Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive259

David Gove
Boston Globe article has serious (also very sad) allegations in respect to the death of David Gove. As you can see from our article already, the death appears to be drug related. I think we probably have to mention something regarding the Globe story in the Gove article, if we are to have an article on Gove.

So, I need advice, I think if you read the Globe article you might understand why. How about in the beginning of the Death section, adding a new paragraph, along the lines:

"According to the Boston Globe, Gove became addicted to drugs following his playing-career ending injury. In 2014, Gove reported to police that in in his early teens he had been the victim of child sexual abuse, and a prosecution was later brought against Gove's former coach.  Years previously, Gove had told others of the alleged crimes against him.  Gove died just prior to the criminal trial, and the prosecution ended.

Thoughts? BLP issues, especially BLP Crime? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * isn't BLP Crime about criminals, not victims? Also the link is broken. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * odd i checked several times: maybe.  Yes blpcrime is about alleged criminals, and there is an alleged crime, right? Is it fine without the name?Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Was the former coach convicted? It doesn't seem like he would be considered a public figure, so if he was not convicted it might be better not to mention alleged crimes. On the other hand, leaving relevant info out of a BLP doesn't seem so good either Tornado chaser (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's why I wrote "Gove died just prior to the criminal trial, and the prosecution ended. I guess I could say dismissed: The prosecution statement the day of the trial was "“As a result of the death of the victim in this case, the Commonwealth is unable to sustain its burden of proof at trial. The Commonwealth is therefore exercising its discretion in terminating the prosecution.’’ per the Globe.  And, yes, apart from that allegation, it seems this is the only Reliable Source full biography of Gove from early childhood, family, career to death.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I this case I think the text you proposed to add is ok. But note that there is a big difference between being convicted and having the prosecution dismissed. Tornado chaser (talk)
 * Yes. I don't think I suggested there was no big difference - its totally different, in fact. That's why I brought it here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Rafael Casal
rafael casal

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


 * 1) wikipedia-en-revdel

The article for Rafael Casal has been attacked by recent vandalism after a slander article published by an opinion writer at a right-wing editorial pointed disgruntled fans to fault Casal for the closing of a broadway show. No neutral journalists have made such claims against Casal, nor has the production itself, or any of it's cast / crew. The edits to his page began much for directly slanderous, and have since been more disguised in cherrypicked information. Request the page be locked and the vandalism removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcasal (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the article for 3 hours while I try to work out what needs to be in the article and what is UNDUE. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the whole section. Casal was by no means the only notable person to criticise the casting issues, so creating a "Controversy" section based on that alone is clearly UNDUE. It could be mentioned in a sentence, but no more than that. I suggest that editors of the article concentrate more on sourcing the parts that aren't currently particularly well done. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Paolo Macchiarini
I just looked at this and it is full of unsourced medical content about living and recently dead people. Needs detailed review or a big rollback to here, back in March before IP addresses added a bunch of this bad content... Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I got around to cleaning it up. oy. Jytdog (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Lee Teng-Hui
Guys, please take down or do whatever you do when an article has been hijacked. Somehow this article has been used to defame Lee Teng-Hui as a Japanese stooge, even ethnic Japanese, who wants Japan to rule Taiwan again.

NONE of that is true. The obvious culprits would be supporters either of the Kuomintang (Nationalist) Party in Taiwan, which considers him a traitor, or of Chinese control of Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:142:3:AD13:1966:AD11:4B35:1975 (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're referring to the "Japanese support" section, it looks quite well sourced to me. Which statements / sources do you have issue with? Banedon (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Uhuru Kenyatta
Hello! Super new to editing Wikipedia, but the lead sentence of this article seems to be way out of line with the BLP policy. Would a more experienced editor take a look?Sortofthepoint (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this vandalism has now been removed by another editor. MPS1992 (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And now back again, so I have requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP. MPS1992 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected for two weeks. If it persists, I'm willing to protect it for longer. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Mark Hardy (ice hockey)
A recent edit by an oddly-named editor has restored some dicey information to this article. Background: in 2011, I brought this to this board when another editor, who was later banned and had their account subsequently renamed by admins, repeatedly added information to this article naming a relative of the subject as having accused him of sexual assault (such as here: ), and that accusation was later tempered by other editors. My understanding is that the charges were dropped completely. In 2014, another editor removed the text surrounding this case entirely:. That removed text simply noted there was an accusation, but not by whom. The recent edit I linked at the front of this entry restores similar content, and further says the accuser was a (this time unnamed) relative. Given the history at this article and the original editor's pattern, I am suspicious of this new editor, who has made three edits ever, all September 1, with this being the third one, unrelated to the subject matter of their other two inconsequential edits, especially given the user name "Condraversial". Is there any value in including information about a dismissed sexual assault accusation? (I suppose it helps explain a gap in his coaching career?) Is it permissible/reasonable to include the mention that the accusation came from an (unnamed) relative? Better eyes than mine on this would be appreciated. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Tricky question. First and foremost, we should respect the privacy of victims, family members, and especially children, so they should not be named outright. My gut reaction says no, but the answer really lies in how widely reported this was. From the past edits I see sources like Hockey News (don't know how reliable they are) or TMZ (definitely unreliable). The new edit has sources such as the LA Times and ESPN. This seems to indicate rather wide reporting of the matter. However, the reliability of these sources depends on the particular information they provide. I'd start by making sure these are actual news articles and not op/ed pieces. Then verify that the information is correct, and that we are not cherry-picking, but rather providing an overall summary of the facts. Then make sure this fits into the scope of the entire article in terms of weight. If it fits all of those criteria, considering it is why he lost his job and he even appears (at first glance) to talk about it in an interview, then it likely does belong in the article. Zaereth (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, this information is presented neutrally, sourced to RS's, verifiable, and otherwise complies with WP:BLPSOURCES. Both the initial accusation, the source of the accusation, and the later dismissal are all presented so that satisfies WP:BLPSTYLE and the accuser is not named so that satisfies WP:AVOIDVICTIM.  This edit, at least, seems to tick off all the checkboxes for negative BLP information so it looks policy-compliant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Rick Stevens died Sept. 6, 2017 after a 3 month battle with cancer.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:cda7:2780:bd2a:4071:709e:1540 (talk) 18:13, September 6, 2017‎
 * The Rick Stevens article has already been updated, but this article is possibly a better source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

K C PATEL
K C Patel (born 23 October 1959) is an Indian politician from Gujarat state.[1] He is a General Secretary of Gujarat State Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishantmonju (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey Wertkin
Is this article a BLP violation? Pinging User:John as he seems active on such issues of late. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * it is at Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Wertkin. A duplicate article was created to try to deal with the BLP1E/crime issue, Arrest of Jeffrey Wertkin, which i speedied as a duplicate and was redirected. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Michael Nikoletseas
Articles for deletion/Michael Nikoletseas

Please delete immediately article Michael Nikoletseas. I am Michael Nikoletseas, using the username of my colleague Elperir. I do not grant you permission to continue with the publication of this article referring to me. I do not give you permission to proceed with discussion for deletion, as it is defamatory.

Please delete immediately.

Thank you.

Elperir (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * hello. The article can probably be deleted very soon, however please do not make threats or implications of legal consequences, because that will result in your being unable to continue in the discussion and will therefore prolong things. MPS1992 (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * hello again, sorry to notify you twice. Please could you confirm if User:Albirich is also you, or if that account was used by you? I ask because if so, it may hasten the deletion of the article and the closure of the "articles for deletion" entry, which I believe you would like to see. MPS1992 (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear MPS1992, Thank you very much!I am sorry, I am not threatening, I simple wanted to state that serious defamatory remarks are made. Yes User:Albirich is me. I lost the password, could not request password reset because I had not given an email, so I opened a new account. Please help delete the article immediately. Thank you and best of luck to you. Elperir (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * edit conflict, I am not an administrator but I believe I can help. First of all, I urge you to immediately review the Policy on making legal threats and as soon as possible reply here to make it clear that you are not intending to pursue legal processes.  If you do so, you will immediately get your colleague's account blocked, which I don't think anyone wants.  Secondly, you should also read the policy on sharing your colleague's account, another problem for which accounts are routinely blocked.  It is easy and beneficial to create your own account but you don't even have to do that.  You can edit without signing in and your edits will be identified with your IP address.  Finally, the article about you has already been nominated to be deleted and discussion is progressing.  You are free to contribute to that discussion, although without invoking the legal threats posted above.  I hope this helps.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * thank you for your input, but all of this procedural material seems unlikely to be necessary, this falls under WP:G7 and has been tagged as such. MPS1992 (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * User Elperir made several personal attacks against myself, when I proposed the Greek Nikolesteas article for deletion; [see this, some is in English]. Elperir/Nikoletseas also accused me "to be acting by personal motives", when there is obvious COI with his subject. He started this even before the discussion for the deletion, when removing the Notability Tag -I had placed- from the Greek article. Elperir/Nikoletseas has to answer too, whether user VanishedUser_sdu9aya9fs654654 is him, or not. ——[[User:Chalk19|Chalk19]] (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , if this person is making attacks against you on the Greek-language Wikipedia, then there's nothing the admins here on the English Wikipedia can do. I've looked through their contributions here, and don't see anything actionable. , similar cautions apply.  There is nothing defamatory or libelous under my understanding of U.S. law about either the article or the AfD discussion.  It is never productive to import conflicts from one Wikipedia project to another.  Doing so almost invariably leads to blocks.  In any event, the article will most likely be deleted soon, either through the speedy deletion process or through the AfD nomination.  I suggest that this discussion has achieved all it possibly can and should be closed.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Eggishorn thank you for your reply. I wrote my comments just for the record, for others to know the pattern that user Elperir/Nikoletseas (who has made few or no other edits outside this topic) behaves and reacts in similar situations (e.g. accusing others for acting by personal motives, when he has COI with his subject); in a way totally against the spirit, and regulations of WP. It is not a legal matter, or an issue for admin actions in the English-language Wikipedia. ——Chalk19 (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC).

Thank you very much for your help. First of all i am not making threats. I only meant that serious defamatory remarks were made in the discussion. I do not intent to take legal action. Secondly, I want this article deleted, I do not intent to edit it. The original submission of the article was done by User:Albirich who is the same as Elperir. Please delete the article as soon as possible. Thank you. Elperir (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, discussion will take place whether you give permission or not. Frankly, wikipedia doesn't need permission. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hampton_Anderson
Is it possible to combine these two articles about the same person?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Anderson_(computer_scientist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hampton_Anderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.132.249 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Prager
The "Views" section on the wiki page of Dennis Prager contains dishonest, defamatory and factually innacurate information that should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameshastings (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ha. I've just looked at that article, following James posting on somebody elses Talk page. James has removed well sourced stuff about the subject, and doesn't like people putting it back. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Still happening. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've requested temporary, semi-protection. This appears to be just a recent escalation in the regular edit-warring we've been getting at the article. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've left the three WP:SPA accounts a warning about edit-warring, and let them know about WP:SOCK as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is semi-protected. Sorry I hadn't requested protection months ago. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored the content and reordered the sub-sections based upon the sources. Overall, I think it would help to have additional sources to determine proper weight and context. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The four SPA accounts involved in the edit-warring have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Sockpuppet_investigations/Mauceric --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Marjane Satrapi
An IP user removed a sourced sentence describing David Beauchard as a "mentor and teacher" of Marjane Satrapi. The edit summary reads "I am Marjane Satrapi and david Beauchard has never been my mentor. This is a lie coming from him and his fans. We were all working in Atelier des vosges alongside with Emile bravo, joann star, Christophe blain and David beau chard was there too. Please". Is this sufficient to accept the claim of the editor's identity as the subject of the article and justify removal of sourced content? Largoplazo (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The usual answer to this type of question is no, since we have no way of verifying the IP's claim. That said, the claim the IP editor removed fails verification and veers into OR territory.  The source given is a 2005 New York magazine review of "David B.'s" graphic novel Epileptic; there is one parenthetical statement that "(B. was Satrapi’s mentor and teacher.)" To go from this to "Satrapi's career began in earnest when she met..." is not sustainable, especially since Persepolis started being published in 2000.  Per WP:BLP, this would be ...material about living persons...that is ...poorly sourced... which should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.  The IP editor, whether the claim of identity is accepted or not, did the right thing, in my opinion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I disagree with your conclusion as to the appropriateness of the sentence as written, and your point about the "career began in earnest" part is spot on, but the fact that the review cited as a source was written in 2005 doesn't mean that Beauchard couldn't have been mentoring Satrapi well before 2000. If what is now the first sentence were to be prefixed with "Having been mentored earlier by David Beauchard, Satrapi became famous worldwide ...", that would be supported by the source, with no original research involved, no? Largoplazo (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be supported by the source, . The problem is: it is a bad source in this context.  While the publication (New York magazine) is generally a fine WP:RS, this article isn't about Satrapi or her relationship with Beauchard or even really about Beauchard.  It's a book review that happens to off-handily draw a connection between Satrapi, by then widely-known and well-reviewed, and the much lesser-known Beauchard as a means of giving the reader a handle on the French graphic novel genre.  It is an obviously simplified and quite possibly wrong three-word blip far too short to justify us using it for any reason in Satrapi's article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the insight! Largoplazo (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Cheers. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism accusations
It seems strange that this section is not considered contentious material of a BLP: Andrew Lloyd Webber Accusations of Plagiarism? The entire section is either OR or completely unsourced; resulting in mere speculation of a very well known figure. Accusations of plagiarism without multiple cited reliable sources are serious accusations. Aside from the well known lawsuit by the Puccini estate, I dare say much of this is OR that could not be backed by reliable sources; and the section itself really should not be given such weight; as it encourages those who think they know more than might about music, the opportunity to put in similarities that aren't really "plagiarism". Take for instance this statement: The opera La Fanciulla del West sounds exactly the same as the chorus of "The Music of the Night". It's impossible that an entire opera sounds like one single chorus. The actual lawsuit was over the melody "Quello Che Tacete" from Puccini's opera La Fanciulla del West. Most others are unsourced: ""Memory" from Cats is similar to Ravel's Boléro, and the same tune is heard in the instrumental of the Mamas and Papas classic "California Dreaming". Really? Who and where is the "Accusation of Plagiarism" in this so-called fact? Similarity in sound, is not an "accusation of plagiarism"; as the composer himself was worried when he first wrote it:, . This section is bordering highly on BLP violation, it seems, due to its suggestive titling and unsourced content. How can one prove this: "Bach's "Prelude in C Major" supplies the main structure for the song "Don't Cry For Me Argentina"? and this is just poor WP writing: "The main theme to the title track "Sunset Boulevard" is extremely similar to the 60s song "McArthur Park"." What main theme? extremely similar in what way? Since it's a BLP, the section should at least be scrubbed of unsourced content. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maineartists I agree - I've removed all the unreferenced content from this section and restructured the rest to try to give a more neutral tone. Neiltonks (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Great work, ! Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

David N. Myers
A section was added to Myers's page titled "Controversy," with inflammatory language about an aggressive effort to have him removed from his position as the head of the Center for Jewish History for association with Jewish political groups that are not sufficiently pro-Israel. I removed the addition a couple of days ago, and was just reverted. diff As presented, I think this addition suffers from presentism, gossip mongering, and being out of proportion with the topic of the article; it also seems to be part of a larger PR campaign. I have no desire to get into an edit war with a series of new accounts, and I have a potential conflict in that I was associated with the Center in the past, so I'd ask for someone else to take a look please. ETA: The exact same edits are being made to the Center's page as well. Kschlot1 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Crush fetish article
Hi, all. Can we get some opinions on the current state of ? I started a discussion at Talk:Crush fetish. A permalink for it is here. The article includes living people cases; so I'm parking the issue here as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted the most recent additions as violating WP:BLPCRIME and dropped an edit war warning template on their most recent IP talk page. Maybe that will stimulate discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eggishorn. I'm sure the the IP-hopper will revert again, though, and I'm wondering what else should be done. If I request semi-protection for the page, it's likely that the IP will create a Wikipedia account or edit with an already existing registered Wikipedia account. In the latter case, we would at least know which editor the IP is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had a trim. Fetish? Good grief, this is cruelty to animals and as a confirmed cat lover, this is a horrible thing for people to do. Still, BLP is BLP. Flyer22, you really do pick the articles nobody else wants to edit! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not an article I want to edit either. I forgot how it came to my attention. Maybe it had something to do with the List of paraphilias. But I knew that it needed watching. Thanks for helping. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd thought I'd either seen, heard or tried it all, but stuff like this makes me wonder what is going on neurologically. Thanks for your efforts Flyer22. Wikipedia needs people like you who are brave enough to trawl its depths. Zaereth (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Darius Guppy
Could someone please check my recent changes to Darius Guppy for compliance with WP:BLP. I believe everything is correctly cited, but given the nature of the content I would like to be sure (my changes have been tagged). 81.155.111.250 (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not use the Daily Mail for BLPs under any circumstances, and the Daily Mirror should also be avoided. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, I'll leave the rest out. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the "Herald" line? 81.155.111.250 (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The other source that needs to go is the court transcription per WP:BLPPRIMARY - "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." AFAIK the Herald Scotland is generally okay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay - I didn't add the court transcript source. The following are my changes:, , , . 81.155.111.250 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

AFAICT, the person is not particularly "notable" at all, and the claim that he is "known for" friendships which would not be a notable fact for anyone else given the source is not of much value in any BLP. An IP who specializes in nugatory edits on any BLP is not precisely a great exemplar for WP:NPOV. Collect (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I can think of just one person notable for his friendship, and that would be Kato Kaelin. Zaereth (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's nonsense. User:Collect hasn't explained how his concerns relate to policy, but if by any chance he happens to be appealing to WP:INVALIDBIO, this obviously doesn't apply here, since "significant coverage can be found" of Guppy, such as is evident in the citations list. The user has also said things which are demonstrably false, such as the following: "source remotely connecting Boris Johnson in any great way with Guppy, and no source at all in this BLP connecting Earl Spencer in any way at all with Guppy" This, for instance, is obviously a notable connection.


 * As noted in my post on the talk page for purposes of WP:SCRUTINY, I'm a retired editor, not an IP editor. You would do well to stop deliberately misquoting policy, too, as you did above with WP:NPOV, and also here, especially since you are apparently an administrator. I'm going to take my own advice on the talk from now on and ignore this. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Retired editor: the idea that making personal attacks on editors is neither espoused in Wikipedia policies nor guidelines.  Second, the "connection" that is claimed to make notable for being a friend of Spencer is that they know each other.  I hate to say this, but "knowing someone" is not a "notable fact" as a rule.  Nor is Guppy notable for being a friend of Spencer.  WP:BLP is an actual policy, last time I checked. And unless you have a registered username, you are, indeed, an "IP editor."  I might know a dozen Congressmen or MPs or Counts, but I am not "notable" for that at all. BLPs are supposed to give material of encyclopedic value, not material found in gossip columns. Collect (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One last go: Boris Johnson was in the press for a while after a recording of his conversation with Guppy was leaked. His insurance fraud was also widely covered, especially in the light of his connection with people like Johnson and Spencer. This is clear from the 19 sources supplied. No gossip columns are cited, only sound WP:RS. Perhaps overall his exploits aren't notable - I'm agnostic about that - but it's also a different question. Until recently the article used to look like this, and I hope you agree that what we have now is an improvement. To prevent it looking like that again (some IPs tried to restore the old version) was the only reason I came out of retirement. You're welcome to take the article through AfD for the third time (and actually, WP:NPA is a policy). 81.155.111.250 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * IP81:  I did not suggest AfD, nor is AfD needed for BLP violations.   Collect (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You did say "the person is not particularly "notable" at all", though. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You realize that I was just joking of course? Had Kaelin not gone on to do other things he would be today no more than a footnote in the OJ Simpson trial article. I see three sources for the disputed line, of which none support the claim. One of the sources actually says they were friends, yet none of the three say that is his claim to fame. Therefore, it seems to me that the article is making a connection not reported in the sources, and thus is falling into the realm of synthesis. (Not to mention that all three sources are filled with quirky little comments and the opinions of the authors, thus more resemble op/ed pieces rather than serious journalism.)


 * I see other problems as well, such as acronyms without any indication of what they stand for, but just don't have the time right now to review the entire article.


 * I've known Collect a long time, and while I may not always agree with everything he says (nor sometimes even understand it), I do have to admire his commitment to keeping very high standards in BLPs. Perhaps it would be best to assume everyone here is acting in good faith, try to keep the emotions in check, and continue the discussion in a more civilized manner. Zaereth (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made very clear why the connection is significant. The lead is supposed to summarise what is written in the rest of the article, and it should be clear from the rest of the article that Guppy is notable, if he is notable at all, for his conviction, and for being a friend of Boris Johnson, specifically in relation to the episode where Guppy solicited Johnson's help in trying to find the details of a tabloid journalist whom he sought to rough-up. There is a consensus on the talk that this is BLP compliant. As far as emotions are concerned, Collect's opening remark hardly set a very good tone for the discussion.
 * The ridiculous amount of pointless text this has generated has reminded me why I left Wikipedia. I'm supposed to be retired, and I'm finished here, so the talk page would be the best place for any further concerns. I agree that the opening sentences are poor, but I'm not sure what could replace them. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Aha! The IP "knows" that Guppy is a horrid criminal who used Boris Johnson, a noted Tory, '''as an accomplice or attempted accomplice!   Sorry - Wikipedia is not intended to right great wrongs or expose evildoers whom the editor despises.'''

Sorry again - I know you must be a well-known retired editor from Wikipedia, and you should have known why this attitude seems not to comply fully with the policy of WP:BLP nor WP:NPOV. Guppy knows a bunch of famous people, but the intent here is not to link that fact - but to attach aspersions on Boris Johnson to boot. '''... who solicited his help in trying to find the details of a tabloid journalist who he (Guppy) wanted to rough-up. ''' certainly makes an allegation about Johnson who, as far as I know, is a living person who has faced no charges at all. Righting great wrongs is fun, for sure, but not in a BLP. Collect (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * More misquoting of others from Collect, simply to try and put others in a bad light: the other editor has said nothing of the sort, so don't lie so openly by misrepresenting others. If you are going to try to mock other editors, don't tell outright lies about what they've said (again): quote them properly if you want to dispute what they have said. You've spouted enough misleading nonsense both here and on the talk page that you either do not have enough knowledge of the subject to critically analyse what has been said, or you are being deliberately obtuse. I hope it is the former, as you would be able to remedy that with some additional research, although I doubt you'll actually do anything that constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll respond one final time, since Collect has deliberately misrepresented what I have said. Neither I, nor the article, suggest that Johnson committed a crime. Johnson meets WP:WELLKNOWN per WP:BLPCRIME anyway. This is also besides the point, since the lines are very well sourced (two citations from The Independent, two from The Telegraph). This incident definitely took place - the sources show that both Guppy and Johnson admit to it - and I agree with the user above that Collect's failure to properly look into this is the cause of a lot of wasted time. As for the following: "certainly makes an allegation about Johnson who, as far as I know, is a living person who has faced no charges at all", the sources also make an "allegation" (which is not an allegation, since both parties freely admitted to it) about Guppy, which you don't appear to be worried about. The incident is also covered in the article on Boris Johnson.
 * You've attempted a number of lines of argument here; your first: "there is no source remotely connecting Boris Johnson in any great way with Guppy" would suggest you hadn't initially read the article fully. The second argument concerning whether Guppy's notability derives from being a friend of Johnson entirely misses the point. At the moment, this would appear to be an ad hoc argument intended to keep Johnson out of the article. The article obviously shouldn't be a vehicle for attacking Boris, but unless you can justify why the incident involving the tabloid journalist shouldn't be in the article, Boris Johnson must feature somewhere.
 * User:Zaereth: I would question whether Collect is applying his high standards in BLPs in this instance, or whether he is presently attempting to remove well sourced material from an article with no sound basis in policy or guidelines. He also needs to revisit WP:AGF. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Ferdinand Peper
This biographical article was created by and contains substantial edits by a user named Repep (Peper reversed). Moreover the article reads like a short resume. Most likely the article was created by the subject himself. The subject of the article is of questionable notability, although that is a separate discussion. Such an abuse of the Wikipedia for purposes of self-promotion is a detriment to the perception of the Wikipedia as a unbiased source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.38.96.187 (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that has been blocked for sock puppetry, so the question of what to do about him is moot.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Gene Freidman
Evgeny "Gene" Freidman is known as the Taxi King of New York City. In his long career, he has attracted a lot of press coverage and, unfortunately for him, a lot of legal trouble. This case requires a short introduction to properly understand the issues. The article Gene Freidman was created in 2015 by an editor who (in 2017) was found to have been part of a sockfarm. It is quite possible that they were paid to create the article. That editor made a total of two edits to the article. Two years later, I more than doubled the size of the article. It was nominated for deletion by User:TonyBallioni because of the connection to the sockfarm. The AFD closed as no consensus. TonyBallioni has removed two parts of the article, claiming they are in violation of WP:BLPCRIME. One of the removed sections is about the arrest of Freidman and his business partner following an investigation by the New York Attorney General. The arrests were announced by the NY AG and follow on from prior cases already included in the article. There was no implication in the removed material that Freidman was guilty of the charges. TonyBallioni also removed the entire section about Friedman's personal life. This section included an allegation by Freidman's wife that he had assaulted her. According to press reports, Freidman admitted to the incident and plead guilty to charges of harassment. I believe that TonyBallioni is mistaken in his interpretation of that section of WP:BLP and our discussion on the talk page was fruitless, so I am bringing it up here to get some more input now that the AFD has closed. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * is the edit at issue. "In April 2015, it was alleged by Sandra Freidman that Evgeny Freidman had assaulted her in March 2015" is clearly a contentious bit of celebrity gossip which might pass muster but the person removing it acted in reasonable belief that this is something which requires an actual positive consensus for re-insertion in the BLP.  Start a "Request for Comment" on the BLP talk page if this is a matter of importance to you. Collect (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I included it because the assault charge comes up in a lot of the more recent reporting on Freidman (for example, this profile from Bloomberg) so it seemed odd to leave it out of the article. The incident also appears to be the impetus for his wife filing for divorce. Do you see anything wrong with the rest of that section if the assault part was left out? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * An editor raised credible objections. The "hoops" are per Wikipedia policy, so it is not I who is making you jump through them. Collect (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you see anything wrong with the rest of that section if the assault part was left out? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , there was an entire personal life section removed, do you see anything wrong with the rest of that section if the assault part was left out? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The procedure stated is to follow WP:CONSENSUS and note that WP:BLP requires that any consensus to re-insert the removed material must be strong at the very least. I am not the person who decides. Collect (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , you seem to be suggesting that the only way to restore the material removed is through an RFC. Most of that material was uncontentious biographical detail as found in most biographies. The assault was covered in two sentences. The remainder of the section should never have been removed. You are advocating for unnecessary and unusual procedure for no reason. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The material was removed with the assertion that it violated WP:BLP. Read that policy about contentious material which has been removed. RfC is not an "unusual procedure" at all.  Collect (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a false assertion. As TonyBallioni has admitted below, BLPCRIMR does not apply to the "personal life" section. Even if it did, I am asking you about the remainder of that section, minus the assault. The material is not contentious. Process for the sake of process is not helpful in building an encyclopedia. Repeatedly dodging simple questions is not a good way of working to improve articles. Although, if your intention is simply to stymie someone else's efforts, it is a very popular tactic here. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

For the record, again, I was not the one who originally removed that section and BLPCRIME was never claimed to justify its removal. It is instead a weighting issue for potentially prejudicial material in a BLP when he did not plead guilty to criminal conduct but instead to a civil violation. That still falls under BLP policy, and such content should be removed until there is consensus to restore. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to WLC for bringing this here. I do appreciate it. Unfortunately the AfD became a debate about paid editing and notability. It was unclear one way or another whether outside of his criminal actions (alleged and otherwise) this man was notable. I still say no: the non-criminal parts are excluded by WP:SPIP as typical self-promotional stuff, but thats not relevant to BLPCRIME. The question here is whether or not he is a public figure: to which I would say a resounding no. He holds no elected position, he's at most a relatively minor business figure in the grand scheme of NYC, and its unclear whether he is notable or not.He's a private businessman who tries to promote himself, he's not a celebrity, politician, or head of a major publicly traded company who has accountability to the general public. This means two things: one, the stuff about his wife is gossip and undue weight, two he is entitled under WP:BLPCRIME to the presumption that his crimes will not be reported in Wikipedia because he is not a well known public figure. The fact that the state attorney general filed the charges doesn't change it. If he were the head of the largest pizza chain in NYC and got indicted for money laundering by the US attorney the same presumption would apply. The BLP policy covers Mr. Freidman, even if he seems to be a rotten guy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, let's not replay the AFD here. If Freidman were not notable, the AFD would have been closed as delete. WP:BLPCRIME says "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured". We can disagree on whether or not Freidman is or is not relatively unknown but in the case of the alleged assault on his wife he admitted to the incident, was convicted of harassment, and agreed to conditions. How does BLPCRIME apply? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The AfD closed as no consensus to the question of notability: meaning its not clear one way or the other. I'm not trying to replay it, simply showing that its not even clear if Freidman is notable, and it is certainly far from the case that he is a public figure. Its relevant to that discussion. Re: your specific question, as has explained below, its a question of weighting and whether it is in fact relevant to the article. Per WP:ONUS, we don't have to report on everything that is written about someone, and for BLPs on issues such as these, we typically require a positive consensus for inclusion. I'm not entirely convinced including a domestic dispute in any form would be an okay weighting, but the formula mentioned by Jytdog below would be the most that should be in there if we do have it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, you removed the section with the claim that it violates BLPCRIME. You stated it again here. Please explain how BLPCRIME applies. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I made no such claim re: the domestic dispute and BLPCRIME (that I can find, and if I did, I didn't mean to.) I only reverted you when another editor challenged that inclusion per BLP and NPOV. I'm agreeing here that it was a good faith removal and that we do need to consider in light of the weight, if any, it should be given under BLP and NPOV. My BLPCRIME claims were and are meant to more explicitly deal with the AG investigation, where it does apply as he is a private individual who has not been convicted. I think they might have some corollaries with the domestic dispute (I don't believe he actually pled guilty to the assault but to harassment, for instance, but I could be mistaken there.), but the domestic dispute is primarily weighting and whether it is unduly prejudicial to his article meaning that it wouldn't comply with NPOV and BLP and weighting. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's ok with you, can we deal with one issue at a time to keep the conversation focused? It seems like you agree that BLPCRIME does not apply to the alleged assault. It also seems like the issue here is how much weight it is given. Fine. Can we also agree that there are no issues (either weight or BLPCRIME) with the rest of the personal life section that you removed? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not the one who originally removed the entire personal life section. That was . I reverted your restoration of it because it did contain content that reasonably could be seen as undue weight. Re: his marriage I would like to hear other's thoughts on that. We do have some BLPs where we refrain from including a personal life section because they are not public figures: Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.Since his wife is not relevant to his claim to notability, there is a case under BLP to not include her. The addition of his family life would need a strong positive consensus for inclusion, and if it were included would need to be in a limited fashion as has pointed out below. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was doing my best to assume good faith in these discussions but this is getting farcical. It is very common to have "personal life" sections in biographies, including those of people who are not public figures. This article is not special in any way. Please stop being needlessly obstructive. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLPNAME, whether or not we include the name of a family member who is a private person is an issue of discretion with the presumption being in favour of privacy. In this case the wife has filed for divorce, was in a domestic altercation with him, and his article already includes a significant portion of negative information about his businesses that she probably wouldn't want to be associated with. Unless we determine that the assault should be included, it isn't necessary to include her in order for the reader to have a complete picture of the subject, and since we can reasonably assume that she wouldn't want to be connected with him, the BLP policy favours her privacy. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is my take. I generally find "personal life" sections icky and beneath our mission, unless personal life stuff is somehow important (like JFK's severe back problems for instance). The kind of thing we are talking about here, is gutter crawling trash and is generally driven by BLPCOI situations.   But at most something like "he married X; pled guilty to harassing her and admitted in court to pushing her against a wall, and they divorced.".   But again, WP is NOTGOSSIP.  Bottom line, the proposed content is gutter crawling trash. 08:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The section that was removed also includes simple facts about his marital status and children. You may find that "icky" but it isn't "gutter crawling trash". What you have proposed here isn't really very different from what was removed, but I'm not sure I understand if you are saying include it or don't include it. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center Blog
Claim: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) blog must not be used as a source for material about a living person. I will say "Support" myself and hope any repliers will be equally clear. Support. The BLPs include Jared Taylor, Lydia Chassaniol, Brian Nieves, Steve Sailer, Michael L. Weinstein. The blog is splcenter.org/hatewatch (the rest of splcenter.org may also be unreliable but I'm trying to focus). Cites showing that SPLC itself and others agree it is a blog are here. WP:BLPSPS statement "Never use self-published sources ..." applies for "group blogs". The WP:BLPSPS exception -- "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." -- does not apply because (a) SPLC is not a news organization it is a lawyers group, (b) there is no evidence of full editorial control and there should be a burden to produce such evidence, (c) the blog writers apparently are not paid journalists which is a probable meaning of the word professional, (d) there is no newspaper. This was a side issue on a WP:RSN thread Southern Poverty Law Center As Source For Labeling Someone a White Supremacist which was archived without consensus; commenters then who actually addressed this topic were Neutrality, NorthBySouthBaranof, Richard Arthur Norton, Guy Macon, Kyohyi, Nblund. If mentioning an idea of what a blog is, please explain why it trumps dictionaries. If mentioning a non-BLP policy or guideline, please explain why it trumps WP:BLP. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Again? This issue has been discussed to death on multiple talk pages and Noticeboards. SPLC (including hatewatch) is well respected and frequently cited by both academic and major news sources. There is nothing wrong with noting their views in a BLP, although in cases where SPLC is the only source being used to label a group/person a hate group, it should obviously be attributed. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with . This has been repeatedly discussed, and the idea that it cannot be used has been rejected, because it has no basis in policy.
 * The SPLC's publications, such as its quarterly Intelligence Report, have won multiple press awards, including the Utne Independent Press Award (2007) and two Society of Professional Journalists awards (2003, 2005). The SPLC's former senior fellow Mark Potok, who was with the SPLC for many years, spent 20 years at major newspapers, including USA Today, the Dallas Times Herald and The Miami Herald, before joining the group.
 * The SPLC is often relied upon and cited by experts and scholars. This is strong WP:USEBYOTHERS. See, e.g.:
 * Chen 2006 (SPLC is an "authoritative source")
 * Hoffman 2006 (SPLC is "one of the most authoritative grops" monitoring militia movement);
 * Perry 2001 (SPLC provides "invaluable service for the public")
 * Neiwert 2013 ("the Southern Poverty Law Center ... remains the most assidous, detailed, and dependently factual of all the organizations that gather and publish information on the radical right in America")
 * Spitzer 2001 (SPLC is "a nationally respected organization devoted to tracking domestic terrorist and racist groups").
 * A relatively small, but determined, number of editors have deep antipathy toward the SPLC. They are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to banish a well-respected group. Give it a rest. As for in-text attribution, that can be determined case by case, but I of course agree with Fyddlestix's general approach in cases of biographies of living persons. Neutralitytalk 15:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes this has been brought up again, and again no one has shown the SPLC having independent reviewers of it's own publishings. All we get is how it's well-liked, and praised.  And that to me only shows that it's an expert in it's field, which allows situational use as a self-published expert source.  The statement that it has no basis in policy obviously overlooks the definition of what self-published means in WP: SPS.  I'll say this again, demonstrate that the SPLC has independent reviewers, if not it's a self-published source.  --Kyohyi (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Independent reviewers" is not the standard -. Newspapers do not have "independent reviewers," they have editors. The SPLC clearly has editors, clearly has editorial policies, and clearly has a system for correcting and retracting errors. That is what is required. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Go read WP: SPS keynote 9. Independent reviewers is the standard.  Newspapers have an explicitly called out exception to that standard.  --Kyohyi (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand that the SPLC is not a self-published source; it is an organization which publishes media. Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. The SPLC's website is not a "personal web page" any more than the Anti-Defamation League's website is a "personal web page." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The SPLC's postings on it's own pages are very much self published sources. From note 9 "Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos:".  The common note of all of these, is that they are published in a medium that the organization itself owns/controls.  The SPLC controls it's own web-site, so any thing it posts there are self-published.  Just because you like them doesn't mean they aren't self-publishing. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ″A relatively small, but determined and conservative leaning, number of editors have deep antipathy toward the SPLC.″ < FTFY
 * I'd say that this has more to do with politics than anything else, considering that most of this fiasco has popped up over the SPLC saying negative things about conservative public figures. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The SPLC's opinions should be attributed as per Fyddlestix, but they are a perfectly acceptable source. The SPLC meets reliable sourcing guidelines — they have identifiable editorial structures and policies, a strong (if not perfect) record of accuracy with their publications, and they acknowledge and correct errors where discovered (c.f. their retraction of the listing of Ben Carson). They are certainly an opinionated source, but that does not render it unusable any more than we consider the Hoover Institution unusable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the author of this proposal posted this discussion on the Jared Taylor talk page and also cited Taylor's article as an example above, presumably because he doesn't like that Taylor is described as a white supremacist. Well, in addition to all of the excellent points raised above, the Taylor article is an excellent case study: the SPLC is one of many, many sources that describe Taylor as a white supremacist. I too have seen many editors (almost always with new accounts) come to that page and challenge the description; the discussion goes on for a while and then those editors disappear. Then another new account shows up a few days or weeks or months later and makes the same argument: SPLC is no good because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's not rooted in policy. Rockypedia (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NBSB and others. There's clear editorial control, so generally does not met the concerns of why we have the SPS language. Assume it has its bias/not an independent source, its statements as claims that should be attributed (and if necessary, weighed per UNDUE), but otherwise appropriate to include. --M ASEM (t) 16:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It is suggested that it is a general user blog when it clearly is not. — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fyddlestix. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:BLPSPS does not say "never use blogs" any more than it says "never use books". It says not to use self-published blogs, and the SPLC blogs are published by the SPLC. I quickly checked a few of the author names, and beyond those articles listed as "staff" were ones written by established journalists such as Bill Morlin with 30-some years of experience and David Neiwert with his National Press Club award. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fyddlestix's statements are unsupported by any pointers to a settled discussion or a policy. Neutrality's statements are irrelevant since they are not about splcenter.org/hatewatch. NorthBySouthBaranof statements are merely assertions without evidence. Rockypedia's statement about me is false, this has nothing to do with white supremacy labels. Masem and PaleoNeotate seem to be acknowledging it's a blog but refuse to accept the consequence. NatGertler doesn't say which blog posts are by Bill Morlin, I didn't notice any. Anybody besides Kyohyi want to address the fact that WP:BLPSPS applies? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, the word "blog" here is a red herring. "Blog" is merely a particular type of publishing platform. The mere fact that something is called a "blog" is not dispositive of whether or not it is a reliable source in any context. What matters is who is responsible for publishing that blog and whether there is identifiable, responsible editorial controls involved in the publication. In the case of the SPLC's blog, the organization is responsible for publishing it, there are identifiable, responsible editorial controls and we treat anything published upon it as a reliable source for expressions of the SPLC's opinion, where that opinion is deemed relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "NatGertler doesn't say which blog posts are by Bill Morlin, I didn't notice any." It's not real hard to do. If you go to http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ and look at the list of articles, they include an author field. At this moment, the sixth one on the list is marked as "by Bill Morlin". That's one by Bill Morlin. Or, if you go to the search field above the list and type Bill Morlin into it, then click the button to the right, that will take you to a list of articles written by Bill Morlin. A quick check of the list suggests there's about 600 such articles there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I had no reason to assume you meant blog posts used for the Wikipedia articles. Sorry. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * (e/C)Comment The OP's unsupported claim that SPLC has no editorial control makes absolutely no sense. The SPLC is the one who will get sued for libel, should they libel anyone because the SPLC has complete and official publishing control.. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I made no such claim. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did. You said in the OP they have no editorial control, which is nonsense, or you did not even bother to look. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The closest I can find is this: "there is no evidence of full editorial control and there should be a burden to produce such evidence" which is not "The SPLC has no editorial control", it's "evidence has not been provided that the SPLC has full editorial control". Two different statements. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Then oppose, the OP demonstrates ignorance not just about editorial control but about who works there, and what kind of real publishing constraints they operate under. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment This is pretty much irrelevant. If it is a contentious issue, then we need multiple sources.  Otherwise at best (or worst) we must attribute findings to the SPLC.  Furthermore, there isn't a reliable source out there that will report SPLC's findings as "fact".  They too use attribution. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - we need one of those "Check what issues have been extensively discussed already before making a proposal" boxes, with this issue as one of the perennial ones. But yeah, Oppose.  Volunteer Marek   17:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I know its been suggested before but we need something like a RS/NPOV casebook for general sources, akin to what the video game project does for sourcing WP:VG/S, to track these types of discussions and research so that such debates don't get rehashed. --M ASEM (t) 17:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per neutrality and others. I'm not sure why this question warrants yet another noticeboard post, virtually all of the issues raised by OP were raised in the previous noticeboard posting, there's no reason to think that more quibbling over policy minutiae will change the outcome. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 17:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and sort of bar on citation uses in BLPS. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a well-respected organization when it comes to identifying hate groups and extremists. Suggestions otherwise are dead on arrival. ValarianB (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above, and the issue is really getting tiresome. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. This issue hinges on the question of whether Wikipedia's mission is to present articles that are credible and accurate. It isn't. The mission is to reiterate whatever silliness academics and pundits are trying to pass off at present. I could hardly think of a more appropriate source for Wikipedia than the SPLC Hateblog. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a suspicion that sarcasm might be involved here but must take you at your word and count this as a real "oppose". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: While I strongly disagree with ValarianB's assertion that "The Southern Poverty Law Center is a well-respected organization when it comes to identifying hate groups and extremists" (It used to be, but no longer is) and with NorthBySouthBaranof's assertion that they have "a strong (if not perfect) record of accuracy" (they used to, but lately have listed groups that don't exist, citing as "evidence" a post on a Nazi website by a self-confessed internet troll, and refused to admit that the group doesn't exist or provided evidence that it does). That being said, this proposal is the wrong way to address the problem, and the policy being cited does not require that the SPLC not be used as a source for material about a living person. See WP:DAILYMAIL for an example of a source that is not be used as a source for material about a living person or anything else. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic is not SPLC it is their hatewatch blog, and the policy does require that a blog not be used as a source for material about a living person, but I must take responsibility for somehow not getting that across. The Daily Mail can be cited for opinions but that's another topic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Oh yes, let's give aid and comfort to bigots while sullying the reputation of Wikipedia. (Sarcasm.) Perennial complaint. Can we get a bot to respond the next time it pops up? (Not sarcasm, only wishful thinking.) Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   03:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose with reservations - as others have already mentioned, a BLP requires multiple RS for any material that may be challenged. SPLC is a questionable source at best. We had a pretty thorough discussion about it at RSN. See the list of articles provided by Macon at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_230 which explains why SPLC lacks credibility. Also keep in mind, they are a self-published source (see WP:SELFSOURCE#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves), they have a COI as paid attorneys, they are a biased or opinionated source, (their findings are based on their POV and they have been dead wrong from time to time). Atsme 📞📧 04:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given your arguments, I'm surprised that you oppose, but oh well. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Possible Summary. Support: 1, oppose: 16. Several opposers suggested that this has been discussed multiple times, though they provided no evidence. One opposer named journalists who have contributed to the blog. Other comments were that SPLC in general has done good work, and that there are editorial controls. The overwhelming majority opinion is that the blog splcenter.org/hatewatch can be used in BLPs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , my iVote was a weak oppose with reservations followed by an explanation. A BLP requires multiple RS for any material that may be challenged. Biased sources can be used with inline text attribution. I also provided a link to a recent prior consensus which was not closed in support of SPLC. I don't know how many times we have to go through this but I don't agree with your "possible summary". Consensus does not overrule NPOV policy, BLP policy, RS guidelines, or any other related policies. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 14:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's WP:SNOWBALL with or without your waffling. What's the difference? Rockypedia (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme: I'm involved, my possible-summary post has no more significance than a post by you or any other editor. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * this horse is not just beat to death, it is in smithereens. SPLC and its blog are fine and people who keep flogging this horse are going to end up topic banned. That is what we do when people keep trying to force the same conversation in many places and fail to get consensus every where they go. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - snow - Déjà vu. Objective3000 (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

American Jews
Currently has an extensive section (and sub-article) stressing that American Jews are "White." shows the re-insertion of the problematic material.


 *  The overwhelming majority of American Jews identify as white. In 2013, the Pew Research Center's Portrait of Jewish Americans found that more than 90% of Jews who responded to their survey described themselves as non-Hispanic whites, 2% as black, 3% as Hispanic, and 2% of other racial or ethnic background.

The issue is whether this sort of section belongs in any article on Wikipedia, or on any BLP-compliant article on Wikipedia. I note that no such section is found in any other article on Wikipedia that I can find, including Arab Americans. I note, for example, that Wikipedia requires self-identification for race, religion or ethnicity, and that this re-inserted material violates that by implicitly labeling anyone whose BLP links to this article or related articles as "white".

One may also rice that this article states "facts" about American Jews verging on stereotypes, including With to the Jewish penchant to be drawn to white collar professional jobs and having excelled at intellectual pursuits, many Jews have also become been remarkably successful as an entrepreneurial and professional minority in the United States, In the business world, while Jewish Americans only constitute less than 2.5 percent of the U.S. population, they occupied 7.7 percent of board seats at various U.S. corporations,  and a few other "facts" which are possibly not neutrally worded.

In short, the question is - does this article follow WP:BLP and other policies of Wikipedia? Note that there has been extended discussion over a long period on the article talk page (well, since 2006). I rather think this should be brought to a head, with the "Jews as White" explications being removed. Collect (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The bolded text is problematic, given the methods of the Pew survey. The statement about the survey is fine (and Pew's a respected source), it establishes it is not necessarily an accurate number. But the conclusion from that that "overwhelming majority" is a SYNTH violation (and thus fails BLP by default).
 * The white collar line is sourced to a SPS forum. It definitely should be nixed.
 * The 2.5/7.7 stats line actually is fine, sourced to Mother Jones (though that should be given a date in prose). It's similar stats as one would demonstrate a wage gap or similar ideological group disparages from the general population to a specialized population. If you take away the white collar line above, this statement is neutrally worded. (It's in context of that line that is looks wrong). --M ASEM (t) 15:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Merely linking to this article doesn't assert that any statements about what is true in what percentages apply to any particular person. Maybe such a person is one of the 90%, maybe they are not. As to not finding this in any other article, I don't think you searched much: Native Americans in the United States, White Trinidadian and Tobagonian, White Hispanic and Latino Americans. Identification as white is obviously a valid topic for discussion, not sure what the thinking is here. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Nate Sudfeld
Nate_Sudfeld

Death date of Sep 7, 2017 entered. I can find no reference to this through a Google search and he is still listed on the Eagles roster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.57.135 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was reverted by user NorthBySouthBaranof. Meatsgains (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike Rossi (DJ)
I've done some pruning already (arrests and stuff) but this really needs more help than I can give it right now--thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also condensed the Viral fame and cheating accusations section by removing WP:UNDUE content. Meatsgains (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

David Toscano
Edits are repeatedly being made by a former political opponent of David Toscano on his page. The opponent's first account (Orwellianlocksmith) was disabled and he has since then created another account (Nairncrosstrees) solely to make edits to that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsygeek (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Dan Huberty
This article has been problematic for at least a month. The subject may have exhibited some questionable behavior, but his fans and detractors are using (a) primary sources and (b) dodgy websites that support some POV problems. The edits are at times obvious and in other cases insidious (like inserting religion to the infobox and gratuitous inclusion of minor childrens' names and [religiously affiliated] club memberships). We need to put some protections on the page and look at individual behaviors. Rhadow (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is adding religion or childrens' names, that's a straw man. The entire disagreement is over a video of Huberty that Rhadow keeps deleting that showcases the subject fighting with police and staffers as an elected state rep. The other disagreement is over the inclusion of a recent controversy that the same state rep demanded his trash be picked up at the expense of ongoing rescue operations, for which he was widely criticized. Rhadow keeps deleting huge blocks of text, where the editorial consensus on the talk page is to keep both items. Rhadow has been bypassing the talk and discussion on this article completely, and has been engaged in repeated bulk deletion. It needs to stop. Flatoncsi (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for inclusion on the talk page as you claim. Furthermore, in this edit  an admin stated that the sources provided were insufficient for the fighting claim, and in this edit  another admin stated that the sources provided were insufficient for the trash story.  The continual edit warring on this point needs to stop. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Consensus appears to be remove. But, this looks under control now anyhow. One of the editors adding such info received a short block and there is an open WP:SPI. Objective3000 (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody was adding kid names, wtf are you talking about? The issue isn't 'resolved' - you had an admin block one person for 24 hrs because they took sides in the dispute, and then you had 2-3 other people keep bulk-reverting without building any consensus on the talk page. There are several people who clearly point out this is relevant, and I think, like me, are offended that they keep getting talked down to about it, and their arguments entirely mischaracterized. Whether Huberty was once drunk is irrelevant, it's how he acted. |And it has been covered in mainstream outlets, it caused other competitors to come out against Huberty, it's so obviously relevant here, and yet repeated work by a significant number of people keeps getting rudely reverted and the talk page ignored. The admin arrogance, along with some long-time editor arrogance, is causing 90% of the problem here. Flatoncsi (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As has been explained repeatedly, if you want to add material to a biography of a living person, as you did in for example, you will need a reliable secondary source supporting the edit. The source you have just provided appears to be linked to the Houston Chronicle, and so looks reasonably promising.  However this source doesn't support the statement that Huberty was drunk: at most it could be used to support a statement along the lines that Mtchell Bosworth criticised Huberty for drinking. And making edit summaries like "fuck Alex Thie" isn't really helping your case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

davy russell
Why have Wiki removed all mention of his recent animal abuse? This information should be included in his entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8A2:2600:F5F4:1C8D:B2AA:7525 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There really isn't centralized control of wikipedia pages, it's just editors like you and me who add and delete material, there are policies and guidelines which are followed, so I would ask the editor who removed the material.(who I have pinged here) Tornado chaser (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to reply for another editor, but 's removal of the allegation was fully compliant with the policy on biographies of living people. Unsourced material such as what was removed must be immediately removed from articles.  This is particularly true when the unsourced material concerns allegations of possibly criminal actions.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you just have to punch a horse. It was unsourced and so subject to removal correct. However the Irish Turf club have officially sanctioned him for "acted in a way that was prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horse racing". Which was pretty much a given once video footage of it surfaced online. Now its uncontroversial that he did indeed punch a horse and get a ban, if a single horse-punching incident should be included in the biography of a jockey is a WP:UNDUE issue since it can be well sourced. Its *not* an allegation of criminality as it was written, however if it did lead to a criminal prosecution (for cruelty to animals for example) it would probably pass to be included in the article. Likewise if he had a history of abuse (in horse racing, given the use of the whip, there are actually specific sanctions for over-use) it might be worth including. As it was, he probably had a long hard day, the horse provoked him and was asking for it... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Joshua Kissi
Hello Wiki admins

I've just realized photographer and creative entrepreneur [ Joshua Kissi ] wikipedia was taken down - why? There's plenty of sources within the article which states his Biography context from reputable resources such as the New York Times & The Huffington Post - can we have the page reactivated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RafJohnson (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like this was deleted as G11, unambiguous advertising, meaning the whole article was written like an ad, so there probably wasn't much good content. However, if you want to recreate the artical, you can do so if the subject of the artical meets WP:N, and the article complies with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP. You should also be aware of WP:COI. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jun Hong Lu
Would appreciate additional eyes on Jun Hong Lu. There is an IP user who is attempting to add unconstructive and POV language throughout the page. I've reverted twice and so has as well. Meatsgains (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Lucian Niemeyer
There is some discussion over the images in use in this article. An IP posted at the Helpdesk that the commons image was not his official photo. This prompted some scouring, and it appears that the commons image is a photoshop of at least three others, but it's hard to tell which is the original. Most of this is outlined on the talk page, but to summarise:


 * 1) EXIF data identifies (including the Oiginal Doc ID) commons image as being a completely different image for a different person
 * 2) There are now two images on commons claiming to be the "official" image - one is obviously a photoshop, if not both File:Lucian Niemeyer official photo.jpg and File:Lucian Niemeyer official portrait.jpg
 * 3) Looking at the image photoshop artifacts can be seen - his right shoulder is particularly obvious where his suit meets the flag with the line being overly sharp - until it meets the near edge of the photo and the crop marks can be seen.

What is Wkipedia policy for images when obvious photoshoppery is evident - in this case the entire top of his head has been changed.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Photoshopped copyrighted images" are still copyright violations. Collect (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Both are photoshopped. My concern would be whether all the elements of these composite images comply with the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. If we can't be satisfied that they do, we can't use the images. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Fancy Bear
Regarding this and this, would someone like to explain to  that BLP does apply to that page, and that they shouldn't sow conspiracy theories about living people if the best they have is CounterPunch? Geogene (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hill Harper
[] Someone or many someone's continue to chage Hill's birth name to Francis BUT it is Frank. I worked for him for close to 4 years and I have seen his birth certificate many times and it says Frank Eugene Harper. Hill has asked me personally to find a way to stop this from happening. If this is not the proper forumn, can someone please direct me to where I can report this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HillHarpersFormerAsst (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Have him contact the Volunteer Response Team by going here. This is the proper place to have these concerns expressed and handled.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

John_Merritt_(public_servant)
Why do I care where this guy honeymooned?

Why is his birth year unclear and yet listed? Is he some ancient sage that we want to revere in that we don't know when he was born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.133.63 (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2017‎
 * I don't know, why do you care where he honeymooned? If you have an issue with the content of a biography that is not a violation, the place to take this is the article's talkpage. Dates of birth where the subject's age is known at the time of printing can obviously (depending on the time of year and absent a definitive DOB) mean that the subject was born in one of two years by working backwards, which is what I assumed happened here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

University of Rochester and Joel Seligman
Can someone more experienced with BLP please take a look at recent edits to University of Rochester and Joel Seligman? There are allegations being made against a professor at that university (Seligman is the university's president) and the allegations have reached (and been fueled by) the national media e.g., Inside Higher Ed, Mother Jones. The national attention may mean that the issue warrants some coverage in the relevant Wikipedia articles but I'm very nervous that so far there are only allegations. ElKevbo (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue. The Joel Seligman page is resolved, not on basis of BLP. In the case of University of Rochester the offender is not identified in the added section while the allegation nature of the added information is clearly outlined in the section title. The allegations are well referenced to multiple credible media outlets as well as a 113 page EEOC complaint wiled against the University. GGthefactchecker 05:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GGfactchecker (talk • contribs)
 * There's sufficient reliable sourcing addressing the issue that I feel something should be included, but I completely agree with ElKevbo's removals on the grounds of BLP; GGfactchecker, you need to understand Wikipedia's reliable sourcing criteria. Petitions and letters hosted on Google Drive are not in any way, shape or form acceptable as sources for claims about a living person, full stop, the end. You need to read the Biographies of Living Persons policy before editing these related articles further. We are to write about living people sensitively and with great care to avoid sensationalism, reject gossip and treat unsubstantiated claims with the measure of skepticism that reliable sources apply. This issue should be discussed further on the related talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that something needs to be added. The coverage by RS - newspapers, television and radio, national magazines - is not only extensive, it features a substantial number of direct quotes from Seligman himself. There is no need to include non-RS letters, petitions, and the like. Although the issue is ongoing and likely to remain so for an indeterminate time, ignoring it seems to me un-encyclopedic. I will attempt to revise the material accordingly. And yes, let's move the discussion to the article's talk page. I will start a section presently... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Zakir Rashid Bhat
continual BLP issues as new editors edit from opposing positions. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Andrea Wallace
The picture attached to the Wikipedia entry for Andrea Wallace is not the Andrea Wallace Runner referred to. I am struggling to see where the existing image comes from and how I can show you a correct picture. You do not make it easy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.254.74 (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Andrea Wallace article has never contained a picture. Are you thinking of some other article? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This complaint comes up a lot when a name is googled. Google will put up the Wikipedia article and nearby they place a photo of the person. Sometimes the two don't match, but that is something controlled by Google not us. However, 82.17..., if you have a photo, and you either own the copyright or have written permission from the owner, you can easily upload the picture and place it in the article yourself. Just click the "upload file" link on the left and follow the bouncing ball. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

pardeep narwal
he is born in Haryana please update in the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakravarthy0612 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Chakravarthy0612: Since the article is about a living person, we require a reliable source to support the change. Since you have not provided one, the article has correctly not been changed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of court filing as source in article on gang
Comment invited at Talk:Lunada Bay Boys. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote on that page - but Wikipedia has long frowned on any court documents, and "filings" are self-published under Wikipedia definition as they are not vetted before the filing. Useful as Angel Soft. Collect (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sanatan Sanstha
There seem to be some BLP/edit war issues at this article. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Drew Hutton, born 1947, requires basic biographic information to differentiate the wiki article as factual from purely listed for political purposes
With no reference to "Drew Hutton" as associated from any part of Australia in particular, nor any reference to his ancestry or early history, the article appears to be nothing more than a legitimising internet reference for political purposes. Apart from promoting only the positive and exaggerated achievements of the man, without citation, the article appears to be nothing more than the abuse of wikipedia for propaganda rather than a legitimate source of balanced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimmyAU (talk • contribs) 13:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Uhhh... Can anyone translate this? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't understand the problem either, you need to be much more specific. Doug Weller  talk 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * - reping, you can't fix a saved ping. Doug Weller  talk 16:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Stella Nyanzi
Please see the discussion at Articles for deletion/Stella Nyanzi. Perhaps I handled it wrong and should have used a BLP speedy instead, but I don't want to propose one myself at this point. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you did it right, I just removed some of the BLP issues. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The massive "Ten Million Shilling" fine ends up at the $2600 level. And I fear the name-calling ("a pair of buttocks") seems a tad mild in this world. Collect (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly something missing in the translation.-- Auric    talk  20:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Lauren Book


My interest in the article is that I created it, because she was newly elected to her state's legislature, and has an interesting backstory. , who I will hereafter refer to as "UHF", is a single-purpose account editing articles relating to sexual predators with a "pro-predator" (for lack of a better way of expressing it) bias. Lauren Book was sexually abused as a child and has made the issue her life's work. UHF has been adding POV information from unreliable sources into the article to defame her and cast doubts about the effectiveness of her work, and appropriateness. Check out this most recent edit, where UHF is edit warring to reinsert a WP:CSECTION with said unreliable sources, and saying the victim was "allegedly" a victim even though there was a criminal conviction. Rather than accept that I have WP:BLP concerns about the sources, UHF simply says the sources are fine, even though one of them, "Sunshine State News", claimed to be affiliated with CNN though they are not, and has resorted to ad hominem attacks against me. Rather, UHF would rather report me to WP:AIV for "vandalizing" the article. I believe that report should WP:BOOMERANG on UHF because UHF is WP:NOTHERE to edit neutrally. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Mubogshu has deleted relevant news outlets because they do not cast his beloved Lauren BBook in a favorable light. Lauren Book is embroiled in numerous controversies, as many politicians tend to be, and by deleting relevant news articles questioning the ethics of using her political office for personal gain, such as failing to recuse herself from voting on issues related to her private charity, her personal involvement with spreading false studies about people convicted of sex offenses, AND her personal involvement in forcing registered persons into homelessness. In addition, her charity took money from organizations of questionable ethics, such as a private prison that has been associated with abusing children (GEO Group). It is obvious even by this writing that Mubogshu has a personal bias in favor of Lauren Book and has been active in suppressing any reports that question this State Senator's ethics, yet there are numerous reports Mubogshu deleted he didn't even claim was "questiomable," including reports from ABC 27, the Gainesville Sun, and the Broward/ Palm Beach New Times. He had been warned repeatedly and continued to vandalize the page, and going by the history, it seems he had removed other legitimate news sources even before I added revisions to the Lauren Book page. It is obvious he is engaging in sockpuppetry at this point. Anyone who looks at his history on the Lauren Book page would see that.UltimaHolyFlare (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've now reported UHF to WP:3RRNB, here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Gregg Easterbrook
Hi Wikipedia,

This is a minor request. I wonder if you might add to my entry, in any manner that seems fitting to you, my latest book - from 2015, noted below -- and the fact that in 2017, I was elected to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences https://www.amacad.org/content/members/newFellows.aspx?s=a

http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/book/the-games-not-over/9781610396486

Many thanks, Gregg Easterbrook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg Easterbrook (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem, done. Don't really want to encourage posting here though; this probably should've gone on the article talk page. This is a noticeboard for issues with articles. "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." —DIYeditor (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the BLP a bit more. Just because some primary source calls him a "dipshit" is no reason for us to include that.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore
User:Jaydogg1994 has reverted several times to reinstate material which is highly questionable from a BLP standpoint - some contentious views attributed to the subject are being included with references to YouTube, an opinion piece and a source which doesn't support the statement in the article. The page has already been subjected to pending changes protection at least in part because of the addition of this material. I'm posting here to get further input rather than starting an edit war.  Hut 8.5  20:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Public figures under mind control?
An editor has been writing in the talk page of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that various American public officials are under mind control by the Russian government, or somehow controlled by a "psy-ops" campaign. For example:. This seems to me to be a BLP violation, even on a talk page. I also don't see how any of these comments are related to improving the article. I'd appreciate if an uninvolved editor could take a look and give their opinion on whether such comments are admissible on the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, except that's not what this editor is saying at all. I don't see anything in there about mind control. You're making that part up. Way to misrepresent somebody's words. Psy-ops: Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.  Volunteer Marek   04:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I asked for input from uninvolved editors. Anyone can read the diffs and make up their own minds. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No, Marek is right, you are totally misinterpreting things. Psy-ops is short for "psychological warfare", not "psychic warfare". Understandable mistake, but time to move on. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Psy-ops" is short for "psychological operations." The comments specifically say the psy-ops campaign has gotten inside the minds of US officials and is causing them to act in certain ways. Especially without any reliable sourcing, that sort of claim is not one I think should be made anywhere on Wikipedia - even in the talk pages. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Distill that scary sounding statement down to it's meaning: agents of the Russian government attempted to influence the opinions of Trump campaign officials by talking and writing at them. That's such a vague and harmless statement it's essentially impossible for it to violate BLP, even if it's a pretty dramatic way to say it. Really, this is nothing to get upset about, especially since there are no specifics in the diffs given. At worst it's just an unhelpful contribution to the overall discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment from uninvolved editor -- there is no violation of BLP here. This is normal discussion on an article talk page.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Psy Ops is largely the dissemination of propaganda, not Men Who Stare at Goats. It is always good to err on the side of caution with BLP policy, so no harm in filing the report IMO, but I think this is fine. ValarianB (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not the way that SPECIFICO is talking about it. They're specifically talking about Russia having "messed with the minds of the Trump circle," causing them to behave in certain ways. At best, the posts I linked above (which I encourage people commenting here to read, rather than simply commenting on the meaning of "psy-ops") are disruptive nonsense. I think they're more than just disruptive, and I don't think we should be tolerating source-free accusations that people are under manipulation by foreign powers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the post immediately below this is an example of the type of nonsense we have to put up with on talk pages where this user is involved. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Then there's this ...



SPECIFICO talk  14:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides, give it up. Listen to what people here (uninvolved people) are telling you: There was no BLP violation here. "Messed with the minds of the Trump circle" was not an allegation directed at any named individual, and "messed with the minds" is a vague comment that could mean anything. If you are now saying you believe SPECIFICO's comments were actually disruptive, rather than BLP violations, ANI is --> thataway, but beware of boomerangs. --involved editor MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no violation of BLP here. Please drop the stick and move on. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 20:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sebastian Faena
This fellow was born in 1980, said the article on him until this very recent edit. I get the impression that this cited source (in Spanish) said in 2007 that he was 27, and this other cited source (also in Spanish) said in 2012 that he was 31. The new edit adds this third and (to me) dodgy-looking source, which flatly says (in English) that he was born in 1990. The editor who added it changed the article to say he was born in 1990.

Could some fresh eyes take a look at this matter? I plead sleepiness, incompetence in Spanish, vulnerability (thanks to an AfD that ended with no consensus) to a charge of irreverence, laziness, and (yawn) did I mention sleepiness? -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello? Good morning?


 * Reverted. But other disinterested pairs of eyes would be welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Nick Bougas
says he is Nick Bougas. He seems to be having a hard time getting his article in shape, and also has a hard time not calling other editors idiots, pests, and other insults. Bougas (or Megerflit, at least) seems very, very insistent that both his own word and IMDB are reliable sources.

Perhaps someone new should take a look at the situation and see if they cannot help him out and clean up the article. I think any further attempts from me will be met with more hostility, so I'll step back from the article for now.

There is one very serious and very contentious BLP concern with this article above and beyond self-promotion, as explained on the article's talk page and in this Buzzfeed News article. This doesn't necessarily reflect on these edits, but it would be useful to be aware of this for anyone who wants to start looking for new sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A brief look suggests that, whether or not Megerflit is who he says he is, he richly deserves a vacation from Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Allie X's Scandinavian accent
Hello. I've read the Wikipedia article on the Allie X, and it claims that she was born and raised in Oakville, Ontario, which is at 43.4675° north latitude and 79.6877° west longitude. At this location, people who are native to this area do not have a Scandinavian accent. Take the song "catch" for example. the J in "just wait until I catch my breath" soudns like a mix between a J and a Y sound (like the y in you). This is typical of some Scandinavian accents, in particular those closer to the arctic circle. Other elements of the Scandinavian accent are present both in Catch, as well as her other songs and her speaking voice. I'd like to know, if she's Canadian, what's with the Scandinavian accent? there may be some errors either in Wikipedia or else the source that claims she was born in Oakville ONtario, Canada. Now this is not ot say she is not a Canadian citizen, she likely moved to Oakville after a time, but I'm saying to keep it on the table that she may be Norwegian, Swedish or Greenlandic, not Canadian.

Thanks.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You would need a WP:RS to support this, your interperataion of her accent alone is WP:OR. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time finding a source that says she was born in Canada. I found one that says she lives in Oakville, but not born in Oakville. Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you have reliable sources challenging the subject's own statements and reliable sources all saying she is from Oakville, OT?


 * Oakville, OT is sourced in the article. Every reliable source I can find has her "born in", "hailing from" or a "native of" Oakville, OT. She is quoted as saying she was born and raised there. Without reliable sources, we cannot say that several young women have lied repeatedly about their birth places being in Canada and the UK rather than Norway, Sweden and/or Greenland. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * CBC News. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am a biography investigator who believes in total acuracy. The way you're wording it yuo make it sound like I am going after speciffically women. No. I go after anyone who seems to have a descrepency in terms of birthplace or accent. Partially bassed on my life story, i have decided to investgate biographies.

Funny you mention CBC, my wife Hekla is currently being called by a woman named who clais to be from CBC regarding my long time investigations of various celebrities in terms of their birth dates, places of birth or birth names. She brough up Thair Cruse and Tara McDonald. Anyway I'm bringing it up because I heard a Scandinavian accent in Allie X's voice, and it caught my ear both as an investigator and as a curious person. Forgive me for questing the status quo of various self-made statements. Would you believe I was bornin Ankara? not if you heard my voice you wouldn't. You'd have good reaso for saying I am from Aberdeen. In the same way, Allie X can say she is Canadian at birth, but i have good reason for believing she is Scandinavian bassed upon her accent.

True, I do not yet have a reliable source for this, hence why I did not edit the article at all, and won't until I get a good suorce. As an investigator and as someone who believs in total acuracy regardless of personl views, I will do my best to find a reliable source. But if I do find a reliable source that says she was born in let's say Stockholm, Sweden, then you have to consider it. Otherwise Summer's whole thing on RS will be useless at best. thanks

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I will bring up another example. yes it's a woman, shut up feminists. Mariah Carey and her mother have both said she was born on March 27, 1970, yet yuo guys keep 1969 because of other sources. By this logic, why then should I consider the subject's own statements in regards to her birthplace?

Andre Nicholsw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If you find an RS yes in needs to be considered, all I said was not to edit the article without an RS, and I don't think anyone accused you or anyone else of sexism. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not at you Tornado Chaser, atSummerPHDV2.0
 * the wording Summer used made it appear like a feminist, because I've seen how these discussionson th einternet end up.
 * I'm not saying summer is or is not a feminist, but I am saying her tone reminds me of feminism. (summer, i'm just guessing your gender, no need to cry about it).
 * Anyway I am going to be taking a bit of a break from this discussion until I can get some concreet proof that SummerPHDV2.0 is not.
 * Hekla and I are somewhat scared, and I just got grilled because of this call.
 * I left a notice about this on her talk page.
 * thanks.


 * Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hekla? Anyway, you should read WP:PRIVACY before you speculate about real-life identities of users. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm concirned because I got this call from a CBC reporter who mentioned my Wikipedia edits to Tara McDonald. SOrry, but Hekla and I are scared. that's all I'm saying. also don't redact a public figure's name.

Andrew

I have resolved the Mesley madness, it isn't Summer.

Anyway, if I were you all, I wouldn't entire throw it off the table that Allie X is Scandinavian. th einvestigation is under way. Hekla has advised me not to go forward with editing the article at all until the investigation has been published. thanks.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Without published independent reliable sources discussing it, there is nothing to edit. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh my source will be reliable, and it won't be me editing it. someone's going to see it, cite my source, and then you will be blown to find out that it's possible (maybe it's true or maybe not) that Allie X is from Norway, not Canada originally. or maybe I might find out she's really Canadian. look forward to NOvember of 2020.

Andrwe Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That's great, please feel free to let us know at Talk:Allie X once the independent reliable source is published. You could let your newly found journalist contact know as well.
 * I think this is now unless anyone can explain why not. MPS1992 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a very strange point to try to make, especially considering that accents vary considerably across countries, regions, social groups, and even individual people. Take the Alaskan accent, for example. It's really a mix of American standard, Canadian, Russian, Alaska Native, and Texan, but I've been told many times it sounds very much like Minnesotan. Even so, amongst Alaskans Sarah Palin's individual accent is almost unique to her. In English, most of the common words we speak every day are actually Scandinavian words, followed by French, German, Pictish, Gaelic, and Latin. A person's individual accent is dependent more on family and friends that it does on any region or location of birth. Unless a source is found that clearly shows she was born in Scandinavia, this sort of "adding two and two to get five" will be simply pure speculation, and thus will likely not be found in any source that is reliable on the subject. Zaereth (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

While I do see where you're coming from, it also depends upon the strength of the accent. for example, take my wife Hekla's accent. She was born in Manchester, raised in Manchester, and has an mostly Manchester accent witha slight tinge of her parents' Icelandic accent. Allie X on the other hand has a heavy Swedish accent in her singing. yes accent does depend upon the people around her, but in order for this to work with her still being born outside of the Scandinavian countries, or at least having her never visiting the Scandinavian countries or living around an ultra high level of Scandinavian people, you'd basically have to count upon a miracle. Also remember being born somewhere does not mean they have th eaccent of the place. I would bring up Tara McDonald, but instead I'll bring up myself. I was born in Ankara, Turkey, but grew up in aberdeen. I do not have a turkish accent in the slightest. or how about Suhana Meharchand, who was born in South Africa, yet she has no South African accent at all. So don't think that I don't see where you're coming from, but I hope you see where I'm coming from in terms of the investigation. those are great points you do raise though. I will definitely consider them as well, but I'm not willing to make a stretch to believe in miracles.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

parimal trivedi
this is not a famous person and they made this fake page with help in a computer lab


 * That may be so. The article is under discussion at Articles for deletion/Parimal Trivedi. MPS1992 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an attack page made by non Brahmin scum. 2600:387:2:811:0:0:0:BC (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Fellow IP number, the above is not persuasive phrasing for your reasonable claim that this is merely an attack page. 133.25.247.222 (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Tobia
IP editor is repeatedly inserting unsourced information about Jacob Tobia's ethnic origins (1, 2, 3, 4). Also deliberately misgendered the subject (5) and left a personal attack in an edit summary when reverting my discretionary sanctions warning (6). And another personal attack on their talk page following an edit war warning: 7. Funcrunch (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Victor Romero
Recent recreation of a BLP that was deleted through AfD last year. — Paleo Neonate  – 21:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not a CSD G4 candidate but I note that it is substantially identical to the CSD G11 speedy deleted page at Victor Hugo Romero Melendez. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have nominated the page for speedy deletion per CSD G11 as unambiguous promotion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Notice has been removed as it appears this is a different Victor Romero.-- Auric    talk  23:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Could an administrator (who can access both previously deleted pages) confirm this? According to Malcolmxl5 they initially appeared to be the same.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agonise too much over that. Assess the article as it is now - the tone and the quality of the sources (I see blogs, LinkedIn, Facebook, passing mentions, no mentions, ...) - as you would any other article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Franz Lidz
A WP:BLP issue has been raised by the subject at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Eyes on the article and its talk page would be welcomed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Issa Rae
A new section has been added and is titled "open racial hostility" describing Issa's comments at the recent Emmy red carpet. This is an inflammatory title and needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.45.3 (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently removed. Appears users are watching the page and dealing with this as needed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, I only reverted because I saw this here. That title is inflammatory, and the content was a mix of OR and channeling Tucker Carlson. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

pierre kwenders
Hello!

I am Pierre Kwenders' publicist and I'm trying to edit the english version of his Wikipedia page. His new album was released a week ago and I just wanted to edit his Wikipedia page in English. Is it possible to give me the permission to edit his page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Kwenders

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marieange z (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Scott Kozak
The article says, "He was named Oregon's most outstanding football player for the 1998 season.[2]" I believe that is supposed to be 1988 not 1998. He graduated in 1989. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.89.155 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed, the cited source says 1989. Feel free to fix errors like that yourself! Fyddlestix (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Jaiden Animations
An IP recently removed a significant amount of content from this page, alleging that it was "private information" even though it was sourced in the article already. (This is one of their edits they made doing so.) Their removals have been reverted, but I wanted to seek feedback from other editors on whether there is a valid concern that this information might be unacceptably private per WP:BLP or some other policy. Everymorning (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is inconsistent at times. In some cases, a "stage name" is not accompanied in the BLP by a "real name" and in other cases it is. The only real call is an RfC on the specific BLP to see what the consensus is on this particular individual. I note that the person might not meet notability guidelines if an AfD were filed. Collect (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIVACY says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". In this case teh name has 'not been widely published (it is sourced only to a school newspaper) and someone does appear to be objecting. The information should be removed. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've stubbed the article to remove the name and references which applied to that name but not the YouTube channel. Frankly, the whole thing seemed a little creepy. If you are using high school newsletters as your sources, you need to stop and ask yourself if you are contributing to the sum of all human knowledge or stalking a high school girl. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hassan Farhangi
Is a WP:BLP and editor has not declared a COI. Article contains inaccurate info which I am starting to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truther2018 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This was not a WP:BLP issue, but the page was bloated, contained some copyvio and was largely unreferenced. I did some cleanup and trimming - not a lot of coverage in independent RS but he appears to meet WP:NPROF, having held a Deanship at TechBC. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

IP adding unreferenced cultural origin categories to BLPs
There's an IP user adding categories (such as Category:Canadian people of Calabrian descent) to articles where it's not apparent that the category applies. For example, this edit to Dina Pugliese: a Canadian television personality whose biography mentions nothing about her cultural heritage. I had reverted a number of these categories a few weeks ago but the IP is back making these same edits today. I had a look at some of their edits today, some are proper but others are like the one linked above, and I don't have time at the moment to go through them all to check for accuracy so I'm leaving this note here. The history of that article also reveals a number of other IPs that have been involved over the past year. Thanks for taking a look. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Crash Override Network
Includes a defamatory accusation about living people sourced only to a self-published YouTube video. The suggestion that a secondary source is required for this under BLPSPS is being rebuffed on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.195.1 (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The above is a drastic mischaracterization: The article contains a single criticism by a notable figure, accusing the organization of something that may or may not be ethical (depending on one's views), sourced to that figure's primary method of publication. The current text was arrived at by a consensus of editors following a long discussion which can be seen at Talk:Crash Override Network and Talk:Crash Override Network/Archive 1. More commentary is always invited, but this sort of canvassing is quite unwarranted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussions linked never touched on WP:BLPSPS and the self-published nature of the only source, that I can see. If it's a claim about a living person, it needs a reliable secondary source under BLP policy. The fact that self-published YouTube videos are someone's "primary method of communication" doesn't bypass that. --213.205.195.58 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's more of an WP:NPOVN issue than a WP:BLPN issue, but either way we can't cite an entire criticism section to one YouTube video. If his comments are noteworthy enough to devote a section to, they should have been covered elsewhere and it should be easy to rely on that secondary source. --Aquillion (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be perfectly happy to take them out of their own section and just tack it on to the end of the main body.
 * Hell, to be honest, I would be perfectly happy to let the IP's removal stand and be done with it, but I promise you this: if we do, the 'gaters will come storming back and flood the talk page with more whinging and argumentation that's juuuust this side of sanctionable. It took weeks to get to the point of editors across the isles of this drama to agree to something, and that something is the content in question. I'm loathe to bring back the ruckus again, because articles are rarely improved by that sort of drama, and frequently made worse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can someone post a diff? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Of the content in question? Sure, here's the most recent removal:  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, I am going with the IP on this one. The relevant part of BLP is WP:BLPGROUP - "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." - Like it or not, Crash network is really only talked about in the context of the people who started it. Its a small enough group that any accusations leveled at it are essentially accusations at its leaders. A self-published source fails WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB when it makes claims about other living people - and WP:BLPGROUP is what determines if a small group is classed as 'living people' for the purpose of the application of the policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There was quite a bit of disagreement (even among editors arguing for exclusion) as to whether or not CON is small enough for that, but the relevant response is to ask if what Pakman said is really harmful. Isn't opposition research and resource linking the exact things we'd expect CON to do, based on their mission statement? I mean, I get that some people (including Pakman) think that opposition research is a Bad Thing, but that's just plain subjective.
 * Regardless, head on over to talk and hop in. If the consensus is to exclude, I'm okay with that. But if you do, please god watchlist the page, because the 'gaters will march, mark my words. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Most people who have a 'dossier' collated about them do not see it as a 'positive' thing. Granted most people also have a range of people about whom they do think dossiers should be filled (criminals etc), so its swings and roundabouts. Generally in western countries we frown on private organizations collecting information about private citizens, and government organizations collecting un-necessary information. If they have had a discussion regarding the size of CON fair enough, I don't feel the need to stick my oar in, personally I think it is - given no one cares about it except in relation to who started it. I think the criticism is WP:UNDUE as well, as if it was of note, a reliable secondary source would have covered it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In context of why Crash Override exists (read: GamerGate), the use of the phrase "opposition research" should be taken as a negative label to their activities. If we were talking political candidates, "opposition research" is standard practice and a neutral term, but in the field of online harassment, it has negative connotations. --M ASEM (t) 16:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What about in the field of "helping defend people against online harassment?" I can't imagine how ineffectual a group like CON could be without knowing quite a bit about the more prominent individuals doing the harassing. Regardless, as I indicated several times now, I'm okay with removal. But I ask that editors in support of removal watchlist the page, because new accounts raging against CON have already started showing up at talk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Crash Override's mission originated with GamerGate (while I don't know of any Crash Override member using "opposition research" to describe GG, many many others did classify and criticize some GG's activities as "opposition research"), and its primary opposition to date is principally those that have roughly aligned with GamerGate, like Pakman. So, at least my read of the situation, is that it is a negatively-loaded term. It would be different if it was some other influential commentary who had no known previous involvement with GG to use the "opposition research" term, which we would have no basis to assume this was meant negatively. That doesn't mean that Pakman's statement can't be used, it was used properly with quotes and attribution, but in terms of the context of discussion, it should be treated as a negative label. We do allow negative labels for BLP, but there is a completely fair question if this qualifies as BLPSPS, since it is a singular voice (so far) making this claim. That I don't have a strong opinion on, just that it should be judged as a negative term here. --M ASEM (t) 17:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm convinced. But as I mentioned above, please watchlist the page if you can. I think anyone familiar with GG knows how much socking and drive-by editing goes on in that subject area, and this is just the sort of thing to set it off again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer
Is the SPLC blog, hatewatch suitable to state as a fact from the SPLC that "Joey Gibson's 'Patriot Prayer' has trolled the Northwest with a series of rallies designed to provoke violence and populated with extremists, but he says he's changed his approach" As in this edit? I had removed to stating a blog cannot be used like this, but was reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No; not least because that information is not found in the referenced source. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Another question about this, if Newsweek cites the blog can Newsweek then be used to say Joey Gibson marched with white nationalists? If an rs cites a blog does this then mean the blog can be used for statements of fact? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand the difference between a personal blog and a "blog" published by a reliable source. Hatewatch is not an unedited personal blog of the sort prohibited as a source; it is, rather, edited and published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose opinions and statements regarding extremist groups are unquestionably relevant. A "blog" that is published by a reliable source is no different than any other material published by that reliable source. So the question is not whether or not it's from a blog, the question is, is the material relevant, appropriately cited, given due weight and balanced by any opposing viewpoints? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe it falls under newsblog, I did not mean it was a personal blog. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Tammy Kingery
Disappearance of Tammy Kingery is apparently due to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page within a few days or less. In the penultimate paragraph of this article (under "Theories and aftermath") is the text He also took a lie detector test, which he confessed to Tammy's mother made him nervous. After initially telling the Curious Times podcast almost a year after Tammy's disappearance that the police told him some of the results were "questionable", he told the Investigation Discovery channel's Disappeared series in 2016 that police had asked him not to talk about it. He has since retained counsel and declined to discuss the case; this has led some commentators on social media to suspect him of foul play.[23] The only source provided for these three sentences is a television program, "Walk Into Darkness". Disappeared. Season 6. May 2, 2016. 4–8 minutes in. Investigation Discovery.

The link for the TV episode is here (it is also linked in the article) -- this may allow some editors to watch the episode, and in any case will also allow most editors to get a better idea of the sort of television program involved.

I am wondering whether people feel that this level of sourcing is sufficient to justify this content about a living person, and the possible implications being made.

I have in the past said that pointing out that a person is "retaining counsel" should not be used as a method of implying possible guilt -- lots of Americans seem to retain counsel on all sorts of matters -- and likewise that "declined to discuss" (with TV program reporters) is exactly what competent counsel would advise an innocent person to do and therefore should not be used for such implications either. Saying that a TV program said that "social media" has concerns, does not seem to me like an acceptable way round this. MPS1992 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Disappeared, the TV show in question, is produced by the Investigation Discovery Channel, a pretty major cable network; I would imagine they have their lawyers vet everything the program says. Implying possible guilt from what Park Kingery himself tells the program is, well, one of those exercises for the reader that are inevitable when you report that as uncontested fact (I would argue just as much that it's so common to read about this that people no longer assume guilt just from that one fact). I tried to state it without implying anything. If anyone knows a better way to handle this, please speak up. (I, for my part, will add something like "On the advice of counsel", since he attributes that advice to his lawyer) I would also add that the article goes to some lengths to point out, as the program does, that police have confirmed his account of events the morning his wife disappeared, and only someone reading that paragraph in isolation would, I think, assume that it is intended to impute guilt. As for all the social-media hate, in the section of the episode in question (which I think is minutes 34–38, not 4–8—did I type that? It was late last night ...), Park himself discusses it and its effect on his life as part of his reasons for (other than talking to Disappeared) being reticent about the case nowadays. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Addendum: The episode is also available on YouTube behind a paywall if anyone wants to review it that way. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether the Investigation Discovery Channel had sufficient lawyers involved was not really my concern. MPS1992 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You seemed to doubt whether the program in question was a reliable source when you asked if other people wanted to get a better idea of "the sort of television program involved". One of the criteria for considering a source reliable is whether it is subject to editorial oversight. Saying that ID has its lawyers review every episode of a show that deals with missing-persons cases where some of the other people close to the missing person may have come under formal or informal suspicion of foul play was one way of answering what I felt to be the implied question about "the sort of television program involved". Was there some other more specific information you were looking for that I might be able to help you get? Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You've provided me with some useful information already, but I am specifically interested in what other editors here think. Having said that, I think "informal suspicion of foul play" is not something that should be attributed based solely on a TV show that obviously depends on a certain amount of sensationalism for its commercial success. MPS1992 (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree. A term like "foul play" would need to be attributed to somebody. In this case, we have it attributed to "social media." This is at best a weasel word, because really you could attribute all sorts of comments, good bad or ugly, to social media. That's what social media does, thus there is no news there. To give an example, an unusually high number of murder took place in Anchorage, Alaska last year. A news report claimed that "people on social media" suspected the events to be the work of a serial killer (but the police declined to comment). Someone came to Wikipedia (true story) to write an article titled the "Anchorage serial killer." All based on one word from a television news report --attributed to social media. Eventually an article did get accepted, but under the guy's real name and not some moniker Wikipedia made up. (Anchorage has had a few serial killers in it's history, one very recently.) That guy who did a number of killings never even fit the description of "serial killer" because he knew the victims and had motive for what he did. The point is that anything can be attributed to social media, so the statement does nothing but add some unnecessary commentary. Zaereth (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So, regarding the channel retaining lawyers - this needs to be verified if it is an issue for this article. I am not sure that means anything regarding the value of this program as a reliable source. Keep in mind, this program wants to heighten the drama so even if it is considered factual it is probably necessary to distinguish drama from fact. Also, I recommend having one or two reliable sources back up any assertions made by this program that is used in the article. I don't think this is a reliable source on its own for referencing a BLP, because BLP maintains high standards. Social media reactions are irrelevant and should not be included in the text of a Wikipedia article. There is no editorial oversight for social media reactions. And as has been pointed out, get rid of wp:peacock and pov wording. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Keep in mind, this program wants to heighten the drama..." If there are reliably sourced criticisms of Disappeared for exactly this please share them. We would not allow this kind of unsourced supposition in a BLP; it is only fair that we don't discount a source based purely on one editor's gut. If anything, I've always felt that Disappeared tends to avoid certain drama: people have criticized the Maura Murray segment for what it leaves out, and when you read the Fox Sports story that the Rico Harris article is largely based on you get the rest of the story the show's episode didn't tell (or so I have heard because I never watched that episode). The Tammy Kingery episode, in fact, has been called the vaguest in the series. Now to some extent I can understand this; they don't make episodes without the family of the missing person's cooperation, and obviously people are not going to want all the dirty laundry aired. But to suggest without some good evidence that the program has "heightened the drama" ... Also, I don't see where peacock and NPOV have been pointed to, either previously in this discussion or in the article itself. Could you be more specific? Daniel Case (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All TV shows want to heighten the drama, and none can be said to be unbiased in that respect. Both TV and radio work off of ratings. The higher the ratings, the more they can charge for advertising, the more money they make. When ratings get too low, they get removed from the air. The news broadcast I mentioned above is an outfit known for their efforts to keep things factual, but it seems pretty clear to me that their use of a term like "serial killer" was meant to invoke a little fear, thus enhancing the drama of what was otherwise a rather dull news report. At the end of the day it's all about the ratings. Zaereth (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have removed the 'some people on social media' paragraph as a BLP concern. While included in the documentary (I am assuming good faith here not having watched it) its unsourced speculation being repeated, it is not a claim made by the documentary itself. Unlike the other information from the documentary, which appears to be directly from the husband. 'Social media' would speculate about anything. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you review the source? Without doing so this is a bad-faith assumption. This is something the husband discusses directly, that everything he has said has been twisted and needlessly dissected online even though the facts of the case pretty much back his story up, and his attorney has advised him just to stop talking about it. Perhaps I should just put his words in a quotebox instead; the article is rather image-poor. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Kate Upton
I saw Kate Upton Doesn't Like Her Wikipedia Page Photo on Yahoo! this morning so out of curiosity I took a look at the article and it appears to have been edited in reference to it. So, I'm wondering if Press can/should be added to the talk page. Also, some of the recent edits made appear to be by SPAs: one just appears to be trying to be funny, but the other might actually be the "Wikipediatrician" (Josh Gondelman) referred to in the article (which may mean WP:COI or possibly WP:PAID). Links to the Wiki What? Facebook page for Gondelman's interview with Upton were also added as citations and an external links. Maybe someone could take a closer look at the edits to see if they are OK. It might also be a good idea to have some more eyes on the article for a few days.

The description of Wiki What? implies that it's a place where celebrities can get help with their Wikipedia "problems". It might be just a comedy page, but the looking at the edit history of the posts of the "other" SPA shows stuff like User talk:Dammitkevin. Maybe the role Wiki What? is trying to play on Wikipedia through its edits should be examined? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you mentioned this at WP:COIN ? If no, may be a better place. If yes, then it is sensible to say so here. MPS1992 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. COIN slipped my mind. I have started WP:COIN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Dana Rohrabacher
Could someone please review that last few edits at Dana Rohrabacher? I think the edit fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

jerry sandusky
Hello, I'm sorry but I don't know how I can edit the page. On the Jerry Sandusky page, on the side bar where it says 'Criminal Status,' Jerry Sandusky is in now located in the State Correctional Institution Somerset now.

Here are some sources

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/06/sandusky-transferred-supermax-prison-somerset/98797656/

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/pennsylvania/articles/2017-03-06/jerry-sandusky-transferred-from-supermax-prison-to-somerset

http://wjactv.com/news/local/jerry-sandusky-transferred-from-supermax-prison-to-somerset-03-06-2017

Again, I'm sorry because I know that this isn't how a page is supposed to be edited but because of the page being locked, I wasn't able to figure out how to properly edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearz42 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Bearz42, the page is currently protected from editing by IPs and new users but you can make an edit request on the article talk page using the edit semi-protected template. The template should be accompanied by a clear and specific description of the requested change. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have made the change for you and added a little text and citation to the 'imprisonment' section saying he was transferred. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Eran Elhaik
At Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry re this edit

Please review the evidence here. A revert was made to restore an extremely unbalanced piece of WP:OR to a page, justified in the edit summary as warranted because the scientist who wrote the paper discussed there is a 'fringe character'. Eran Elhaik is not a 'fringe character', a personal judgement about a reputable molecular biologist who has generally very high standing within his discipline, and has a long curriculum of peer-reviewed papers. One may by all means challenge one of his papers, on the basis of what competent secondary sources say. But surely no editor, even Alephb, has a right to insinuate a character assassination into his edit-summary, while restoring spurious material that has no basis in sources? In other words, can someone advise that editor that he mustn't take a personal dislike for a public person into Wikipedia, or flourish it in his edit summaries.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The source quite clear on this "While Elhaik’s work has provided ideological support for those seeking the destruction of Israel, it’s fallen flat among established scientists, who peer reviewed his work and found it sloppy at best and political at worst." and "Elhaik is now calling the world’s top geneticists “liars” and “frauds"--Shrike (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * While I am normally quite happy to justify my edits, I did not realize that I was stepping into a multi-year drama series on Israel vs. Palestine arguments between Nishidani and Shrike. Now that I am aware that the history exists, I have no further desire to be involved in their ongoing struggle. I will not explain myself, defend my revert, or participate further in this disagreement between the two of you. The two of you, and any other editors, are free to do whatever they like with the Khazar hypothesis article, and I won't argue or revert anything again. I made a single revert, and in less than a half-hour was chastised on both the talk page of that article and now dragged to this noticeboard, without Nishidani even giving me the courtesy of an hour to respond. I've seen enough conflict on Wikipedia lately and have no desire to be involved in this one. Alephb (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question comes from Entine's intemperate polemic and may not be presented as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. In particular, the phrase "the world's best geneticists" is totally inadmissible without attribution as it is obviously someone's opinion and we don't have opinions here. (It is also ludicrous since only a tiny fraction of the world's top geneticists have written anything on the genetics of Jews.) If the “liars” and “frauds” thing is presented at all, it would be much better to cite the place it comes from instead, which is a more level-headed article in The Forward which is apparently quoting him directly. Zerotalk 14:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec)::Please don't try to derail the point, Shrike, and try to have some elementary grasp of the wider picture, not just a snappy piece of junk journalism that suits a POV. The edit summary says Elhaik is a 'fringe character'. You add a judgement from Jon Entine, who has zero knowledge of molecular genetics (he's a journalist), a personal view that is sourced to just 3 geneticists, one of whom is a journalist, not peer-reviewed (Razib Khan). The other example of 'the world's best/established scientists' is Michael Hammer whom Dan Graur  accused of having produced junk statistics in his scientific work.
 * If the Israeli geneticist and historian of genetics Raphael Falk can treat Elhaik's work calmly and as worthy of examination here, for example 2017 p.104, then neither you nor anyone else can cherrypick rotten sources to put it over in contravention of WP:NPOV that Elhaik is some 'fringe character', whose views should be paraphrased from poor journalistic sources hostile to him for purely political reasons.
 * A journalist cites Michael Hammer against Elhaik, who is a critic of Hammer. he says Hammer is 'established' one of the world's best. Dan Graur, who trained Elhaik and copublishes with him, called some of Hammer's work rubbish. Neither Entine, you, Alephb or anyone else can, out of this mess, says who is right or wrong, let alone describe one of the people in the debate as a 'fringe character'. Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Rosalind Thomas
Twice now, a user has edited the article on Rosalind Thomas (Balliol College, Oxford) to add unsourced &mdash; and, frankly, creepy &mdash; remarks about her personal appearance. These are the only two edits made by this account. The second had an edit summary of "修正語法", which Google tells me translates as "modified words" or "correction grammar". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that's inappropriate. I have left the user a message at User talk:Langley Henry, which is usually the best first step in my opinion. Hopefully this helps for now, but it won't hurt to keep an eye on the article just to be safe. GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I will. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Honeypreet Insan
A possibly controversial BLP which appears to have been previously deleted in 2016 and recently recreated. — Paleo Neonate  – 09:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. Have nominated it as a G4 speedy deletion. Edwardx (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, watching in case it's untagged. — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Declined as by as substantially different from the previous version.--  Auric    talk  19:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Manny Pacquiao
A WP:BLP issue at this article has been reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The sheaf of allegations clearly presented in Wikipedia's voice are now removed, and should remain removed unless and until a clear consensus in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines approves of their return. Collect (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note the valiant edit warriors are still at it. Can anyone defend such gems as "The recovery process was quoted as miraculous.[109] Freddie Roach explained that Pacquiao is just joking around probably having a sense of humor while being interviewed and he's actually seeing a doctor and going through rehab on daily basis.[110]" (emphasis added) Collect (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Will someone please check out this BLP? And its prior versions. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There was nothing THREE ENTIRE SECTIONS that Collect removed that was in violation of BLP. I personally removed the initial line in the Steroid allegations section that stated "Because of his ability to move weight classes, Pacquiao has been under suspicion of illegal steroid/PED use." as while it is probably correct, it was unsourced, seemed like OR and putting an opinion in the voice of Wikipedia. Apart from that line, everything else is correctly sourced. Everything else is correctly attributed. Everything else is available elsewhere in mainstream media.


 * Oh and, I bow down to Collect's opinion about "valiant edit warriors" - based on his EIGHT BLOCKS FOR EDIT WARRING, he's obviously far more experienced in that activity than anyone else contributing to that article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There is zero proof whatsoever that Pacquiao has ever used PEDs. It is important to realize that Pacquiao is a high-profile figure, so naturally there will be people who are desperate for media attention who will gossip and speculate about him. The allegations are based purely on unsubstantiated rumors and do not belong in the article. The inclusion of these allegations in the article is a clear BLP violation. Songisjust (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow! Just.WOW. For an account that is less than one week old and with a total of TEN EDITS, you certainly have a wonderful insight into the intricacies of BLP policy. More skeptical people might suggest that you're merely a sock account, considering that the last sock plaguing the article was indef blocked PM August 31st and this account was created AM September 1st, also that you have TEN EDITS, which coincidentally is the exact amount required to edit a semi-protected article (the Manny Pacquiao article was semi-protected) - but I'm just impressed. (so impressed I will write your name on an SPI report) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you wish to charge anyone with being a "sock", this is absolutely the worst place on all of Wikipedia to make such charges. Go to WP:SPI as your charge here seems to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And yet again, I guess it would be wise of me to respect your knowledge on what does and does not "violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines." considering that you've been blocked from editing ten times. And actually, I filed an SPI report, however I thought that anyone reading the socks's comments here, should be aware that it is a sock. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have not had "eight blocks" for edits, and two blocks on me were basically reversed at AN/I. I have been here for over a decade, with well over 45,000 edits.  Your record in a mere 18 months is noticeable indeed, with abut 10% of the number of edits.   And the SPI page informs you of those rules.  Collect (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a variety of problems with the section but the opinions generally seem to be attributed. Can you please be specific about the material presented in Wikipedia's voice that you are concerned with?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * After the entire controversy section was removed, I restored it but removed the following line "Because of his ability to move weight classes, Pacquiao has been under suspicion of illegal steroid/PED use" which was unattributed and seemed to be OR and a BLP issue. I think this version of the article : has no OR, is clearly attributed, highly notable and has no BLP issues.
 * I'm really curious what the "sheaf of allegations clearly presented in Wikipedia's voice" were, because I saw ONE LINE ONLY. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing that I asked one week ago for Collect to provide information of what the "sheaf of allegations clearly presented in Wikipedia's voice" were, and they have provided nothing, I will assume that they were mistaken (for want of another word) about this and that consensus clearly shows there is no BLP issue. I will proceed with the article accordingly. Thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The above in inaccurate, and those who wish details can follow the spoor rather than allow personal attacks to be extended here. If a half dozen valid editors appears to see a BLP issue, and one does not, there is a reasonable likelihood of a BLP issue being involved, for which the complainant surely can start an RfC. My position is that where a BLP issue has been raised, that an RfC is the course required by Wikipedia. I daresay this is not an extreme position at all. Collect (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Note The one editor who has sought to include BLP violations in the BLP has gotten support from an IP now, and had engaged, again, in edit war despite being told repeatedly that an RfC is needed for such material. Will someone please apprise that editor of the problems and that possibly using an IP/sock may well be the least of his problems? Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's fairly apparent that that section is not written up to the standard required. Editors removing the material are being blocked for edit-warring. HampsteadLord (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See also this discussion. --John (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Gregory Nangle
libelous material added yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etidorhpaunderground (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Edits revdeled and the page semi-protected again for a longer period. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ian Masters - radio station programmer
This is not a biography but a list of work and accomplishments only, appearing to be a desire to be included in Wikipedia while giving no personal relevant information. Are such bio's allowed ? Activistrep (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)activistrep


 * The main problem I see here is that there is nothing in the article that is cited to reliable sources. Beyond that, I don't think there's any requirement about "personal relevant information," and it's generally best not to speculate about whether the article is motivated by "a desire to be included." Alephb (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that this was created by, a long-time and current contributor and admin, I highly doubt this was created by "a desire to be included" by the subject. Nevertheless, I have nominated it for AfD due to lack of sources.  The one source in the article has been off-line since shortly after the article's creation and there is very little else to demonstrate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Roy Tuckman radio station programmer
This is not a biography but a list of work and accomplishments only, appearing to be a desire to be included in Wikipedia while giving no personal relevant information. Are such bio's allowed ? Activistrep (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)activistrep
 * This is a stub and such biographies are allowed if they can demonstrate notability. In this case, there are multiple arguments for notability, including hosting a notable radio show, winning significant industry awards, and being the subject of independent, significant coverage. While the article creator,, had a short editing career here, they certainly did not have the appearance of a single-purpose account attempting to create an article about themselves. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Charles Murray (political scientist)
The lead section states that his work has led to accusations of scientific racism, but provides no citation. Any requests for citation is removed by a set of editors. Is this ok to be included in wikipedia? Skronie (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. If the lead said that he was engaged in scientific racism, that would be a controversial claim, and would need to be sourced in the lead. However, the statement that he has been accused of scientific racism is not controversial; even those who defend him do so by referencing the claims that they are defending him from. As such, this is not a controversial claim, and it is fine that it be a summary of material that is sourced elsewhere in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted the citation request with a clear edit summary: " please see the citations in the article and WP:LEAD - the lead is a summary of the article and so long as the citations are in the body of the text they don't need to be repeated." User:North Shoreman wrote " supported by six sources in the body of the article)" in his edit summary.  Doug Weller  talk 16:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Accusations of scientific racism is a loaded phrase. Later in the article, there are many refutations of such accusations. This is a biography of a living person. I'd think having more context, citations etc would make it look less biased. Skronie (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well sure, but the accusations are citeable to a plethora of reliable sources and they are the primary driver of his notability. I think the lead is neutrally phrased, and the back-and-forth can be dealt with in the article.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the lede or use of the term there, but because the criticism of his views are interspersed with all the rest of his bio, it's difficult to see where this is coming from - eg I would expected a "Controversies" or "Criticism" section to be present to summarize that, or to be better clarified in "views" to distinguish the factual details (he published books ) from the subjective views (what he holds to be true and what people counter with them). That clarity should be made to avoid having the source the lede. --M ASEM (t) 13:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEADCITE is depressingly unhelpful as to whether citations in the lead are a good thing or not (it is clear that they are not mandatory). Personally I have got used to articles both with and without them, but what I find unsettling is articles where some points in the lead are supported by citations but others are not, as is the case here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a good point, but I think here is a case where the 3 cites that I see are non-controversial details that are (or should be) stated in the body as part of his general career, then those cites can be removed and/or moved into the body and keep the lede cite-free. --M ASEM (t) 14:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A bit of an aside, but I have issues with your prior comment per WP:Criticism, I think such whole Criticism sections should be avoided, and where relevant and due woven throughout the body. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That guideline allows for combined sections as long as they incorporate both/all sides (here, his views against those critical of him). So a "Views" section would be appropriate to outline what he believes, followed by the criticism of it. It is a better organization for a topic like this. --M ASEM (t) 13:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever we do, I think it still belongs in the lead. It's a fact that these accusations have been made and as has been said above one of the main reasons he's so well known. Doug Weller  talk 18:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

ron coleman (legal scholar)
Article about me Ron_Coleman_(legal_scholar) was slashed by about 80% about a year ago with no explanation. Unsurprisingly, there has been a subsequent "notability" flag since then -- unsurprising because the current version only mentions one case. I understand there were Wiki style issues in the previous version but why was this article turned back into a stub?
 * Hello, an thank you for asking here. The major removal seems to have been  and was given a false edit summary, which is obviously not helpful.  It appears that the editor  removed all the text cited to possible non-reliable sources.  Much of the prior text was also obviously promotional and should have been removed, but not all had these difficulties.  Granted, a lot was sourced to blogs, which are usually problematic, but not always.  Restoring this text will take some time and finding better sources to comply witht he policy on biographies.  Thank you for your understanding.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the WP:DRIVEBY template. MPS1992 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help that a major contibutor to the long version of this article,, appears to be Coleman himself. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I may not have removed that material intentionally. I marked it as a minor copyedit, which doesn't fit with a large scale removal. Dovid (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Siniša Mali
Hello all! The Support and Safety team at the Wikimedia Foundation has received concerns about the article on Siniša Mali. I wanted to flag this here for a fresh pair of eyes. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this will require some assistance from WikiProject Serbia. Most of the claimed references are in Serbian and, while it is clearly far too long and over-detailed, it is unclear if the claimed sources are reliable to support the statements made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)