonable to consider the previous conduct of the source of those claims. An anonymous admin has obviously understood this, and Drmies has himself hedged the comments that I believe should not be there.  If Drmies is willing to acknowledge that the biographical paragraph cannot be taken as entirely trustworthy, why does he object so vehemently to its removal as to bring me to Arbcom over it? Kevin McE (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Nohshad Shah
Please can you urgently remove the bio page "Nohshad Shah". This is about me. It is being erroneously edited by others and i do not require a bio page as i am not a public personality. Greatly appreciate your help in this matter. Best, NS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.4.143.116 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like the article was vandalised by somebody. In any case, I don't think the article is of a particularly notable subject, so I have nominated it for deletion at Articles for deletion/Nohshad Shah. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Nohshad Shah meets WP:GNG. Multiple articles about the subject exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sonu Nigam
The wiki page states that "He has come into limelight through the Kannada film Mungaru Male (2006), which set several records in Indian cinema"

This is hilarious - Sonu Nigam is a well accomplished singer throughout India and stating that he came to limelight in 2006 that too after a Kannada movie is cringeworthy.

He became popular through the 90's - the song Sandese Aate Hain, the reality show Sa Re Ga Ma Pa, his pop albums during that time. By 2006, he was already a seasoned singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.99.236 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See Sonu Nigam. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if accurate, the claim was POV. I went ahead and removed it. Meatsgains (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Lucy Worsley
I could do with some thoughts about the issue of alleged plagiarism being discussed at Talk:Lucy_Worsley. I'm loathe to include it without consensus but Worsley has quite a high profile as a presenter of TV history series etc, as well as her books and other works. I'm surprised, therefore, that there has been so little input on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sandra Duru-Eluobi
Article seems to be about a notable person, but it lacks footnotes and, considering the enormous amount of BLP violations in the history, may well concern a controversial subject. It needs some loving attention from some real knowledgeable editors. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The first thing that I noticed is that Atlantic International University is unaccredited, which is frequently a red flag in a poorly referenced BLP. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The person appears, alas, quite non-notable (even by Google standards).  Such articles are a bane for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I proposed deletion on the article. Neutralitytalk 22:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Mohamad al-Arefe
is a mess, not sure if anyone is interested in cleaning it up though. I note the subject has just been banned from entering Denmark. I removed one paragraph sourced to a copyvio video. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Zach McGowan
"Casting directors found out later that McGowan was faking but were impressed with his performance and chose him for the role."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_McGowan&oldid=prev&diff=780432944

Citation please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafmm (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Fito Blanko
is a pretty dreadful promotional article. I found an account today named for the subject editing the article and gave them a routine username block. The edit itself was added to sourced text, and since the sourced text is inaccessible I have no idea if it's in the text. And as the source is a marketing website, I doubt it's an RS even for the original text. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I gutted the article. If others disagree with that draconian measure, it's of little matter to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noting that this shows he qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO#2. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think he qualifies, and the nominations for the awards seem genuine and at least one of the awards has its own article. But it was just promotional before Bbb23 gutted it. Doug Weller  talk 18:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)