Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive260

BLP issue at Kate Upton: leaked photos
This continues the section above about Upton, but is focused on a specific edit.

So pictures of Kate Upton were released as part of the iCloud leaks of celebrity photos.

This was mentioned in the Upton article, we have the article on it linked above, and it is in other articles as well, (like the third sentence of Jennifer_Lawrence)

It appears that Upton herself doesn't want this mentioned in her Wikipedia article per this edit, which was apparently (?) done during an August 1 interview on the reality TV Wikipedia editing web-video series "Wiki What?" per this diff. (that edit wasn't discussed in the "consult" but was done in the same diff as ones that were discussed)

The removing edit was reverted by Cluebot, but later User:BrillLyle who has been following behind the Wiki What Editor, again removed it.

I don't care about celebrity articles, but whether this incident should be mentioned in the Kate Upton article or not should be discussed, I reckon. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I just restored it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and celebrities can't chose what is and is not in their bio. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I STRENUOUSLY object (a) to the glib naming of this section, which is dismissive and sexist and rude and displays personal bias towards the subject and (b) to the reversion of this edit. I personally found this section on Upton's page to be offensive and inappropriate to the subject of the article. I don't even care for Kate Upton and her work so don't accuse me of being in anyone's pocket (i.e., a media conglomerate). The mention of something that was personally damaging to her -- as well as other people -- on her page gives it massive weight and is inappropriate and harmful. The paragraph -- and then your putting it back there -- re-traumatizes someone who had this experience. If you don't understand any of these issues and how clear this is, and the fact that this is harmful, sexist, and is a gendered approach then that's your problem. But this revert was completely out of line. This is not neutral editing. -- BrillLyle (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And actually per BPL isn't the subject of the article allowed to choose what is in their entry? -- BrillLyle (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In a word: no. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse editors which are simply following policies of having personal motivations to attack the subject. Wikipedia simply reports about notable enough and well sourced information and WP:BLPs are not personal social network user profiles.  An WP:ATTACK page would also be very different and not be tolerated.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Isn't the glib and dismissive tone of the heading here a problem? I don't see any of this as following policies. -- BrillLyle (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently the release of the photos was referred to as the "The Fappening" or "Celebgate", so perhaps that or “leaked photos” would be a more appropriate section heading both here and on Talk:Kate Upton. As for including/removing the content, articles (in general) are written about subjects; they are not written for subjects. Wikipedia's BLP does ask us to be more careful when it comes to article content because defamatory/rumor/unsourced content added to articles about living people may have real world repercussions. Subjects of BLP articles, however, do not get final editorial control over article content as explained in WP:OWN, but are expected to follow WP:BIOSELF. The release of the photos was quite a big story that received significant coverage in reliable sources and was the subject of a fairly well publicized FBI investigation which led to several arrests and subsequent convictions. It affected a number of well known celebrities, so adding a sentence or two about it to the BLPs of these celebrities seems appropriate to me as long as there are no WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues. The relevant content reads "On August 31, 2014, nude photographs of Upton and several other female celebrities were leaked to the Internet." which seems fairly neutral to me. Maybe removing the word "female" would be appropriate because some of the photos were of men as well (at least in Upton's case), I could also see chaging "nude" to "personal" or "private" and adding a Wikilink to the stand-alone article about the event. For example, "On August 31, 2014, private photographs of Upton and several other celebrities, mainly women, were leaked onto the Internet by hackers in an event which was referred to as "The Fappening" or "Celebgate" by some media outlets. A subsequent sentence could be added about any statements or action Upton took in response to the release if it can be supported by reliable sources and worded neutrally; even a quote might be OK. However, just removing the content because Upton wants it removed does not seem justified per WP:NOTCENSORED since such content is allowed in BLPs as long as it complies with relevant policy, which I believe is the case here. Moreover, content is not removed because just it's "old news" because Wikipedia is not news, but encyclopedic articles and something which happened in the past is not automatically any less relevant than something currenlty happening. If we removed every example of "old news" from BLPs, many of them would end up being stubs which are only a few sentences long.
 * Finally, I would also like to point out that similar content is included in Justin Verlander, yet that particular content was not removed and has not been discussed here. Same goes for the mention of Upton in iCloud leaks of celebrity photos. It seems that the next obvious step after removing it from Upton's article would have been to remove it from other articles mentioning her and it as well, but that was never done by either (who is the focus of the aforementioned COIN discussion) or BrillLyle. You can't pick and choose when and were you apply BLP policy, so if it's imperative that this needs to be removed from Upton's article, then it's just as imperative that it needs to be removed from every article which mentions her and it as well as from every BLP or other article which mentions any celebrity affected by it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, I have retitled the section on this page. There was a slight loss of precision, but it will likely smooth over some of the irritation, which is a much greater plus. Please feel free to continue the discussion. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * no objection. :) Jytdog (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously celebrities should not be able to control their Wikipedia articles, but this dispute is about a block of text about nude photos of a living person, and it's supported by a citation to a Forbes Contributors blog post (and it was restored when removed?!). Forbes Contributors are not Forbes staff; it is not subject to Forbes's editorial oversight. It is a self-published source and not appropriate for BLP (or most purposes). NOTCENSORED is not a reason to include something; it's a reason not to remove it. There has to be a reason to include first. I've removed it again. To address the likely inevitable question of what to do when someone restores it with somewhat better sources: Yes, every gossip rag covered this, but in a biography of such a highly notable person, there would need to be multiple exceptional sources saying more than just "the leak included images of Kate Upton". It's possible that exists -- I've not looked -- but this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of erring on the side of caution (but again, the text as it stood should never have been restored). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 06:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everyone affected by the event is would be considered a highly notable person, so if it's appropriate to remove such info from Upton's BLP to err on the side of caution, then it should be removed from other BLPs like Justin Verlander, Jennifer Lawrence Nick Hogan, Mary Elizabeth Winstead as well for the same reason. shouldn't it? Moreover, not only the individual BLP articles, but the names should also be removed from the main article about the leak as well; otherwise, BLP seems to be being selectively applied. FWIW, if you Google "Kate Upton's lawyer confirms leak" you get lots of hits to articles discussing this. Some may be news aggregrates repeating the same thing, but others appear to be news organizations such as CNN, The Irish Times, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There were three issues here. First is the source, which has been addressed in the article. Second is the general BLP issue due to the nature of the content. This can be overcome by many very good sources -- that would be sufficient for the leak article. Third is WP:WEIGHT. This would apply only to the biographies -- to what extent does brief mentions of someone being included in a hack/leak merit inclusion in that person's article? To me, this third one also involves consideration of BLP when exercising judgment, but it is not dependent on BLP. If there's some nontrivial coverage of the person in connection with the leak (not just a headline or a name in a list). I think it's similar to when a prominent celebrity becomes part of a popular meme -- ultimately, the meme, if notable, is a separate subject and rarely merits inclusion in the person's biography (this, of course, excludes people who are notable because of internet memes). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

William Joseph Stapleton inaccurate biographical information
Bill Stapleton was never prosecuted as part of the Lance Armstrong scandal. He was sued by Floyd Landis but the US government never intervened to make him a defendant of the United States. Very unfair and libelous to say he was prosecuted which implies criminal conduct or civil liability vis-a-vis the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.209.230 (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2017‎
 * IP editor, I rewrote that sentence. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Vugar Aslanov
The external link to the official website of the subject links to a porn site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilio costalis (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed the link. Thank you for letting us know. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed another link to the same site from the infobox. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I missed that one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

David M. Kennedy (historian)
User:Kennedyisdumb created a username to attack David Kennedy--and did attack his bio article. He should be banned and the username erased. Rjensen (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Already blocked, I saw him at WP:UAA, will do the revdels now. Thanks. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  15:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Michel Adam Lisowski - a copy of his LinkIn bio, dispute over a sexual assault charge
There's been a dispute recently about keeping in text about a sexual assault case. The most recent editor to remove it is User:Daba321 who has said "I would like a explanation why did you undo my removal of false controversy statement in Adam Lisowski page? It is poorly documented with two unknown portal sources from 2005 and it puts my friend to very bad reputation. I was contacted by Fashion TV officials (Director of marketing Max Posch max@ftv.com) to remove this false article and accusation from Adam's wiki page. If your policy is to keep outdated false unknown portals source as info than you confirm me that and we will ask better officially to higher rank to remove whole Adam Lisowski page and keep it normal like it is on LinkedIn." Since he removed it, it does look "like it is on LinkedIn", it's a copy of his LinkIn bio.

It's a bit hard to find sources for the outcome of the assault charge, partially because he's often known as "Michael Adam", a fact not mentioned on his BLP. He may have had stuff removed from Google Search, as this Guardian article didn't show up in Google News, but confirmed that he was sentenced.

There's a lot of other stuff that should be in the bio, and obviously we aren't LinkedIn. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See the talk page also where a helpful editor has added some possible sources. Doug Weller  talk 17:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nalaka Godahewa
This article(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalaka_Godahewa) has been violated Wikipedia policy. The article has been edited by the same editor repeatedly with the connection to Nalaka Godahewa. This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy which also belongs to tabloid journalism.
 * In the future use edit summeries for all your edits, if you remove tabloid journalism don't add "tabloid journalism" in its place, use an edit summary. feel free to ask me if you have any questions. BTW your edit are not vandalism, I can tell they are good-faith errors. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Aruna Roy
In its first paragraph, the article bizarrely claims Aruna Roy is "Known for her critique of the "narrow Hindutva definition of nationalism, leaving no room for tolerance and pluralism". Considering how well known the activist is for her work on transparency and accountability in governance it is odd that the article begins with this.

In the first paragraph it goes on to state that "she was also a member of the national advisory committee which was set up by the then UPA-1 government which was headed by Sonia Gandhi through most of its tenure."

Whoever is editing this article or writing it is doing so with clear political intent and is by insinuation placing the activist in a particular political box.

Given how famous she is and how much has been written by her and about her it is strange and sad that wikipedia does not reflect this and rather reflects a politically motivated picture of someone who is still alive and working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moomin is a princess (talk • contribs) 05:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Maram Susli
Page has been protected with a version that is extremely hostile to the subject and potentially slanderous. See the talk page 2400:4030:9AA3:AC00:55B5:3AB:503A:56DC (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Cheryl B. Schrader
More eyes/input in this would be appreciated. Someone keeps adding a DUI case using primary court documents, where judgment was withheld. I'm of the opinion that it's a BLP vio but welcome broader input. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed it with an edit summary pointing to the relevant part of the policy. This isn't a mere vio, but a blatant one. If edit warring continues, I'd suggest getting ANI involved. Zaereth (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have warned (uw-ew) the person who was doing this, so if this continues and goes to ANI, we can say they were warned. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * the user reverted your edit to their talk page so the warning is no longer visible. Neiltonks (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Users have the right to delete stuff from their talk page, the warning will still be in the page history, and deleting a warning is an acknowledgement that you've seen it, so if this goes to ANI we can still say they were warned. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The user hasn't attempted any further reverts thus far. Considering their original edit summary indicated they thought they were in compliance with BLP, I'm willing to chalk it up as a good-faith misunderstanding. I haven't watchlisted the article, but I'm sure it's in good hands with Fyddlestix. Zaereth (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sexism
Earlier, an editor added a photograph of a notable politician with the caption "Republican congressperson Mark Walker described female colleagues as "eye candy" to emphasize their visual attractiveness rather than their value as politicians." to the article in the thread title. The claim is supported by sources which exist at the subject's article (which seems to have its own BLP problem with this same incident being mentioned in the lede but nowhere else in the article), but were not included in the edit.

Is this a BLP violation? It sure looks like public shaming to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  21:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh jeez, that "eye candy" part is in the BLP lede....Annnnnywho, yeah that has no place on the Sexism article. Arkon (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Why not? There are numerous sources describing the remark by a public figure (including the public figure himself) as sexist, such as People magazine, CNN, Glamour magazine, The Hill, Miami Herald. It's in the news. Belongs in Wikipedia. The BLP rule says "In the case of public figures ... BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it..." Perhaps the subject's picture doesn't belong, but pushing this information out of Wikipedia like numerous editors have done may be a POV issue but not a BLP issue.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You think that within the entirety of the history of sexism a quote from a two-term representative is appropriate, especially given that it is relatively tame compared to others? – Nihlus (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we are looking for extreme examples but rather examples that typify the concept which is the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never understood the "reliable sources verify the content, therefore the content should be postered all over Wikipedia" argument, nor why editors who make it are not immediately told off. The only reasonable excuse in this case would be thay Tomwsculcer was an uninvolved party who hadn't read MPants' comment closely enough, and thought he was talking about the article on Walker himself, and the fact that he quotes the policy as saying BLPs [not random articles whose topics are much more visible than, and only peripherally connected to, the LPs in question] should simply document what these sources say would seem to support that interpretation. Except for the fact that Tomwsculcer was the one who made the edit in question.
 * (And since experience has taught me that editors who make fallacious arguments like "the sources are reliable and verify the content" are also liable to say "You are misquoting me", I should emphasize that the scare-quotes indicate a paraphrase of what Tomwsculcer said, deliberately placed in the context under discussion, whereas quoting the exact words would have deliberately taken the argument out of the context under discussion, as that is apparently what the original intent of those words was.)
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Two points: The lede is a summary of the body of the article, if its not in the body, it doesnt go in the lede. The 'Sexism' is about sexism in general, where examples are needed to demonstrate specific types of sexism, real world examples - reliably sourced - may be used. I highly doubt given the relative insignificance of this that the subject would qualify for that however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it the significance of the subject (Walker) that matters most to us? The example provided should be typical so that it can illustrate the concept that is the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree very much with Only in Death, except to add that the lede, as a summary, doesn't usually need to have a lot of detail or examples. When required, they should be well-sourced, prominent examples that are very thoughtfully used only to serve to clarify the reader's understanding of a subject. One reason is that the primary purpose of the lede is to quickly, precisely, and concisely define the subject, so any attempt to insert POV of any kind there sticks out like a sore thumb. Also, it's too easy to cherry-pick examples which consciously or unconsciously suit a person's larger agenda (speaking in general, not accusing anyone of anything), so I think that is always an important consideration for any example used in any part of any article, but triply so in the lede. I always try to keep in mind these articles are for the readers and not for us. Zaereth (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This material doesn't belong in the lead of either article—the Sexism article or the Mark Walker article. But arguably this material belongs in the body of the Sexism article, but minus the image. Bus stop (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The questions I'd ask myself are: is it the best example we can find? Are the conclusions of the example supported by the conclusions of the sources? Are there alternative conclusions that deserve equal attention? Should these conclusions be attributed to anybody? (For example, the suffix "-ism" means "the belief in or practice of." If I like sex does that make me a sexist? Is it possible to appreciate beauty in the opposite sex, even with a seemingly untoward description, and still respect who they are as people and individuals? Who made the conclusion that such a remark indicates none of the latter? Would this be an issue if he was gay and talking about a man? If not, isn't that also sexism coming from the other side of the coin?) Sometimes real-world examples are very helpful, but others a simple X-Y example can be more precise without assuming to know another individual's internal thoughts and emotions, and opening a rabbit hole with no end. Zaereth (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The question I'd ask is: does giving examples benefit the article? I'm pretty sure the answer is "no," though as I said at the talk page, if there were a ur-example of sexism, I'd happily add it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to get into the finer points of BLP here, since it seems quite WP:UNDUE in the sexism article (no comment on its inclusion in other articles). That's not to say that it's not an example of sexism, that it's not important, etc., but individual examples of specific person saying specific sexist thing don't need to be included (in general -- exceptions may occur when extraordinarily significant, like an incident that led to a big legal case that set precedent for discrimination, or when a person's comment becomes a prominent part of the vocabulary in discourse about sexism). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with leaving it out. The thing is the reference to "eye candy" is dismissive of women in a quintessentially sexist way. I'm not meaning to moralize here but flattering women by reference to their attractiveness at the same time minimizing their importance for their ostensible role is paradigmatically sexist. One almost couldn't find a better example. The article shows a woman being beaten by "the Taliban's religious police". While that would be an example of "sexism", I don't think it is as good an example as the reference to "eye candy" under discussion. The reference to "eye candy" is subtle. It is far more insidious than the brazen beating of a woman for some presumably sexual infraction. And the reference to "eye candy" is not complicated by the many factors leading to the beating of the woman by the Taliban. Absent are religion and a narrow cultural setting and present instead is the supposedly pluralistic society of a Western country. Are we fairly representing the phenomenon of sexism when we demonize the one culture but cleanse the article of an example of sexism closer to home? Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with this view is that you have a personal opinion of what constitutes sexism, and like so many people with an opinion, it appears that you think this opinion is fact and everyone else should see it as you do. It's really circular reasoning. (ie: This refers only to their beauty, thus it must also say they only have beauty and nothing else. IMHO, ridiculous. Such a conclusion should come from experts in the field who delve into the grey areas and give various viewpoints.) My personal opinion is that anyone who is uncomfortable with themselves will find insult in anything. When a person shows offense to an insult, whether real or perceived, it reveals far more about them and their own insecurities than the insulter. Either way, it seems far too easy to apply such a black-and-white view to something like this than to explore the depths and grey areas it really consists of. Zaereth (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * —do the sources on the beating of the Afghan woman specify that this is an example of "sexism"? You say "such a conclusion should come from experts in the field who delve into the grey areas and give various viewpoints". Please tell me—what experts in the area have delved into the grey areas and given their various viewpoints concerning the brazen beating of a woman on the streets of Kabul for some presumed infraction regarding her gender? Aren't we being inconsistent if we have a lower threshold for inclusion regarding the dreaded Taliban than we have for in one instance a Republican congressman (Mark Walker) and in another instance an American tennis champion (Bobby Riggs)? Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said below in this thread; "An example of systemic, culturally endorsed sexism given by way of an image with no identifiable individual in it is a very different beast from an entirely unrelated photo and a name being used to identify a person who once said something sexist." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Would people please not use Wikipedia to conduct campaigns, whether for good or for evil. Adding text amounting to "Republican congressperson X is really bad and here's why" to an article that is not about Republicans or congresspersons or X is, umm, unsuitable. Adding the text without a WP:SECONDARY source that interprets the comment violates WP:SYNTH and probably half-a-dozen guidelines. If text is wanted saying that using "eye candy" to refer to female colleagues is an example of sexism, please find a secondary source on the topic of sexism that makes that assertion. Even with a source, Wikipedia should not give a specific example ("X said Y") because that is totally WP:UNDUE and unnecessary—if only one person made that kind of comment, it would be undue to mention it, and if many people do it, the general point should be made. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How about Bobby Riggs in tennis competition with Billie Jean King in the Battle of the Sexes? Should our article on Sexism mention the sexism displayed in that competition? Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No. There is no section for "modern topical examples of sexism that you can discuss around the water cooler, updated daily with all the latest movies and news". If you look at the example section, the "examples" themselves are broad categories of sexism that have been addressed by scholarly work in the abstract and in the macro. It is not a list of individual sexist events that happened involving individual people, because that would be an indiscriminate collection of anecdotes chosen by personal preference and original research, and not by anything approaching an objective standard.  G M G  talk   17:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet our article features a photo found at this source. It documents what our article is purporting to be an example of sexism that transpired on August 26, 2001, in Kabul, Afghanistan. Isn't this attempting to be a "modern topical example" of sexism? Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * An example of systemic, culturally endorsed sexism given by way of an image with no identifiable individual in it is a very different beast from an entirely unrelated photo and a name being used to identify a person who once said something sexist. I once told my wife to get her ass in the kitchen and make me a sammich. Should we add my photo and real name to the article then? (And before you say it's different because I'm not a public figure, I will tell you right now that I could produce multiple, independent reliable sources to describe me if I was stupid enough to want my own WP article).  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends, what was the sandwich? Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If it weren't for my cat like reflexes, it might have been a knuckle sandwich, but I do, in fact, move like a ninja so it ended up being roast beef on rye with provolone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  06:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Blackehart and the children of Marlon Brando
Hello! I have looked at the Marlon Brando page and noticed that Stephen Blackehart is still mentioned as one of his children, although he has denied it. Linda Carroll (mother of Courtney Love) denied she was Brando's daughter as well. Also, there are other people like Angelique Brando, Lisa Brando, Michael Gilman, Warren Brando and Dylan Brando on the list of his children. Some of them have claimed to be his illegitimate children, but it has never been proven true. I was wondering if Blackehart's name ,along with the ones I mentioned, could be removed from the Marlon Brandopage? Brando had 11 children only: 8 biological (Christian Brando by Anna Kashfi; Miko Brando and Rebecca Brando by Movita Castaneda; Teihotu Brando and Cheyenne Brando by Tarita Teriipaia; Ninna Priscilla Brando, Myles Jonathan Brando and Timothy Gahan Brando by Maria Cristina Ruiz) and 3 adopted daughters (Petra Brando-Corval, Maimiti Brando and Raiatua Brando). Some links to use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaTLuILdHos http://people.com/celebrity/mom-courtneys-no-brando-love-child/ https://books.google.ca/books?id=fLBbAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=brando%27s+smile&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin_oSH5L7WAhVFzGMKHblzCDEQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=brando's%20smile&f=false http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4195238

Thank you.Bluhy23 (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in this. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Per this section on the Marlon Brando talk page, I suggested that Bluhy23 bring the matter here. Like Bluhy23 stated, Stephen Blackehart is said to be a Brando child, but Blackehart says that he is not. Both aspects are currently in the Stephen Blackehart article. Blackehart is also listed as a Brando child in the infobox and Personal life section of the Marlon Brando article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Identities of alleged criminals
I'm asking this question in the context of 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, but it's a much more general question than that. A few hours ago, someone opened fire on a crowd in Las Vegas in what appears to be the deadliest mass-shooting in US history. Police have named a suspect and this can be reliably sourced. The page on the shooting also names him, based on those sources. I'm fairly uncomfortable with this - there have been enough incidents where police have named a suspect in a shooting or terrorist attack who later turned out to be innocent that I think the BLP principle of conservatively doing no harm points towards not naming them. These are not people who are well known; they may in the future become so notorious for the crimes they commit that WELLKNOWN would apply (someone like Ted Kaczynski), but in the early hours after an incident that is pure crystal-ball-gazing. By the terms of WP:BLPCRIME, then, it seems to me we should be avoiding naming them. On the other hand, for a few days or weeks after such an incident this person's name is all over the news media, reliable sources abound and it does seem a little strained to avoid mention of their names; it is not common practice to avoid naming them and that gives me pause before wading in and acting administratively to prevent it. So I'd like to gauge opinion here: Do we need to: GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Continue as we are, naming suspects in major incidents.
 * 2) Take administrative action to prevent naming suspects in major incidents.
 * 3) Have a wider discussion to establish a firmer consensus on naming suspects in major incidents.
 * In this case, where the shooter killed themselves surrounded by weapons apparently used in the attack and there is no possibility of further criminal prosecution of that person, then the initial identification of the perpetrator is not violating WP:BLPCRIME.  Adam Lanza was not previously well-known, but he is identified in Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting.  Granted, there were early mis-informed claims in our article that the father of one of the students or even Westboro Baptist Church were behind it but the first person identified was Lanza.  Similarly, Omar Mateen has an article to himself for the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and again was not well-known.  Those that commit suicide during their shootings are not likely to be mis-identified like suicide bombers or truck attacks or those that flee the scene.  It is not crystal-gazing once such an identification has been broadcast by authorities and can be reliably sourced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My general opinion on this is that we are not a newspaper, and just because a not notable person has been picked up by a media circus is no reason for us to follow suit. To that end I think we should not name non-notable people for crimes until well after the circus has packed up and left town, and we can find sources to determine if there was any form of lasting impact that the person had on the situation.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit Add: To actually answer GoldenRing's question.  Whether or not an incident is "major" is determined by lasting impact.  So I think we should be taking administrative actions to prevent naming until lasting impact is determined.  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I question just how long we need to wait before determining that >450 victims in one of the heaviestly-touristed streets in the world has lasting impact. I think it's pretty self-evidently "major" in a very short period of time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say a few months (read 6) to a year minimum after the fact. This can change depending on criminal convictions and law changes and the like, basically things that are affected by the event, that would be generally independent of the event would help determine lasting impact. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an unreasonable approach for an incident such as this that has nothing to recommend itself beyond pure pedantry and bureaucratic, niggardly policy-wonkery. There are incidents that are obviously "major" to any reasonable objective standard - we need not take six months to carefully consider their impact. There will be no charges levied on this perpetrator and no court process to wait out. Any long-term impact can be added as it happens, just as we managed to add it to the two shootings mentioned above without difficulty or long waits. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that you don't like it, but I reject the notion of anything being "obviously major" when dealing with non-notable people. Especially when the whole thing is less than a day old.  To me, that's the attitude of POV pushers.  --Kyohyi (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Egg's thoughts. WP:BLPCRIME says that we must "seriously consider" not including a name when the person is non-notable. When there is such little question in the RSes as to the shooter's identity as in this case, and when there will obviously be no criminal charges, I think we're okay. Even if we took BLPCRIME to say we should not name them, in 6 months, BLP won't apply any more. All that being said, it would only be a minor loss to the project if we were to avoid naming names for a few days, until we have more coverage. I doubt people are coming to WP right now to read about this tragedy when the news sources are all covering it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When the "media circus" emerges from a press conference where a law enforcement person identifies a person, now dead, as the one responsible for the shooting, then I don't see the problem. It's also not a problem to hold off for a couple of days, but "BLP" doesn't compel us to do so.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

These situations are necessarily handled on a case-by-case basis. In a situation such as today's, naming the shooter is unavoidable, and I do not think that would be different if he were still alive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In this instance, the police named a man who was dead. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly removed the identity from the alleged shooter at 2017 Clovis library shooting, taking into consideration that he is a minor (although he probably will be trialed as an adult). I don't see the added value of naming him, certainly not before conviction (what if he is e.g. found to have suffered from some condition which would make him technically "not guilty"?) In general, I would prefer not to name suspects unless they are either previously notable or the crime is really major (not just notable, but way beyond that). Fram (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

When I asked this, I don't think it was generally known that the shooter was dead. It was also not at all clear just how major the incident was; the article at the time claimed casualties (including injuries) of around 120, which has now more than tripled. On the one hand, I think that helps make the point; while a story is developing in this way is not the time to make assumptions about what the long term impact of the incident will be. On the other, clearly if it is true that the shooter has been found dead surrounded by his weapons and there are 450 people dead/injured, then this is going to be someone we name. But although this came up in the context of this story, I am trying to gauge opinion more generally and even if this case is clear-cut, there are going to be some that are much less so. And it is far from unheard of for news outlets which we would normally regard as reliable to publish, in good faith, information which later turns out to be false; their job is breaking news, ours is to write an encyclopedia. So I would value more opinions on where generally this line is. GoldenRing (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think blanket rules will help in this area, and are likely to cause more trouble than they're worth. Just as there are some editors that rush to add the slightest rumor after an event like this there are others that would prefer to leave such events out altogether until they're in history books somewhere.  Both extremes are inappropriate and so we trust in admins to use their best judgment to find a middle ground that fits the current circumstances.  There's a reason why faith of the community comes up so much in adminship discussions and you guys rake in all that sweet, sweet admin cash. Under WP:CCPOL we follow the sources and the line lies where they say it lies.  Yesterday, they had no definitive ID of this perpetrator and identifying him in this article would be clearly violative but today they do and it really isn't. Generally reliable sources with good journalistic practices we can count on will usually hedge their statements in those less clear-cut cases you mention.  If reliable sources are saying things like, "...there is alleged..." and "...there may have been involvement..." and "...it is believed...", then that's not actually reliable and we should leave it out.  In other cases, the sources turn to "...authorities have disclosed..." or similar at some point and it becomes more-trustworthy and qualifies for inclusion. Attempting to compare this type of event to, say, the ambiguity that surrounds the 2016 Pike County, Ohio, shootings is apples-and-oranges.  Attempting to create precedents based on cases that are fundamentally not comparable is going to be very difficult. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

roma agrawal
This looks more like a publicity piece. How is this person notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanratilal (talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't think Roma Agrawal is notable, nominate the article for deletion using the process at WP:AFD. There is a enough of a claim to significance that WP:A7 does not apply.  It also doesn't qualify for deletion under WP:G11 as advertising.  Looking at the sources I think you will have a hard time convincing people she isn't notable.  ~ GB fan 10:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did remove the part where is introduces her as award winning. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Tulsi Gabbard's racial identity
She identifies as a mixed-race American, see https://www.votetulsi.com/tulsi-gabbard on her website, and it is a commonplace (indeed, a WP norm) for people's racial identity's to be listed in their articles (e.g. Obama's black racial identity is listed in the article of Barack Obama). Yet this fact—her father is Samoan, her mother white—keeps being removed from her article by editors who say it isn't important. Can someone reprimand them and restore the subject's racial identity to the article? Steeletrap (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&diff=803351582&oldid=803341044 Steeletrap (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It would help if you had a secondary, rather than primary (her own website) source for her mixed-race identity... — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 00:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The removal of the statement seems reasonable, given that a few sentences earlier, the text states that her father is Somoan; further, the source saying that she identifies as a mixed-race American is a primary one; methinks the removal is reasonable given these reasons.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think as long as we have "self-identification" for her being a mixed race woman that that should be in the article. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't it long-standing policy to include the self-identified racial identity of a BLP in that BLP? (Note that mixed-race is a distinct identity in the US.) This is a genuine question; I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I thought there was a policy or consensus to this effect. Steeletrap (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any previous consensus for this, in cases of dispute, self identification is a BLP gold standard but being mixed race and self identifing as such is not a major issue of dispute in this case and is not a massive concern, as someone said, just previous we state that fact as obvious, her father is Samoan. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is her father a Caucasian Samoan? Mixed race is a perfectly valid way to describe oneself. Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Her father is full Samoan as I understand. I would see no objection to adding the category Mixed race in this situation but I would object to the edit in dispute in this discussion for the reasons stated in its removal. Ah, I see she is already in the cat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_people_of_Samoan_descent Govindaharihari (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And a "full Samoan" can't be Caucasian? A daughter of a Samoan man describes herself as "mixed race". I think that is valid material for inclusion in an article that is a biography of that woman. This is not a "WP:BLP" issue in that there is no danger of misrepresenting a living person. She endorses that attribute of identity as her own. Our job is to report the facts and I don't think this is too minor a fact to report. It is safe to assume that many readers share an interest in how notable people either accept or reject descriptive terms or categorizations of their identity. In this instance we have a notable person embracing the description of herself as "mixed race". Why wouldn't we pass along to the reader that descriptive terminology? Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And a "full Samoan" can't be Caucasian? - sorry bus stop I don't get the issue with the causasian thing. As I have said I think this persons genetic history is well presented already without the primary self identification needing additional commentry. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We learn that her father is of "Samoan and European ancestry" but we don't know his race or races as Samoans and Europeans come in all races. It is a separate fact that Tulsi Gabbard "identifies as a mixed-race American." We cannot deduce that she is "mixed race" simply from knowing her father's and mother's ancestries. Additionally she might not embrace that term regardless of her parent's skin color. This is who she is—she is a person that embraces the term "mixed race" therefore my conclusion is that the reader benefits from being apprised of that fact. I'm failing to see the justification for omitting something that provides insight into the subject of a biography. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not everything that people post about themselves is wp:notable, how many wp:reliable sources are reporting that she is a mixed race person or that she identifies as such on her webpage, wikipedia is missing nothing by this removal imo. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

tom petty
Edit war on the Tom Petty article, people keep inserting that he died but that has not been confirmed yet. Also, the recentdeath banner isn't appropriate if he's still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.245.210.36 (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Page protected as admin only but it still has the banner on top and Template:Death dtae in the side box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.245.210.36 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * CBS confirms the death. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And the Guardian and Reuters. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As does every news source on the planet. This is not a discussion worth having. &#8209; Iridescent 20:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, though CBS News now say LAPD clarifies it cannot confirm Tom Petty's death and the Guardian says Confusion follows reports of Tom Petty death after heart attack #colourmeconfused --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There were indeed reports that he had died, but they were retracted. Last known word is even if he's probably likely to die within the next day or two, he's still alive as of right now. Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Caution was appropriate, and the early reports were wrong, but sadly, there is now no doubt that Petty has died. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, tragic news. I've been away from the modern world, so I heard it here first. Even so, I think this provides a good example of why we shouldn't be quick to jump at the first "breaking news" story that comes up. I know we like to be timely, but the news outlets make these mistakes because each wants to be the first to report it. Haste makes waste, and we don't need to get the scoop on anyone but should strive for better accuracy than newspapers provide, so I think a small waiting period for something like this would be appropriate; at least an hour or two to see what appears once the dust from the stampede settles. Perhaps a no breaking-news policy or something? (Just a thought.) Zaereth (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I don't think we jumped at the first source. When I heard a friend say he had passed yesterday, I checked our article to see if we had included it in the article. We did, and we cited two sources. It's one thing when the news is unstable, when some sites have one thing and others another, but when all the news sites get it wrong, WP:RS says we're going to get pulled right along with them. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying. I guess I was just thinking out loud. I don't necessarily disagree, except to say that in the types of articles I usually work on reliable sources get it wrong all the time. In this case, a source that is more reliable can provide a more complete picture. (For example, when I arrived, the flashtube article said simply that xenon had the right combination of spectral lines to produce white light. Sounds reasonable enough. In fact, more-reliable sources show that together xenon's spectral lines produce an almost turquoise light. The plasma dynamics that produce white light are much more complex than that.) For "breaking news" reports in general, be it political, celebrity, or tragedy, I find that they rarely provide enough information to be of any value. In this case, the more-reliable source seems to me to be the actual news reports that follow. In dealing with a (possibly) living person, I would hope accuracy would take precedence. In response to your edit summary, I also find danger in stagnation, so a healthy dialog on policy from time to time may possibly be good thing. This is probably not the place for it so I apologize for bringing it up. My respects to Mr. Petty. Zaereth (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Mathieu Asselin
Promotional article, now edited by the subject. I would have reverted to an earlier version but that wasn't much better. This needs some attention from someone who isn't about to start cooking dinner--thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore
Talk:Roy Moore

Should Roy Moore be described as having "ties to the alt-right" in the lede? I believe this is factually incorrect, not well-sourced, and that there is a consensus on the talk page against including it. appears to disagree. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not only is this factually correct and well-sourced, but there's also no "consensus" against it. I have nothing to add, for now, beyond what I've already said. Fixed245 (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see much support for saying he has "ties to the alt-right" in the sources. The Atlantic source mentions that some of his boosters have ties to the alt-right, but that's still a few degrees removed from Moore himself. The Jpost article describes him as a rising alt-right star in the headline only, but headlines generally aren't viewed as reliable sources IIRC, because they usually aren't written by journalists and tend toward sensationalism. The terms alt-right and far-right aren't especially descriptive anyway, and its probably better to just briefly summarize his views or paraphrase notable quote. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 17:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed alt right, as it was poorly sourced, but I am surprised that "far-right" is even controversial, although an editor on the article talk page said far-right means neo-fascist, I thought far right meant extremely conservative, if far-right means fascist, then I might feel differently about putting it in the lede. (I could see changing it to Christian right, if the consensus is to do so) Tornado chaser (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't object to "far-right". power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those sources were pretty bad. There is a difference between having the support of the alt-right and having ties to the alt-right. Given the political landscape, this was just a conflict between Trump and his candidate and the jaded alt-right and their candidate. You will need some very solid sources to claim he has true ties to them. Nihlus 17:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I have no clue what "alt-right" means, nor, for that matter, do I care. It sounds like some cryptic, McCarthyistic phrase meant to lump people into some category for the purposes of stereotyping. Personally, I'm against categorization of people simply because it has been used as a method of propaganda, persecution, and spreading fear and hatred about other "undesirables" for thousands of years. It's way too easy to apply some negative label to a person than it is to report on the person themselves and let the reader make up their own mind.


 * I figure if it was something important it would have an actual name. That said, your reply basically amounts to "Nuh-uh," which is not very convincing. Information like this should have very reliable sourcing. This means sources that specifically identify him as being in this category, not ones that simply allude to it. If the sources describe how he fits into this category, that is the nitty-gritty information we really need to report. Labels are typically childish and ultimately meaningless when it comes to understanding a person (especially cryptic ones). The lede is a summary of the body, so the information needs to be well-sourced in the body before it is put in the lede. Even then, it should only be a brief summary of what is in the body and given the same weight as in the body. Zaereth (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , if you don't know what this term means, I don't see why you're commenting on it--or why you didn't look it up. It's really not that esoteric a term. The rest of what you're arguing is cute, but if you wish to claim that terms like alt-right and neo-Confederate and constitutional constructionist are just words, you probably don't get outside much. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I get outside a lot. Don't spend much time in front of a computer or TV (life's too short). You're right. Shouldn't have wasted my time. As I said, I don't care, (although from your description it sounds like I may have inadvertently offended one group by accusing them of the same tactics used by the other. My bad.) Zaereth (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I have removed "far-right", after looking at the lede of the article on far right politics, I can see why it might be controversial. Also his right-wing views were described in the same sentance, making "far-right" redundant and not informative. Tornado chaser (talk)
 * This is certainly the wrong move. Far-right is an appropriate additional descriptor because his views on homosexuality and Islam, though controversial, aren't his only controversial views. He has also been described as far-right by a variety of prominent sources. So I've reversed your deletion. Fixed245 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring. You're lucky the page was protected before someone could file an WP:ANEW report. While I agree that he is far-right, this method will get you no where. <b style="padding:2px 2px;font-variant:small-caps;whitespace:nowrap;color:#000;letter-spacing:-0.5px">Nihlus</b> 22:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Far-right is a given; alt-right is not appropriate, though the alt-right in Alabama wouldn't mind him. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ben Tulfo and BITAG articles
Good day.

Me and a colleague of mine, which happens to be Ben Tulfo, have expressed serious concerns regarding the contents of both articles found within Wikipedia.

These articles do not include accurate and precise information regarding the television program he runs which is "BITAG" ("Trap" in English).

As for his personal article, I've known Ben personally and there has been a lot of inconsistencies with the articles.

When he found out about the articles, he read them personally, and the entirety of the page really did show a lot of inaccuracies.

In order to lessen such things from happening again, Ben Tulfo is allowing the respective editors of both the "Ben Tulfo" and "BITAG" articles found within Wikipedia.

I posted links below for easy access: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tulfo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitag

Here's also the links to the sections of bitagmedia.com pertaining to my colleague's media history and the birth of his hit program in the Philippines: http://www.bitagmedia.com/about-bitag/ http://www.bitagmedia.com/about-ben-tulfo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by OccultaCogitat (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, I have noticed that the website, bitagmedia.com has already updated specific sections of their websites for researcher's preferences and whatnot. His exact media history, the birth date of BITAG, and other information regarding different equities he's handling as of the moment can be found there.

We are hoping that the editors can heed to my concerns so that we can avoid creating confusion in the near future. We do not want information that isn't uniform, correct? I hope you'll understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OccultaCogitat (talk • contribs) 20:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Manny Pacquiao
A request for comment has been opened regarding Manny Pacquiao asking: Should the steroid allegations paragraph be included, excluded, or reworded? This notice is being posted here as a courtesy due to recent unsuccessful discussions taking place on this noticeboard. The discussion can be found here. Thank you. – Nihlus (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Paddock
Stephen Paddock is the perpetrator of the recent Las Vegas shooting. I've removed the most obvious violations of BLP policy (e.g., citing tabloids and voter registrations for information about family members), though some of what remains is ambiguous (and possibly should just be removed for other reasons, e.g., citing the "boyfriend of Paddock's girlfriend's sister"). I would guess that the page is generally worth keeping an eye on, as it's a perfect example of WP:BDP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tga.D (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nabeel Qureshi
Nabeel Qureshi (author) recently passed away after a year long battle with cancer. He was a popular Christian author / speaker and his biography page has seen a tremendous increase in editing activity since he died. Many of the edits have been good, but some are POV pushing or disparaging. Can we get his page protected for a few weeks until the activity dies back down? I don't think anyone needs to be blocked or reprimanded, the page just needs to be protected.

Here is an example of this kind of editing from his run in with the law: (Note, this is not an endorsement of the original form of the article)

ORIGINAL: Beginning in the late 2000s, Qureshi began attending the Dearborn Arab Festival in. In 2009, Qureshi and his group, Acts 17 Apologetics, was stopped from passing out Arabic translations of the Gospel of John. That year the fair had modified the rules, barring distribution of literature unless a group had a registered booth. (Other Christian missionary groups had registered booths and were free to pass out tracts.)[citation needed] Qureshi and his group were asked to leave, and their literature was confiscated. Returning in 2010, Qureshi and his group resolved to not pass out gospel tracts, and not engage anyone in conversation unless it was initiated by someone else. Furthermore, the group decided to film the entirety of its interactions. During the 2010 Festival, Qureshi was shown being asked questions by a small crowd of Muslim teenagers. Police officers soon [12] arrested the group and confiscated their video cameras, charging Qureshi with disturbing the peace and refusing a lawful order from a police officer.[13][14] Qureshi and his group spent a night in jail for this arrest.

IP EDIT: Beginning in the late 2000s, Qureshi began attending the Dearborn Arab Festival. In 2009, Qureshi, and other members of Acts 17 Apologetics were kicked out of the fair on the pretense that they were passing out Christian literature. The facts are that Qureshi walked up to a booth with the sign "Got Questions? We've got answers," picked up a Muslim brochure and asked a question, as the booth's sign invited anyone to do. As Qureshi was engaged in conversation, a Muslim man walked by, snatched the Muslim brochure out of Qureshi's hand, and approached security personnel with it. Security personnel used this to create a confrontation with Qureshi and his colleagues, telling them to leave without telling them why, and ultimately assaulting them.[12] Returning in 2010, Qureshi and his colleagues resolved not to engage anyone in conversation unless it was initiated by someone else. Furthermore, the members of Acts 17 Apologetics filmed the entirety of their interactions, as they had done the previous year. During the 2010 Festival, Qureshi was shown being asked questions by a small crowd of Muslim teenagers. Police officers soon [13] arrested the group and confiscated their video cameras, charging Qureshi with disturbing the peace and refusing a lawful order from a police officer.[14][15] Qureshi and his group spent a night in jail for this arrest. Eric the fever (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , copying different versions of the text is not very helpful. Besides consuming a great deal of space, copying the text does not include the references, which are absolutely necessary to provide you a reasoned answer. Please provide WP:DIFFs instead. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Does BLP1E apply to anything more than creating new articles?
This is a question that has popped up because of a discussion at Talk:CBS   (archived here), but it's a more general question. WP:BLP1E says: "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article…. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.” Does WP:BLP1E say anything about whether someone can be mentioned in an already-existing article?  I don't think so, because BLP1E is about creating a separate article for a person who does not warrant one.

It's true that WP:BLP also says, "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages". I don't disagree at all with that, but some parts of the BLP policy have nothing to do with anything beyond creating separate articles, and this seems like a case in point.

There’s a hatnote atop BLP1E saying to get further info at WP:1E where we find this: "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered." Why would all of these policies refer to separate articles, instead of referring to inclusion in any Wikipedia article, if the latter was intended?

P.S. Even if BLP1E does apply here (which I don't think it does), I don't believe that this situation triggers exclusion of the info from Wikipedia, because the breadth of coverage in reliable sources (plus the unusualness of the firing and the cause of the firing) strongly indicates long-term significance.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Check back in when the long term arrives. Meanwhile, it's not demonstrated noteworthy in the 90 year history of CBS. SPECIFICO  talk  22:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The incident in question appears to have dropped out of the news cycle in less than 2 days. So the idea that it will remain notable or significant in 5 or 10 years' time is far-fetched, to put it gently. This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E; a private figure said something offensive on social media and lost her job. The person in question was previously unknown, and there is no indication that she will remain notable in any other context. More generally, it's frankly impossible to believe that someone writing a serious encyclopedic overview of CBS would focus on this incident; and in fact, it doesn't appear to have been inserted as part of any such effort. MastCell Talk 23:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreeing basically with above, that BLP1E applies to all article content. A person tied to a notable event who was otherwise a private citizen and only known for that event, and where their name/identity is not critical to the event (say, someone who was suspected as a perpetrator of a notable crime but later determined innocent), we should respect that privacy and not include the name. --M ASEM (t) 00:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with here, but you raise a good point. Generally this gets discussed outside of articles creation with reference to WP:BLPCRIME and WP:AVOIDVICTIM WP:BLPNAME. They all relate to privacy and boil down to one idea: Don't name otherwise non-notable if it's not necessary to the reader's understanding to does harm to the living person. At least that's my interpretation of how folks implement this. For example, Omar Mateen's wife was intentionally left unnamed for this reason. I think we could stand to required BLP1E and let BIO1E address the article creation part.  VPP might be a good next step.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The shooter, Stephen Paddock, was otherwise non-notable aside from the crime he committed. I don't think the comparison to Mateen's wife is very pertinent, because AFAIK she was not a very powerful person (like the CBS [General Counsel]]), she did not say anything amazingly outrageous (like the CBS General Counsel did), and she did not commit any firing offense.  I do not understand this sentence: "I think we could stand to required BLP1E and let BIO1E address the article creation part."  Also, if everyone agrees that BLP1E should not be limited to article creation, then why shouldn't I just go to talk:BLP and suggest that we clearly remove that limitation from BLP1E?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because BLP is policy, proposed changes to it should be made at WP:VPP as far as I understand. As for BIO1E vs BLP1E, the former deals more with article creation IMHO. Last, I understand that the situation with the CBS exec is different. I'm honestly not really commenting on the CBS thing, just the policy and interruption generally.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Understanding the principles of Wikipedia's procedures answers questions such as this. The issue might be phrased as "should an insignificant blip on the outskirts of a current event regarding a non-notable person be recorded in an article on the employer of that person?". The proposal violates the principles of WP:NOTNEWS. Please try again in six months and point to anything significant regarding CBS related to the event. Of course the event is significant for the person who was fired, as it would be for anyone who makes absurd proclamations that lead to the person being fired. That is where the principles of WP:BLP1E apply—people do dumb things but Wikipedia is not the place to name-and-shame them. Rather than looking for an article to coatrack the material, consider whether notability applies; if so, write the article first. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the feedback. Since you all think BLP1E should cover situations like this, I plan to conform it to that desire, for example like this: “Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of mentioned in a Wikipedia article.”  That way we will have consistent application of the policy that treats situations equally.  Incidentally, I don’t think the huge number of reliable sources that have covered this story had any intention to “name-and-shame” anyone.  If this matter appears in reliable sources years from now, as it surely will, then we can revisit the issue.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is not really that kind of support for modifying the policy. There are a whole lot of people who do their editing all over the encyclopedia by faithfully conveying what the available sources talk about, and then there are a few who spend their days on pages like this saying "no, no, no".  It's pretty much the same people all the time, and no matter how dogged they are about it, I don't want them unilaterally rewriting policy to ban information in articles. Wnt (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wnt, I am not sure how to understand your comment. There is certain information in reliable sources that I would like to faithfully convey in the CBS article, either with or without explicitly saying the name of the top CBS lawyer who was fired.  Other editors here say "no, no, no" because it violates BLP1E, which is actually false because BLP1E only applies to creation of separate articles.  However, if we are going to interpret BLP1E in such a disingenuous manner, then I would like that to apply across the board instead of only in cases where some editors have an ad hoc reaction against inclusion of information.  Is my position clear?  Do you support inclusion of this information?  Who is it that you think is dogged?  I do a lot of editing all over the encyclopedia, half of my 75,000 edits are article edits, and I emphatically do not like arguing at talk pages when I could be editing and improving articles across the encyclopedia.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I supported this inclusion an hour before you started this thread. At the time I was pleased to see the event, including the name of the CBS vice president, was described in Reactions to the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, an article which I voted to Keep; it remains there now.  That said, it is hard for me to be optimistic.  A few companies that control news broadcasting have waged highly effective war on news aggregators across the Web, sometimes banning them outright with neighboring rights, sometimes excoriating them for spreading fake news here (as detailed in a section that remains quite large in 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, which otherwise seems to shed facts like a silanized dog sheds rainwater.  And sometimes they just have Trump call for McCarthy-style hearings against foreign or nontraditional competitors.  Of course, I don't mean to suggest that I have any reason to think any particular person is externally motivated; yet I think somewhere along the 17-year history of Wikipedia, we have been turned aside from our purpose, just as Wikinews was put out of commission.  It seems hopeless to have "NOTNEWS" mean what it says, rather than "delete everything whenever".  But in the meanwhile, I see no reason to approve of any policy changes that would make things even worse.  Perhaps we should simply be glad that Pearson and Getty and Britannica have, so far, been too unorganized and complacent to arrange for NOTTEXTBOOK and NOTIMAGES and NOTENCYCLOPEDIA to have the same kind of preeminence. Wnt (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No, WP:BLP1E does not apply to anything more than creating new articles. Whether this incident should be included in the CBS article is actually the purview of WP:WEIGHT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like some of the people commenting here might be satisfied if the material is included but without naming names. That would also slim down the weight.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems like a case of WP:Recentism to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's possible, but I doubt this stuff will not make it into the history books, because of the person being the top lawyer at CBS, the nature of the remarks, the speedy firing, and the very widespread initial coverage in reliable sources. Note that there is already info in the CBS article about the "John Batiste firing".  But recentism is certainly a lot more plausible of an argument than BLP1E.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that bit about the Batiste firing; that looks like what happens when recentism is not addressed. I just went and axed it. I could see that being covered in John Batiste article (it isn't), probably not even CBS News (it isn't), certainly not CBS. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Specifically BLP1E only applies to new articles, however I think it does fall afoul of general BLP. We're required to write articles conservatively, and even people who have high level positions in very public corporations doesn't mean they aren't low profile individuals. To that end we need to consider if this content can negatively affect their reputation and run afoul of WP: NPF. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but WP:NPF doesn’t suggest to completely exclude stuff: “include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.“&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Lauren Book, again
I discussed the Lauren Book page here two or three weeks ago. See the archive. And here's the relevant thread at WP:AN3. Short story: the page was protected through October 1, the editor UltimaHolyFlare just returned to reinsert the problematic material. I would like an admin's opinion before this escalates. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not an admin, but I left a notice on his talk pointing to the related policy. I'd say any further restoration of the content should lead to a hefty block until the can demonstrate an interest in seeking consensus. <b style="padding:2px 2px;font-variant:small-caps;whitespace:nowrap;color:#000;letter-spacing:-0.5px">Nihlus</b> 04:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nihlus. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. The content being repeatedly added is also a cut and paste copyright violation from a blog. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on context, it looks like they posted that there after it was removed from the Wikipedia article. <b style="padding:2px 2px;font-variant:small-caps;whitespace:nowrap;color:#000;letter-spacing:-0.5px">Nihlus</b> 15:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ow, yes you're right. First posted here in August, blogged in September. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis
Can we get some eyes from outside the Catholicism WikiProject here. The short of it is 62 individuals released a letter in September accusing Pope Francis of committing heresy. There are some questionable claims in the article and the sourcing, and I think outside eyes would be useful both for assessing content in regards to BLP issues and for notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Jon Jang
Thank your biography about me on Wikipedia. However,in my 35 years of making music, many who have been close to me find this bio "scant." I have provided a fuller bio with more content, though not perfect and needs links references. Please consider my changes.Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangjon (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please realize that we cannot include material simply copied from your website, for copyright reasons (which could be overcome if your website had an appropriate Creative Commons license), for verifiability reasons I could construct a website claiming that I was King of Spain and frequently dance the rhumba and lambada with Michelle Obama; therefor, we accept such biographies as sources for non-boastful information like where you were born, but not for things that could be considered boastful like awards or impressive people one has worked with), and matters of tone (the goal of one's own website bio is generally to promote one's self; the goal of Wikipedia is different.) However, we certainly invite you to suggest individual sources of information and notes of concern on the talk page of your article, Talk:Jon Jang. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Dane Cobain
I do not think this person is notable enough for his own page, and from the way it is written, and the fact it was the first article created by this user I suspect it is self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:867:AD00:811:6CEF:435E:7058 (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's WP:TOOSOON. He seems to be a fairly active writer but you don't get notability just for being a published writer, you have to be discussed in multiple independent reliable sources and I can't find any evidence of that. The references in the article don't amount to much and are on the whole not independent of him. I'll nominate it for deletion. Neiltonks (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Eric Greitens
There have been numerous deletions of references to Mr. Greitens Jewish heritage, This is a source of pride for Jewish Americans in the State of Missouri and especially St. Louis, I have even been threatened with loss of editing by one of the chronic deleters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retread22 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo
Many of the sources listed in this article or no longer or were never operational. Raising doubts about the authenticity of many of the claims made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drioktok (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Loel Guinness
A somewhat misposted issue has popped up at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Those taking the "anything ever printed by a small format newspaper is reason to delete" approach might care to deal with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Lauren Southern
Opinion pieces are not valid. For example,

Alt right/white supremacists are open about their views. When a person with a conservative or libertarian views expresses opinions that seem radically different to your own it does not automatically make them an alt right nazi. A plethora of first person sources describe Lauren's political views. Here is just one of a mountain of first person sources,

Buzzfeed is not a legitimate news source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRIDGET MITTENS (talk • contribs) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Felipe B. Miranda
The final two paragraphs contain claims which are both unsubstantiated by any sources (including the sole link in the references) and framed in highly defamatory language - perhaps the work of a scorned student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.134.114 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This unsourced opinion has been removed. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Article could use better sourcing. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Phil Gramm
Gramm's wikipedia biography says he died on 10/09/2017 but the news media hasn't reported that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.80.11 (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have reverted the edits as this is unsourced. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Stace Nelson


Subject of the article is actively editing article to promote himself more favorably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.101.231 (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That is more an issue for WP:COIN than here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Political opponents continue to post intentionally false information about my faith, my political party, my family, that I am dead, and slanderous information not supported by reality or fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.247.105 (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * All parties are reminded that information in the article should be backed up by independent reliable sources. We should not rely heavily on Nelson's own website, as we appear to currently be doing for information on his military career. All parties are also reminded that WP:NPOV means we give a full picture of the subject from a neutral perspective. Good information is included, as is bad information—provided that the information, good or bad, is properly sourced.


 * This administrator, who has never been to South Dakota, has added this article to his watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Larry King
A load of negative BLP information was recently added to, which I have since reverted twice. Please keep an eye on that article. Thank you. Dr.  K.  03:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

French source check needed
The article Prostitution in Lebanon has had a likely BLP violation (background) added by (and their sockpuppet ) piggybacked on a paywall-protected Le Monde source. If someone with access to the Le Monde would be kind enough to check whether the people mentioned are in the article or not, it would be appreciated. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * i seem to have access I'll have a look. Domdeparis (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope sorry my mistake I've only got a bit of it, it's a long article. Domdeparis (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they are not mentioned in the article. I've nominated their images for deletion at Commons and reverted the article back to a state before the socks got hold of it.
 * Thanks for that, and if you feel that the BLP vios warrant it, please don't hesitate to extend Vonderjohn's block. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Bana al-Abed
I have read [biographies of living persons policy] and this article does not seem compliant with it in any way. I ask that those who understand Wikipedia review the article in line with this policy or even consider deletion, as, after all this is a very real little girl. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.237.120 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A quick read of the article shows a multitude of references, many from highly-reliable sources. The article, overall, appears compliant with BLP. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is compliant. A lot of it is not NPOV and it devotes most of the words to criticisms and snide remarks, and appears to include quite a bit of synthesis and original research. I will do some edits now, but I think it needs quite drastic work.BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have done preliminary edit, but I think there is still some poorly sourced stuff and probably SYNTH.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Billy Roberts
Billy Roberts died in Atlanta on October 7, 2017. He had been in a rehab center for many years. This can be verified by contacting A.G. Rhodes Health & Rehabilitation Center, 1819 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30329. (404-315-0900). He is to be buried at Greenwood Cemetery in Knoxville, TN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggietrala (talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contacting us. Due to procedures, the Wikipedia page will not be updated until other published outlets update their details. MPS1992 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ditch Davey
Recently there have been some SPA IPs making edits to Ditch Davey and the latest one essentially blanked the article by accident and also claims to be editing the article on behalf of Davey and his representatives. The IP edits mainly have to do with Davey's alleged birthname, and I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian television, so removing any mention of the birthname seems appropriate since it is unsourced, etc. Anyway, I was just wondering if some others would mind taking a look at this and if possible provide any feedback on how to best resolve this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman
A new section has been added to Morgan Freeman called "Russia video controversy", which appears non-neutral to me. I would appreciate it if other experienced editors would take a very close look. Thank you. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Cullen, I couldn't see the section on the current version of the article. I also see lot of reverts from the History. Please give link to the version which has the above said section. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Truedson Demitz
The article Jacob Truedson Demitz is being scrutinized again, after having been relatively stable and B class since 2008. It has already been cut down to size today, with the help of a neutral editor, but I've also expressed my concerns about possible changes in sourcing policies since then, to a proposed mediator here. Now, it looks like demeaning comments about the living person are starting to be added on that talk page. Please help! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure this is more of a COI issue than a BLP one. The article has major problems with puffery and sourcing. I did some cleanup yesterday but it's still a mess. I suspect that the subject might not even be notable, but it's hard to tell when the article has been bloated up with some very odd & obscure sourcing. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The WP editing I've done for over 10 years has all, in this case and every case, been done more and more carefully as I've learned the ropes and with what I've seen as reliable sources (especially mainstream publications in English and Swedish) as its mainstay, and well aware of COI assertions I have tried (perhaps not always succeeded) to be extra careful. I appreciate the good work Fyddlestix has done today even if I don't agree about (but do accept) every referenced item removed. I'll be glad to e-mail scanned copied of the foreign languages sources to anyone, especially to Bishonen or Boeing720, neither of whom I know personally but do trust to be fair. In 2008, we also added translations in the sources notes of the most important citations.
 * My main concern here is the appearance of contentious material on that talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean this? That's not a BLP violation, it's an understandable - if maybe not super constructive - joke for Dom to have made. That you're taking this so seriously and have put so much effort into building up and maintaining this mess of an article frankly makes me wonder if you have a WP:COI here. Do you? Fyddlestix (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Contentious" is what we're supposed to be looking at, according to a very strict guideline here, not whether or not "Dom" has a sense of humor. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And COI has no relation to that particular problem. I do not consider myself to be a serious COI case, no. I think I've declared 5-6 times by now how careful I've tried to be with that. We all make mistakes, and I've admitted to several in all these discussions. I've also accepted your edits, because I thought you were neutral. Arenät you? Do you have a COI in this case? Does buddy "Dom"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to update: the article has been nominated for deletion. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to make things clear "Serge", User:Fyddlestix and I are not "buddies" as can be seen by the editor interaction analyser here. Outside of this subject we have interacted on one topic which was a page I nominated for deletion in January and Fyddlestix !voted delete. It's quite a useful tool if you want to accuse people of canvassing and bad faith, but better to do it before making the accusations. It can avoid unpleasantness. What you are doing at the moment is called forum shopping and admin shopping. You have tried 3rd opinion which went against yours here, you tried an admin intervention which was rejected here and the closer agreed with me. You accused me of violating WP:BLPTALK guidelines and yet another disagreed with you in this helpme comment help (but I was accused of being not nice...which is probably true in this case). You are now citing another user and an admin that you think may be favorable to you saying that you would send copies of sources to them. For the moment I am the only one to have requested the scans that you offered to send by email so as to try and judge notability and I have received nothing but you are willing to send them to others who have asked for nothing. Looks like vote stacking to me. Domdeparis (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree this remark on talk is in poor taste. For goodness sake restrain your sense of humour when it comes to living people, Domdeparis. I'll be happy to look at scans of the Swedish material if you send them to me, SergeWoodzing. Preferably just the ones you have most faith in — your list of refs at the AfD is awfully long. A large pile of weak references gör ingen glad. (And I hope you've sent them, or will send them, to Domdeparis — did you notice they asked for them?) Bishonen &#124; talk 09:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Thank you. I will send them to both of you later today, now that you both have replied to my WP e-mails. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for the email. As I explained I also was a front office manager in the luxury hotel business and SW's insistence that this was a grand achievement was a little ridiculous as I am sure Demitz would agree if he were reading this. He seems like quite a fun kind of guy so is probably laughing at all this brouhaha as SW likes to put it. SW seems like quite a fan so I think he is taking this a little too seriously. Sometimes humour is the best way to diffuse a situation but it fell a little flat here. But when you've spent nearly 10 years writing about someone and their life and friends on Wikipedia I suppose you lose your sense of humour about them when someone tries to put things into perspective. Anyway I will take more care with Serge from now on. Domdeparis (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems like a hell of a job to get this all wrapped (& cleaned) up, now that the COI has been confirmed on this and several other related articles, Commons, &c. Someone with an admin mop? Did SWz ever send documents to or, and if so, are these of a nature to prevent wrapping this up ASAP? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did receive them they are all pretty old clippings some of them were passing mentions and some more consequent I have doubts that they prove notability but until I can get them translated I can't really say. I would have liked to share them with some of the Swedish speakers on the afd but this COI editor seems to consider them as hostile (which I can understand they have !voted delete). I was hoping that Bishon would chime in, even if SW has canvassed him he is an administrator and I'm sure that we can trust his judgement. Domdeparis (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be "her" not "his" afaik. Don't fear: Bish can be trusted, but calling in the 'zilla variant (spits fire doesn't it?) may be warranted here when embarking on the herculean task of trying to get this wrapped up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this wasn't actually a BLP issue I'd say this can be closed and we can discuss cleanup at COIN. Would love it if Bish and/or Dom could comment there on whether the sources emailed have any chance of altering the AFD outcome though. (right now it's leaning delete). It's turned into a bit of a pile-on so we should make sure we get that right. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree this can be carried on on the afd. Domdeparis (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fyddle proposed COIN for the cleanup (although yes, the AfD still needs to be closed too; but some of the COI articles listed in the COIN section might see a shorter road to deletion than a parade of separate AfDs). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Luke Messer
For a while now I have been trying to make some edits to the Luke Messer wikipedia page. The page has been a source of controversy in the current US Senate race, including an article which had for some reason been used as a citation on the page.

After making an attempt at a sweeping edit to correct some of the clear issues with this page (and being rebuffed without much explanation), I have made a few smaller edits, which one user has reverted each time, even though two of them corrected factual errors. I think this page needs to be brought to the attention of a moderator. As it is, I believe it is not up to the standards Wikipedia holds for itself. For example, the first sentence in the lead section, identifying Messer as "an American politician, lobbyist, and author" is not written in the style generally used for congressmen, identifying them as a congressman and listing their district before giving information about their previous work. I attempted to edit the page to match other congressmen from Indiana The user who reverted my edit to the first sentence originally also reverted an edit clarifying that Messer (not only his wife) wrote the book Hoosier Heart, though it is currently in the first sentence of this page and is in the citation listed in the article about the book. While it may be important to note in the lead section that Messer was once a lobbyist, I don't believe it makes sense to list him as one now, when he is incapable of working as a congressman and a lobbyist at the same time, unlike the only Indiana congressmen whose professions are listed in their lead sentences, a heart surgeon and a businessman.

Additionally, the sections that were added recently about Messer's wife and citing other Indiana politicians who have been "plagued" by residency concerns show a lack of neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgirl7250 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Educating Greater Manchester
In Wikipedia's voice: "From puberty to teenage pregnancy, mysterious rashes to appalling attendance, this week we'll meet the team who deal with all of this and teenagers who create it. One of the team's more challenging students is Year 8 (first name). Aged 12 going on 20 and full of hormones, (first name) struggles to contain her emotions and risks her future at Harrop Fold by constantly flying off the handle. We'll also meet 15-year-old (first name), who is seven months pregnant and "...

Yes, really, the parts where I wrote "first name", in our wikipedia article, include the child's full first name.

And it goes on like that for quite some distance. Is there a problem here? If so, please go to Educating Greater Manchester and fix it with great prejudice. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you watched the show? Are the childrens name mentioned in? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not the point, as it turns out. Quite apart from the children's names, the summaries were copyvios from other websites. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well BK fixed it with the copyvio removals, but I was under the impression we don't name people who are not notable? Especially minors. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought so, WP:BLPNAME Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the prompt action taken against this doubly-problematic content. Apart from the fixes now correctly applied, and a disliking for breathlessly promotional nonsense in Wikipedia's voice, I also agree with Darkness Shine's comments. Emir of Wikipedia -- yes I have watched the show and yes the names are used, but I am not certain what you infer from that. MPS1992 (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that if the names are mentioned prominently in the show then it is probably appropriate to include the child's name in the article. I thought this could have been a case of a class mate or someone else adding in names that weren't mentioned in the show. In that case a Requests for oversight could have been appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it appears I had misinterpreted the intent of your question. I don't necessarily agree about the suitability of including the child's name, but such a discussion can probably wait until someone writes new episode summaries. MPS1992 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Usually in a show/situation like this, the first name used will be a pseudonym for children for their own protection. If its not, I can imagine the children concerned will have a few issues when they reach adulthood. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. From watching the show, it is clear these are not pseudonyms. That, I suppose, is the modern world of reality TV. MPS1992 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

John Skipper
Within the past month, there have been multiple, persistent edits violating BLP. Oornery (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah that is interesting. I see is on the case, but the socking in there is just too obvious. Wait for it... Drmies (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this addition is problematic. A couple of the articles don't even mention Skipper, others are attack or opinion pieces. I'm sure there's sources out there that talk more specifically about how Skipper has been handling the network's difficulties - certainly the text in the article could be worded more neutrally. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ...told you to wait, Fyddlestix! Grendelkin are always so impatient. See Sockpuppet investigations/Lboa2822--there were a few more. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Australian-American
Irwin was born in Australia and has never lived anywhere other than Australia ( I think—I'm watching the article due to an LTA from years ago and don't know much about the topic ). However, Irwin's mother is American and this story has à quote from Irwin: "What's really nice is being a dual citizen both here and in the US so I think I get to vote there as well." Does that justify the article describing Irwin as "Australian-American" rather than "Australian"? What is the guideline? See Talk:Bindi Irwin. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have a citation that she has *never* lived anywhere other than Australia, but I think there are citations that her principal place of residence of her family is Australia. She has obviously spent some time in the USA for the filming of the various TV shows she has been involved in, but for how long (I have no idea) and in what circumstances (do they own a home there, stay with USA relatives, in hotels, etc)? It is reliable that she is a dual citizen but she became a dual citizen as a child and hence this was a decision of her parents, not necessarily one of her own choice. But what is the primary consideration as to nationality? Possession of a passport? Ownership of property? Self-identification? And what would we regard as reliable citation in any of these cases. While a particular spate of recent edits has brought this question here, her nationality has been a "softly simmering" topic over some time. Because she is seen so much on American TV (probably more than she is on Australian TV), many people have declared her to be American. Kerry (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Well Kerry we actually do have a source that states she has lived all her life in Australia as this source says "The Irwin family live at Australia Zoo. They always have and they are not planning to move anywhere". I simply don't understand why she is classified as an American purely because the source says she has a dual citizenship. Angelina Jolie has a Cambodian Citizenship why is she not classified as an Cambodian-American, how is this any different? Should this be stated for every single person with dual citizenship? Irwin's shows are shown all around the world also, just as much as in Australia or America, this is simply false to state the her shows have "probably" had more air time in America then in Australia, apart from DWTS, on what knowledge is this stated. She does not do any media work anymore anyway, as she works full time at Australia Zoo. "Many" may have declared her to be American but it is undoubtedly safe to say that Majority consider her simply Australian, this is not really a debate and is morally a fact that she is not classified as an American for no reason other then having a citizenship. Stuv3 (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In the source she states that she doesn't foresee herself ever leaving Australia for good. "I think the States are wonderful because they are like a second home, I mean my mum's originally from Oregon, but home for me is Australia Zoo," she said in December 2015. "I mean we live right in the middle of Australia Zoo, so when you grow up surrounded by animals your whole life, you can't leave that. No matter where I go, I'll always return home." She specifically states that America is a not her true home would never consider moving or living there it is with logical reasoning from this source that she does not consider it her identity or identify as an American merely holding only ancestry from her mother. Stuv3 (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We three have commented at the article talk, so please no more here at the moment because I'm hoping to attract someone familiar with standard procedures regarding citizenship. There is some information at Manual of Style/Biographies and it suggests that following reliable sources provides the answer, but someone experienced with standard procedures is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It says In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. ... Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.. No evidence of American notability has been provided, TV shows are broadcast around the world, so it is best leave it out of the lead. It would however be appropriate to mention in the early life section. However the bit about her brother in this article is based on the assumption that as they have the same mother he is a US citizen too, whereas in his article the source doesn't even mention it. Due to this I am removing it from both. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Charlene McMann
Charlene McMann should be deleted, is not notable to be on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeltogod (talk • contribs) 07:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Some background: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive920 --Calton | Talk 00:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah,, but that's just in reference to the IP, not to the article. I've been looking at Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (3rd nomination), which closed as "no consensus", and I doubt I would have gone the same way given that discussion: the "keep" votes are just really lazy, with "Clearly passes WP:GNG - Chicago Sun-Times, NBC, Fox all in the references" being the most explicit and in-depth of them all. All the others are variations of "Passes GNG" and "Keep per Editor X". The news references are all related to the scandal, which really points to BLP1E, because that award is really nothing--it is indeed, as  suspected, nothing but a local variety of a national award, a franchised local award if you will. No, I think we need to rethink this. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * By all means. In addition to the comment on the actual lack of community consensus in the debate, please also note the last point in tha close - the afd had been reopened just days after the previous one closed, which isn't something to be encouraged and didn't leave time for the previous lack of consensus to evolve. If you want to give it another try now, a year later, be my guest. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Drmies, since it has been almost 1.5 years since the last AfD, I think a new one would be appropriate. This really is a bad case of an article causing harm to a plainly non-notable person, and my standards of notability as shown in 100s of AfDs are not high.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  17:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh, you can see Ms. McMann personally pleading to get this deleted from time to time, last month her edit summary in blanking the article was "I should not be on Wikipedia because a family member is not supposed to put another family member on and my husband put me on fb so that is against your policy and I want to be remove. It's your policy and you are going against your own policy by havin.."  Essentially she is trying anything she can, now claiming the article was a vanity article created with a COI at the outset, which was always obvious.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore Part Deux
One editor seems very determined to restore information into this BLP about a non-public figure (Moore's son) and his various run-ins with the law. Besides coatracking and undue weight, it seems contrary to the part of WP:BLP that says "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." I assume that that burden includes the burden of establishing consensus. I note that we recently had a lengthy discussion at BLP/N that resulted in completely excluding from Wikipedia information about a fired CBS vice-president because she is not considered to be a public figure, despite reams of reliably-sourced reports about her being fired for saying she had no sympathy for the victims of the Las Vegas shooting because they are Republicans. Should similar principles apply here, or should we include as much dirt about Roy Moore's relatives as we can possibly find?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ...should we include as much dirt about Roy Moore's relatives as we can possibly find? Well, I for one am glad to see such a neutral and unbiased description of the dispute, not to mention the completely accurate comparison between a single stupid comment by an unknown person versus a lifetime pattern of behavior of someone strongly associated with a very high-profile -- even attention-seeking -- public figure who likes to go on and on about personal morality. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So that’s a “yes”? Was the fired CBS employee not strongly associated with CBS?  Is CBS not attention-seeking?  Is Moore’s son notable for any event other than the happenstance of his parentage?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm agnostic about whether to mention Moore's son's arrest record. But most people are capable of distinguishing between a single offensive tweet and a pattern of criminal behavior. I don't see that as a sensible analogy. (Incidentally, if you're in search of apples-to-apples comparisons, Caleb Moore has posted quite a few offensive tweets, which have been described by reliable sources. We quite properly don't bother to mention them). MastCell Talk 04:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not in favor of keeping his son in there. It's all over the news here, of course, but really--the latest charge was for hunting on someone's property and hunting with bait, I believe. Yeah, that's wrong (or disgusting, maybe), but it really has nothing to do with his father (on an encyclopedic level). That these would be propped-up charges invented to smear him is also BS, of course. Also, I do not believe that the father has done much, let alone something illegal, to get the son cleared; if he has, that's a different matter of course. So, no, the son is not notable, and though it is widely covered, it is not encyclopedically relevant to the father. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The son is an official in the father's "charity", as well as involved in his campaigns. He's not "tangentially" involved. Also seriously, a very short mention (when MOST articles I have found have a bare minimum on family members) is not "as much dirt as we can possibly find" or any of the other silly, melodramatic strawman misrepresentations that have been used to (mis)describe the information. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you're quoting--not me. I have seen no evidence in the local papers or elsewhere that the boy is important in the father's affairs (unlike the mother) in any way, except as a PR embarrassment. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue isn't whether, in an ideal world, the sins of the son would be visited upon the father. The issue for a neutral encyclopedia is notability.  The context here is that Roy Moore is involved in a campaign for the Senate, his son's latest arrest has been reported, the arrest has also naturally prompted media recaps of his previous arrests, and Moore the candidate (and former judge) is presenting himself as a law-and-order advocate.  In that context, the material is notable.  On top of all that, Moore himself has made it an issue -- an issue about himself, not just about his son -- by publicly charging that the arrest was a politically motivated attempt to hurt him.  Without going into mind-numbing detail about the son's criminal record, we should report the facts, along with reporting Moore's response (bullshit though that response is). JamesMLane t c 15:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know the exact right answer as to what scope we need, but I googled "Roy Moore's son" and it is clear his son's criminal history is a notable aspect of his father's political career. Having the article not even mention the son under 'Personal Life' is misleading, I would have assumed he had no children.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  19:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Nguyễn Minh Tú
There has been a lengthy dispute (as seen in the page history) about whether the subject was born in 1992 or 1993:


 * 13 August: Birth year changed from 1992 to 1993 with a source (by )
 * 19 August: An IP added that “Some documents say that Nguyen was born in 1992, including Asia's Next Top Model.”
 * 24 August: Trịnh Trương Hoàng Huy reverted
 * 31 August: Birth year changed back to 1992 with no cited source (by ). I reverted.
 * 2 September: Birth year changed back to 1992 with no cited source by IP. I reverted again.
 * 9 September: Birth year changed to 1991 with no cited source by IP. Trịnh Trương Hoàng Huy reverted, then added two more references. Page pending changes protected (by ).
 * 10 September: famousbirthdays.com cited as source supporting 1992 as birth year by IP. I reverted due to the unreliability of the source.
 * 11 September: IP repeated their action, as did I.
 * 14 September: removed two references with edit summary of “rm blog sources”
 * 28 September: Birth year changed back to 1992 without supporting source by IP. Reverted by.
 * 1 October: Birth year changed back to 1992 by IP with edit summary of “Minh Tu was 24 years old during the filming of the fifth season of Asia's Next Top Model in 2016, thus she was born in 1992”.
 * 2 October: Previous edit reverted by . Previous actions repeated . Finally, I reverted.

I have now done Google searches with 1992 and 1993 along with the subject’s name, and found a number of Vietnamese sources which appear to support both birth dates (1993: 1992: ). I don’t understand Vietnamese so I don’t know how reliable these sources are. What should be done about this? Linguist un Eins uno 17:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If the sources appear to be reliable, the only outcome is to give both 1992 and 1993 sourcing each option.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Usually the showbiz people love to be a few year younger than they are, so I think 1992 is the correct one, but we should include both. Tuanminh01 (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not mind with putting both 1992 and 1993 as Minh Tu's birth years, but I still think that 1992 is the correct one, because her profile in the official website of Asia's Next Top Model (http://asntm.com/tu/) says that her age is 24, and the profile was released back in March 2017, eight months before Minh Tu's actual birth date (November 14). (139.193.93.93 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC))
 * Does East Asian age reckoning apply? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The official website of AsNTM said that she was 24 at the time. It means she was born in 1993. All Vietnamese reliable sources say that she was born in 1993. Trịnh Trương Hoàng Huy (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Trinh Truong Hoang Huy, Minh Tu's profile in the official website of Asia's Next Top Model was released on March 2017, and according to that profile, she's already 24. Which means, Minh Tu will turn 25 on November 14 (her birthday) this year (2017).


 * 2017 - 1992 = 25 (139.193.93.93 (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC))


 * The Vietnamese here are lying I'm sure. If you was Vietnamese, you could see a lot of comments about Minh Tú's behaviour towards Lan Khuê and Hoàng Thùy that she behaved arrogantly even though she's younger than the other two. Trịnh Trương Hoàng Huy (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your input. I agree that both years should be added if each one is supported by reliable sources. From the 13 references I posted above, there are 8 individual sources:


 * Supporting 1993:


 * chieu-cao.net
 * danviet.vn
 * nguoinoitieng.tv


 * Supporting 1992:
 * soha.vn
 * 24h.com.vn


 * Supporting both:
 * baomoi.com
 * VnExpress
 * kenh14.vn


 * I would be grateful if someone could identify which of these 8 sources are reliable and which aren’t. Also, on the East Asian age subject, it does apply in Vietnam, but Asia′s Next Top Model (whose site lists Tu’s age as 24) is based in Singapore, where East Asian age reckoning is not observed. Linguist un Eins uno 20:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Per DIYEditor, I suspect this is East Asian age issue. The upshot of this is: all sources can be correct in context culturally despite the year disparity. This is one of those ones where we should just say both. (Also its one where the infobox script that calculates age just wont work and it will need to be manually defined) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this site would help to confirm Minh Tu's legitimate birth year. According to my research, VietModelling is a company to train models in Viet Nam and Minh Tu is included as their models. It states she's born in 1992. In ASNTM website, it states she's 24 years old. She is going 25 in November 14. If you would subtract the upcoming age to the current year, 2017 - 25 = 1992. 1992 exacts to her "more info" from VietModelling. Click "Models" then "Women". Then click "arrow left or right" to find her name "Minh Tu" and click "more info". Then click "arrow left or right" to find her name again. That's all. Fanafanner (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have now added both birthdates with supporting references to the article. Linguist un Eins uno 00:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

James Allsup
There have been a couple of unsourced edits to this BLP of a controversial figure in recent days. There has also been an IP arguing for some dubious and probably non-BLP compliant additions to the article on its talk page. For these reasons I would appreciate some additional eyes on this article. Everymorning (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Notable or Tabloid?
On the fence about this: Nancie Atwell. Currently in the news for shoplifting again third theft charge. Normally, as an isolated event in such a rural area, this would be tabloid; but since it is a third offense (2014 incident and last year), it does not fall under a single action but is becoming known to the subject. Obviously the inclusion would be "ongoing" since it is WP:RECENTISM and may need an "In The News" tag; however, it doesn't seem like it's going away, either. Thoughts? Maineartists (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The key words in those two articles are "accused" and "faces". In other words, she has not yet been found or plead guilty to any crime.WP:BLPCRIME states: 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.. Despite her award, I would consider her "relatively unknown" and any mention should be left out for now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * True. Total agreement: most recent incident, of course. But in regards to the previous: found guilty / plea deal (2 separate occasions); this overall is becoming adhesive to the subject and gaining notoriety despite her "relatively unknown" status; I was just questioning as to when something becomes substantial enough to the subject warrant for inclusion (NY Times); or whether it is just tabloid. Not whether the accusations / convictions are secure; of course, nothing should go in until all has ceased and WP:RECENTISM has played itself out. I'm actually not interested in putting it in the article, but gaining consensus for if / when some other editor tries to insert. Thanks for your input Eggishorn. Always a pleasure. Maineartists (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
2 editors are making repeated major changes, it apperes that they are basically rewriting the article, some of these edits have had a promotional tone. I have changed the POV parts, but so much is being changed that I can't thoroughly analyze every edit, I would rather not discuss the article on this noticeboard (that's what the talk page is for) but it would be good to have a few more neutral eyes on this page. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The people at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard might be more useful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)
 * Ok, I will move this there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tornado chaser (talk • contribs)

Likely paid stale userspace drafts
Since the sandboxes of this (now blocked) editor were stale with various articles, I cleaned/blanked them up while creating Draft: space pages for those which were worth keeping and unpromotional. However, here are a few BLPs which were likely paid for. I'd be grateful if someone more interested in BLPs than I am, could take a look and salvage notable-enough ones, or blank them (i.e replacing their content with Userpage blanked). If worth keeping, instead of moving the sandbox page with all their old history, it would be better to copy their source to a new draft/article and blank them, while making sure to attribute the origin in the first/creation edit summary (i.e. ). It's even possible that they should simply be blanked out of principle (i.e. WP:DENY for undisclosed paid editing ban) but I'm not sure about that. Thank you very much, — Paleo Neonate  – 14:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:FoCuSandLeArN/sandbox5 (Christophe Fourtet)
 * User:FoCuSandLeArN/sandbox19 (Shayne Oliver)
 * User:FoCuSandLeArN/sandbox20 (Leilah Weinraub)
 * I blanked User:FoCuSandLeArN/sandbox5 (Christophe Fourtet) - the references given were not substantially about the article subject and would not be considered notable under WP:GNG if submitted to AfD.
 * User:FoCuSandLeArN/sandbox19 (Shayne Oliver) is about an undoubtedly notable fashion designer but the promotional language is problematic; it would probably be better to use the sources given to create a completely new article with no attribution problems.
 * User:FoCuSandLeArN/sandbox20 (Leilah Weinraub) is similar to sandbox19.
 * Hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you very much, I'll blank these two for now but will update the links to permalinks for the interested. — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Tito Mukhopadhyay
Someone is continuously changing Tito Makhopadhyay's page to reflect opinions as fact about a living person. Not only are these references and quotes negatively slanted, but they are made by people who have no primary research on Mr. Makhopadhyay. This violates Wiki's policies. Further, some citations are taken out of context, or cherry-picked in order to paint a negative portrait which is designed to malign Mr. Makhopadhyay's method of communication, and says nothing of the man himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shadow boxer (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * is the article in question. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See also this post from last August. I'm afraid I don't have time to search for any replies. My apologies. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , welcome to Wikipedia. First of all, I should point you toward the Wikipedia policies on edit-warring and core content.  You should read those before you make any further edits to this page.  Secondly, the material you are removing is sourced and properly attributed.  To characterize these as BLP violations is to misinterpret the BLP Policy.  That policy states: ...any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source... which is exactly what has been done here. The issue with the communication method is very germane to the article.  Indeed, the only reason that Mr. Mukhopadhyay is in any way notable is because of claims made about his communication method. To include positive portrayals of his communication method without including the critiques of it is to violate the neutral point-of-view policy. I hope this helps explain the situation.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Gillian Keegan
Gillian Keegan

It's the photo. The subject hates one and there is a imho a much better one, there is a couple of editors objecting to the change, with concerns about single porpose account, (the subject) and coi, as I understand BLP we are urged to simply insert the best portrait. Could other users have a look please. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And lies. And socking. Do not pander to people like that because you'll likely regret it in the long term. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your views on such editing from subjects seems to be clouding you imparial editng position. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope. Prove it. There are various obviously connected accounts, one of which has blatantly lied at DRN today and all of which have been doing so via the COI/socking issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not care about any of that, I care only about which photo is the better of the living person for the infobox. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you should care. What next? Some scandal breaks out and they edit to keep their preferred version, ignoring our policies? - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No I don't care and it is not even a tiny consideration in my position that the photo in the pink top is clearly the better of the two for the infobox. Block all the accounts, protect the bio, do whatever is needed but the simple situation is the photo in the pink top is a better photo.Govindaharihari (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, it sounds like you have come to this board to bludgeon your preference when consensus of legitimate accounts is against you elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * These are the two photos, photo two, in the pink top is the current parliament photo.

Govindaharihari (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not here to bludgeon anybody or anything, I am only bothering with this typing to attempt to apply BLP and insert the best photo we have of the living person. Also as I see it, there is not a clear strong consensus anywhere, there are only about three editors commenting. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Only as a comment, the green-top one can be cropped better (which we can do as a free image), and it might help make it look better; she looks "tiny" in it because of the wasted space around it, but cropping with the same aspect ratio would greatly help. --M ASEM (t) 13:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes agreed, that would be an improvement, thanks for that Masem. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The relevant discussion regarding this is taking place at Talk:Gillian Keegan. It would probably be best if additional comments were posted there so that everything remains in one place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Endorse comment above by MarchJuly - the fragmentation of this discussion is silly. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Given that neither picture is disparaging this isn't a matter for BLP/N. As others have said this should be hashed out in the article talk page. (FWIW, I think the one where she is wearing the green top is better because the pink-top one has shadows on her face, though the green-top one should be appropriately cropped.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Paul Kodish
Not sure where to post about this, but an account going by his name added new, unverified information to the article about a week ago. I hadn't been watching the page to notice but I thought I should bring it up here since I only noticed now. FosterHaven (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Donald B. Smith
I just reverted someone who was obviously whitewashing the article--but I am not happy with the version I reverted to, which is at the very least excessively detailed (though it appeared sourced--I haven't looked at them). Perhaps one of you can have a look and bring it up to snuff? Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Akram Monfared Arya
This article is fabricated based on opinion and not facts. While she may have been a capable pilot she was not a first in Iran. These 3 were:

http://women.ncr-iran.org/famous-women/1831-the-first-women-pilots-in-iran

This article in Wikipedia should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Bombing of Hanoi Vietman, Dec, 18 to 29, 1972.
I was interested in finding the article on the bombing of Hanoi, Vietnam, Dec. 18 - 29th, 1972. I was a member off the 307 Strategic Bomb Wing (SBW), Utapao, RTAFB, Thailand at the time of Linebacker II and this bombing period. The article mentions  that the bombers  that completed thee sortes were from Guam. They were in part but from the first days of this  bombing on 18 Dec, 1972 until the end on 29 DEc. 1972  THE 307TH Strat Bomb Wing, (SBW))  we at Utapao, AFB  were launching B-52s 24 hours a day 7 days and were launching "Ball games",  consisting of one "Paved BUFF" with  B-52 d  with ECM equipment in the bomb bay and 8 B-52 D  aircraft  launched every 15 to 30 minutes  24 - 7  7 days a week.  we launched these  B-52 d  until the end of the Linbacker II period. WE and the 43rd Strat Bomb Wing, Anderson AFB, Guam launched and flew these sortes 24-7.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketman48 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The article Operation Linebacker II does not contradict your statements here. The first mention of the airbases used is "A total of 54 bombers (all B-52Ds) were based at U-Tapao RTAFB, Thailand, while 153 were based at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam (55 B-52Ds and 98 B-52Gs)", and a later mention says "On the first night 129 bombers were launched, 87 of them from Guam", implying that the other 42 were from Thailand. The "Order of Battle" lists "307th Strategic Wing 	U Tapao RTAFB, Thailand 	B-52D". The photo used is of pilots in Guam, but this does not have to be the only photo -- do you have any photographs that you took of pilots or aircraft from Thailand? Other than the spelling of Utapao/U-Tapao there does not seem to be much in dispute here.


 * This noticeboard is not really for these sort of issues, so it might be better to continue any discussion of inaccuracies at Talk:Operation Linebacker II. MPS1992 (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Aix-Marseille University and Didier Raoult
Apparently, the French biologist Didier Raoult has been accused of sexual harassment which was mentioned on, fr:Marsactu, a French online news source: The content being added is:
 * 1) https://marsactu.fr/lunite-de-didier-raoult-paradis-de-la-recherche-pour-les-uns-enfer-pour-dautres/
 * 2) https://marsactu.fr/le-professeur-didier-raoult-mis-sur-la-sellette-par-ses-tutelles/
 * In July 2017, a police investigation was launched to enquire about allegations of harassment and sexual assault at the Institut Hospitalo Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection. A delegation comprising representatives (health, safety and working conditions committees (CHSCT)) of the CNRS, INSERM, IRD, and Aix-Marseille university has also conducted an investigatory visit related to working conditions within the new IHU.

wp:SPA added the above and has been edit warring without any comment until my latest comment on Madman123456's talk page. There, Madman123456 added source 2 (above) to their talk page. , an IP, and I have removed the content several times where Madman123456 replaced it each time. I, after seeing it removed, replaced it via Huggle. After a note on my talk page and second thoughts, I removed it again. I have no idea whether Marsactu meets wp:RS or not. I did a google search w/o result, but given that it's on French soil, I'm not really surprised. Should this content be allowed to remain? Jim1138 (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Both cites above are by the same author: Benoît Gilles Jim1138 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * My instinct is that he qualifies as a "relatively unknown" person under WP:BLPCRIME; what attention has been paid to him is noting the high degree of citations of his work, which reflects possibly important work but not personal fame. And given that what is being described is an investigation, that's not even a charge much less a conviction. As such, inclusion in the individuals article or in any way that specifically refers to him is against the guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree and have removed the material from both pages. Until charges are filed or, perhaps, it becomes headline news on major news sources and is discussed further it should remain off the articles. Jim1138 (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm Marsactu appears to be a small Marseille-local independent web tabloid (but its article passed an AfD as keep on fr-Wikipedia). And indeed, we should wait until the claims are more sustanciated (and sourced to larger papers).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * fr:Didier Raoult nor fr:Université d'Aix-Marseille seem to have no mention of this. Jim1138 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * again reverted negative content to Didier Raoult and Aix-Marseille University. Madman123456 has been given an EW warning and been notified about this discussion previously and still has not engaged in any discussion. The content is currently still in place and per the above discussion, be removed. Would someone please request that Madman123456 stop doing this?  Jim1138 (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a single purpose account dedicated to this activism, unfortunately suggesting WP:NOTHERE... — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Madman123456's intent has indicated on my talk page . Jim1138 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And his attempts have continued since then. I've dropped the edit warring notice on his page, and (again) directed him to this discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, We have three more reports coming out in La Provence (October 6) regarding this issue. I do not see how this is not a good enough reference? I request you to go through the content and revert the edits.Madman123456 (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please list the references here so they can be examined. Jim1138 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if there are quality references that there is an investigation, under our WP:BLPCRIME guidelines, we should avoid covering it. An investigation is not a charge, much less a conviction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are the references Madman123456 (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/provence-alpes-cote-d-azur/bouches-du-rhone/marseille/marseille-harcelement-moral-sexuel-unite-recherche-maladies-infectieuses-1345279.html
 * 2) http://www.laprovence.com/article/sante/4651035/une-lettre-anonyme-et-un-chsct-extraordinaire.html
 * 3) http://www.laprovence.com/article/sante/4651034/cette-affaire-est-en-train-de-se-degonfler.html
 * 4) http://www.laprovence.com/article/sante/4651033/linfectiopole-dans-la-tourmente.html


 * Any comments on the recently listed refs above? Jim1138 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * These require a subscription or watching a 30 second ad.
 * Raoult states there are problems, much undisclosed.
 * Raoult mentioned, but no specifics regarding Raoult
 * Raoult states that the affair is subsiding. No specific charges
 * Raoult mentioned, somebody, unspecified was suspened.
 * None of these indicate that Raoult has had any criminal charges levied, no any disciplinary actions been taken that I can see. Nor any civil action against him. I don't see this as being sufficient to restore the removed content on either article. Jim1138 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Answering in the same order:
 * Appears enough to mention in the institution's article that there are complaints and investigations relating to them (no names of alleged victims or criminals mentioned and no suggestion that the allegations are founded).
 * Actually I cannot access the three others, only their title and first sentence. — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

simon abney-hastings
Please update the Earl's Coat of Arms photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudoun2008 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the photo needs to be updated? And to what? Is the current one incorrect? Neiltonks (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Gillian Keegan
Please review the use of the main image on Gillian Keegan; as discussed on its talk page. The subject objects to the use of a particular image. Another, equally suitable, image is available. The former image has been repeatedly restored. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sean Hannity
Significant negative information has recently been added to much of it coming from a single source. I would appreciate additional eyes on this article. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing chief!.  Volunteer Marek   00:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The source mentioned is the (reliable) source that explains how Hannity is a longtime supporter of Trump, bigly, so maybe a photo of the president would not be the best thing, given our mandate to edit neutrally, on one's user page. Just a thought. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, my, yes, that is significant negative information. It's also reliably sourced and attributed inline to the Washington Post.  I'm not sure what your complaint is.  We don't remove reliably sourced information here just because you don't like it. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   01:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is sometimes misinterpreted as "never include any negative information on any living person, no matter how well sourced." This appears to be a case of such misinterpretation. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but my concerns were WEIGHT and NPOV. I am surprised you see no problem with the inclusion of pinknews.co.uk as a source in a BLP. Hopefully others watch this page. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with pinknews? Is it... "disgusting"?  Volunteer Marek   03:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally and for the sake of the encyclopedia one should aspire to higher journalistic standards than Miley Cyrus reveals on Carpool Karaoke how twerking at the VMAs made her an LGBT activist in their choice of outlets. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoa, I might just agree with Mr. Lambden here. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm taking that back. Supporting LGBT causes does not make one unreliable. One could argue it makes one biased--but by the same token one can argue that the straight (and white) default in many of our outlets is biased. Reliability is a matter of editorial scrutiny, and I do not see any sourcing/reason to make me doubt it. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If your concerns were WEIGHT and NPOV, it would have been helpful if you had said so at the outset. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine a more unambiguous articulation of WEIGHT concerns than "much of it coming from a single source." James J. Lambden (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I should think that "I am concerned about WP:WEIGHT" would be a rather more unambiguous articulation of concern about WP:WEIGHT. But maybe that's just me.
 * In any event the number of sources cited is generally a separate question from WP:WEIGHT. Your argument appears to be that for a statement to be credible it must be supported by a large number of sources. This results in the logical contradiction that the most mundane statements (water is wet, trees don't move) should be supported with more references than contentious statements. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. BLP is often misinterpreted as "never include any negative information on any living person, no matter how well sourced, that I like (and possibly have a big ol' pinup of on my user page)".  Volunteer Marek   02:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But let's not be too hasty: I'm sure the article can be improved with a few more citations, for instance. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ll chime in here to say I don’t think it’s appropriate to say (without elaboration) in the first sentence of the BLP that he’s a “conspiracy theorist”. I changed it to the following, because his alleged conspiracy theories are rather narrow in scope (e.g. he does not say Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks or that the moon landing was a hoax): “He has promoted various conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.” User:SPECIFICO reverted, arguing that Hannity promoted a conspiracy about Ted Cruz’s father helping to kill JFK. Actually, Hannity merely had someone on his show who said something about that. People have nutty or provocative guests all the time, and are not obliged to challenge every false or misleading or idiotic thing that a guest says. Even if Hannity could be held responsible for that, still Hannity’s alleged conspiracy theories are all about Donald Trump’s foes, and that’s the extent of it.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll chime back to point out you also said in the same edit that he didn't promote JFK assassination conspiracy theories. A false statement you've omitted here. His cable show guests don't pop at random like the ping pong balls in the lottery draw. His TV guests are "nutty" accidents? That's not what RS tell us.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what bearing what his conspiracy theories are about, Trump foes or otherwise, has on the question of whether he's a conspiracy theorist or not.  Volunteer Marek   04:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously “conspiracy theorist” is not a nice label, and we should briefly explain its limited scope. We could put “loser” or “Cuckquean” into the lead sentence of the Hillary Clinton article, but I thought we weren’t on a mission here of disparagement.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if you had reliable sources which describe her as "cuckquean" then maybe... but you don't so the comparison is bunk.  Volunteer Marek   05:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, loser then. Anyway, I do have plenty of sources that she’s the wife of an adulterous husband which is one definition of cuckquean.  I’m not seriously suggesting we use that word, mind you.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Holy Non Sequitur, Batman! I'll have the Whataboutism Platter with a side of "let's insult Hillary Clinton", the strawman sundae, and of course a large orange drink. Morty C-137 (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, he's a conspiracy theorist. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s not a question of whether he’s a conspiracy theorist, but rather a question of how we present it. The source you cite says he “has been focused on the nonexistent Deep State, which he believes does exist.”  Again, that would be a conspiracy theory about Donald Trump’s foes (assuming of course that all concerns about a Deep State are unwarranted which renders them “conspiracy theories”).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Sean Hannity, the well-known conspiracy theorist promoter' would be an improvement on the current tbh. At least then it would reflect his current schtick-peddling. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s overgeneralization. If we wrote, “Sean Hannity, who is well known for promoting conspiracy theories about opponents of Donald Trump....” then that would be a big improvement, more informative, less of a smear, more specific.  The only reason to be non-specific is for purposes of disparagement AFAIK.  To be honest, I’m not particularly comfortable with the “conspiracy theory” stuff appearing at all in the lead paragraph, because it’s a very malleable term potentially applicable to anyone who is suspicious about potential wrongdoing and calls for it to be investigated, but if we use that term then it ought to be confined to the type of conspiracies that sources say he has theorized about.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * More specifically, "conspiracy theorist" is not a profession, its a label (which I do not question its appropriateness for Hannity). Right now the lead has which puts a label on par with actual professions, and thus is inappropriate in terms of POV. Something like  at least keeping the key label in the lede sentence but not treating with the weight of an actual profession he is paid for. --M ASEM  (t) 14:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where you get the notion that the descriptions must be limited only to a person's profession.  Volunteer Marek   17:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In a lead statement that is to start "X is a Y" (as the bulk of our articles do, that should remain a impartial, disinterested, and neutral statement to establish factually what the topic is. In the case of describing a person notable for their verified, established profession(s), that should be the initial descriptor, before heading off to describe what other RSes think of that person. --M ASEM (t) 17:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I’ll install that if someone else doesn’t get to it first.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's 100% Inaccurate. Hannity's tinfoil hattery isn't limited just to "opponents of Donald Trump". He has promoted JFK assassination theories, Birtherism (and an associated claim that Obama's college transcripts were forged ), "Obama as a secret muslim" conspiracy theories, White supremacist-descended ideology (Sovereign Citizen / Posse Comitatus / "Constitutional Sheriff" conspiracy theories), Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories and most recently on his radio show, "Vegas Second Shooter" tinfoil hat stuff claiming that the shooter was a plant or patsy in a false-flag operation. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then take out the "about opponents of Trump" line. The problem is that there is no such thing as a profession of "conspiracy theorist", and using it in the same conjunctive phrase as his actual professions puts too much weight on a non-profession. But it's too key to not have mention in the first sentence, so instead stating that he promotes various political conspiracies gets the point across without excessive undue weight. --M ASEM  (t) 13:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the JFK stuff was aimed directly at Ted Cruz who was an opponent of Trump. Re. “birtherism”, it’s one thing to ask a candidate to provide a document, and quite another to say that the candidate cannot possibly provide the document, and I disagree the former is a conspiracy theory.  Also, a tweet from David Frum doesn’t seem like a reliable source, and anyway if “Trump & Hannity wonder what’s hidden in Obama’s college transcripts” does that rise to the level of a conspiracy theory, as opposed to curiosity?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Masem, Anything, kindly stop trying to push bullshit WP:WEASEL wording. It's inappropriate. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP, so we are required to take an impartial and neutral voice. "Conspiracy theorist" is not a profession, its a label (which may be applicable here, I'm not saying it can't be used with appropriate attribution). All I'm saying is that you need to make the sentence wording to not equate "conspiracy theorist" with what professions he's actually being paid to do. --M ASEM (t) 14:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * After reviewing multiple biographies, professions and common descriptions are often put right next to each other. For instance, Alex Jones "is an American radio show host and conspiracy theorist". Your claim that it's "equating" them is nonsense. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This discussion is on the current state of Hannity's article, and the first line needs to be written in an impartial, neutral tone. --M ASEM (t) 15:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I provided an example of how things exist. Per MOS:BLPLEAD, "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources". It does not say "only include professional titles", and I gave you a comparable example of someone in the same field as Hannity. Consistency. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't read the full text of BLPLEAD that way, when taken as a whole - he is most notable as a television host, who just happens to offer what are seen as conspiracy theories. I would also argue that it is not "common" as you state. A Gnews search for "Sean Hannity" gets 196,000 hits, a search for "Sean Hannity" +"conspiracy" is only 19,000 hits (<10%). It's appropriate to include in the text of the lead per WEIGHT, but not to include in the way being argued for the lede sentence. --M ASEM  (t) 18:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To add, "Sean Hannity" +"host" is 89,000 hits, nearly half. The same with "commentator" is only 13,500 hits, so perhaps the lede does need to change that "Hannity is a talk show host. As a political commentator, he is known for promoting conspiracy theories, including those related to opponents of President Trump." --M ASEM (t) 18:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say that it certainly does rise to the level of conspiracy theories, as that is how cited media sources refer to the allegations. See Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, all full of well-sourced material. ValarianB (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * People who said Obama was born in Kenya were conspiracy theorists. People who merely said they didn’t know for sure and would be curious to see his long form birth certificate were not conspiracy theorists.  IMHO.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * People who dishonestly play the game of claiming to be "not sure, just asking questions" while actually promoting conspiracy theories are still conspiracy theorists. It's a cheap rhetorical bullshit tactic. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Anything, this was a concerted, conspiratorial effort to delegitimize and undercut the validity of a black man's presidency. Whether the participants were casting aspersions or lobbing full-sized boulders, they are all in the same boat, per sources. ValarianB (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your “conspiratorial” theory is that all requests that Obama be transparent were because of his skin color. Does that make you a conspiracy theorist?  Every president except two (Chester A. Arthur and Barack Obama) had two U.S.-citizen parents, and there were eligibility controversies about both.  Arthur was not black.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Additional eyes" -- okay, sure, watchlisted. Bottom line -- let's have an informative article that draws appropriately on reliable sources.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Could one just change the end of the introductory sentence to "...and noted conspiracy theorist" ? That retains how sources characterize the subject while addressing the concerns that it is not a profession by grammatically separating it from his profession listings? ValarianB (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Grammatically that still points "conspiracy theorist" as parallel and equal to his known professions. It needs an entirely new phrase, whether in the same sentence or a new one right after. --M ASEM (t) 14:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "know for promoting" or "who has promoted a number of conspiracy theories related to x" might be more appropriate in this case. I don't see a lot of reliable sources calling him a conspiracy theorist, and, unlike Alex Jones or David Icke, his conspiracy theories almost always serve an obvious partisan end. He's not an all purpose tin-foil hat wearer. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 14:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Newsweek, Washington Post, CNN, Forbes... If you "don't see a lot" you're not looking. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Links might be helpful for the rest, but the Newsweek source [|linked in the intro] doesn't describe him as a conspiracy theorist. Saying that someone promotes conspiracy theories isn't exactly the same as calling them a conspiracy theorist - the latter seems to imply that they are known mostly for promoting, or manufacturing conspiracies. Jesse Ventura, Oliver Stone, and Joe Rogan all promote conspiracy theories, but they aren't primarily conspiracy theorists. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:

I think it might be time to recognize that "conspiracy theorist" is now a profession. Alex Jones, for example, is identified as a "conspiracy theorist" in a way that implies that is a profession, both in RS   and in our article. There are numerous RS references that place Hannity in a similar light. Why not recognize that it is an occupation if that's what provides a person's primary, or large secondary, means of support? (courtesy ping to ). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 15:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How much do conspiracy theorists make? Maybe that's a viable job market.
 * But in all seriousness, nearly all people that are labeled as conspiracy thoerists in sources are because within the context of their main profession, they write or talk about conspiracy theories. They don't make it their profession, that's what other people call them because of their writings/statements. --M ASEM (t) 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How much? An estimated $2.7million - $10million a year as of 2013. Probably more today.  Alex Jones certainly has definitively made it his profession, although Hannity may not be in the same boat. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, "conspiracy theorist"--plenty of evidence presented above to support this. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Angélique Kidjo - profile picture changeout
Hi, we are management for Angelique Kidjo and have uploaded a new profile picture to her account (the Contonou image) but would like the current "Jarvin" image in the bio box removed.

Can you please assist?

http://www.redlightmanagement.com/artists/angelique-kidjo/

Angélique Kidjo — Preceding unsigned comment added by HankBate123 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)