Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive265

Peppermint (drag queen)
Peppermint is a trans woman who performs as a drag queen. There has been a long-running edit war about including her (male) birth name. This case is unusual, though. It is IPs removing the birth name and a Wikipedia editor (User:Tenebrae) replacing it. What's even more unusual is that Tenebrae has been claiming that removing the name is a violation of WP:BLP. To make matters worse, there appears to be only a single source for the birth name (a regional newspaper). The issue of adding birth names to the articles of trans people has been discussed in several places with no clear result, but I believe our BLP policy implies that we should err on the side on not including names unless they are well-known or used by the person in question. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Agreed, and I’ve taken it out of the infobox. I disagree in general on the name point: the fact that someone has transitioned is a major detail about their lives. Their previous name is a part of that. That is true regardless of whether they were notable under that name. A simple reporting of it in one sentence in the body in the past tense is not a BLP vio so long as it is reliably sourced. Again, my rule of thumb is that we should not be censoring something that would undoubtedly appear in a paper biography if it is reliably sourced. That is the case here. The question is how we present it with due weight, and I would agree that the lead and infobox would be UNDUE, but not a brief mention in the body. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If the birth name is sourced, it should be included. It is legitimate and expected biographical information. Wikipedia is not censored, and if the information is sourced, removal on BLP grounds would be inappropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rremoval of the birth name is not a violation of WP:BLP, which is waht is being claimed by Tenebrae. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Add the word 'reliably' to the above in front of sourced. Its not actually a BLP issue either way. If its a woman (male to female trans) then the only name of relevance is their non-drag name. Which in the case of a trans person, is unlikely to be their birth name. The problems with trans people and birth names are almost entirely where someone gains notability under one name, then changes it. In the cases of most drag queens, the notability is linked to the drag/stage name, not the person behind it. Of course if this trans woman's name is actually the same as their drag/stage name, then its rather a unique one. I cant believe she has 'Peppermint' on her driving license though does she? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As the article notes, her name is Agnes Moore. This is not her birth name. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I need to slap myself in the face with a large fish, I totally misread that. Its not a BLP violation to not include information that is able to be sourced from a biography. Its an editorial decision. BLP comes into play when including stuff that shouldn't be there. Not when excluding stuff that is allowed to be there. Which is a due weight issue. There is certainly no need to have it in the infobox as per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox is to summarise key information. For a drag queen this would be their non-stage name (Agnes). Not their birth name - the template is not designed with trans people in mind. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BLP and UNDUE go hand in glove. If it's UNDUE then it's excluded under BLP, and vice versa for any other combination. MPS1992 (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not UNDUE to have it in the biography so long as it is sourced to reliable sourcing. Someone's birth name is a significant part of their biography. Wikipedia is not censored, and should report on this. I think it is undue prominence, however, to put it in the infobox, and have removed it from there. It is sourced to reliable sourcing in the body, however, and should remain. I think removal from the infobox while keeping it in the body is a good middle ground that is in line with BLP principles. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with the concept of deadnaming? Agnes Moore is notable for her drag performances as Peppermint. She was not notable under her birth name and does not use it. We use discretion when dealing with the real names of porn actors, why would we not afford the same discretion to trans people? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As a note, a quick google search tells me that while we can reliable connect her original name to her current, it is not connected to any degree of frequency to require us to include it (compared to the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner situation). --M asem (t) 04:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we’ve rejected adding anything to the BLP policy about it. A birth name is an important biographical detail, and if it is reliably sourced (which this one is), we report it. The question of notability under the name is significant for article titles and the lead, but does not impact whether or not it should be included in the biography as a whole: that is based on reliable sourcing. We have that here. As it is public information published on the website of a major national newspaper network in the United States, we can reasonably assume that the presumption of privacy does not apply here as well. The BLP policy is not an instrument to censor legitimate and reliably sourced biographical information available in major newspapers. To ’s point, I’d agree it should not be included in the lead, but it most certainly should be included in the article as a whole: this detail would undoubtedly be included in any paper biography of her and is reported by the sources. Not including it when we have the sourcing would be the disservice to our reader, and would be censorship of encyclopedic information not mandated by the BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "A birth name is an important biographical detail" not always. Its *important* if they were previously notable under that name (as some high profile trans people are, as are other people who are famous under one name then change it). Its a tidbit of information of no real value otherwise. I have no real issue with it being in the body of the text if it can be sourced as a biographical detail, I do have an issue with it being in the infobox *as opposed to their actual name* as given what google (and other search engines) scrape is either the infobox and/or wikidata for their biographical slices. Currently Google lists their 'real name' as Kevin, and I am pretty sure that's our fault. So body of article yes if necessary - infobox definately no *for this subject*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It becomes a question of weight. There's a handful of questions I could see asking, such as if the person, since transiting, refer to their transition or former name, how much reliable sources refer to the transition or former name relative to all other factors, and of course if there was anything reasonable notable about the person attached to the former name prior to transition. If the person themselves rarely or never talks about that, that there's a few scattered mentioned of the transition in the media but they broadly ignore it, and the person had no notability until after the transition, then there's really no need to bring it up even though we could. This works on the default assumption that people that transition generally do not like to have their pre-transition identity brought up though I know that's not universally true; it is a reasonable conservative (safe) hedging to avoid any potential issues. Of course, if the person has talked about transitioning, or their former identity has clear notability, then that's a different situation, connecting the older name has to be done. --M asem (t) 14:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is why I think it comes down to sourcing: it the previous name is noted in secondary sources published by a national newspaper network, it is reasonable to include. If it is only primary sourcing or unreliable sourcing, then we should not include it. We have it here, and so a short mention in the body of the article is appropriate. Referring to Agnes as Kevin throughout the entire article would be an obvious issue unless there was a very strong reason to do so, but a brief mention of a birth name that is reliably sourced is pertinent biographical information, even if the subject was not notable under the name. It forms part of the story of their life, and a very significant part. We report on that when sources do, as they have here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that when I did searches for this person, I was not getting very many hits, and certainly not from national newspapers, but maybe I did the search poorly. I fully agree that if I did a search and had to do zero effort to find a handful of reasonably high-quality sources linking the old to new name, inclusion is appropriate. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, I could only find one, and that was a local paper. But again, that was a very quick google search just to get an idea where this was at. --M asem (t) 16:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The current source is a local paper, but it is published as a part of the USA Today Network, which means it does have a national reach (local papers sharing stories amongst themselves, publication on a nationally viewable website, etc.) It's part of their publishing model. I'm not getting much more either, but I think it is enough sourcing for a brief mention. This is also only after a quick search and nothing more in-depth. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the one I saw, and I'm not a huge fan personally of the local USA Today variants, at least for sourcing like these. And even if it was one USA Today-authored article (national, not local), and nothing else, that still shows that it might not have the weight to justify inclusion, given all other sourcing about this person. --M asem (t) 16:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

, I started the discussion here for two reasons. One was to discuss inclusion of the birth name, and the other was to draw attention to your false claims of WP:BLP violations. Any comments? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree on whether deliberately whitewashing a pertinent biographical fact for partisan POV reasons is a WP:BLP vio. I believe it is. Regardless, as other editors are saying here, the birth name is a pertinent biographical fact, very reliably sourced, as the only argument not to include it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That said, I'm happy to go along with the compromise of not including it in the infobox. While I believe it belongs in a field marked "birth name," compromise is part of the Wikipedia process, and this seems to give something to each side of this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since this is a Wikipedia policy that you're citing when reverting edits, can you elaborate on how removing contentious information (sourced or not) is violating that policy? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it "partisan" to refer to someone the way they identify themselves? Methinks you may have your notions flipped around the wrong way, Tenebrae... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a fan page where the subject gets to decides what the article includes. A birth name, as given in an RS metropolitan newspaper and other sources, is an absolutely basic, pertinent piece of biographical information. I'm surprised that it's even a question. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. I don't understand how this is "contentious" information, if properly referenced. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been long established that not every referenced fact belongs in an article. Wendy Carlos was notable under her birth name, so we include it. Agnes, on the other hand, was not, so there's no reason to make a point of including it - unless your engaging in the same sort of partisanship you were accusing me of. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone’s birth name is the single most basic biographical fact about them. If it is referenced, not including it would be censorship and a disservice to our readers. No need for it in the lead or infobox, but one sentence in the body? Yes. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Agree. Some information is not encyclopedic in nature. The argument here is that this information is fundamentally what is expected in a biographical article. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Single most basic biographical fact"? I thought Shakespeare settled that argument 400 years ago. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have an issue with me, and so you're removing a long-extant, status quo piece of the article without consensus to remove it, thereby short-circuiting the process. And you know that since you're an admin, you can get away with it. Your behavior is contrary to WP:NOTCENSOR: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. ... 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." Yet that is the only objection to removing a basic, RS-cited fact. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn'thave personal issues with you. Good job changing that. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

, I've restored the birth name. I'm normally all about applying ONUS as strongly as possible on BLPs, but to remove something as basic as the name someone is born under: something that could not reasonably be interpreted as a BLP violation, I think you need a strong consensus in favour of doing so, especially as this has been the stable version that an IP has tried to repeatedly edit war out. ONUS is policy, but so is NOTCENSORED. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So, Tony, will you be adding Laverne Cox's birth name to her article as well, since it's such a basic biographical fact? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Would we not give it at Stan Lee? Birth name is a basic biographical fact, and if it's given in a reliable source and not some tabloid site, I believe it absolutely belongs in an article. With all due respect, We should not be censoring basic biographical facts because a small number of people might object. And birth name is incredibly basic. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We don't deadname unless the person was notable under the old name. That has been the practice for years, and as I recall it's somewhere in the MoS. SarahSV (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to learn when the MoS first included the neologism "deadname". MPS1992 (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can find is MOS:BIRTHNAME: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out." It doesn't say not to include the birth name anywhere else, and I see in this case it's in Personal life. Still, the practice that I'm aware of is not to include birth names if the person wasn't notable under that name. There is more information at WP:TRANSNAME. SarahSV (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * MoS is about the lead. It’s been discussed on the BLP talk page and never came to a consensus. The question of the lead is very much a question of notability and of weight, but a short mention in the body of such a basic and important biographical detail is nowhere near a BLP violation, and removing it would be a violation of NOTCENSORED. To your hypothetical,, if there is reliable sourcing, it should be included. This is just biographical writing 101: basic life details need to be covered if they can be sourced. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, omitting a birth name is nowhere close to NOTCENSORED. It is a personal detail, which is something that people can't necessarily hide but may want to put behind them. Like minor crimes such as speeding tickets, etc. Omitting something like this where there is clearly no connect to the person's notability, and where we have no idea directly if the person wants that to be known, we opt to not include it per reasonable BLP interpretation. But that's not censoring anything at all. If it were the case of trying to remove the extremely-visible "Bruce" from Caitlyn Jenner to predict that that person didn't exist at all, that would be censoring. --M asem (t) 23:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not including some of the most important and basic biographical data because someone might be offended is the definition of a NOTCENSORSHIP violation. No one is given control of their biography, especially not for things like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not by our policy of BLP. And it is not the case that this person is seemingly asking for the change, it is just common sense that while we could connect their former life to the other, there's very little sourcing discussing that so we chose to omit it for sake of privacy. --M asem (t) 23:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * False. Our BLP policy has never covered this, and when it has been brought up, it has never achieved consensus. We have sourcing here. There is no presumption of privacy for basic details that are covered in reliable sources. The policy was never intended to cover this type of biographical detail, which is so basic that any and every paper biography would include it. We would look ridiculous if we didn't, and would be doing a major disservice to the reader. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * BLP favors privacy over inclusion, that's its starting point. And the other question which I asked before: how many sources talking about this person bring up their original name? I found exactly one, and relative to the nubmer of other sources talking about this person, that's trivial. It's clearly not important to other sources. --M asem (t) 00:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTCENSOR: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. ... 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." Yet that is the only objection to removing this basic, RS-cited fact. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not arguing its inclusion is "objectionable". It is a matter of BLP privacy to a non-notable period of someone's life before they transitioned. --M asem (t) 01:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the link that several people have been struggling to find may be MOS:GENDERID. Note that this is a rare case of something overruling reliable sources: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. The guideline does not specifically address whether that means that birth names should be excluded. My sense is that that would be determined, case by case. In a case where doxxing was involved, clearly we would have to leave it out, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. So MOS:GENDERID doesn't resolve this, but it may help inform it. Mathglot (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Do we know that the birth name in the article is accurate? There is only one RS that I'm aware of, dated March 2017, and it probably copied the name from the self-published sites that repeat it. Googling the name shows how poorly sourced it is. Did the subject appear in films under the old name? SarahSV (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The name is in a newspaper article in the The News Journal of Moore's hometown, Wilmington, Delaware. The staff writer, a professional journalist at a city newspaper, names the high school Moore attended, where presumably Moore went under Kevin. RE: "Did the subject appear in films under the old name?" That is irrelevant. Stan Lee never published anything as Stanley Lieber, yet we still include his birth name since that is an absolutely standard piece of biographical data. If there were professional journalists or biographical authors in this discussion, this would never even be in question. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The situation still comes down to undue weight relative to privacy concerns that are core to BLP. There are 220-some hits for "Stanley Lieber" connected to Stan Lee from GNews, clearly there's been attention given to his original name, and thus not undue to include (particularly as it appears Lee has no issues discussing his former name). For Moore, we have one article that we can find, and we have no idea of how Moore today feels about connecting that name to her present one. It would be undue to focus on this and would be better to omit per privacy. --M asem (t) 18:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see the subject's mother was interviewed for that story, so we can assume the name is correct. SarahSV (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. In addition, so was Peppermint herself, who didn't register any objections to the copious amount of personal detail she and her mother gave the News Journal reporter: "...says Peppermint, who grew up in The Flats near Seventh and Woodlawn streets in Wilmington." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "If there were professional journalists or biographical authors in this discussion, this would never even be in question." What makes you think there aren't professional journalists or biographical authors in this discussion, Tenebrae? I'd be willing to bet money that there are. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because I am one myself, and suppressing pertinent public information about a public figure — indeed, someone seen in millions of TV homes — is against journalistic ethics. Certainly, the News Journal knew to include it as part of a larger biographical article ... because it's a pertinent, indeed basic biographical fact. Does one include it in every newspaper mention? No, of course not, anymore than stating the musician Sting's birth name in every article. But in a biographical article? Absolutely. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And though it has no bearing on any official part of the discussion, I'm also probably the only one here who has met and chatted with Peppermint socially; I've even just added an image to her page. And while we didn't talk about either of our birth names, I can tell you she was one of the most chill, open, delightfully don't-give-a-f**k people you would ever want to meet.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * can you explain what difference it makes whether the article contains the name or not? The person was not notable under the old name, so no information would be sacrified by its omission (e.g. that under the old name, the subject wrote a notable novel or was interviewed after climbing Mount Everest). Absolutely nothing hinges on it, except that the subject would almost certainly prefer that it be left out. It's the same with full dates of birth; we routinely omit them, because they can be privacy violations and there is usually to need to include them. SarahSV (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How on earth can anyone make a claim about reading the mind of the subject? No, the subject does not appear to care about the birth name being published since it appeared in an article that interviewed the subject and her mother in which they gave numerous life details. All the actual evidence suggests the opposite of what you say, so that opinion is without any actual evidence. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the question. Sure: it's a credibility thing. Birth names are basic biographic details that do not have the potential for use with identity theft and other issues that we have with dates of birth (people routinely use those for things such as medical insurance verification, financial transactions, internet and computer passwords, etc.) Part of the presumption of privacy in terms of DOB is prevention of identity theft in relatively unknown individuals. These concerns do not apply to birth names. We routinely publish things such as maiden names and pre-adoption names, even if the person was not notable under these names, because it presents a full picture of the person. Additionally, as I alluded to below, the fact that Agnes did transition from Kevin is very significant to her life and our understanding of her: she has received substantial press on her transition and has talked about the potential impact of that on her career. I think names help the reader understand this, and make a concept that are sometimes difficult to grasp for people who are unfamiliar with trans issues easier to understand (and yes, there are many parts of the world where the concept of being trans is unfortunately completely foreign). Finally, whether or not someone is notable under their birth name doesn't matter re: inclusion. No one knows who William Jefferson Blythe III is, but we include it: he is significantly more notable than Agnes, but he was never really ever known under this name. I think birth . names are needed for biographic completeness in any biography, which is my concern here. We're hampering the completeness of the story of someone's life because of the potential for offense. That goes against policy, and I think it is a bad editorial call. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Claims that removing the birth name is a violation of WP:BLP
I just want to separate this out from the larger discussion so that it doesn't get lost. , can you explain how removing the birth name is a violation of WP:BLP as you have claimed several times in edit summaries during this long edit war? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We don't make false personal-life claims. Claiming or implying that his birth name is not Kevin Moore is false.
 * And additionally, per WP:NOTCENSOR: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. ... 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." Yet that is the only objection to removing this basic, RS-cited fact.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't about WP:CENSOR or whether the birth name should be included. This is about your claims that WP:BLP has been violated by removing the birth name. What part of the policy is being violated? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Censoring Removing properly sourced, fundamentally encyclopedic information from a blp article is a blp violation. Moving the focus of a content discussion away from content is disruptive to creating consensus. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way is "censoring" (your word) a biography a WP:BLP violation? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing information that is undue is not 'censoring'. There is no violation of [WP:BLP]] in removing sourced information. The BLP is explicitly about including information that should not be included, not when excluding information that *can* be included. WP:BLP does in fact allow censoring of sourced information anyway, so arguing 'censor' about a policy that allows censoring is pointless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also Tenebrae, you can cut out that "We don't make false personal-life claims" rubbish. Suggesting we do not include their birth name is very far from suggesting we list their birth name as something different from what it was. If we listed 'Donald Duck' as their birth name, you might have an argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ^this -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * BLP requires adherence to all content policies. I've refactored my comment to try to emphasize the previously mentioned points that editors may have overlooked. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Removing information from an article is never a BLP violation. In fact, the very top of the policy talks about removing contentious material that is questionably sourced. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. You are badly misrepresenting this policy, and it should stop now. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. There is a single source that connects the birth name to the current name. Per BLP, you MAY NOT include it. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not true: Per WP:BLP, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources." A city newspaper that is syndicated through the USA Today Network is a widely published reliable source (Also: Ronz's note below refers to the post above this one; my indented post here was added later, also replying to the post above.)--Tenebrae (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent what I wrote, nor ignore what I wrote to try to make a case against it. --;|Ronz (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please quote the part of WP:BLP that says you can violate it by removing information. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The part that says, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources." A city newspaper that is syndicated through the USA Today Network is a widely published reliable source.
 * Again, If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. That is a single source. The policy speaks frequently about the need for multiple sources for contentious material. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Something syndicated through a network is no more a single source than an Associated Press story.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They're both single sources. Nice try. And going back a bit, I asked where it said you could violate the policy by removing info. If you think your interpretation is correct, go add a "must" to that sentence, and see how long it lasts.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support the evidence presented by Sarek of Vulcan as well as Only in Death that removing sourced content is a BLP vio. I've been here a while, not near as long as Sarek and Only, and have never heard of this claim being promoted (it's a BLP vio) but I also trust their take on the policy because of their longevity and because the policy just doesn't read that way.  I'm hoping this is just a misunderstanding or simple confusion on the part of the person claiming it's a vio. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 18:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If in our Stan Lee article we refused to say his birth name, deliberately falsifying the documented truth, then that is a violation of WP:BLP, in addition to WP:NOTCENSOR. Deceit my omission is a violation. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, omission is not falsification. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You've never heard the phrase "lying by omission"? That's exactly what we're talking about.
 * And so far, no one has raised any valid objection other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no evidence anywhere than the subject herself (apparently unlike Laverne Cox) has ever objected to that or other biographical details, like the streets where she grew up and where she went to school, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The subjects objections or preferences don't overrule the policies of Wikipedia. If reliable sources mention those details they may be worthy of inclusion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Also, the subject herself has not publicly stated an objection, and in fact tacitly approved it by talking about her private life in a newspaper interview. The only ones objecting are a few Wikipedia editors — not the subject! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get to deep into this discussion, but I don't know if that is necessarily correct. While it is fun to quote bits of policy here or there, in doing so this we often take them out of context and it sometimes can start to develop into a big wikilawyering mess. In looking at the policies as a whole, it seems to me that we do in fact lean toward respecting people's privacy as well --and that includes birth names, addresses, and actual dates of birth-- where it seems like the subject may have an objection to their inclusion. Lacking an actual say-so from the subject, the measure of this appears to be whether or not the information has been not only reported, but widely reported such that we may infer that it is not a concern for the subject. In other words, instead of blindly repeating what a source says, it seems to me that we also have a need to use a little editorial judgment as well.Zaereth (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely not a violation of BLP to omit the birth name. We make editorial decisions all the time about what to include and what to omit, including facts that can be sourced to reliable sources. Quoting "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources" out of context as a requirement that we do this is a misunderstanding; it is not a commandment that we must do so, it is a warning that we can only do so if those conditions are met. In any case, that section is about full names, not birth names.
 * Whether BLP prohibits the use of the birth name in this particular case is a bit cloudier. To me, Sarek and Masem seem correct that the required "widely published in multiple sources" condition hasn't been met. Reasonable guidance seems to be to definitely include it if they did anything notable while using that name, but that does not appear to be the case here. I am disappointed that Tony re-added it to the article while it was being discussed here.  I'm also concerned about the idea that a birth name is the most important biographical fact about a person somehow gaining traction; that isn't true.
 * In the end, as long as it isn't in the infobox and isn't in the lead, I wouldn't make a federal case out of it. It's less a case of "clear violation" and more a case of "being needlessly disrespectful of another human being", which WP does about 100 times a day. But including the name violates my interpretation of BLP (the "widely published in multiple sources" part), and removing it certainly does not violate BLP, and I'd remove it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarification, Tony simply restored the status quo, which we generally leave during a discussion that may or may not reach a consensus to remove.
 * RE: "being needlessly disrespectful": The subject — a public-figure performer and TV star — herself has not publicly stated an objection, and in fact tacitly approved it by talking about her private life in a newspaper interview. The only ones objecting are a few Wikipedia editors — not the subject.
 * And a city newspaper story syndicated through the USA Today Network is by any definition widely published.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A single source is not multiple. The only exception to 'status quo' is BLP discussions where regardless of the status quo, the information is removed until consensus is that it is not a BLP violation to include it. This is written policy. BLP does on a number of issues require explicit not tacit approval. This does not currently include gender but as a general guide BLP is most definitely not interpreted that just because a living person had not complained about it, its OK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus so far to remove it, so it would be bad faith to do so in contradiction of the status quo until and if a consensus to do so is reached. And our remit as an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic, which includes basic biographical information like full names and birth dates. WP:NOTCENSOR is also relevant. I'm also not understanding the objection to this basic biographical fact, especially when the subject herself not only hasn't publicly objected but, judging from the fact it was stated in an article that interviewed her and her mother, is almost certainly the source of the name. Suggesting that she perhaps should be ashamed of the name her mother gave her is complete assumption without any evidence. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The "status quo" for any BLP is in favor of privacy over inclusion. That's a fundamental tenet that seems to be missing here. --M asem (t) 21:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a privacy concern if it has been published in a nationally syndicated network. It is a weighting issue. The presumption of privacy is very strong, but not to the point where it can overcome national syndication (which we know has happened here. The source is not for the local paper but for the national website.) There is a valid weighting question, but there is no presumption of privacy for something published in national syndication in a reliable secondary source. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually we do, and the case for it is Star Wars Kid. Until May 2013, we did not include his real name despite his name having been reported in several reliable sources. That changed in May 2013 when the actual person (now older and wiser) publicly made the connection in an interview, which he wanted to use in a beneficial manner. Now, part of why we did not include the name is because as a teenager the guy was bullied, and thus revealing the name would be more trouble. Yes, there's no indication that Moore is necessarily being bullied or the like, but it should be common sense that anyone that is trans may be subject to persecution should that be widely known, and for Moore, even the fact that they transitioned is not well published. This is a strong case of privacy over inclusion. --M asem  (t) 21:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , the fact that she transitioned is very widely published: she came out about it and talked about it personally on one of the most popular shows in the LGBT community, and specifically addressed the fact that she used to think that being out about being trans would ruin her career in the gay community. As Tenebrae also pointed out above, the USA Today source includes interviews with Agnes and her family to the point where we can reasonably assume that they got her birth name from either her or a connected source, which BLPPRIVACY does take into account. Additionally, she is not a minor so the presumption in favour of privacy for her would be much less strong than it would be for Star Wars Kid, where there are also child protection issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, now that it's been pointed out that she was on RuPaul's Drag Race last year, and she openly discussed her trans nature (I have not seen it, and can't easily find a place to watch it, but AGF that this exists), then the question now is moot, at least in establishing that she was trans and likely had a different birth name. But that still leaves the question of the name, which can still be a BLP issue if she hasn't mentioned it herself, necessarily. --M asem (t) 03:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove unless the subject was previously notable, per MOS:BIRTHNAME. Name changes between birth and becoming well-known are not relevant parts of a biography, even in cases where there's no deadnaming involved. This invites invasions of privacy (and even facilitating identity theft) for plenty of people with no enyclopedic purpose.--Carwil (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep If we're going to be bulleting and boldfacing. By the logic of the post above, we would not include the birth names of Stan Lee, Buster Keaton, Harry Houdini or any of thousands of people who were never notable under their birth name! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * remove - scraping the barrel of the www and finding a single link and using it to republish and promote the trans persons birth name is a violation of BLP - It is also of no benefit to a reader, it is as currently cited, trivia Govindaharihari (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A metropolitan newspaper syndicated by a major national newspaper syndicate is in no way, shape or form, "scraping the barrel of the www." Such inaccurate hyperbole does not benefit a rational discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a single source, sorry that is not hyperbole, if is is published in our article then wikipedia would become the primary propagator of the name, that is not what wikipedia is here to do. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "scraping the barrel of the www" is literally hyperbole. And even metaphorically it doesn't work, as a metropolitan newspaper and the USA Today network is far frombottom-of-the barrel tabloid sites, fan sites, etc. Also, an article distributed by a major syndicate to fulfills the definition of "widely published." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's one single www link, "widely published", it is not and it is clearly not well known is it. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Syndication: the USA Today Network is like the Associated Press. One article in it is covered in many publications across the country (not to mention USA Today itself, which despite not being the NYT is one of the most recognizable newspapers in the United States). It has been widely published in secondary sources, even if it is one story. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide additional www links to show that if wikipedia publishes the name that it will not becomes the primary propagator of that name Govindaharihari (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - In the spirit of MOS:BIRTHNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY, there's not much reason to include a trans person's birth name/deadname if (1) it is not widely reported and (2) they were not notable under that name. In the case of Peppermint, her birth name is not widely published by reliable sources (only one source has been given so far). Cases like Caitlyn Jenner require the use of the living person's birth name for the reader to fully understand the person's biography. However, that does not appear to be the case here with Peppermint. As for the parallels with folks like Stan Lee, the fact that Peppermint is a trans woman creates a different context. As acknowledged by many news outlets' and academic organizations' MOS, the use of birth names of trans people is often considered offensive and has the potential for harm to that person. This is generally not the case with cis people, however. Thus, we should further consider omitting birth names of trans people per WP:HARM.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and we also now have an international source published within the past few days reporting on her using her birth name now. This is no secret, we have secondary sourcing, and it is limited in the biography. Someone's birth name is a factual biographic detail that would be listed in any paper biography. When someone changes names that normally correlates to a significant life event: in this case her transition from Kevin to Agnes and her coming out as a transwoman. It is a key part of her biography, and is something that would be in any paper biography written on her. It is not a BLP violation to include it, but neither is it a BLP violation to remove it. I think we wouldn't be fully telling Agnes' story as a human being if we did not cover this detail, and do not think it disrespectful to report on it. We wouldn't remove someone's maiden name, their name before they were adopted (see Bill Clinton), or any other similar usage of birth names if it was sourced.While I agree with Floq that this isn't worth making a federal case over, I do think that there should be a consensus to remove something so basic that now has two reliable secondary sources, one of which appearing in a nationally syndicated newspaper network. Ultimately, we may need an RfC on how to deal with these cases, but for now, the BLP policy is silent on it, and it is a question of weighting. I think having one sentence in the body is fine, but agree it shouldn't be in the infobox or lead. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And you're quite sure this isn't a case of citogenesis, Tony? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to prove a negative... TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove per EvergreenFir. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep with briefest mention possible. Concerns of privacy for a public figure should be based upon sources. Her birth name is reliably sourced and fundamentally encyclopedic in nature. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Freddie Prinze Jr.
I've added the line "His family original surname was Pruetzel (German spelling: Prützel) but his father change it to "Prinze"."

But ever since is kept on being removed even though is already established that Friedrich Karl Pruetzel was Freddie Prinze Sr. original name. It's self evident the German spelling but I've gone one step further and I found a marriage record at Ancestry.com of his great-grandfather spelled as Prützel. Neither that counts. I've tried to talk to them in "Talk" page and personal page but no response.

Everyone who can mediate, is welcome.

Chem-is-try7 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly ancestry.com is not a reliable source for this information, as many editors have been trying to tell you. Secondly you are more likely to get responses on talk pages if you put new material at the bottom of the page, rather than the top.  I have fixed Talk:Freddie Prinze Jr. for you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point here. His OWN father was born Friedrich Karl Pruetzel aka Freddie Prinze Sr -which has his own wiki as a 70s celebrity-. How does this make my statement false?
 * "His family original surname was Pruetzel (German spelling: Prützel) but his father change it to "Prinze"."
 * The internal wiki link "his father" is sufficient to support that. I referenced Ancestry.com in order to find a way to convince the others about the German spelling. What else to do? Cite a German dictionary?
 * The German spelling for "ue" is "ü". Do i need to be more specific? If someone says that has 2 daughters and 2 sons is self-evident that has 4 children. That's the way it is. Sorry if you are unable to understand too.
 * PS1. Tell that to genealogists about Ancestry.com. Nevertheless, I don't think Ancestry.com is the strongest evidence but if you are citing a scan of the original document, its the strongest it can be.
 * PS2. Thanks for the tip...


 * What you are describing is called original research, and Wikipedia doesn't allow that for very good reason. Ancestry.com is not considered reliable because it is not a secondary source. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source either. Your German lessons, albeit nice, is also not a reliable source. If you can find this information in reliable, secondary sources, then we can add it to the article. Zaereth (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, the source for the family name on Freddie Prinze (the father) is actually a book on Freddie Prinze Jr (the son). So assuming the source does go into his family, I don't see any problem with using the same reference on the son's article to reference the same information. I am unable to verify it personally but I don't really see the objection here unless someone is saying the source on the father's article is insufficient. If the dispute is over including the German spelling rather than just the family name, this is ENWP - we don't necessarily include non-English translations even if correct without a reason. (A source should definitely not be required to state Pruetzel & Prützel are the same however. Its basic German - its not an original research issue.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As a native German speaker, I have to point out that while ü is commonly written as ue where umlauts don't exist, it's not unheard of that some family names use "ue" even in German, especially older ones (cf. de:Walther Felix Mueller, de:Wilhelm Mueller, de:Otto Mueller). So it's not impossible that the name was spelled "Pruetzel" even in Germany and we should not assume otherwise without a source. Regards  So Why  10:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Don't include the German translation then. (I wouldn't have anyway). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ajithkumar Nair
From the creation and edit history, this is quite a suspectable article as self-proclaimed with many weak citations and claims. Viswa Prabha വിശ്വപ്രഭ talk 14:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, yes. (See also User talk:Ajithmattam.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am stripping it out. I think it should probably go to WP:AFD if anyone can be bothered. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * With the edit history and talk page details of the principal contributor, it seems very much so. Viswa Prabha വിശ്വപ്രഭ talk 16:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken it to afd. Seems to be a run of the mill civil servant, and not notable. Neiltonks (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Paul Golding
You describe Paul Golding as a politician. The group that he leads, Britain First, is not considered to be a political party and so Paul Golding cannot be described as a politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack argonaut (talk • contribs) 16:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The only place in the article where the term "politician" appears is in the categories, and given the statement "Golding was a BNP Sevenoaks District councillor for Swanley's St Mary's Ward from 2009[3] to 2011", that would seem to apply. The article does describe him as a "political figure", which is a slightly different kettle of fish. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to article without a subject's name when the subject is only known for one incident
Can some editors experienced with BLP please take a look at this redirect and the related deletion discussion? In brief, the subject is only known for one incident at a Canadian university. In the university's main article, some editors have elected to omit the subject's name from the article on BLP (and DUE) grounds. The subject was prominently mentioned in some national media stories, however, so other editors have previously included the subject's name in the university's article and created a redirect from the subject's name to the article. So now we're in a situation where we have a redirect to an article that doesn't specifically mention the subject of the redirect. Suggestions on how to resolve this situation would be much appreciated. ElKevbo (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no grounds to keep her name out of the main article: the incident has been reported in numerous reliable sources, and she has written and spoken extensively about it from her own point of view. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirects which lead to a place where the name is not even found are iffy at best.  And BLP1E applies to a broad group of issues - that "the subject talked about it" does not seem to be an exception to BLP policy. Collect (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, if the artcle doesn't mention the name with BLP concerns then clearly there shouldn't be a redirect from the name. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E, etc. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I would not have a redirect for a non notable person, but I am not policy expert, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can folks also look at the Jordan Peterson entry below which is related to this and comment. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson
I removed a large section of material about Lindsay Shepard that related to her showing a video of Peterson. Can folks take a look at this. It sems like this "material" is more appropriate for the Lindsey Shepard bio or the Wilfrid Laurier University article. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC) ps, also see a question about a redirect above where this is mentioned. --Malerooster (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As said in the banner above, generally this board is for "...cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." That is not happening in the article.  You have not given us even a day to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, which is standard procedure.  This board is for solving problems, and at this point there does not seem to be a problem.  It does not require the eyes of the larger community yet. Marteau (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And I would kindly disagree. I conceded at the article's talk page that I could have waited. Fine. But this has now gone back and forth a few times and what is the harm in having others take a look and help? I find this board to be a voice of reason for the most part and folks do good work here. Some bios have so few people involved ect, that this helps. The reason I ended up there was because of the redirect of a non notable individual mentioned above. The "material" seems to be undue weight and very peripherally related. --Malerooster (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The harm is your abuse of the process and this board, your combative attitude, and your calling the talk page an "echo chamber" without basis. I happen to be very proud of the tenor of the talk page for that article, for the reasonableness and willingness to compromise shown by the editors, and I take offense to your insults.  Storming in there casting aspersions without basis and running to BLP before allowing for discussion is a sure way to piss someone off, and in that you have succeeded. Marteau (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Marteau, I apologize, I didn't wake up today with that intention and I am sorry that you are pissed off. --Malerooster (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald_Miller_(author)
There are no references at all for this content, only social media links and a website belonging to the subject, Donald Miller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.104.45.35 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That alone isn't reason to delete the article (see WP:NEXIST). I would encourage any interested editors to look for appropriate sources and remove any promotional language to help the article meet our standards. Alternatively, you can start a deletion discussion if you believe the subject is not notable per WP:BIO. clpo13(talk) 01:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Dollimore
Hello, I'd appreciate some help in dealing with the article Jonathan Dollimore. I have found myself in disagreement with the article subject over whether he should be described as a philosopher. I will provide some background. The article once described Dollimore as a sociologist, but on 23 December, 2016, an IP altered it to describe him as a philosopher. See here. Because the change was made without any supporting evidence, I reverted it here. Some time later, an account that identified itself as being operated by Dollimore stated on my talk page that Dollimore is not a sociologist and considers himself a philosopher. I have no problem accepting the first part of that, and the description of Dollimore as a sociologist has now been removed from the article. The second part is a problem, however, as it is unsupported by real evidence as far as I can determine. I did search for sources identifying Dollimore as a philosopher, but I found very little indeed, as I have noted here on the article's talk page. On the one hand, I realize that Wikipedia needs to be sensitive to the concerns of living people and take them seriously, but on the other hand, it does not seem unreasonable to expect someone who claims to be a philosopher to support that claim with objective evidence. This is a very awkward situation, which I would much rather not be in, and I believe the article would benefit from attention from someone other than myself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually very little of the article content is supported by anything. I've added an "advert" template to it. On the other hand, I don't think it's very important whether he's described as a philosopher or not. If he thinks that's mostly what he does, then describe him as it. But at the same time, remove the reviews of his "most recent" book that sound like paid blurbs. And the similar material. MPS1992 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If a consensus develops in favor of describing Dollimore as a philosopher, despite the absence of strong sourcing for the claim that he is a philosopher, then I will have little choice but to accept that. It nevertheless seems unfortunate that Wikipedia will accept that someone is a philosopher simply on the basis of their say-so - do we take WP:VERIFY seriously or not? Dollimore has mentioned this article in support of the claim that he is a philosopher, but I suspect that this is a case of citogenesis, as the information in that article was presumably simply copied from past versions of his Wikipedia article, such as this one, since it uses exactly the same wording that the Wikipedia article has in the past ("philosopher and social theorist"). Per Template:Circular reporting, if a "source is quoting material first published in Wikipedia" ... "this is a situation of circular reporting or "citogenesis", and the cited sentence can not be verified from the source". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I gotta say, that article gave me headache just reading it. In some ways it was like trying to parse through some legal double-talk. I believe every one of those books could be summarized in clearer English and about half the words. I agree that nothing looks to be sourced. The article appears to be more of an autobiography, which I don't think we should encourage.


 * There are a lot of definitions of the word philosopher, but none of them are really recognized professions. Therefore, the title is really rather meaningless without context. A philosopher can be a student of philosophy, an alchemist or practitioner of the occult, someone who lives according to a certain philosophy, a cult leader, or someone who is just a calm and rational person. Which is it? The fact is anyone can claim to be a philosopher; the bar is not set very high. Therefore, I see no reason to label him as such (even as a "self-proclaimed philosopher) unless a source can verify not only the title but also how exactly it is defined. Zaereth (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems to me, though, that the most accurate description would be "author" because that appears to be his obvious claim to notability (obvious in that I can see it plainly from reading the article, but unfortunately not from secondary sources). Zaereth (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I've searched for sources on Google, and it seems obvious that Dollimore's background is in English literature, not philosophy. One would want good sourcing (multiple and high quality sources) to identify Dollimore as a philosopher, but what you can find is absolutely minimal. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call him a philosopher unless he has held a position as a philosopher and/or has degrees in philosophy. SarahSV (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * His first degree was in English and philosophy, according to this, which says he was the Selfridge Lecturer in Philosophy, LeHigh University, 2002. It would be good to know what kind of PhD he has. SarahSV (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere we are calling someone who held a similar post as a history lecturer, a "historian and academic" in Wikipedia's voice, so it doesn't seem such a stretch to mention philosopher as one of the things Dollimore is. After all, teaching philosophy is one of the things philosophers do.


 * The third paragraph of our article philosopher is worth quoting here, "In a modern sense, a philosopher is an intellectual who has contributed in one or more branches of philosophy, such as aesthetics, ... social theory, and political philosophy. A philosopher may also be one who worked in the humanities or other sciences which have since split from philosophy proper over the centuries, such as the arts, history, ... sociology, ... linguistics, anthropology, ... and politics". MPS1992 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The question simply comes down to whether there is actually a reliable source calling Dollimore a philosopher. Is there? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Pepa (rapper) - year of birth - familysearch.org access could be helpful
Sources for Pepa's (Sandra Denton) year of birth give 1964 or 1969, almost exclusively. I'm hoping we can get some help on how to address this in the article.

There may be privacy issues here. We have multiple sources indicating that she has withheld her exact age when asked (listedhere). While her biography apparently has no dates in it at all (at least from what can be accessed online), she states that her mother Enid was extremely private about her own age that she wouldn't tell Sandra the ages of Sandra's brothers and sisters.

A newly added source has been used to verify both '64 and '66. I don't have a familysearch.org account to use, and we've not been able to get details on what this reference itself is citing and what specific information it actually contains. There's been some edit-warring over including the sole source for her year of birth, first for 1964, then for 1966.

We have little about her early life to work from. A 2001 VH1 Behind the Music episode about Salt'n'Pepa says she was 15 in 1979 when she was sent to Logan High School for one year, and that she enrolled in community college in 1984. The earliest reference we have is a 1988 People magazine article, where Sandra does not give here exact age.

Any help is welcome. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of Family Search, so I looked it up. I wasn't able to find peer reviews, which was disappointing. (There are a lot of rather promotional-style reviews out there.) I did find we have an article, Family Search, (which itself seems poorly sourced and overtly promotional). It looks like a primary source to me, or at least a site that hosts a collection of primary documents like other genealogy sites. I doubt it would qualify as an RS for a BLP any more than ancestry.com. Zaereth (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See also the discussion I started on Jimbo's page about this same issue. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Original documents such as birth certificates are not reliable, since different people can have the same name. You need a reliable secondary source to make the call.  Also, if the reliable sources disagree on the year of birth, then we have to leave it at that since this is a tertiary source based on secondary sources, not a secondary source that carries out original research.  TFD (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with that completely. As an analogy, if sources on, say... dogfighting (aerial combat, not the other thing) say it originated at different dates, in different wars, then we include both versions with attribution of where these theories come from. We don't have to dig through original documents from the wars, because the absolute truth is not our stated goal, but in reporting all probable versions, given the information available in secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * While different people can have the same name, it is unlikely that they will have the same parents. The chief reason that they are unreliable is that they depend on the person giving the information to have the correct information and also on the person writing down the information to understand it correctly. An error on the first persons part and another error on the second person's part can lead to some serious consequences. If a relatives birth date is misremembered and that gets put on the death certificate, the wrong date gets put on the tombstone and causes a problem in the future. Likewise if they mishear a name and put down the wrong spelling. My whole family tree was changed by a nurse who wrote down the wrong spelling of one of my grandparents last name and refused to change it.-- Auric   talk  13:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Alix Bénézech
It appears as though the article was just auto-translated from a different language. Grammar and syntax are very horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.110.223.57 (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it as being in need of copyediting and added it to my watchlist. I'll come back to it later if I get the time, unless someone else gets there first. Neiltonks (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Copyedited a bit - I trust no one yells. Collect (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Bernard Cheong
Bernard Cheong is verifiably a rich gentleman who likes buying expensive wristwatches. He has the honour of being a member of such and such, and of this, and of that: honours seemingly conferred by the industry that produces the products he buys. The arrangement seems to keep everybody happy (except for a few who add snark or worse to the article here). Personally, I tend to think that "spectacularly and verifiably profligate watch shopper" doesn't constitute encyclopedic noteworthiness, but an AfD in 2011 ended in "keep": not a single person agreed with the nomination. As long as the article exists, could a few more responsible people please put it on their watchlists? -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The AfD is likely to fail since the New York Times carried a feature about the individual. Collect (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Rebecca Solnit
There is a history of mysogynistic edits on Rebecca Solnit biography. On February 1, 2018, user 91.64.41.47 added adjective "sexist" to description term "mansplaining." On January 11, 2017, user 50.101.83.131 added "with her feminist panties in a bunch." On August 28, 2017, user 122.56.85.61 changed Solnit's name to "Fat Bumbum" and made other inappropriate edits. In October, 2016, users Bootsmedia and Wiki-overseer (now blocked) made multiple inappropriate edits. Aatist (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The vandalism is very infrequent, and has always been reverted, though sometimes it's remained in place for a few days. I've added the page to my watchlist so that I'll be alerted when it's edited again. Others on here may choose to do the same.  This ought to mean any future vandalism is quickly reverted.  If it gets too frequent, a request can be made to protect the page from editing but that's not appropriate at the moment because of the infrequency of the vandalism. Neiltonks (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Nolan Bushnell
Last weekish, Nolan Bushnell, the founder of Atari, was set to receive the Pioneer Award from the upcoming Games Developer Conference, for his contributions to the industry. However, that day, Brianna Wu and several other people spoke out on social media asking the GDC to reconsider this: they argued that while Bushnell does deserve to be recognized, that in light of the current #MeToo movement he shouldn't get it at this time, as there are many documented reports about the sexualized nature of the company during Bushnell's tenure there (in the 1970s); given the current situation of #MeToo, the timing was poor. GDC opted to pull the award, and Bushnell responded that he agreed with GDC's action and apologized for any past offenses. All this was well covered by RSes.

However, in the days that followed a number of former female Atari employees during Bushnell's tenure step forward to defend him; they argued that the nature of the workplace then reflected the larger society (eg free love and all that), and while the workplace may have been sexualized, it was consensual among men and women. A few RSes did pick these up, but nowhere close to the initial complains of Wu et al.

Because of the number of critics of #Metoo, as well as Wu's involvement with GamerGate, there has been a number of people off-Wikipedia (eg the usual places) that want to take the Atari employees' statements to lash out at Wu et al for "destroying" Bushnell. (In case it matters, I do think that Wu et al may have been stretching too far given the age of the charges, but certainly understand their point in timing).

I believe I wrote a neutral summary of the situation here, covering the situation in due weight. However, changed it to this version which included synthesis (pushing the female %age workplace number NOT covered by any of the RSes on the matter, and more accusational tone towards Wu. I have explained why I feel this is POV-ish and problematic on the talk page and reverted back, but Adraeus insists that I have a slanted version and that "If you continue to try to spin this section of the article in favor of Wu, I will fight you".  I would appreciate more eyes on this, as I feel the current version is not falling in BLP line with respect to Wu and others that spoke out on this. --M asem  (t) 05:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Noah Oppenheim
Hi,

There is a discussion at Talk:Noah_Oppenheim as to whether description of the firing of Matt Lauer is COATRACK, and even if it is not, whether the statement in the article is given sufficient context to be fair under WP:BLP. I'd request editors take a look and weigh in.

As disclosed in the Talk page, while I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor, I'm a paid consultant to NBC News, and thus am only making suggestions, not edits.

Thanks,

BC1278 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278


 * So far, new one new has weighed in at Talk:Noah_Oppenheim. I'd just note that the sentence is a very serious accusation -- that the NBC News president should have known about Matt Lauer's alleged sexual misconduct -- without the benefit of even allowing the very well-sourced denial that Oppenheim knew about the behavior. Not including the denial is not in the spirit of WP: Criticism, especially in a BLP. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

John McCain
The very first, short paragraph of the John McCain article tells about his current health situation and says his prognosis is poor. While that may be true, it is inappropriate for that to be there - his illness does not define who he is, which is the subject of that short identifying text. And no other Wikipedia article has ever done it like that. If this must be in the intro, it should be at the end not the beginning. Thank you. 2600:1002:B129:59A5:553:2CF0:EE06:4B7C (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree it is not appropriate in the place in the lede it was, and have removed it. It might be appropriate to mention it very briefly elsewhere in the lede. MPS1992 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

dave leduc Dave Leduc
This article is not written from a neutral point of view and uses inappropriate tone. This is a puff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillybillyjilly (talk • contribs) 04:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

thank you for your reminder. I am a huge Lethwei fan and I have been traveling the Asia all my live for martial arts, and especially Lethwei. Recently I am retired and spent more time trying to grow the knowledge of Burmese bareknuckle boxing. I am still learning, I think you are right about many sentences or words I have used in some places. Please be patient with an old man trying to grow the sport. I will remove the badly used words and sentence if needed. I think the Dave Leduc page along with my Too Too page are well written I search the entire internet for the right supporting articles. No one can put my work down for that. But like I said, I give it to you some words and wrongly used. I will perfect the article. No need to be re-written it has been reviewed by many many people over the last year. Now we are at a stage to perfect it and remove the bad parts. Thank you for challenging me! I appreciate it. Best regards, Lethweimaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethweimaster (talk • contribs) 12:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Mauricio Pochettino
In Managerial style section, 2nd paragraph, 3 references to "diving", not a footballing skill but a foul move, the subject of accusations by opposition. The 2nd & 3rd references are surrounded by bad grammar, not in keeping with the grammar of the article as a whole: "likely due to those players having the attributes to excel in diving in penalty area." (A native speaker and the article author, even if they wrote this, wouldn't phrase it like this - "in" twice in quick succession - and would refer to /the/ penalty area.) Then, "and a willingness to promote young players in diving general" (The word "diving" has clearly been inserted into the phrase "in general". Surely vandalism!Neil (London) (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, vandalism, and removed. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Ji Seong-ho
IP editors have repeatedly added material to the lead such as [this edit] without a source. There has been a series of adds and reverts since February 5th. The content is negative and seems to reflect a personal opinion rather than any published sources. Gab4gab (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The page has been semi-protected and I've also added to my watchlist. Meatsgains (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Troy Blakely
Troy Blakely was listed on this page as passing away after a lengthy battle with cancer. This is libelous and untrue and there has been no statement made as to cause of death in ANY article.

Blakely specifically said in an interview he was 2 years cancer free- the source provided on the wiki did not say he died from cancer- it confirmed he DIDN'T have cancer. Here is one of many Sources proving he did not have or die from cancer: http://ampthemag.com/top-story/troy-blakely-managing-partner-apa-passes-away/

The page was protected to prevent vandalism, yet inaccurate and libelous information, with no sources to back it up, are still being posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KT1922 (talk • contribs) 02:39, February 12, 2018 (UTC)


 * But he did pass away after a lengthy battle with cancer. It says so in that source. read it more carefully. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

barcus NO it doesn't. Both articles quoted clearly says no cause of death were given and the deceased was quoted as saying he was cancer free. No where in any article does it say this person died from Cancer. Who can correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KT1922 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Everyone is correct, but I've fixed it like this to avoid any uncertainty. Thank you for raising this concern. MPS1992 (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Self promotion
The article Steve Hillard is unrelentingly positive and laudatory about his achievements including his one or two self published books and the supposed film and TV deals made (though nothing has actually been made). The article's sole contributor from its creation in 2014 to now is JFav007, who has not contributed to any other articles. If he isn't actually Steve Hillard, he's his employee. 202.81.249.15 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed the article to comply with WP:BLP and WP:PROMOTION, removed unsourced biographical information and non-WP:NPOV material, and eliminated non-notable announced projects that have not had any concrete progress. Thank you for notifying this board of the concerns with the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Carman Lee


I came across this page because of a lenghty edit-war between several non-ac users that apparently has been (slowly) going on for years until recently exploding. I put an end to it with protection for now but it really needs some people familiar with the subject or at least who speak Chinese to sort out the whole birth date mess. Regards SoWhy 08:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Phil America
Page was deleted due to lack of notable citations. A number of new links have arisen. A New York Post article, a number of Juxtapoz articles(the largest art magazine in the world) , news article about his permanent sculpture in the Sacramento Kings arena to name a few. He also has had a few museum shows in the past years and other notable things such as giving 3 TEDx Talks and publishing a new book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonFunk (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Please read Articles for deletion/Phil America (2nd nomination), which is the discussion that resulted in deletion of the article. If you believe that the artist is now notable, then please feel free to write a new article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There is an actual difference between TED and TEDx, my dog could do a TEDx talk if I paid enough money. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson SPEEDY DELETION REQUEST
The Biography of Suzanne Olsson was begun years ago by family members. Because of the religious nature of her work, the article soon attracted editors who were staunch Christians who were []opposed to her ideas. The edits became more and more derogatory through the years. When she raised concerns or attempted to repair the article, she was eventually banned altogether from Wikipedia, thus allowing wiki editors to distort and misrepresent the biography with no ability for the subject to correct or amend. All requests by the Living Person for removal of the article have been ignored. Example 1: Opening paragraph immediately discredits her work and her book by quoting a Christian author, A. Mathias Mundadan, who calls it all "A work of fiction." Yet the history and discussion pages clearly show that millions of others, especially Ahmadii Muslims, believe the theory and support Olsson's research. This information appeared in previous versions for fairness and balance, but has been removed (again) by current editors. Example 2: "In 2002 in support of her research at Roza Bal, Olsson claimed to be a 59th generation descendant of Jesus, but has since renounced this claim." This was taken out of context. Olsson's entire project has been to gather DNA from more than a dozen ancient tombs that are under threat of destruction. According to Islamic Law governing these tombs and the DNA research, one MUST claim a potential family link. These facts appeared in earlier versions of the article, but were removed by current editors. Olsson was working with the Red Cross in the region at the height of the Taliban War. Her life was in danger every day. This was the main reason the research had to be put aside. Yet this fact was omitted by current editors who have edited out all the good, and inserted and slanted the entire article to make Olsson appear like a "troublemaker" and nut case running around digging up old graves with a teaspoon and offending local Muslims. The article is very biased and unfair, and actually contributes to the delay of research and destruction of these old tombs, instead of protecting and preserving them as Olsson had set out to do. Example 3: Current editors do not even have the decency to include a link to Olsson's book, instead all the links lead to publishers pages and other non-essential information. Where there had been links on other pages to her research and her self-published book, these also have been removed across all of Wikipedia, although Olsson has highly regarded peer reviews of her work. The bias and prejudice of the (clerly Christian) editors is blatantly apparent. The subject of the 'Biography of a Living Person' has repeatedly begged for editing help or speedy deletion. I am recommending this article for speedy deletion as per Olsson's numerous requests, and in accordance with Wikipedia policies regarding such biographies. Alternately, Olsson should be permitted to correct the article, which then should be locked by Administrators to prevent further edit wars. Thank you. Groshnik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groshnik (talk • contribs) 12:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has been nominated for deletion: Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (3rd nomination).--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Honors and awards
This is not about a specific entry, but about biographies in general.

Many biography articles have an "Honors and awards" section, with a bare CV-style list of awards the person has won. For famous people, these lists can be quite long. Are there any Wikipedia policies and guidelines that govern these lists? I couldn't find anything in WP:MOS and MOS:BLP. --Nbauman (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Outside of sources per BLP, the other thing that I've seen applied but not documented is to stick only to notable (blue-linked) awards, showing that that award has notability and thus the person being recognized for it is of importance. The other option is that such lists can be moved to a separate page (eg List of awards and nominations received by Tom Cruise) though some high-level summary should remain in the BLP article. --M asem (t) 06:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are often WikiProject-specific guidelines. I know we have them at WT:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Every year there are more and more awards. The use in a biography lead of "award-winning" without naming an actual blue-linked award can usually be deleted. Awards are cheap or free, and most people like them. Just look at the success of out barnstars. It would be great to have lists of notable and non-notable awards (and similar lists for reliable/non-reliable sources), but it would be a mammoth undertaking. We do have vanity award which mentions several non-notable ones, and I have created articles on some of the more prominent schemes (where there are decent sources) as a sort of public service warning. The downside being that they are now perversely blue-linked. Edwardx (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Masem generally awards are restricted to notable ones. The usual reason for excluding non-notable ones are under wp:Undue. It comes up in puffery and fringe/pseudo blps where the subjects expertise gets puffed up with a load of non-notable or walled garden awards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 for notable awards only. Mainly this is PR guff. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. These are very sensible recommendations. But if I delete awards, and somebody else reverts the deletion, I'd like to have a Wikipedia policy or guideline to support the deletion. Apparently there is none. Thanks for confirming that situation. --Nbauman (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Demetrios Spandidos
I recently noticed that an editor added this link to the article Demetrios Spandidos. This link appears to be a letter written by Spandidos himself to Wikipedia, asking that the book "Natural Obsessions" (refs. 4 and 5 in the article currently) be removed, and replaced by two articles Spandidos himself wrote (first, second). I would like some feedback on what other editors think should be done here. Every morning  (there's a halo...)  14:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken the link out as it doesn't meet the criteria for external links, especially in a BLP. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Brown move discussion
In case anyone is interested, Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. SarahSV (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS, not again. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at that yesterday, then applied Miracle Mineral Supplement to my eyes. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The notification above appears to have been phrased neutrally, but the replies have not. I suggest saving the various accusations for after the move discussion takes place (or at least somewhere that's less of a general discussion forum). To do otherwise smacks of WP:CANVASSING while the discussion of the proposal is ongoing on the Talk page of the relevant article. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Replies to an announcement are not bound by any sort of rule on neutrality, what a ridiculous assertion. TheValeyard (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Replies to announcements are bound by all sorts of rules, but as far as I can see, the above two replies do not break any rules that I can think of. MPS1992 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The same may not be true of the move request, which falls foul of WP:STICK tot he point of being arguably disruptive. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like one person pushing this the loudest, judging by the archives of all 10-ish (its hard to tell as some look to have been aborted soon after filing). At some point does one consider banning that person from future participation? TheValeyard (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You might very well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Bahar Mustafa
The article about this topic is currently at Bahar Mustafa race row (formerly "incident"). This title seems to advance the POV that Bahar Mustafa (no wiki bio, evidently not a notable public figure) is solely responsible for a "race row", which implies violent rioting, according to Oxford dictionaries. There was no rioting; this was a media kerfuffle with commentators throwing around accusations of racism and sexism based on public statements by Mustafa, then an officer at Goldsmiths. There were criminal charges that were dropped, resulting in more media commentary. A requested move in January didn't go anywhere. Nevertheless, the tabloidish "Bahar Mustafa race row" seems like a clear WP:BLPSTYLE problem. Should the title be changed? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that:
 * a very recent Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row by the filer failed ro gain consensus - on a talk page with a concurrent RfC.
 * The row in question revolves around Mustafa's comments regarding race and sex and were not related to the University besides Mustafa's role in the student body.
 * As a directly elected official (by a electorate of close to 10,000 citizens), Mustafa is a PUBLICFIGURE.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The election referred to is evidently the election of Goldsmiths Students' Union officers by the student body (see "Elections"), not the public. Where does this "10,000 citizens" figure come from exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For comparison, Oklahoma City bombing is not titled "McVeigh/Nichols bombing", and with good reason: Wikipedia is written impartially, without emphasis on the guilt or innocence of any one person. We let reliable sources do that. See also WP:1E: The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not ascertain or imply any guilt, merely cover the events. The size of the electorate in the direct elections for this position is easily sourced. The event in this case, was focused on this PUBLICFIGURE and not on the university. To imply that the university was in any way responsible for the statements of this individual would misleading and possibly even slander.Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So then the title implies responsibility when it names the university, but not when it names the person? How is linking Mustafa with a "race row" not also "slander"? The proposed title simply refers to where the incident took place. See again Oklahoma City bombing, also Wounded Knee Massacre, Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, etc. etc. If Students' Union officials (elected by a body of around 8,500, not 10,000, and in their capacity as students, not citizens) are public figures, I suppose we can look forward to biographies of the current ones as well – what were their names again? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We could find just as many examples of incidents where an individual's name is found within the article title (Dreyfus Affair, Profumo affair, Munroe Bergdorf race row incident, Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, Abu Omar case, Mark Foley scandal, Jeremiah Wright controversy, Lissette Ochoa domestic violence case, need I go on...). There is therefore plenty of precedent for including Mustafa's name in the title of the article. It was she, and not the university whose student union employed her, who was at the heart of this "race row" (to be clear, I think that there may be a better term than "race row" and would be happy to discuss that further at the Talk Page). Thus, referring to the incident as a "Goldsmiths race row" would not be appropriate nor particularly accurate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've renamed the heading as this article is about the controversy relating to a BLP, not a University (if it was really about the University you'd never have posted it here as a University isn't a BLP). Iffy★Chat -- 11:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have a BLP on the person, and the existing title is contested on BLP grounds, which is why I used a different heading. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh, the heading of this discussuion isn't that important, what concerns me more is your WP:FORUMSHOPPING to try and get your way on this article. You moved the page yourself last month, then when that move was reverted, you did the right thing in going to WP:RM to try and build consensus for your preferred title, but it went against you. Today, you've returned with a less controversial move without any discussion, some controversial edits and now you're here trying to get the article moved to your preferred title again. I'd advise you to drop the WP:STICK on the article title, and to let consensus build for your edits. Iffy★Chat -- 11:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that Iffy's comments are a fair assessment of the situation here. I have no strong objection to a name change of the article, but the best thing is to suggest changes via an RfC. I'm a little concerned by some of Sangdeboeuf's more unilateral actions when it comes to changing the article name or removing parts of the article's contents. They are clearly well meaning, but the appropriate procedures should be followed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The appropriate procedures are summarized at WP:BOLD, and I followed them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

IMO, this article is a sledgehammer for what ought be a small section in the article on the organization proper. As it stands, the singling out of one person verges on BLP1E, and is of UNDUE weight for such a person. The person seems remarkably unremarkable other than the accusations of racism in themselves. Collect (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Collect on this. It's a relatively minor situation regardless of if or how the media did or didn't blow it up. To focus on one person who doesn't pass WP:GNG utterly fails WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE (and BLP1E). A redirect to the main article on the organization with a short paragraph would suffice and would solve the BLP issue.  freshacconci  (✉) 14:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. The issue is that the article exists at all, not what it's called. Neiltonks (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than happy with a redirect to Goldsmiths Students' Union, since this event was a relative flash in the pan, with no substantive coverage of the person or the controversy that I see since 2015. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The media did not blow this up. A situation in which a public figure allegedly excludes a class by race and sex from events, and futhermore even allegedly called for the killing of said class is a serious series of incidents - which led to extremely wide coverage in British and international press.Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A serious series of incidents - which led to extremely wide coverage in British and international press – one story in The Washington Post on the initial furor and an interview with Vice. That's all the "international" coverage cited (not counting RT and The Washington Times – hardly the most reliable). Whether the events were "serious" or not is a matter of opinion. What's relevant here is the amount of coverage they received. Where is the later coverage of the repercussions of this "public figure's" actions? I see nothing since 2015, because evidently there were no repercussions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly with this suggestion. What is being proposed, essentially, is that the article be deleted because some editors do not think that the topic is worthy enough for a Wikipedia article. That's deletionism at its most extreme and is borderline "I don't like it". Now I'm not saying that this incident was a world shattering event (it wasn't), but it was an incident that attracted a fair bit of discussion and debate within the United Kingdom and gained some attention from foreign press too. For that, it warrants an article (and indeed has one, which is fully and appropriately referenced and of decent quality). We have plenty of articles, many rated GA or FA status, that are devoted to incidents of comparable significance (Hands Across Hawthorne, Murder of Dwayne Jones, and the Death of Leelah Alcorn are FAs that spring to mind) so there is really no strong argument for deletion here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the argument is to merge and redirect, not delete. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument either. Are you suggesting that a relatively brief media brouhaha over one activist's controversial statements is comparable to a murder or an assault? (note that was the article creator in this case.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest here, describing it as a 'merge and redirect' is just a cover for what is, in effect, deletion. We are talking about a whole, fully referenced article being carved down into a single paragraph (if that) and slotted into another article. That means that the vast majority of the article's content will be deleted. That's de facto deletion. I also reject the idea that this incident is intrinsically not "comparable to a murder or an assault". The fact is that is received far more media coverage than the vast majority of murders and assaults that take place in the United Kingdom. And that's the point: it received significant media coverage, both domestically and internationally. It is thus notable enough for a Wikipedia article. You are more than welcome to feel that the incident is inconsequential—that's perfectly within your rights as a free-thinking human being. But the fact that you hold that opinion does not mean that the article should be deleted. I personally think that a great many of the sports tournaments, matches, and personalities that are covered on Wikipedia are inconsequential, but I can appreciate that others might disagree and I don't try to get those articles deleted. As Icewhiz pointed out, you have been trying to change the article repeatedly now, through bold edits, a little bit of edit warring, an RfC at the talk page, and now this. This is textbook WP:FORUMSHOPING. I know that you mean well but it really is time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. We all have far more important and worthwhile things that we could be doing than re-hashing these arguments again and again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In terms of LASTING and focus on Bahar Mustafa - these two books - The Feminist Fourth Wave: Affective Temporality, Prudence Chamberlain and Collisions in the Digital Paradigm: Law and Rule Making in the Internet Age, David John Harvey show lasting impact of the incidents around Mustafa in 2015. (there is also - - but I think I wouldn't see this as RS, though it does show continuing references to this).Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Accusations of beating horses are unwarranted here. In fact, it appears as though is the one who is ignoring consensus. Reading the above comments, one will see three other contributors suggesting that the existence of the article is WP:UNDUE. My original suggestion was simply to change the title, but now the possibility of a merge has been suggested, which I would also support. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a name change, but we would have to be careful which name we chose and such a change would have to be decided upon via an RfC, which you can initiate over at the Talk Page. Obviously, the last RfC on the issue got nowhere but I'd be more than happy to take part if you wanted to try again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Kelly Gray (musician)
There is a defamatory statement made by Scott Rockenfield in a declaration, that claims Kelly Gray Was fired from the band Queensryche due to substance abuse problems. This statement is unsubstantiated, supported only by hear say evidence and should be permanently removed from the page.

I have deleted the statement from the wiki page before, but the statement has been re inserted within a few weeks of the change.

I personally know this case and can confirm the information is unsupported.

Thank you

Howard David Gray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamoneofyou (talk • contribs) 23:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In light of supporting the process of determining whether this claim should be counted as defamatory, I am including the text from the referenced source. Emphasis has been added. My personal opinion on the matter is neutral, meaning I would have nothing against either keeping it on the page or omitting it. Awaiting decision, I am retaining the edit by Iamoneofyou, who omitted the statement.
 * Page 4, lines 17-25: "Our stage manager and monitor tech Kelly Gray’s claim that he and Geoff Tate do all the work is completely false. Q2K (2000) was when we added Kelly to the band to play guitar. He was also hired as a producer/mixer for the CD. Producing and mixing a CD has many added requirements and Kelly Gray handled them well. However, his claims that he and Geoff Tate wrote the entire CD is completely and utterly false. Kelly Gray and I spent many weeks at my home studio writing a large amount of songs, and Michael Wilton and Eddie Jackson did the same. Because of everyone’s complete involvement, it was easily decided that we should just split all credits equally amongst the five members."
 * Page 5, lines 1-9: "Kelly Gray’s biggest claim to fame is producing the band Candlebox’s first CD. After that, Kelly Gray worked on some other much smaller projects and as such, does not have a very credible list of credits to his name. Also, because of Kelly Gray’s personal abuse habits and ongoing problems, he was fired from Queensryche back in 2002 and replaced with Mike Stone. Kelly Gray is now working alongside Geoff Tate and has been hired by Geoff Tate to produce his solo CD. Also, in several Internet forum posts from Jason Slater, Kelly Gray and Jason Slater’s working relationship together is very distraught and this has been affecting the Queensryche brand for many years."


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyspeeder (talk • contribs) 11:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * These claims rely on trial transcripts, which are primary sources that we should never use to support assertions about other living persons. (See WP:BLPPRIMARY.) I've removed all of the trial documents and their associated claims, leaving one claim by Gray and about Gray as allowed by WP:ABOUTSELF. Woodroar (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Patrick Brown (politician)
Patrick Brown (politician) was the leader of the opposition in Ontario (Canada) until last month. That is sort of like the Nancy Pelosi of the Canadian state of Ontario (ok, province, but that is like a state in the USA). He was then accused of bringing an underage girl to his house and asking her for oral sex, put his penis in her mouth, she sucked, then said she didn't want to do it. I am not making this up. Newspapers report this, a few even using the word "penis". (This is the one that used the word "penis" but there are quite a few that mention lie detector - http://torontosun.com/news/provincial/exclusive-patrick-brown-passed-lie-detector-test - I did not use this reference because of the penis reference and because I wanted prestigious references, not something like the NY Daily News) He stopped. The second accusation was that he took a co-worker to his house, showed her travel photos on his bed, then they started kissing with him lying on top of her. She felt his erection through the clothes. She said she had a boyfriend so he stopped and drove her home.

He denies both of these incidents. Later, the first woman said she was actually not underage and legally old enough to drink.

Brown then took a lie detector. The Toronto Sun said he passed it, which was given by a respected expert. Armed with that information, he went to the press and said he was cleared and, just before the deadline, entered the leadership race for leader of the opposition, sort of like a political party's primary.

There are several material facts in this saga. The accusation, the lie detector, the re-entering the race. I believe that BLP requires that we must write this in a neutral fashion but not omit key details, like that he took a lie detector test. We are not here to prove how accurate the lie detector is, simply to state that it happened (because it is a key factor in Brown re-entering the race to replace him). To cast doubt, I used the word "claims" to clear him but another editor wants no mention of the lie detector. That would make the story inaccurate (he was accused, he resigned, he now is running again).

Please help. We're discussing this on the talk page. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Speculation about a living person not formally charged
At there is a section about Dean Runkle being a suspect in the murder, although, Dean Runkle has never been formally charged by the investigators. The whole section has only one reference by a single journalist. I think the whole section must be removed as speculation and a violation of WP:BLP. Please see also the discussion at the talkpage of the article. Dr.  K.  22:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm not familiar with Scene, so I don't know if they are a reliable source in general, but this article used as a source is definitely and opinion/speculation piece. It's basically a story, written in a very descriptive, novelesque, 1950s Dick Tracy style, about how this writer playing detective solved the case, and how the bumbling FBI has failed to charge the man the writer feels is guilty. The biggest lead is apparently that he "looks more like the composite sketch than anyone before him." I mean, this is like a grocery-store burrito, wrapped in layer upon layer of description with almost no beans inside. I definitely say this should be removed for lack of RS and any factual basis other than some writer's hunch.


 * Keep in mind that the writer of this "news" article is actually an author of a book about the murder, and this source reads like an ad for that book (as well as more than a bit harassing to its subject.) Zaereth (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the section, as the burden for inclusion rests upon those who want it in. Left notice at the talk page. Zaereth (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much both for your policy analysis, and also the removal of that section. Best regards.  Dr.   K.  02:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Darius Guppy
,, (same user)

I decided to take this here rather than WP:EWN or WP:ANI.

The IP above has repeatedly attempted to restore an obviously inappropriate/non-WP:BLP compliant version of the article for Darius Guppy (four times in the last month). Guppy is notable in relation to the press coverage surrounding a 1993 insurance fraud, and also the coverage surrounding a 1990 telephone call between Guppy and Boris Johnson. This user's favoured version is one that includes irrelevant prattle and speculation about the subject's personality, and details about his political views. Their writing style is also wholly inappropriate for a biography (and for an encyclopedia). Their changes specifically fail the WP:NPOV requirement of WP:BLP, and the requirement that articles should not promote the subject (WP:BLPSTYLE). For example, the user wants the article to emphasise the subjects' "notable ancestry and his unconventional opinions and writings", and how "extremely well planned and very carefully executed" the insurance fraud was, etc. I referred the article to WP:BLPN last year, and among the editors who participated in the discussion there was an implied consensus in favour of the current, neutrally worded version.

I have tried to explain the problems to this user, and have left links to the relevant policies and guidelines on their talk page, and on the article talk page. So far their strategy has been to ignore the advice and to spuriously question my motives, such as suggesting that I am "a journalist duffed up by Mr G". They have a history of doing this.

Having to keep returning to the page to restore the WP:BLP-consistent version is becoming very tiresome. The user is currently incapable of understanding why their changes are inappropriate, and won't pay attention to any further advice. A short block of a month or so may get the message across. Besides the BLP issue, there is also the edit-warring, obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues, and also WP:IDHT behaviour in relation to their refusal to take any advice on the correct way to approach BLPs on Wikipedia. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There are definitely huge problems with the IP's additions, most noticeably the poor quality sources, such as the Daily Mail, blogs, a site called "nobodylikes so-and-so.com"... The list goes on. If this behavior is persistent, then you will likely need admin intervention. I suspect a block may not work for an IP that can switch addresses at will, but perhaps page protection for a while may discourage this behavior. Either way, you need an admin to look at the problem and decide.


 * You may actually have more luck with that at ANI, simply because more admins patrol that page. (A lot of us here are just regular users who, for whatever reason, take an interest in BLP.) There is always a chance that some admin will stumble across it here, but if you take it to ANI, and say clearly and concisely that a user is persistently inserting non-RS material into a BLP, you may get a faster response. Zaereth (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * and look like proxies to me, does anyone agree? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * is an anonymous proxy. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The page is now semi-protected, so this is resolved. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Jorge Alberto Rodríguez


Fabricated biography. Sources do not corroborate the article or do not even exist; e.g. "DEA Congressional Testimony, October 23, 2011" (Not listed among DEA Congressional testimonies in 2011).

See: Talk:Cali Cartel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.44.21 (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The BOP number in the article seems to confirm his name and release, at least (search with 09086-017)-- Auric   talk  12:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, but so what? As stated in that Talk: Cali Cartel -page, Jorge Alberto Rodriguez Herrera (a real relative of the Cali Cartel brothers) is a different person! The identities are deliberately mixed-up. Every bit written on the Jorge Alberto Rodriguez article is unsourced, misleadingly sourced or leads to two different identities of whom very little is actually known. And what is known is relatively mundane. Consider the rather extravagant, unsourced claims regarding "The 400". Absolutely nothing links said claims to Jorge Alberto Rodriguez, our inmate number 09086-017. Worse, this fakery has infested even the far more visited Cali Cartel article. Jorge Alberto Rodriguez is mentioned throughout but try checking the sources. I just did a Google Books search on Ron Chepesiuk's The Bullet or the Bribe, a source provided for Seizures, one of the sections mentioning Jorge Alberto. Zero presence of Jorge in that book. Another source, this time from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Nope, nothing there either. And this is a consistent pattern. "Jorge Alberto Rodriguez", as presented in his namesake article or the Cali Cartel article, is nothing but a product of someone's imagination.


 * FWIW, I researched these things months ago and tracked that someone. Judging by several social media accounts--that seem to have since gone dark--it seems the fabricator used Wikipedia to acquire fake bragging rights or some such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.44.26 (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please Remove My Biography. It's Inaccurate & Outdated.
I want to request that you delete my biography from Wikipedia. It is inaccurate and outdated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Hoffman_(businessman)

Thank you!

If you want my accurate biography, you can find it here: https://www.foundersspace.com/hoffman/

If you want independent press confirming the facts, you can find it here: https://www.foundersspace.com/press/

Sincerely, Steven S. Hoffman — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenHoffman (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

J. J. Redick
Page recently became unprotected. Two registered accounts are working together to add defamatory content on the BLP disguised as "refs" which do not back up their claim. The content added is poorly written and likely copied from elsewhere (as it introduces the subject of the article by full name and occupation as if it weren't already on his Wikipedia article), however the BLP-violating part is the suggestion that he intentionally made "racist remarks", despite none of the sources saying he did so, but only describing an incident in which he stumbled in speech and said something that sounded like it could be. It's a BLP vio to outright say in Wikipedia's voice, that this constitutes racism, does it not? I can't remove this misleading section because of 3RR. JesseRafe (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch
This article refers to the subject as a" Piece of garbage". I don't agree with her politics, but I believe that everybody needs to be treated with respect. comments like this degrade the respect the wikipedia has and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.246.240 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're referring not to a stable version of the page, but a version that had been vandalized. I've protected the page for a week. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Jan Blokhuijsen
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jan_Blokhuijsen&type=revision&diff=827016727&oldid=827016474

Claims of racism, POV, content not in the source and unreliable sources.

I think the controversy has a place on the article (maybe) - as I showed with my edit, but saying he is racist and insensitive and putting comments such as "Many people remain insulted by his words" doesn't really seem suitable for a Wikipedia article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am concerned with [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/827016727 this edit] by and I left him note at his talkpage.  It is mixed of sourced content and synthesis at the end and that is contentious material, more over in contentious "controversy section" . –Ammarpad (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of the problem comes from the sources. Whereas a neutral source might state "person X caused controversy in Korea" those sources with a touch more bias tend to say "evil person X, insulted the entire history and culture of Korea, with racist statements" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation: Jennifer Rode
Hello, The name Jennifer Rode needs to be disambiguated. Jennifer Rode is a German sports player and currently has a page. However, Jennifer A. Rode is also a Senior Lecturer at UCL, a well-published scholar, and a disability rights activist. I would appreciate it if they could be disambiguated. I do not know how to do this myself.

Thank you, BunnyProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnyprof (talk • contribs) 14:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I see a page for Jennifer Rode, but not one for Jennifer A. Rode. If you want to create the page for the scholar, I suggest going to Articles for creation, and using WP:SECONDARY sources, not her UCL profile, Google Scholar profile, and Twitter account. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear - disambiguation pages are for disambiguating articles, not people. We only need disambiguation (either with a disambiguation page or with notes at the top of articles) when there are articles for more than one similarly-named topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sally Yates
There is a cabal of editors who are tag-team reverting this page to remove the accurate and fully sourced word "fired" in favor of the inaccurate and unsourced word "dismissed". This is a violation of WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard." Xerton (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. "Fired" is the contentious word being used here, not "dismissed". What you are engaging in is an editwar and I suggest you read through this policy before any more editing. Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the word "fired" if backed up by verbatim quotes from copious numbers of reliable sources is deemed innately contentious and therefore, non-usable? By that reasoning, it's impossible to accurately write an article which reflects what the news actually reported. Did you read the links I posted on the talk page? See them here: Talk:Sally_Yates Xerton (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because this is a WP:BLP and we must edit from a neutral point of view. Meatsgains (talk</b>) 02:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a NPOV violation to accurately quote the major media, which all report this as "fired" - please read the links on the talk page. Xerton (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it is if a more neutral and equally accurate term can be used instead. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 03:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When four or five different editors all tell you that you are wrong, it may be that you are wrong and you should reconsider your actions. Or you can call them a "cabal." Up to you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If they use differing justifications (which they did), that's not indicative of consensus, that's indicative of group-think conclusions. True collaboration requires consensus on the correct reasons too, not just the outcome Xerton (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? When people reach similar conclusions but have different reasons, that's "indicative of group-think"? I think you're using words you don't understand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how using an accurate and neutral term like "dismissed" can possibly be contentious or possibly be a BLP violation. This is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news site or a talk radio show. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ms. Yates bravely stood up for her principles and was summarily fired for it. That's how it was reported and that's what happened. To sugarcoat her firing by refusing to quote the actual major media outlets which reported it, does Ms. Yates' biography a disservice and is inherently inaccurate. Xerton (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not use the term "fired" in the BLPs of Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn or Rob Porter, even though countless reliable sources say that they were fired. There is nothing inaccurate about the term "dismissed". <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So in referring to "we", are you saying that there is a group of editors deliberately enforcing that word in contravention to what the reliable sources say? Xerton (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you persist in assuming that everyone else editing Wikipedia is part of a vast conspiracy, you will not enjoy your experience here. "We" are a community of people working together to build an online encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Implying that I might persist at doing something which has not been established that I'm doing is sort of like asking me "have you stopped stealing candy bars yet?" It suggests a conclusion not found in evidence. But what is in the record is that I asked you a question. That you answered it snidely is on you, not me. Xerton (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks to be a minor content dispute. I don’t see how this is a BLP issue. (And, I would caution the OP for using words like cabal when describing editors. WP:ASPERSIONS). O3000 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I used the word "cabal" in the literal sense, which means "a secret political clique or faction", but I will avoid that word in the future. Xerton (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For Pete's sake,, when I used the word "we", I was referring to multiple Wikipedia editors expressing their judgment through consensus, informed by policies and guidelines. If this was driven by a "secret political clique", that cabal would be imposing different standards on what are perceived as pro-Trump and anti-Trump figures. Yet, the standard is the same, applied across the board. None of those BLPs use the term "fired" even though reliable sources often do. BLP and NPOV policies are the reasons why we are scrupulous about using neutral terminology. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a BLP policy issue. That said, "dismissed" or "terminated" adheres to an encyclopedic tone; "fired" is colloquial. - MrX 🖋 03:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Xerton has just been blocked for edit warring. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming this is an American thing? Dismissed = fired everywhere else. I cant think of a place where 'dismissed' means anything other than 'company firing employee'. Its more encyclopedic in tone and we are expected to use the appropriate tone rather than colloquials. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No, not an American thing (except perhaps the idea that one is more PC than the other, which in many cases is rather arbitrary). They're synonyms. If you look them up in the dictionary, we find that "dismissed" means, "to order or allow to leave; to send away; to discharge from employment, to treat as unworthy" (as in, I completely dismissed all "cabal" comments). "Fired" means, "to dismiss from employment." Zaereth (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Bullet Club
I have been sent here after I tried to get my account confirmed but it was refused. This can't wait four days and I can't edit the article as it is semi protected. There is a BLP violation at the Bullet Club where Gino Gambino has been added as a member. The source used in the edit seen here does not confirm that he is a member - only that he was in a tag team with a member, Bad Luck Fale. It needs to be reverted straight away as a violation of WP:BLP. NotMemberofBC (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * How exactly would that be a "BLP violation", I don't think that term means what you think it means. If this person is listed incorrectly as a member of a wrestling team, that is something that needs fixing, sure (I haven't looked at the source yet to see), but what imminent harm to the subject is being done by the listing? TheValeyard (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The rules of BLP make it clear that anything that is not true about an individual should be removed "immediately". And in bold as well. This is indeed listed incorrectly as a member of a wrestling team. NotMemberofBC (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The text at WP:BLP states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." An issue of membership in a wrestling team is not "contentious material". TheValeyard (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah actually it is, but it doesn't matter now because someone else has reverted it. NotMemberofBC (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Your tone thus far has been combative and rude, and quite unappreciated. You also seem to be incorrect, as sources say this person is a member. Australian Wrestler Gino Gambino Joins the Bullet Club, Gino Gambino Becomes The 13th Member Of The Bullet Club, and others. TheValeyard (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of those sources are listed at WP:PW as unreliable. NotMemberofBC (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the source in the article, and it doesn't say anything about someone joining any group. In fact, it doesn't really say anything at all, being a site that apparently gives nothing more than times, dates, and locations of wrestling events (not a RS). I think on those grounds alone it should probably be removed. However, NotMemberofBC, while I agree with you on the lack of sourcing, I also think TheValeyard has a point. BLP rules are meant to protect people from harm, so I'm not going to rush right in until others have a chance to weigh in. If these other sources are good, then maybe it is true, but I don't have time to look at them all right now. I might also add that your user name seems to suggest a possible conflict of interest or a specific purpose for your interest in this matter. If not, that may make it more difficult to become confirmed or to edit this particular article. If so, then it is best that you disclose the COI (if any exists). Zaereth (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * None exists. I only thought of it on the fly as I was really forced to create this account when I didn't really want to in order to fix this up as BLP clearly states that incorrect information about a person must be removed immediately. Nothing more than that. Thanks for your support on the sourcing. NotMemberofBC (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Lemme explain why we have BLP. It isn't simply as a courtesy to article subjects, it's to make it harder to sue Wikipedia.  Now, what court would even consider a case over Gino Gambino being listed as a member of Bullet Club?  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In this day and age - you never know. There are that many precious people around who will sue on a whim, and win as well. I agree with your sentiment and 20 years ago you'd probably be right. I don't think so nowadays. NotMemberofBC (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no comment on the substantive issue, but a couple of clarifications are in order. the posts by NotMemberofBC to this noticeboard have absolutely not been combative and rude. we do not have the BLP policy simply to make it harder to sue Wikipedia, it also serves the purpose of considering, and where possible avoiding, the possibility of harm to living subjects. MPS1992 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence isn't simply as in "not only." And again, what potential harm requires the urgency that was displayed here?  I agree that the ValeYard was wrong to say that NotMemberofBC was combative and rude, but there was an undeniable urgency as if something bad was going to happen.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * People seem to take their favorite sports terribly seriously. Personally, I would only treat an error in reporting of a cricket factoid with such terrible urgency. Of course, unlike all other sports, cricket is terrifically important. MPS1992 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * At least cricket is actually a sport, whereas wrestling is choreographed dancing. TheValeyard (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious. Either way, too slow for me. I'll take fencing any day; one to three seconds of the most intense workout ever. (Not even the strongest coffee will wake you up like someone trying to stab you with a sword.) Zaereth (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Dannielynn Birkhead
Her article tells us that Dannielynn Birkhead is a "tabloid sensation and reality television personality" who "has been the focus of media attention since her birth".

If I understand it correctly, she was a focus of tabloid attention for/in the Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case, she did some non-trivial modelling in 2013, and her name still occasionally pops up. And that's about it. Given that an article on the Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case is merited (which surprises me, but is what an AfD decided), I think that Dannielynn Birkhead should redirect there. I could of course be bold and do this, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be long before some trivia-lover (or promoter) would revert this. (This or similar has already happened. See the article history.) This person could claim with justification that I hadn't obtained consensus, blah blah.

And no, I don't want to cite Articles for deletion/Dannielynn Marshall Stern for this move, because somebody might claim that her tabloid-sensation-ism, media-attention-cynosure-ness, etc, have increased considerably in the intervening eleven years. (I doubt this.)

So here I am, seeking consensus for redirecting and (in order to stop wasting yet more time) fully and indefinitely protecting the redirect. What say? -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll start off. I'm in favour of a redirect. There's a huge crossover between this article and the Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case one, and I'm not sure there's a need  to go over the saga of her birth when that aspect already has its own article. I don't see that she's been written about enough in her own right to be considered WP:NOTABLE, which is the only reason to keep an article about her as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.  We also need to be aware that she's a minor (she's 11) and I'm not sure that including stuff like a medical condition she suffered from is appropriate. If you take out the birth saga and the medical stuff, there's not a lot left! Neiltonks (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comments, Neiltonks. As it happens, I agree with all that you say. Others are most welcome to agree or disagree. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Black Kite has just now made the article slightly less terrible (perhaps as just the first step toward a major transformation, perhaps not). Black Kite, can I infer from this that you think an article is worth keeping? (If so, where's the notability of its subject?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd rather merge the Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case article into the Dannielynn Birkhead section. I'll be putting up appropriate Merge to/merge from tags to explore that possibility. There seems to be some notability in her own right (maybe not enough in itself for a separate article, but probably enough when combined with the paternity case content); in 2007 (AfD resulting in the "paternity case" article) there was no "in her own right" notability whatsoever, so it might be a good idea to check whether WP:CCC applies 10 years later; A merge in this direction seems to have been suggested in 2016 (Talk:Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case); some of the "paternity case" content seems to have been referenced to too ephemeral sources (long gone celebrity gossip blogs etc) so the "paternity case" content may probably be trimmed mercilessly to make it fit in a single section at the bio article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's assume here that at least some of the content of the article Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case is encyclopedia-worthy. (Actually the content looks to me like prototypical junk food news, but an AfD decided that it needed retention.) This (non-)story then involves the mother, the daughter, and three (or more) putative fathers. Each of these five has an article. If there's no article Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case for each to refer to, I fear that more about the case will end up being included in each of these biographies: more repetition. -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Merge" in the direction I proposed would imply that Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case remains a fully operational bluelink wherever it would be useful: it would redirect, after the merge, to Dannielynn Birkhead (or whatever the section title would have become after the merge), so less "repeat" of celebrity gossip content across multiple articles (at least the Dannielynn Birkhead and Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case articles would stop repeating each other's content). I suppose that after this merge the article on the mother would rather use the Dannielynn Birkhead link (no need to link to a case that only got significance after her untimely death); and for the lesser-known would-be fathers the "... case" link could be used (no need to use a link only mentioning the person with whom they had no physical relation after all). All in all quite some overlinking and repetition of similar content avoided if you ask me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And me. Neiltonks (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

When I look through the article Larry Birkhead, I fail to experience any glow of notability. Ditto for the article Howard K. Stern. And for that matter, Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt and Michael L. Baird. Till today, I hadn't bothered to look at any of these. (Celebrity sleaze isn't really my thing.) Now that I do, I think that all except the Anhalt article, as well as the article Dannielynn Birkhead, should be turned into redirects to Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case. (Anhalt is a socialite whose very minor celebrity has been longer lasting.) What do you think, Francis Schonken? -- Hoary (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really my thing either, trying to make it short:
 * Larry Birkhead article: still seems easier to merge to Dannielynn Birkhead (many bio articles have some words about less-than-GNG relatives) than to the "... case" article. I'd proceed with that merge ASAP. Again, explicitly this type of merge: "mayor trimming of original separate article". Will post merge suggestion tags – hoping they don't need to be up for too long.
 * Michael L. Baird article: take to AfD I'd say (assuming that PRODding or CSD type of deletion would not be technically possible?), where I see little chance of the article surviving (Media consultant in O. J. Simpson case? what are we going to have next: articles on make-up artists for TV commentators on court cases?). Anyway, I'll be taking the liberty to remove this person from the Anna Nicole Smith navbox, where he is listed now among associated people: too much of a stretch to say he is "associated" with the mother: afaik he only entered the scene after the mother was buried.
 * "von Anhalt" article: as you said. Nothing much needs to be done there from the Dannielynn perspective I suppose. The article is tagged for some other problems which might need to be addressed first.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Careless writing above. I wrote "I think that all except the Anhalt article, as well as the article Dannielynn Birkhead, should be turned into redirects to Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case." I didn't mean that the article on the daughter should be an additional exception; I meant that it too should redirect to the article on the paternity case. (I still fail to see her notability outside this.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

ebenezer fowobaje
He is a professional football player born in Nigeria ,he has played in many clubs home and abroad such as stationary store, first bank fc,Julius Berger fc,obanta fc and Toulouse fc in France and has played for Nigeria National team under 17 and under 21, before he traveled to USA on a football scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebenezer Fowobaje (talk • contribs) 11:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * He also doesn't have an article on here.-- Auric   talk  15:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Lutz Bachmann
Lutz Bachmann is the founder of the far-right and anti-immigrant German PEGIDA movement. He became famous for, among other things, a photo he posted on facebook in which he made himself look like Hitler (while neo-Nazis were attending his political rallies).

All that said, I have objected to the opening description of Bachmann in our article on him:

Lutz Bachmann (born 26 January 1973) is a German criminal and the founder of the PEGIDA movement...

As I explained in a talk page post, Bachmann has indeed been convicted of a whole variety of criminal offenses (he spent jail time for some, later fled Germany, and was deported back into the country). Nevertheless, I find it strange to WP:LABEL Bachmann as first and foremost a criminal in the first sentence of his bio. In fact, he is mostly known as the founder of PEGIDA.

Furthermore, if we applied this approach to other articles on Wikipedia we would immediately find ourselves denouncing a great many people as criminals in the first sentences of their bios. Sandra Bland, for instance, owed money for various fines and had a DUI. It would be absurd to begin her article, "Sandra Bland was a debtor and drunk driver who was found hanged in her cell..."

Extra eyes on this article would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you've done in terms of the lead - describing him as first and foremost a criminal was a bit WP:UNDUE. I'm also concerned at the amount of the article that's sourced to an interview he gave to Britebart, so I might remove some of this later when I have more time. Neiltonks (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Jameis Winston
Seems to have relatively minor accusations and incidents routinely added to his BLP, and editwarred to retain in that BLP. Eyes to ascertain which items are, in fact, of actual weight for inclusion would be helpful. Collect (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Pyo Chang-won
The article is written by someone with an obvious bias. Most of the edits appeared to be done by one "Veritas et aequitas Korea" and contains loaded terms; "self-taught and self-proclaimed", "assertive speech", "taunted the journalist of his inability to verify plagiarism in English dissertations and publications", weasel words; "well known for causing many political scandals". Sections on "Seongju Speech on Francis Spaight" and "Group Rapist Accusation of Political Opponents" has been given undue weight, considering nothing is written about this individual's work other than supposed controversies. Furthermore, "Mediawatch", which seems to be a sole reference to the supposed "additional plagiarism" and appears fishy, to say the least. The website is run by Byun Hee-jae, political pundit and member of the far-right Korean Patriots' Party, and is not in any sense of the word mainstream publication in South Korea. Spring3390 (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

sexual orientation of Kaczyński
"... a former SB officer speculated on Kaczyński's sexual orientation." is poorly sourced, uncertain. should br removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.190.190.156 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Siri Devi Khandavilli‎
The article Siri Devi Khandavilli‎ may or may not be the same as the Siridevi who recently died. Siri Devi Khandavilli is an artist and was born July 1. The other Siridevi was born August 13.-- Auric   talk  15:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The page has been deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

DJ Sarah Young
Sarah_Young_(DJ) is no longer active as a DJ and producer.

This page in outdated, the person in question is actually now a singer/songwriter

Her discography is also incorrect, you cannot find 'The chant' anywhere online. This is midleading info

There is no point in having a wikipedia on someone that doesn't exist anymore / who's job or role has finished

Sarah_Young_(DJ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshammer1 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Odd reasoning and contrary to WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Kennedy is no longer POTUS, but I haven't seen any call to remove his article. --  Auric   talk  23:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Susan Swan
Much information on the writer's page seems to be written by the writer herself. No sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.194.124 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Herman Cohen bio was sabotaged on Feb 23
It is slanderous and inflammatory, I am trying to delete what I can, but the Feb 23 poster should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceegee2 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've revision deleted that stuff - it's gone. Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * However, the material in the lead paragraph that you removed looks complimentary to me, not slanderous.  Are you saying it's not true?  That seems unlikely as it's sourced.  I've partially reverted you on that for the time being (the BLP problems have gone). Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Romano Prodi
Potentially defamatory information being added on Prodi's links to The Ukraine. The reference given does not back up the statement. The information has been added back into the article twice after being removed. Julian Tuson (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Text removed, article semi-protected for two weeks. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Kyle Thousand
Kyle Thousand

The assertions in this article are not only unsupported by links, multiple sentences are plagiarized from another agent's old entries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodie_Van_Wagenen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlbfanboy (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article does appear to be fairly well-cited on first glance, have you considered being bold and correcting some glaring plagirisim issues? -- HunterM267  ❯  talk  19:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Miller
The following paragraph is in the article Stephen Miller:

""other than being a far-right conservative, it was unclear what particular abilities accompanied Miller's views. He was supposed to be a speechwriter, but if so, he seemed restricted to bullet points and unable to construct sentences. He was supposed to be a policy adviser but knew little about policy. He was supposed to be the house intellectual but was militantly unread. He was supposed to be a communications specialist but he antagonized almost everyone.""

It's completely undue to have Michael Wolff calling a WP:BLP far-right (and incompetent) anywhere in the article at all given Wolff's multi-decade reputation for shoddy journalism. See Michael Wolff, Fire_and_Fury and Fire_and_Fury. WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts... Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that ... rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. "

When I removed this material, I was told it was "public information that should be mention on the article, if others disagree with it then you write that also. Not remove everything because some others say it is questionable." Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)

As it turns out, Wolff has been criticized by a number of journalists (who no one could call Trump apologists) for this exact paragraph:

"" Wolff's description of Miller was described by Eliana Johnson of Politico as "patently false/absurd", Nick Riccardi of Associated Press wrote that "some people seem to believe that [Miller] must be dumb since he works for Trump", while John Podhoretz of Commentary noted that he was "no Miller fan" but that the passage revealed "why you can't trust Wolff's assertions, which often demonstrate his own blithe ignorance.""

I added this and was reverted for WP:COATRACK and "attacking Wolff". Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)

Can we get some admin attention here, please? NPalgan2 (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RedState is not a RS, so stop using it. Otherwise it's Wolff's very notable opinion. Other opinions are also welcome. We document and attribute them. That's what we do. The COATRACK objections by at least two are because NPalgan2 was using the Miller article as a soapbox to attack Wolff. Righting great wrongs is not his job. The author of each opinion used can stand or fall on their own merits, without editors adding a bunch of added stuff to poison the well. That's a violation of NPOV, which makes clear that content and sources need not be neutral, but editors must. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The OP has hopped from the article talkpage to the Reliable Source Noticeboard, back to the talk page, now to here. I think this fits your project's definition of "forum shopping to a T". ValarianB (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SPECIFICO You removed this: "Eliana Johnson of Politico tweeted that Wolff's description of Miller was "patently false", while Michael Warren of the Weekly Standard wrote that it the book was "full of suggestions and half-truths" and his description was "just not true of Miller, who I got to know when he worked for Jeff Sessions in the Senate. Despite his youth, Miller was more knowledgeable about immigration policy than just about anyone else on Capitol Hill."" "This is SYNTH UNDUE and COATRACK." Wolff writes something about Miller. Warren is published in TWS saying that Wolff's claim about Miller is wrong. Johnson of Politico is quoted by EW saying Wolff's claim is wrong. The idea that this is WP:COATRACK or WP:SYNTH is absurd. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Please don't edit war. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * May I point out that NPalgan2 has attempted to insert essentially the same material 3 times now? Initial, second, third. Seems to be a bright-line crossing of the discretionary sanctions set on that article regading reverts and challenged material. ValarianB (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Auli'i Cravalho‎
Here's a user insisting the subject is not American. I tried reasoning with them that since Hawaii is one of the 50 states, Cravalho‎ is an American citizen, to no avail. Would this edit be considered a BLP violation? Sro23 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep! If the reliable source says "American" and it get changed to anything else, it's a BLP violation.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  Speak  13:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is a BLP violation, given that the NYTimes,NBC, NPR, and Honolulu Magazine references provided all clearly state either that she is "Hawaiian" or "Native Hawaiian" (with much being made of this fact throughout). To Ebyabe's point on precedent, I would suggest that Barack Obama is not a suitable example of how Native Hawaiians ought to be listed on Wikipedia, given that Obama is not Native Hawaiian. By counterexample there are numerous examples of people born in post-annexation Hawaii who are introduced as Hawaiian rather than American, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and others at Category:Native_Hawaiian_people. Absent the presentation of new sources, I think that this should be resolved in favour of those currently provided in the article. StvnW talk 20:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hawaii is part of the United States of America, so yes, you could argue that both should be correct. However, the individual changing Cravalho from "American" to "Hawaiian" is, just as User:Sro23's saying, subtly implying he's not American, and he cites no source, he just puts Hawaiian over American but uses the same source. In BLP's sources matter big time!  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  Speak  13:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Subtly nothing. No one ever once said she wasn’t American. They simply listed her as Hawaiian, which she is, and which is sourced. I fail to see why American needs to be repeated again as it’s already on the side bar under nationality and said multiple times. Carrot9 (talk) 10:16 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There would have been no need for either of the editors (there were two, and an IP) to add any new sources, because there are already eight reliable sources in the article (five in the lead, three in Early life), all of which refer to her as "Hawaiian". On the point of whether this meets the standard for WP:V there can be no challenge; it is more than adequately sourced. Referring to her as "Hawaiian" is neither incorrect, nor a BLP violation. On the other hand, referring to her as "American" is also not wrong, despite the objections. While Hawaiians may not be American but rather Oceanian in the geographic sense, they are nevertheless American in the national sense.


 * Whether or not it is culturally appropriate or insensitive to call her American (points raised in the edit summaries) is a separate matter. It's a valid debate about which there may be strong feelings, but unfortunately this is not the forum to resolve it.


 * I think both sides can be satisfied here. At issue here is not whether she "is" Hawaiian or American. Her nationality is American and can be listed in the infobox as such. The question is whether to duplicate her nationality in the lead, or include the context that she is Hawaiian. Neither would be incorrect, but all of the sources refer to her as Hawaiian and the subject herself identifies as Hawaiian. MOS:BLPLEAD provides guidance but is not prescriptive. It does not mandate mention of nationality, and incorporates the idea that the circumstances surrounding how a person became notable are relevant—"The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable." In this case the subject achieved notability as a Native Hawaiian actor, was cast and had her breakthrough specifically because of her Native Hawaiian identity, and voiced a Polynesian character in a film about Polynesian mythology. There can be no question about the assessment of context here. Using the term Hawaiian in the lead would be consistent with the source material, acceptable within the guidance, and would provide balance to the inclusion of her nationality in the infobox. StvnW talk 04:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the label of just "Hawaiian" be a tad confusing? This guy, for example was "Hawaiian" despite having no Native Hawaiian ancestry. Sro23 (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. Greater specificity should be preferred since there is a distinction between state residents and those who are Native Hawaiians. StvnW talk 04:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Jason Momoa might be a better example, though there have been recent changes back on forth on that article. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel  ‖ 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No real comment except that I find it very interesting how these words are used so differently in different locations. For example, I'm a native Alaskan, yet I'm not an Alaska Native (a rather big distinction here). A good friend of mine is African-American even though he's white (born and raised in Africa to American parents). Originally, my family descends from England Natives, but no one ever calls them anything except the Welsh. Zaereth (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Neil Andrew
The Wikipedia biography of Neil Andrew DOB 7.6.1944 contains inaccuracy. Neil Andrew did not consider his electorate, Wakefield, unwinnable after a boundary change, nor did he seriously consider challenging Patrick Secker in Barker. This contention is without basis. Neil Andrew retired at the age of 60 having spent some 22 years in federal parliament. His decision to retire predated the electoral boundary change. He worked tirelessly to get the Liberal candidate, David Fawcett, elected to Wakefield in the 2004 election, having always regarded this as achievable. He has served as Chairman of the Murray Darling Basin Authority since 2014. I invite you to correct the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.224.194 (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I've removed the claims to which you seem to object, partly as not supported by the cited source and partly because it is very unclear if "Crikey" is a sufficiently reliable source for these claims. It would be useful if more reliable sources could be found to describe what happened towards the end of Andrew's career. You could add these to the article yourself, or, if you have some connection with Andrew, you could add them at Talk:Neil Andrew with an explanation of how the article should be changed. MPS1992 (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've introduced citations for most of the article. I couldn't find anything to support the removed text. Hack (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Richard Walter Thomas
Just looking for advice on if the article needs any work before going public as a regular article. Smkolins (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the reference errors.-- Auric   talk  13:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know what was wrong with the ISSNs, lol... so overall it's good to go? Smkolins (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Even though the article has gone live, contributing edits from interested parties is still welcome! Smkolins (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead in particular is extremely long - Manual of Style/Lead section says "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs". Currently the lead is six, very long, paragraphs - at over 1200 words, it is twice the length of the lead of United States of America, which I think most people would agree is a more significant topic.  This should be cut down a great deal, to a summary people can read in a minute or two which explains why Thomas is a notable and significant person.  The first sentence should also be devoted to his significance - at the moment it only mentions his race, nationality, and birthplace, none of which are relevant to this.
 * In general, it's a very long article. It's impressively referenced, but I think some of the material may be of dubious relevance - for example, the details of who organised a 'hootenanny' at MSU before Thomas even attended.  There are also some very long quotes - the "Joined the Bahá'í Faith" section contains four long paragraphs from the same book, which I think may even be pushing legal copyright limits, as well as not being the best way to communicate the subject.
 * "Writings and projects" should be cut down to just a list of publications, and placed after the biography. Things like teaching and other projects should be mentioned in the biography, there's no need for a separate list of them here.
 * In general, I think it would be worth glancing at some similar articles on Wikipedia, such as those in the literature biography featured articles and religion biography featured articles, to get an idea of style; at the moment, this doesn't feel to me very accessible to give an idea of Thomas' notability, largely due to length. TSP (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved this back to Draft for now The repeated use of bold and peacock language is a real risk fro G11. The lede needs to be shorter and the tone more neutral ,this reads as a PR piece by Bahá'í. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The bold was, at least all through college, the norm of how books are mentioned. "Peacock language" is a misinterpretation. And I replied to the above points on the draft page. I can discuss them here too if need be but it seems salient there. Smkolins (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Steve Hoffman (businessman) - Wikipedia
This article is about me, and it is outdated and incorrect.

Steve Hoffman (businessman) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hoffman_(businessman)

I want to request that it either be updated and corrected, or else please remove it from Wikipedia.

Thank you!

Additional Sources of information:

Press & Media: https://www.foundersspace.com/press/

Amazon Book: https://www.amazon.com/Make-Elephants-Fly-Process-Innovation/dp/0349418837/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520016812&sr=8-1&keywords=make+elephants+fly

Bio: https://www.foundersspace.com/hoffman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhoff (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your open disclosure and providing sources. Sorry to get all bureaucratic on you, but this isn't really the proper place for your concerns, unless there is something egregiously wrong that violates WP:BLP policies.


 * There are two things you can do: 1.) If you think the article should be deleted, the place to go would be WP:Articles for deletion. Follow the instructions on the page and be very clear about why you think it should be deleted. 2.) If you think it can be corrected with the sources, and would rather go that route, take them to the talk page of the article and request your changes there. Once again, you'll need to be very specific about what needs to be changed, and it is helpful if you can provide page numbers, quotes, or even a link to google books rather than an Amazon link. (We prefer links that aren't trying to sell you something. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Previous request -- Auric   talk  22:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Akram Monfared Arya
This person is branded as the First Iranian Woman Pilot in the article. She is not. These 3 were: http://women.ncr-iran.org/famous-women/1831-the-first-women-pilots-in-iran. This article is incorrect and the creator of the article has not provided any substantial evidence to the fact. Please delete and remove the article altogether. I have tried numerous time removing the "First Iranian Woman Pilot" part from the article but the user Chakmehhh keeps reversing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.109 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Branded is a rather strong word, implying some sort of shame. Even so, that isn't a good reason to remove the article.-- Auric   talk  22:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I notice the three you mention (Effat Tejaratchi, Ina Avshid and Sediqeh Dowlatshahi) don't have their own articles. Have you thought of doing more research and creating them?--  Auric   talk  22:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The bio was created by spa Akrammonfaredarya and the reverts by Chakmehhh also have a single purpose of burnishing the claim of being first iranian woman pilot and promoting the subject. Seems to be a case of marketing and conflict of interest using socks. --Xzinger (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Setting aside questions of the subject's notability, there are no English language sources cited in the article (all are Swedish or Farsi). If the article is to include that she holds the distinction of being the first female Iranian pilot, then at minimum a translated section of one of the relevant sources should be provided. Although she appears to be an accomplished female Iranian pilot, her age makes it improbable she was the first. StvnW talk 21:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Jorge I. Domínguez
Subject was disciplined for sexual harassment in 1983; yesterday an exposé was published with new allegations. IPs are showing up to update the article with incautious language, repeating allegations in WikiVoice, and to vandalize. Eyes would be appreciated, and WP:SEMI may be necessary. FourViolas (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And editwarriors are seeking to add as much defamatory material as possible on the principle that "if an article says someone made a claim, then we can put that claim to the BLP."   This is past what is rational, I fear.  I am estopped from making fixes to BLPs, so will someone please tend to this? Collect (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Bob Bland


Needs review of recent additions. Especially concerning privacy issues and not-so-veiled accusations of antisemitism. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have reverted to last good version. Additions included unreliable sources, op-Ed’s used for factual claims, guilt-by-purported-association smears, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Disney family
Hello,

On the Disney family page, in the "Family Tree section," please add the following member of the Disney Family. Raymond Arnold Disney and Meredith A. Disney had an adopted son in addition to their son who is Charles Elias Disney (b. 1940.) Please add the adopted sons name of Daniel Harwood Disney (b. 1956) should be indicated in the family tree alongside of Charles Elias Disney. Reference/source: Find a Grave for Raymond Arnold Disney.

THANK YOU!

David Brown 1st cousin of Charles Elias Disney and Daniel Harwood Disney.

Browndevelopers (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we cannot use Find A Grave as a source due to problems with the reliability of the site's information. Do you have any other published source we can rely on? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)
Someone claiming to be the subject of this article is making edits on the article and talk page. I dont see anything risible per se, but it wouldn't hurt to have some uninvolved editors keep an eye on it, at least for the short term. Thanks Bonewah (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The same cast of 3-4 editors has been carrying on a slow-motion conversation with the (presumed) subject of this page over the past couple of years, without any long-term resolution. (The Talk page archive is helpful in this regard.)  Perhaps it would help if another, heretofore uninvolved, editor were to review some of the recent discussions and assess whether the article has landed in the right place (IMHO it's an open question), and if so, help the subject understand the limits of his ability to shape the contents of the article.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

James Pilkington (director)
This is just a mess...Includes a note allegedly from the real James Pilkington disputing accuracy of information, an odd, unsourced line about cheese rolling and Sweet Valley High. To be honest, the whole page can probably be deleted anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.197.97 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also an exact copy and paste of the About section at http://jamespilkington.com/ so I've nuked it as a copyright violation. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 15:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers, recently dead (yesterday) BLP, reliability of sources re coming out.
MASH star Stiers died on March 4th. In 2009 the "gossip boy" blog published an "interview" with Stiers in which "Stiers" came out as gay. This contradicts an earlier interview in which he said he was not gay. The gossip boy interview has subsequently been picked up and cited in many sources including ABC and the NYT obit for Stiers (NYT cites ABC, ABC cites gossip boy). There has been long standing but contentious consensus to exclude this info based on the WP:GRAPEVINE argument, but with Stiers death, the issue has been reopened. The discussion could use additional eyes/voices from experienced editors Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers ResultingConstant (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue has been thoroughly discussed. "Gossip-boy" is a blog on Wordpress.  It fails WP:RS utterly and completely, and sources which credit that blog are no more usable than the blog in the first place. That some people use the blog as a reliable source does not mean Wikipedia should do so.  In addition, raising the issue here is actually suited WP:RS in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

NSEL case
Jignesh Shah, one of the promoters of NSEL, is being accused of fraud even thou a court is yet to pronounce him guilty violating WP:BLP guidelines.

This recent edit with links to slideshare and scribd reeks of original research. The editor has in the past attacked other editors accusing them of being "Jignesh Shah's men".

I don't want to get into a messy edit war with the said editor but the page needs some serious restructuring inline with wikipedia guidelines. --Xzinger (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as why any court would have any affect on editing here. -- Auric   talk  16:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)