Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive267

Doug Ford Jr.
Does   comport with the exception to WP:BLPCRIME or does its re-inclusion require a specific and clear affirmative consensus on the BLP talk page? The accusations were made in an Atlantic article which carefully ascribes the accusation to "The Globe and Mail" and does not make the accusations in The Atlantic's voice but phrases it as a question only - which was made in a heated election season.

"There's nothing on the public record that The Globe has accessed that shows Doug Ford has ever been criminally charged for illegal drug possession or trafficking. But some of the sources said that, in the affluent pocket of Etobicoke where the Fords grew up, he was someone who sold not only to users and street-level dealers, but to dealers one rung higher than those on the street. His tenure as a dealer, many of the sources say, lasted about seven years until 1986, the year he turned 22. "That was his heyday," said "Robert," one of the former drug dealers who agreed to an interview on the condition he not be identified by name."  seems to be a weak source for a claim of explicit felonious conduct.

In short, a newspaper with a specific political position carefully refrained from making an explicit charge which the Wikipedia BLP does not shrink from making. If the source does not make a criminal charge, then ought Wikipedia then make the charge the source does not make? Collect (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems to me The Globe does indeed make the explicit charge--but that is beside the point, as I see it. This is indeed a slim reed on which to predicate that entire section.  I would personally be comfortable with a brief reference to this ("...accusations of drug activity in the past...." or some such), but as currently constituted, I'd say the section runs afoul of both WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you must be referring to The Atlantic with "a newspaper with a specific political position"; The Globe and Mail is considered by many to be "Canada's newspaper of record" and is well respected for its balanced journalism and broad coverage, though it is often considered moderately conservative, politically. It's that paper that first made the charge: "This investigative report reveals that: Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s." The Atlantic is just covering it (as did Huffington Post, Maclean's, the Toronto Star, CBC, numerous others). The Globe's report appeared in May 2013, a year and a half prior to the next Toronto election. The Globe continues to assert their allegation as fact as recently as February 9 of this year (: "Among the things we already know about Mr. [Doug] Ford: He was, as revealed by this newspaper, a drug dealer in the 1980s.". It hardly seems inappropriate for Wikipedia to repeat these much-covered allegations, not in Wikipedia's voice but in a neutral tone of coverage of an event. As for the BLPCRIME protection for low-profile individuals accused of a crime: Doug Ford is as far from low-profile as I am from a ballerina. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Atlantic" poses the "charge" as a question - not as a claim of fact. "Is Toronto City Councillor Doug Ford, Rob's Brother, a Former Hash Dealer?.  The "Globe and Mail"  was, and is, active in Toronto politics, and one should note that the allegations are entirely anonymous.  The Daily Mail is more careful than that. Actual allegations of felonious acts are one thing, anonymous rumours of felonious acts are a full step lower in credibility.  WP:UNDUE clearly applies, and the extended story certainly makes a "contentious claim" to say the least. Collect (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And if anyone's interested, there has been an RfC active on the article's talk page for some time on this very thing. See Talk:Doug Ford Jr.. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:WELLKNOWN trumps WP:BLPCRIME: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" Nixon Now (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A source which does not make the accusation as a matter of fact, but reports it only as an "anonymous" rumour is not usable for Wikipedia to make the claim as a matter of fact . Period. We are not Rumourpedia yet. Collect (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure what you mean by "The Globe and Mail is active in Toronto politics". Like virtually all newspapers, they do run editorial endorsements. In the Globe's case, they've endorsed the Conservative Party in the most recent federal and provincial elections so if you are alleging that they are left wing as opposed to Ford's conservativism, you are mistaken. Also, like all responsible newspapers, the Globe's editorial division and news division are separate. The article in question was also the subject of a complaint to the Ontario Press Council, which upheld the Globe and Mail's position and rejected the complaint. Nixon Now (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the Globe and Mail does actually make the accusation as a matter of fact, as they made clear in their statement to the Ontario Press Council which can be read here and says, among other things, "The facts were established, through multiple interviews with multiple, independent sources, all of them anonymous" and then proceeds to go into great detail about just how thorough the investigation was:
 * "2. Were adequate efforts made to verify the allegations?


 * ''This story was 18 months in the making, in large part because the reporters (on the advice of editors, and in some cases, legal counsel) were sent back multiple times to corroborate details and further authenticate information provided in previous interviews. More than 100 people were approached. Many refused comment. Many referred to second-hand information about the Fords’ role in the illegal drug trade. Our reporters searched only for people with direct knowledge – those who had purchased hashish from Doug Ford, supplied him with hashish or witnessed him possessing large amounts of the drug. Eventually, the reporters located and interviewed 10 people who said they had such knowledge.


 * ''Mr. Chairman, it may be worth reiterating at this point that the focal point of our investigation was never the recreational use of drugs or some fleeting misjudgment of youth, as has been suggested by the participants, perhaps as a way of diverting critical public attention; this was about a serious and sustained commercial activity, something most of us associate with criminals.


 * ''Some of our sources were interviewed more than five times and the reporters went back to them repeatedly to run new names and anecdotes by them, in order to test the credibility of these sources. Some of our sources met with senior editors and, on three occasions, with legal counsel for The Globe. Each person who was quoted anonymously said they were afraid to attach their name to the story, citing the influence of the Ford family or problems they may face in revealing their own involvement in the drug trade. One person sought legal advice and was advised that there is no statute of limitations for drug trafficking offences in Canada. Another source who wanted to go on the record sought the approval of his immediate family, who convinced him not to consent to his name being published. One concern that came up with several sources was how the disclosure of their identity might affect their ability to travel to the United States.


 * ''After repeated, unsuccessful efforts over many months to convince sources to agree to the use of their names, we faced a dilemma: we could publish the story citing only anonymous sources, knowing the facts of the story are both true and in the public interest, or we could not publish at all. The latter option would have been journalistically and socially irresponsible.


 * Accepting this, we set extraordinary standards for the extent, documentation and validation of each interview. In addition to these direct sources, the reporters worked for months to seek all available public information, including court documents, related to the cases cited in the story. Additionally, as many of the events documented in the story occurred before the advancement of the Internet, they spent months examining microfiched newspapers, yearbooks and old phone directories for further contacts and information."
 * Nixon Now (talk)

the more it became apparent that the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings is a heck of a weak claim for felonies.

Eventually, the reporters located and interviewed 10 people who said they had such knowledge. is extremely carefully parsed, again not making any actual charge of crimes by Doug Ford Jr.

In short, the claim being sought to be made in Wikipedia's voice is not stated as such by the newspaper which used very carefully parsed language, indeed.

Wikipedia is not Rumourpedia, as this sort of edit tries to accomplish. Collect (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And how did the Ontario Press Council rule, User:Collect? Nixon Now (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Ontario Press Council (OPC) found that the G&M did not violate the Press Council's rules. They did not rule that Doug Ford Jr. committed felonies.   In fact the OPC specifically does not examine legal issues or make any evidentiary findings at all.  In short the OPC made zero findings of "fact" at all in this matter.  Clear? That is how the OPC "ruled."   I suspect it is not what you wanted to hear. Collect (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures, which Doug Ford certainly is. Secondly, an argument that The Globe and Mail isn't claiming that Doug Ford actually dealt drugs is pretty much debunked when they prominently write: "This investigative report reveals that: Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s." at the top of the article. In any case, Wikipedia is not saying that Doug Ford for sure dealt hashish, which would be problematic under BLP, but it's saying that The Globe and Mail reported that he had done so, which is fine, given the widespread media coverage after the G&M report. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Collect's assessment of this content as "rumour" about activities alleged to have occurred over 30 years ago. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sharon Har
Hawaiian politician Sharon Har reports that she attended Harvard University. This has not been verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:D7C1:2900:302D:96B4:AEC9:DAD4 (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * An unsourced section notice has been added to the Education section at Sharon Har. This indicates the citations must be provided that support the content within a reasonable period of time or it will be removed.  General Ization Talk  05:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Kyle Kashuv
There are 2-3 editors repeatedly adding poorly-sourced content to a biography of a living child at Kyle Kashuv. Sources used include NewsBusters, The Daily Mail, and The Daily Caller, MRCTV.org, dailyheadlinesnow.com, and conservativefiringline.com. A few more experienced eyes would be appreciated.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an RFC especially for NewsBusters/MRCTV.org so please take a look at it. If we can use Media Matters for BLPs, we can use Newsbusters/MRCTV.org for BLPs. The Daily Caller is a reliable source, per the most recent RSN discussion about it. The Daily Mail is usually unreliable per WP:DAILYMAIL, but it wasn't in the article in the first place. We're left with dailyheadlinesnow.com, which is a blog and can easily be blacklisted.
 * An editor was banned for disruption and is unlikely to appeal, and I'm the only one left reverting your content, if we exclude restoring what you removed preceding your pseudo-AFD. The article may also be unprotected because IP and unconfirmed users aren't adding anything. I'm not accusing you of POV; however, I would like you to notice that each source you have disputed is conservative.  (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)  w umbolo   ^^^  09:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussions you linked to are not the most recent discussions (one is about eight years old and the other is about five years old). We should not be using Media Matters for America for much of anything, let alone BLPs. The same goes for NewsBusters/MRCTV.org. This is not my personal opinionit is widespread practice across Wikipedia, based on numerous comments from highly experience editors. Additionally, why use these sources when other conservative sources like Fox News have covered the subject? The Daily Caller may be reliable in some cases, but if there are better sources available, we should use them. We should not seek out cherry picked quotes from the biography subject to push a political POV. Note that MRCTV had to walk back their unreliable reporting when they realized that Eichenwald is no longer with MSNBC.


 * Here is the content in question:




 * Even if these were reliable sources for a BLP, the material would be largely unencyclopedic, it would violate WP:SOAPBOX, and it would violate WP:UNDUE unless other and better sources could be brought to bear.- MrX 🖋 12:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * agreed. I didn't even look at the sources. Of course we should use mainstream sources instead of these misrepresenting and unreliable websites. I don't even know what to trust in these topics as CNN and Fox constantly attack each other and play propaganda piano music in the background more than report news. w umbolo   ^^^  12:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

St Edward's School, Oxford
A single purpose editor has been repeatedly adding information to this article about a former teacher that has apparently been convicted of sexual crimes. The content is referenced, but it has been repeatedly removed by different editors. I think this may be a bit of a grey area where maybe adding this content could be seen as a WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE violation, but removing it might be seen as whitewashing. Could some more experienced editors please have a look and provide advice? ANDREVV (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, pervy people are a fact of life. It's unfortunate, but likely unavoidable. Unless the school covered it up, discussion of an employee's or a student's misdeeds has no place in an article about a school. What are they supposed to do to prevent this? Editors that regularly edit school articles see this all the time. In 95+% if the cases, we just remove it. If it gets contentious, take it to talk and notify the projects following the article. In the very few cases where the school is culpable, and therefore making the perv on topic, I agree the coverage is often UNDUE and RECENT problems. And unfortunately, the (usually) SPAs have field day with it. John from Idegon (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with John that the information is undue in the school's article. I've warned User:Endlesseditor, whose contributions suggest they have no other interest on wikipedia than adding this content, and invited them to join us here. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC).


 * As the aforementioned editor, I would like to offer my opinion on the matter. The constant deletion of the added information clearly constitutes whitewashing. As this was a teacher who had been employed by the school for over a decade I consider it to be highly pertinent information for anyone who is considering sending their child to the school. The school was of course not directly responsible for the crime but in the absence of this information on the wikipedia article, any prospective parent may be completely unaware of it before enrolling their child at St Edwards, thus I would advocate for the edit remaining on the page. Endlesseditor talk 12:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlesseditor (talk • contribs) 12:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If you can list diffs where it's visible, I will revdel them. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Valerie Vaz
In accordance with WP:BLP I removed this stand-alone section from Valerie Vaz.

I explained: "Having a separate section dedicated to what was evidently just a slip of the tongue is a shocking WP:BLP violation, especially as it implies that she proudly believes she is a true anti-semite. Guido Fawkes is a personal blog and is not a RS." The text was put back without comment by.

I said "Please don't revert carefully-explained edits without comment. If you would like to argue why the text is not a WP:BLP violation, or why Guido Fawkes is a RS, please do so explicitly on the talk page". The text was again re-inserted without comment by.

I have no particular interest in this article, but just stumbled across this attack-section and believe it should be removed. Input from other editors would be welcome. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I have removed it again. While an incredibly stupid slip of the tongue, even the source cited claims it was a slip. Not even close to being able to state someone is an anti-semite in wiki-voice. And frankly any time I see someone cite guido fawkes its always in an attempt to smear someone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Joshuaselig for 24 hours for blatant and obvious edit-warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just gone through their contributions - they appear to be fixated at the moment on the Jeremy Corbyn anti-semitism row (hence the Vaz edits). If they go straight back to it after 24 hours can you consider topic banning them under BLP discretionary sanctions. I am about to drop a notice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (Holy edit conflict batman) Given not just edit warring to include a ("shocking" is appropriate) BLP violation, but also edit warring to prevent discussion of it, and a complete lack of communication to boot, 24 hours is probably generous, and someone in a more sour mood might have opted for indef pending some type of explanation, or...literally any form of communication whatsoever.  G M G  talk  13:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have dropped an explicit DS warning, both template and a more detailed explanation on their talkpage. As they dont appear to be aware of the DS relating to BLP's (no prior notification that I could find when dropping the template) if they continue after their block expires without starting a discussion here or on the talkpage any admin can take action. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As you know, I'm not a big fan of blocks. 24 hours will give him time to reflect, and if he comes straight back with problematic behaviour after that, he'll have an Arbcom block waiting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As it happens, going from this to that almost makes me wonder whether the account has been compromised. Were it not for the behavioral continuity in blanking their own talk page and the topical continuity regarding antisemitism I would say as much would be obvious. Still very strange when you look at their edit history, it seems to be almost or entirely perfectly cordial discussion with an appropriate concern for policy. Then they show up today, blank their user page and just go off on a wild tangent.  G M G  talk  14:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Any objections if I up to indef, since it may be a compromised account? Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that would be best. It's not as if this is a neophyte editor. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You might be able to field a half-decent argument either way, but such a radical shift toward descriptiveness after so long does make one wonder whether, at the very least, the person might be compromised if not the account. But that's so exceptionally easy to clear up with basically any communication at all, I'm not sure that any communication at all is too much to expect.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since there appears to be no reasonable attempt to request an unblock, I have upgraded the block to indefinite and disabled talk page access (on the grounds that if I didn't, it would just get blanked) and advised him to use UTRS. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

David D. Smith
The controversies section for David D. Smith needs to be trimmed, but of perhaps more urgent concern is the reporting of a 2004 solicitation bust. Per WP:BLPCRIME, he does not appear to have been convicted of anything, so at most, we should have a few sentences, not six paragraphs. There has been an attempt to address these issues at Talk:David D. Smith, but the editor who has been adding excessive detail has not yet responded. More eyes are needed on this. Edwardx (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Christina Hagan
A number of IPs and new users have recently been adding material to this BLP which is problematic - e.g. with the first citation is an opinion piece, the second one doesn't mention the content it's being cited for and most of it isn't cited at all. I've reverted this several times and left warnings but it isn't having any effect and since I started the article I can't take stronger action. I would appreciate some outside input.  Hut 8.5  21:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Holland's Next Top Model
I'm currently in a dispute with at Holland's Next Top Model and three related articles (1, 2, 3). They are adding contestants' surnames with questionable sources, including blogs and self-published sources. The dispute has happened in the past on these pages and others (see list of diffs below), and I have tried telling the user about identifying reliable sources and the strict WP:BLP policy to little avail.

Diffs (from the four aforementioned articles, along with Top Model (French TV series) and two related 1 2; some are old): — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguist111 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Bhumihar
sir most humbly and respectfully, i want to say the on bhumihar on wikipedia is weitten in correct please correct it as soon as possible. it is a abuse for bhumihar community. please take a proper action on this. hope you will understand. here is the link of NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12959898 thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A0C2:55A7:106A:8C37:3566:6FBF (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks as though one of Wikipedia's experts on India's caste system has already examined the Bhumihar article extensively, so it is unclear -- to me at least -- how you feel that the article infringes WP:BLP. You will need to explain further. MPS1992 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Rose_Pipkin
I don't think this person is notable enough to merit a wikipedia page. I would imagine that she either made it herself or had a friend/publicist do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.103.34 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Jim_Garrison_(theologian)
This is just a shameless self promotion with no sources whatsoever.should be shortened to just the verifiable things or deleted completely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Garrison_(theologian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.201.130.146 (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Jim Garrison (theologian). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Laciana
An IP introduces over and over potentially defamatory information about a living musician. Please check and hide. Thanks. Ganímedes (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch
There is a dispute between myself and on who exactly Dana Loesch is targeting when she warns "time is running out" in a recent video. DrFleischman maintains that she is only referring to journalists. Here are the sources proving that she is referring to a larger group of people: I hope that's enough to convince DrFleischman and anyone else that she isn't only referring to journalists. starship.paint ~  KO   02:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Newsweek in the last paragraph quotes her referring to the media, Hollywood, athletes, politicians, late night hosts.
 * WBALTV says "She tells them, "Your time is running out."" with the previous paragraph mentioning the media, Hollywood, and athletes. In fact, that's also what the NRATV tweet wrote. It's in the article.
 * Bustle quotes her entire list in italics as a run-on sentence, including "to the Joy Ann Reids, the "Morning Joes," the Mikas;" and more. Note that this fragment would make absolutely no sense on its own, there must be some sort of conclusion to the fragment.
 * Daily Wire quotes the whole list just like Bustle as one sentence.
 * USA Today notes that Loesch is stating a list: "... and politicians “who would rather watch America burn than lose one ounce of their power.” The list goes on ... Enter the hourglass. “Listen up! Your time is running out…"
 * Salon - "to politicians and late night hosts – and the list didn't end there. Released on Oscars night, it's a new message that warns, "Your time is running out"
 * If it is not stated in her words, it is inappropriate to use what other sources claim she is targetting, at least in a wiki voice. --M asem  (t) 03:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, given that the ad itself says it is for a new show to be broadcast by NRA TV, the way the current article presents the quote is very much POV and not appropriate. That her "time running out" was taken as a threat and she cleared it wasn't, that's fine, but ignoring that it was an ad, that's bad form. --M asem (t) 03:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Starship.paint for listing those sources. The trouble, however, is that that's a cherry-picking of the sources. Other reliable sources are say that Loesch was referring specifically to journalists, e.g.:
 * The Independent: The National Rifle Association has released a video containing a threatening message to journalists, warning them "your time is running out".
 * The Evening Standard: The National Rifle Association has issued a threatening message to US journalists, warning them “your time is running out”.
 * The Sun": "To those who bring bias and propaganda to CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times… your time is running out. The clock starts now."
 * So we have a conflict among the sources. I frankly don't know how to handle this without giving the issue undue weight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Do you recognise the sentence form she's using? Because multiple sources do. They quote her in her entirety. It's like me saying "To John, to Mary, to Bob, happy birthday". Then all you focus is "To Bob, happy birthday", which isn't false, but to argue that "to John, to Mary" isn't included is absurd because "To John, to Mary" doesn't make sense on their own. Plus how can you accuse me of cherry picking when the official NRATV account also quotes her targeting more than the media? starship.paint ~  KO   11:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but how do we reconcile it with the multiple sources that appear to contradict it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - there is no contradiction, only an omission. If a source says "That guy said happy birthday to Bob", it does not rule out "That guy also said happy birthday to John and Mary". Likewise "The National Rifle Association has issued a threatening message to US journalists" does not rule out that the NRA also issued a threatening message to US politicians - as reported by other sources. starship.paint ~  KO   09:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the first step is needed is to establish it is an ad for her new show ( her clarificaton) and not a statement. I've seen ads like this when new programs aimed to tackle controversial subjects come on all the time, its just the state of the media and timing made the press take it threateningly rather than what it actually is. Once you get that, then its simply a matter of saying that the media took that as an attack/treatening message against media; you can also mention that March of our Lives spoofed the video ( -that source also gives a good descriptor "The NRA video seemed to be a threat against anyone who wasn’t supportive of the NRA"). --M asem (t) 05:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm still on the fence about this, but I'm sympathetic to Starship.paint's arguments. I adjusted the language to say: In a March 2018 NRA video, Loesch turned an hourglass and said to celebrities, politicians, and media figures, "Your time is running out. The clock starts now." I hope this addresses their concerns. If we're going to take the position that she was addressing everyone she mentioned in her ad, which was a long list, then we should summarize and not place undue emphasis on some of them over others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Gurinder Singh Mann
LadleeFaujan is an editor that is associated as per their own admission with the subject. They are repeatedly editing the article to suit their own agenda. All information being added is sourced and they are adding their own conversations with the subject. This is highly biased.
 * Can't speak to that, but the article is a WP:COATRACK for sexual assault allegations that have only passing mentions. The subject appears to fail WP:PROF. Sent to Articles for deletion/Gurinder Singh Mann. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Fake scientist" a BLP violation?
Is the edit summary here a BLP violation against Bill Nye? Not sure I know how to deal with that question. jps (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's inaccurate, but I don't know if I'd go as far as to call it a BLP vio. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Fair enough. I'll restore an edit then. jps (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * He doesn't claim to be a scientist, so it's hard to see how he could be a fake one. In related news: Guy (Help!) 18:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The user in question is more than a bit... resistant... to factual claims about such things as the age of the Earth or whether Bill Nye can be said to be a competent reviewer of the latest creationist tripe. I'll leave it to others to continue to engage with him if they think they can bring him to reason. This is, of course, off topic with respect to this noticeboard, though. jps (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Legacypac called Nye a "psudoscientist", which clearly is a BLP violation as it implies he is engaging in pseudoscience. Ironic given that the context is Ken Ham's creationist theme park boondoggle. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying that a mechanical engineer is not a scientist is on topic, though, I think. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. He is a well-known popular science communicator, and the context is Ken Ham's ark park - Ham considers Nye to be sufficiently credible that he chose to debate him on TV. So it's not our judgment that Nye's commentary is valid here, it is the owner of the thing that is the subject of the article. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Bill Nye is trained to the B Sc level in engineering but his whole career is playing a scientist on TV - the very definition of fake scientist. He plays a scientist every time he steps in front of a camera - it's his thing. This user is trying to use Nye's "TV scientist" opinion to label something as pseudoscience. We don't use the opinions of TV lawyers or TV doctors to support labels on legal or medical articles.

The real problem here is jps who is edit warring, abusing Rollbacker, removing my talk pahe comments and templating me than insulting my beliefs just above. This is harassment. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that Legacypac's use of the term "pseudoscientist" was a rhetorical maneuver to make it seem like his inaccurate use of the word in relation to Bill Nye was equivalent to an accurate use of the word in relation to creation science, and thus to say that it's absurd jps would support pseudoscience while calling out pseudoscience. I.e. I think he just meant that Bill Nye does not have scientist credentials, not that he advocates and/or practices pseudoscience, and is only a BLP violation if Legacypac doesn't know the word pseudoscientist doesn't mean "a science communicator/educator who does not have scientist credentials." (I suspect that he does know that, and is guilty of a misleading rhetorical move rather than of a BLP violation). This discussion is already spread out over a number of venues and doesn't seem necessary to continue here IMO. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-blurse-of-being-bill-nye-180967244/ - "The zany scientist talks about his recent transformation into the public—and controversial—face for science" -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't really see that as being a BLP vio, but rather someone stating their opinion, which I don't think crosses the line thus far. I will say that I agree with Legacypac's reasoning. The problem is we are trying to factually disprove someone's belief, which is impossible. Any good scientist would know this; Richard Feynman wrote at length about it. You can find it discussed in many books, such as Philosophy of Scientific Method. What we call "truth" consists of facts and opinions (aka: theories, hypotheses, conclusions, notions, etc...). Therefore, your "truth" --your reality-- may be quite different from the next guy's, and so on. Wikipedia is not about proving or disproving theories and opinion, because that is promoting our own "truth" at the expense of allowing a full understanding of other possible (however improbable) theories. It is not necessary to refute another's belief system, but only to report it fairly and accurately. Zaereth (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is getting way off track from the BLP issue. What you're saying is problematic given WP:FRINGE. Reporting about scientific claims fairly and accurately isn't just about presenting those claims but about presenting the overwhelming scientific consensus about those claims in no uncertain terms (it's not trying to disprove belief in god, for example, but the pseudoscientific claims/explanations). Regardless, I would encourage you to take this to the article talk page (or WP:FRINGEN) rather than here for the sake of concentrating discussion. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Touch a nerve, did I? Context matters, and this is an article about an amusement park. What next, should we try to prove in the Disneyland article that mice don't really talk? It's totally unnecessary. Zaereth (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The agenda of Disney is not to convince people that mice really talk. Try to keep up. jps (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And our agenda is what? To convince people of the truth? Zaereth (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Try again, darling. What's the agenda of Ark Encounter? jps (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Therefore, your "truth" --your reality-- may be quite different from the next guy's, and so on. Statements such as this should be an automatic disqualification from editing any factual content on Wikipedia. See WP:CIR. jps (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was talking about Wikipedia's agenda (implying your own). Try to keep up. Zaereth (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's agenda is WP:ENC. It is not to hand-hold people so that they don't have to face facts. jps (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * x3 Sigh. No. No nerve. Just basic policy. Basic policy that isn't directly related to this BLP-specific thread. Again, just read WP:FRINGE. If there is a nerve, it is that this is something that people have to explain to new POV-pushers every day, and I would prefer to just substitute a wikiacronym for someone who is not a new user but is not presumably familiar with that particular policy. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure this was a figurative use of the word pseudo-scientist if you look at the original post...as in "He's a pseudo-scientitist. He's not even a scientist, he just plays one on TV." That Nye doesn't hold any bona fide scholarly or academic position was already the topic of conversation.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  19:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscientist has an understood specific meaning and it is confusing to use it to describe someone who doesn't claim to be a scientist, but is a science educator.Martinlc (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No this is not a BLP violation, and frankly should never have been raised here {and as has been pointed out is spread over a number of venues, so there maybe issues of forum shopping).Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it actually is, since pseudoscience is a thing that Nye is well known for exposing, so it is an allegation of hypocrisy, but it's not a serious one. What's much more serious (and not for this venue, but instead WP:FRINGE) is Legacypac's advocacy for creationism. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No it is a statement he is not a real scientist (he is not), clear from the context (and it takes a massive breach of AGF to see it in any other light). As to the rest, as far as I know advocating for creationism is not specifically against any Wikipedia policy, and if I am wrong and such a policy does exit this is not its noticeboard. And there has been far too much of raising issues about users conduct on inappropriate boards involving this case for my liking.Slatersteven (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Legacypac called Nye a "psudoscientist". Not a faux-scientist, not "not a scientist", a pseudoscientist. That word has a specific meaning, and in the context of Nye, someone who has spent most of his career critiquing pseudoscience, it is clearly inappropriate, but int he context of creationist rhetoric against someone who skewers creationists (and let's not forget that real evolutionary biologists almost all ignore creationists, for obvious reasons), it is an understandable bit of rhetorical exuberance. Hence no sanctions will come of it, as long as he doesn't make a habit of it. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Mischa Barton
This biography has a) undue weight given to non-encyclopedic material, and b) suboptimal sourcing. In particular the following sections:

Relationships

rm copy paste from article. also had iffy claim about existence of a tape -- Jbh  Talk

Legal troubles per BLPCRIME -- Jbh  Talk

Psychiatric confinement

per BLP -- Jbh  Talk

The article is "protected". Please can someone take a look? --94.117.3.30 (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the above three sections from the article; per WP:NOTTABLOID, per WP:BLPCRIME and per WP:BLP. I have also redacted two sections above which were copy/paste of removed article content.  Jbh  Talk  03:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Doug Ford Jr.; anti semitic comment by Subject's brother
Re: Doug Ford Jr. This content was recently added with no consensus and has been discussed on the talk page also now seemingly entrenched position by at least one editor to keep it in

Below content from this section ''"When asked about his brother's use of an antisemitic slur,[30] Ford defended him by stating: "You know something? My doctor — my Jewish doctor, my Jewish dentist, my Jewish lawyer — Hold on, my Jewish accountant" and "Our family has the utmost respect for the Jewish community". His comments resulted in boos and laughter from the audience. Ford's campaign got the attention of Last Week Tonight's John Oliver who closed an episode begging Torontonians to vote for Doug Ford for the world's amusement"'' Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Some editors have been bending over backwards to highlight every skeleton in Ford's closet since he was recently elected leader of the Progrssive Conservative Party of Ontario. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The opposite actually. The information the two of you object to has been in the article for years. It's only since he announced his candidacy for PC Party leadership that the two of you and several IPs have consistently tried to remove it. Nixon Now (talk)
 * See the POV-pushing going on at the article? This is a BLP of a polarizing politician, so the shenanigans going on at the article shouldn't be surprising.  If something isn't done, it won't be long before the lead reads "Douglas Robert Ford Jr. (born November 20, 1964) is a Canadian antisemitic former hashish dealer, businessman and politician ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles are supposed to provide the same weight to subjects as mainstream sources. The allegations of drug trafficking in the Globe and Mail received wide attention, as have some of his more controversial statements. It's not a case of Wikipedia editors scouring for negative information.  And note that there was no adverse information in the article about his predecessor as PC leader, until the recent allegations that led to his resignation.  TFD (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By "It's not a case of Wikipedia editors scouring for negative information", TFD is referring specifically to the "hashish dealer" allegations and not the "antisemitism" that is the subject of this report, nor to the general POV-pushing that aims at putting Ford in as negative a light as can be gotten away with (considering the number of eyes on the article).
 * For the record, the hashish allegations are the subject of an RfC in which the importance of providing balance in the Wikipedia article has been stressed, because WP:WEIGHT has been violated repeatedly by POV-pushing editors hunting for ways to highlight this incident, including giving it its own one-paragraph subsection to ensure it appears in the table of contents (!!!). This subsection header has been restored more than once against consensus.
 * The POV-pushing has gotten so bad that the article is subject to WP:Pending changes. Here's a concrete example of Nixon Now simutaneously adding something negative while removing something positive from the article.  Someone's complained about it on the talk page as well. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a false and self-serving claim. Pending changes was implemented after I requested page protection due to long term pro-Ford edit warring by IPs etc since the beginning of Ford's campaign. Nixon Now (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note carefully that what Nixon Now calls "pro-Ford edit warring" was not the addition of "pro-Ford" material, but hte removal of material that Nixon Now has been editwarring to keep included against consensus. For instance, there is now a unanimous consensus against having a subsection devoted to hashish-dealing allegations at Talk:Doug Ford Jr., yet Nixon Now still stands i nthe way of its removal, claiming that 30 days need to pass first.  Remember, this is a WP:BLP, in which the standard is to remove challenged edits until a consensus is reached to keep them, not the reverse. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The above comment is misleading. The RFC is not on removing or retaining the section but on whether or not there should be section headings. And yes, POV editing on censoring sourced and verified material is still POV editing. Nixon Now (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This here is a flat-out lie. The section was opened in response to having the section header that you had no consensus for removed, and you forcing out back in. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First you say "unanimous consensus against having a subsection devoted to hashish-dealing allegations" and now you admit the RFC is over a "section header" which is exactly my point. So no, I'm not lying, you misstated the facts, something you've conceded in your choice of words while claiming simultaneously that I'm lying. You mistakenly claim the RFC was about removing a subsection when it was actually about removing subheadings (big difference), correct your language when I point it out while insisting that I'm lying and that you made no mistake. That's quite an accomplishment. Nixon Now (talk)
 * This whole comment is gibberish. The consensus is against having any sort of header for the hashish-dealing allegations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * TFD is referring specifically to the "hashish dealer" allegations and not the "antisemitism"... Maybe let TFD speak for themselves. Considering the end of the sentence you quoted only the beginning of is, "as have some of his more controversial statements," it seems that maybe TFD is not just referring to the hashish issue. I could be wrong about what TFD meant, but it seems extremely arrogant and presumptuous of you to explain what someone else meant, especially when that explanation seems to directly contradict that person's own words. tubedogg   (talk)  00:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is actually not what UNDUE says. This is part of what's been plaguing WP for the last few years. Just because the media dislikes a person does not mean our article on that person should become an attack article supported by the media's dislike to list every skeleton in their closet. That's violating BLP, NOT#NEWS, and NPOV. This is not how encyclopedic articles are written, but too many editors (not just here) feel that if the media backs up their dislike of a person, they can justify including every negative element the media brings up. --M asem (t) 22:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally. Thanks, Masem, this situation you identify as being somewhat common is a serious flaw, maybe even existential in terms of the integrity of the encyclopedia. What can be done, for example, in this specific article? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the 2014 quote, I see no mention of it past the time he gave it. It might be part of the view that he is anti-Jewish overall, but focusing so much on that quote which seems to have had no long term effect on his life is undue, the type that we need to be more aware of discussing a BLP overall and why we must be careful of NOT#NEWS. We shouldn't include singular incidents unless they become affecting of a person's life. --M asem (t) 02:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest rewriting the section to read (internal citations present in the existing text omitted, but would also be included):
 * During a mayoral debate held by the United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Doug Ford's opponent Ari Goldkind responded to a question about Jewish safety by mentioning Rob Ford's use of an antisemitic slur while intoxicated. Doug initially said he wasn't going to address it directly, stating: "You know something? My doctor — my Jewish doctor, my Jewish dentist, my Jewish lawyer — hold on, my Jewish accountant." Amidst booing and laughter, he continued, "Our family has the utmost respect for the Jewish community". The following day, during a radio appearance, he commented, "I said in the public numerous times his [Rob Ford] comments were unacceptable and inexcusable." (source for the last quote)

This addresses the NPOV and contextualization complaints. Beyond that, this was a noteworthy comment (reinforcing stereotypes) at a noteworthy event (mayoral debate) that was covered in media by referencing the issue in headlines of stories about the debate. tubedogg  (talk)  00:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You stil fail to respond to what's been asked on the talk page already: what makes this information worthy of inclusion out of the mountain of information available on this very public figure? Why cherrypick this, other than to paint him in as poor a light as possible? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Masem, perhaps you could explain why simply rewording doesn't address the problem. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically, the comment was in the news for a few days, and then I have not seen any other source bring it up again. In a encyclopedic biography, we're supposed to summarize a person's life, not document every time they are in the news, so a comment that received only short-term attention and had no long-term affects on their career is the last thing one would include in such a summary. That some see Ford as anti-Jewish, that's a broader criticism to be included, but not this specific comment. --M asem (t) 13:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Masem—so how do we enforce that when there are editors who refuse to allow it to be removed? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Respectfully request close - this is already being constructively discussed on the article's talk page, as well as having been brought up at ANEW and ANI. It would be more useful to establishing consensus if editors would add their comments to the preexisting discussion rather than forumshopping it all over the damn place. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, more eyes are always a good thing, but it's quite unconstructive to have parallel discussions on these things happening on many different pages. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The purpose of bringing something like this up here is to determine whether it conforms to BLP policy, which takes precedence over any talk-page consensus. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See, if that were true, you would invite editors paying attention to this noticeboard, who presumably are knowledgeable in policy, to comment on that aspect of policy within the already occurring discussion. Asking for an entirely separate discussion here reads like you just want to reframe the context of the discussion to see if you get an answer you like better. That's not a very good way to construct a stable article on a controversial topic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't open this discussion (Nocturnalnow said more than once he was going to bring it up here before he did), and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override policy. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a few people in the talk discussion who simply believe that a loaded question asked of the Subject about one time Subject's brother used an offensive slur is notable enough to be in the Blp as well as the Subject's seemingly sincere response which was categorized as being humorous. So, I came here for guidance on the matter and I think Masem, above, has given us exactly that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

(My comments above were about Ford's comments, although they could apply to other controversial aspects of him as well.) Indeed the discussion heading implies that there is a dispute about whether to report what the subject's brother said, making this a guilt by association issue. But the dispute is not about that but about what Doug Ford said. "My lawyer is a Jew" is such a clique that it provokes laughter. Even Archie Bunker had a Jewish lawyer. TFD (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not keeping up with Canadian politics as much as I perhaps should, I didn't know off the top of my head when Ford became as prominent as he apparently is, so I took a look at the page history to find the last truly stable version of the article that was not edited once for more than a month. It was last June. The only use of "Jew-" ("semit-" didn't appear at all) was in Doug has stated that Karla's maternal grandparents were Jewish and immigrated to Canada from Europe to flee persecution. So Nixoki's claim that "[t]he information [Nocturnalnow and CT] object to has been in the article for years" is questionable. It's also worth noting that both Curly Turkey and Nocturnalnow had edited the page by the end of January, within a day of Ford's announcing his candidacy for party leadership, while Nixon Now didn't touch the article until more than a month later, so the latter's claiming to know what the article looked like "years" ago contrary to word of the other two seems extremely tendentious. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, given their zeal, I didn't realize NN had been editing the article less than a month. His interest in Ford goes back slightly longer, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The section "Alleged mismanagement at The Hague Institute for Global Justice" is based on information that cannot be verified. This should be removed immediately.
The section "Alleged mismanagement at The Hague Institute for Global Justice" is based on information that cannot be verified/cannot be determined to be factual. This should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8300:B0:4111:608D:48A3:91A7 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article referred to is presumably Abiodun Williams, which contains a section named as above. It certainly contains some weasel words and needs work, but the references it cites are in Dutch and I can't check their validity as I don't speak that language. The section needs to be reviewed by a Dutch-speaking editor. Neiltonks (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

multiple articles edited by a user
Could an experienced editor look at the edits of user ? I removed a clear BLP violation from the L. Timmel Duchamp article. This user has many edits asserting sexual orientation categories for subjects of articles; in some cases they're unsourced or poorly sourced, in some cases they're identified as minor edits (is m  appropriate for that?), and in some cases they're about living or recently deceased people. Identifiers of sexual orientation, even if correct, could be an invasion of privacy if poorly sourced -- Wikipedia is not the place to "out" people who might not want to be outed. I don't know how to handle this, so I'm hoping an administrator or experienced editor will look into it. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Naomi Wu
After seeing several reports that the Patreon supporting Naomi Wu has been suspended because she doxxed a Vice reporter who wrote a fairly complementary profile about her, apparently because the reporter asked about rumors that her husband may help with some or most of her work, I looked a little further and found, , and. Having some familiarity with a few tangential issues, I am convinced and tagged the article as a potential hoax. I would like to see some third parties review those links for additional eyeballs on this issue, please.

Please see also. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theories at reddit, Imgur, 4chan and other non-RS sources would love to get more eyeballs on their rantings, but none of this stuff deserves to be publicized in BLPs.
 * The recent Vice article is perhaps the strongest evidence yet against the Naomi-hating theory that she is a nothingburger who parrots her boyfriend. The writer spent days walking around Shenzhen talking with Wu, photographing her house, meeting her friends, etc. He has every motivation to write a big story showing Wu is a hoax--if that's what he concluded. Instead he wrote, "In the past few years, she’s been forced to fend off vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career," and he refers elsewhere to "the unfounded Reddit allegations." By all means, let's improve the biography, add even more good sources besides Forbes, Newsweek, LA Times, etc. already cited writing about Naomi Wu.HouseOfChange (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As indicated in the last link I posted above, that Vice article could not be completed because when the author (a woman, not a man) started asking about the allegations, Wu doxxed her on YouTube, which is why she lost her Patreon. I agree we need secondary sources, but Naomi complains that the Vice author was non-technical, so how do you suggest she was qualified to ascertain authenticity? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The writer clearly believes that Wu is authentic. She had much more opportunity of detecting falsehood than I do or you do. The writer's impression, (and the impression of other writers for RS who interviewed Wu in the past), was that Wu is a clever and creative person, deeply immersed in maker/hacking projects. I can't understand why anyone would care if she has a boyfriend or if she and her boyfriend might or might not ever have worked together on any projects. I know lots of male writers who get lots of help (research, proofreading etc.) from wives. Yet nobody screams that the men are fakes who couldn't possibly have written their own books, that their wives "really" wrote them. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How many of those male writers do you think would distribute the home address of their biographers to their fans with wishes that they would have to repeatedly move upon being asked about how others have characterized their wives helping them? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I note without further comment that dispute tags have been removed from the article twice. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Dispute tags need evidence in order to survive. Your evidence for the first dispute tag (hoax) was rejected. You offered zero evidence here or elsewhere for tagging the article instead pov. You can't just throw up dispute tags without supporting them with evidence contrasting what's in the article to what is in reliable sources. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to add any material to the article, because there are no secondary sources on this yet, but I would be very surprised if Wu's own doxxing behavior combined with the archive.is primary sources showing that she lives in the same apartment with the same furniture as a well-known older American maker would not be sufficient to support dispute tags. Otherwise Wikipedia is essentially complicit in the alleged plagiarism scam defrauding our readers. ...or would be, if she hadn't destroyed her own Patreon. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, you have contented yourself with adding diverse unpleasant claims about Naomi Wu to the Talk page, and then seeking extra eyeballs for those claims here. Dispute tags require evidence from WP:RS. If Naomi Wu did or did not share an apartment with some older maker in the past, how does that show that her multiple public tech demos are just a "plagiarism scam"? The leap of logic here is amazing. But seriously, it does not matter what you believe or what I believe. What matters is what WP:RS report. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Such claims should be backed up by WP:RS. I'd also like to note in a 2-cent ORish observation (though - I'm sure there are sources to back this up) that many of these social media stars (particularly the high income ones) have a team behind them - it's not unusual that there are people who help (e.g. draft posts, help with producing videos/photos) the public media personality - and we don't call "hoax" on all such personas.Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The following - A Note About 'Shenzhen's Homegrown Cyborg' - from the Vice staff would perhaps satisfy RS for the doxxing issue.Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, but I'm not adding anything until I've slept on this whole thing. In any case Wu has admitted to the doxxing and I've seen an archival copy of it. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The blogpost from Vice is a primary source, published by one party to a dispute. What we don't have yet is a balanced, researched account from some RS, giving both sides a chance to be heard. Then the article can link to that RS, assuming that WEIGHT is considered, and COATRACKing of Reddit is not the real goal here.HouseOfChange (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

A new SPA IP just added a long "Controversy" section about the Patreon/Vice kerfluffle, citing various non-RS. Its length and detail are disproportionate to the rest of the article. I will removed it to the Talk page and encourage others to collaborate to create a consensus report about this matter, assuming RS can be found to cite. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There is now an RFC, on whether to include the sentence "Wu has been accused of being an online persona created by her boyfriend, an electrical engineer. " at Talk:Naomi Wu. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather than the sanitized passive voice, ("Wu has been accused...", as if her accusers were multiple and unassailable), I prefer the description of this claim in the most-reliable source we have on it: "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career." HouseOfChange (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Dhammika Perera
There is one administrator repeatedly adding poorly-sourced content to a biography of Dhammika Perera, currently the picture of the living person has been changed to an outdated picture and would like it changed to the following picture

Dulanjana.silva (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Drive-by question: the COI googles easily, has this user declared it? Guy (Help!) 12:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Dulanjana Silva: Can you review our policy on declaration of conflict of interest, and also provide relevant diffs to support your allegation that an administrator has been repeatedly adding poorly-sourced content to the biography in question? — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  08:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Khabib Nurmagomedov
Khabib Nurmagomedov's "other_names" (nickname) keeps being change to "mcgregor’s Daddy", a reference to Conor McGregor, another UFC fighter.

Examples
 * Special:Diff/835407277
 * Special:Diff/835407403

I recommend this page be temporarily locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guywithacoolname (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Kiki Håkansson
The Kiki Håkansson article states that she died in 2011 based on this single source which seems to be the only source I can find that says she passed away. I know indiatimes is generally regarded as reliable but aside from this and WP mirrors and blogs, I can find no evidence that she has actually died and I'm wondering if they mis-attributed this. I would think someone as notable as her would receive slightly more coverage at least reporting her death. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, the death of very first ever winner of the world's oldest and one of the most famous beauty pageants would almost certainly be widely reported, much more than just trivial mentions in one or two reliable sources. Linguist un Eins uno 16:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

POV image added to Mohammad bin Salman
A was recently added to Mohammad bin Salman, taken from www.tasnimnews.com Whether or not it’s reliable it’s fair to say that Tasnim News Agency is a biased source – surely the maximum extent of any citation should be an in-text attribution and not an excessively POV cartoon? Tarafa15 (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem useful to me so I have boldly removed it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Julia Kristeva
It was recently alleged that Julia Kristeva collaborated with the communist regime in Bulgaria and was an agent for the Committee for State Security, a claim strongly denied by Kristeva herself and by some scholars and academics, as noted in this New York Times story. Given that the accusation remains disputed, I consider it important that the article describe it as an accusation rather than presenting it as uncontroversial fact, and I think WP:BLP supports this. That is why the section discussing the allegation is titled, "Alleged collaboration with the Communist Regime in Bulgaria" rather than, "Collaboration with the Communist Regime in Bulgaria". Unfortunately some editors at the Kristeva article want it to present the allegation as confirmed fact, thus see this edit at the article and this edit on the talk page. I would like to see consensus established for presenting the allegation as what it still is, a disputed allegation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I understand it from reading the relevant sources, the people who have declared that she did collaborate with the communist regime are the relevant government authority who are tasked with investigating and then make the decision correct? And this is the final/end stage of a long process, not the start of an investigation? Its not really an allegation then is it. Granted she may dispute it, but that's a self-serving claim. As a similar example: we wouldnt state someone found guilty by a relevant court was not a criminal because they denied it. WP:BLPCRIME doesnt apply, and these sorts of actions (collaboration with foreign/oppressive governments) dont usually see a normal court anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * She denies it, and the extant sources don't seem convincing enough to justify including it for a BLP. Simply being listed as a "collaborator" isn't proof of anything (Communist regimes aren't immune from falsification/puffery of records), some evidence of providing information (or some other action by her) seems necessary to me. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The commission (unusually) released all their evidence as a result of this. Essentially its transcripts of her reports, the evidence she provided (in some cases mundane like a fellow bulgarian's stomache!) there are reports about when she (Kristeva) complained her parents couldnt visit her in France, the internal reports refer to her codename. The NYT article is very good in this, and while it hedges its bets, it does leave with the overall impression she was a spy. If you look at the weighting they give towards the experts/people they asked for comment. For me the telling point is that while involved in Tel Quel they broke with the French soviet-communist supporting party to move towards Mao. This timeline certainly matches up with the dossier on Sabina - she starts off as a willing agent and then becomes less co-operative. But really, while she may deny it, she has been declared a collaborator by the people who are authorised to make those statements. Can she actually officially dispute its finding in any real way? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for secondary sources to assess the situation. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Until we have strong sourcing to support strong claims, I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator. There are too many caveats here. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. As I recall the NY Times article, it said that none of the released material contained anything written by Kristeva -- only reports written by people who talked to her.  Whether the NY Times article "does leave with the overall impression that she was a spy" is a matter of opinion.  It didn't leave me with that impression.  When the word "spy" is used, one usually thinks of someone divulging classified information.  It seems unlikely Kristeva knew classified info that she could have divulged if she'd wanted to.  What the Bulgarians got from her during the Cold War, with or without her knowledge (hard to judge), was "soft intelligence". She obviously wasn't any Philby.  Also, the current Bulgarian government is not necessarily a disinterested source.  There's a certain amount of witch-hunting that's been going on in some of the former Soviet bloc countries, and it's possible (hard to judge) that the Bulgarians are not above doing this.  Finally, in their internal reports the bureaucrats in the old Bulgarian intelligence agencies would have had a vested interest in exaggerating their success in recruiting "informants", and could have easily described an unknowing informant as if they'd "recruited" her.  I'm not saying we know any of this one way or the other.  But the situation is murky based on what's publicly known so far.  So I think BLP applies. NightHeron (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Mohammad bin Salman - human rights section
There are issues with the subsection in this article headed ‘Human rights’, which individually names a large number of activists whose relevance as individuals to the article subject is tenuous to say the least. None of the sources for the second and third of the three paragraphs in this section even mention Mohammad bin Salman. The five individuals named in the second paragraph were sentenced in 2012, five years before he became Crown Prince; and the UN Special Rapporteur’s findings mentioned in the third paragraph were critical of the Saudi authorities as a whole but did not mention him (he was again in fact not yet Crown Prince), and neither do the sources for that paragraph. There is already an article on Human rights in Saudi Arabia – surely that report and these accounts of individual activists belong in that article and not in this one? Tarafa15 (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Dispute on Holocaust denial page
The holocaust denial page ends with a list of prominent holocaust deniers. I'm involved in a dispute on that page over (as far as I can tell) whether including someone on that list requires a citation, or whether it's sufficient for citations to exist on those people's linked Wikipedia pages. While this might seem like a silly dispute at first glance (at the moment it's just over an additional-citations-needed tag, and I think there's no disagreement that citations exist, somewhere out there, for the vast majority of entries on the list, or that having them would broadly be a good thing - so they can obviously all eventually be added and then the tag can be removed), I still think it's an extremely important question to resolve - I have concerns that eg. linked pages could change from their current state and we could end up with inclusion on the list being uncited anywhere as a result, while in many cases (where the linked page is long and complicated and doesn't contain a clear-cut statement with a single obvious set of sources) it's unclear exactly what source we're relying on. My reading of WP:BLP is that citations are needed on the page making the claim and that, even in a list, relying on there being cites on another page is insufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You can see on the list now the results of Aquillion's insistence that his interpretation of BLP is the only possible one: a list in which every name (that has been worked on) has multiple citations, all lifted from other articles. (Aquillion did the ones at the top of the list, I'm working from the bottom). My contention is this: if the Wikipedia article calls the subject a Holocaust denier, and that statement is properly supported there by a citation or citations from reliable sources, there's no real need to copy the citation(s) over to the list of Notable Holocaust deniers, since it exists elsewhere on Wikipedia.This is not a case of WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, since we wouldn't be relying on Wikipedia saying it, but on the source which supports Wikipedia saying it. The list is, after all, a list of links to the articles about the subject, and no one on the list doesn't have an article. Requiring copying over the citations appears to me to be WP:BURO for its own sake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Copying the sources doesn't seem like a big deal. According to WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source:
 * "Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case)."
 * Seems to apply to this case or any similar situation. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course citations are needed on the page which includes a fact. That's the bare minimum. (As I said on the other discussion page, this section would be better as a prose, and even better - not existing at all, because who goes in and who doesn't is a subjective editorializing decision). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP is non-negotiable on this. Any contentious piece of information about a living person that is not sourced with an inline citation can be removed without discussion. It doesnt matter if it is sourced elsewhere in a different article. Other lists where living people are not involved it is generally considered fine as long as the blue-linked article has a source supporting the material and it is not contentious. But the BLP has stricter standards for sourcing regarding living people and contentious claims. See also WP:LISTVERIFY - although that is mainly for stand alone lists, its principles generally apply to any list. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a list that has a contentious inclusion criteria (that one is considered a HD). Absolutely sourcing is needed on the list itself; blue-linked is not sufficient. --M asem (t) 14:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Any person that's not directly and reliably sourced inline needs to be removed from the list. We've been exactly here recently with the list of LGBT politicians in the UK (not comparing holocaust denial with being LGBT, but both are contentious, of course). Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd also add: is that list of people that assert they are HD's or are those that journalists/analysis believe are HD, or a combination of both? There needs to be some type of intro sentence to explain that inclusion criteria here, as if it is the people that are being called HDs by the media, we don't want to be looking like WP is saying these people are HDs in Wikivoice. --M asem (t) 14:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, any contentious material about living persons has to come with a citation, even in a list. Yes, the list on the article is hideous with citations. The obvious solution at least to me seems to be creating List of Holocaust deniers, and linking to it, since there's already sufficient content there for a stand alone list rather than an embedded one.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While that may seem the obvious solution, historically we have had trouble with stand alone lists that are entirely negative and about living people. A better solution would be to reformat and set some clear criteria for the bottom section in line with BLP: Their holocaust denial is relevant in some way to their notability (historians concentrating on the 2nd World War for example) or they have received significant coverage - legal cases etc. Rather than just 'Oh a load of media says this person is a holocaust denier'. That should cut it down quite a bit and turn it less a list of name + citation into an actual encyclopedic section. No one could argue that a link to David Irving is not a relevant and suitable article for anyone who wants to read about holocaust denial (and what happens when as a holocaust denier you sue someone claiming you are not.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'm not saying you wouldn't have to tread lightly re: BLP. But the difference between a category and a list, is that in a list you actually can provide brief and direct explanatory content supported by reliable sources that supports inclusion in the list.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence Liang
Repeated removal of PoV tag, despite ongoing dispute on talk page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The controversial content discussed on the talk page is not included in the current version of the article, so there is no need for the tag at this time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The tag does not say that "controversial content is included"; it says that neutrality is disputed. Neutrality can be breached by omission, was well as by inclusion. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence Krauss
Much text that violates WP:NPOV is suddenly being added to Lawrence Krauss by User:Steeletrap. I have been working on maintaining NPOV with many other Wikipedians, but I don't want to get into an edit war with somebody here to right a great wrong. Can others weigh in? Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Krauss has been accused of sexual assault or harassment by numerous women. He has been suspended from his university position at ASU, and the two previous universities for which he worked sanctioned him for sexual harassment of undergrads. : His WP fanboys are claiming that because the allegations against Krauss are unproven--because there is no videographic evidence of the assaults, I guess?--that they must be stricken from the article. There is no policy on which they base this claim. And many WP pages, such as Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, mention "unproven" sexual assault allegations.
 * All RS mentions of Krauss since the allegations were publicized in February 2018 mention the controversy. (For example, a WaPo eulogy to Stephen Hawking Krauss wrote in March was prefaced by a extended mention of the controversy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/15/the-time-i-took-stephen-hawking-to-a-cowboy-bar/?utm_term=.90d9a0600955 Steeletrap (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * More than half the lead is an obvious undue WP:RGW campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ASU, where Krauss has worked for more than a decade, reports it has had zero complaints about Krauss during that time. CWU, which he left in a contentious way, reported interactions with two undergrads that made them feel uncomfortable. Perimeter Institute, where he visited and gave a talk in 2009, responded in 2012 or 2013 to allegations made by one woman, back in 2009. Your attempt to build this into action against Krauss by 3 universities where he worked, (and to equate the behavior he's been accused of with much more serious behavior by Cosby, Epstein, Weinstein, etc.) reflects shallow knowledge of the topic and an attitude unsuited to creating NPOV text that belongs in an encyclopedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Date of incorrect births of celebrities
Good evening Wikipedia, I come to report to one of the anonymous IPs that has been incurring again and again with placing false birth data of Japanese voice actors where they added on the page of Chie Nakamura which says in the Google search that she was born in 1979 while in Japanese Wikipedia says that it is not true. And when that data is not confirmed, the other IPs (including me) we reverse everything but insists that these data they invent are real or I imagine it, well was thought that they would report it to the case in the Requests for page protection to apply for protection but others bureaucrats and administrators of this site protected temporarily and then expired and look at the amount of history of editions they made on the page of the same Japanese voice actress who will find it here. They also did not realize that someone used the account of these IPs to evade the block and the only thing it does is look at the page of the Japanese voice actors knowing the little less than inventing the data to confirm the ages, the same happens with Nathan Pacheco of course, where his first edition was last March 1, as well as the controversial change of birth date of Noriaki Sugiyama where also says that he was born in 1976 and not 1974 1 the IP was wrong.

The question is could identify the IPs belonging to someone who has had an account similar to the one banned from Wikipedia? I leave some vandalism contributions here:

That was it 148.101.59.231 (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You see, the IP again put the year of the actress's birth without references and I do not know who is the prolific sockmaster who uses the multiple IPs to vandalize here, for example this, this and this. 148.0.99.216 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Steven Leifman
Not sure whether these recent edits are appropriate, given the fact that they all rely on primary sources. Sure, it's not controversial that an order was filed against Leifman, but the other stuff (about the videos) seems inappropriate to attribute to primary sources, especially some of the things he is alleged to have said in some of the videos. Every morning  (there's a halo...)  01:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the content describing the videos and/or Leifman in a biased way that was sourced to the videos themselves in light of the concerns I noted above. Every morning   (there's a halo...)  01:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the content should not be included. I've watchlisted the page and will revert if its restored. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 01:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Mike Levin
The page on Mike Levin, a Democratic candidate for Congress in California's 49th District, has suffered repeated vandalism by Levin's political opponents. There have been repeated violations of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view. Today, I just removed false information that claimed that Mike Levin had been involved with a company that dumped toxic coal ash in Alabama, that claimed that he had donated $1000000 to his campaign, and that he was an environmental lobbyist. None of these claims had proper citation. A few days ago, I had had the same issue with other false and uncited information about Mike Levin.

At this point, the page needs to be locked and protected because the page has suffered repeated vandalism, and repeated violations of Wikipedia's policies on BLP and NPOV. Mike Levin is a politician in a competitive election and any false and misleading information can have serious repercussions.


 * We currently have 2 sections on this page for Mike Levin. Bus stop (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Mike Levin
The article on Mike Levin, a living person running for US House of representatives in California's 49th congressional district, has been the subject of edits that were not in good faith and that violate the policies on biographies of living persons, neutral point of view, and Verifiability.

A user named Nkbreen (whose only edits are on the Mike Levin page, and who likely created an account for the sole purpose of defaming Mike Levin) added a section to the page entitled Levin eleven. This user also added links to nonexistent categories on "Foreclosure lawyers" and "Countrywide Mortgage People" to make Mike Levin look bad.

I removed these defamatory edits, but Nkbreen put the poorly sourced and libelous information back. I once again removed a portion of the defamatory edit that related to the nonexistent categories. In doing so, I may have inadvertently violated the three-revert rule, as I removed the category links and the defamatory content separately. However, my action was protected because I was removing libelous and defamatory content from the biography of a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayansg (talk • contribs)
 * I have removed the "material" in question and started a discussion on the talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * We currently have 2 sections on this page for Mike Levin. Bus stop (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Russell Abrams
There has been an ongoing content dispute on Russell Abrams regarding the inclusion of negative information about legal issues and lawsuits. I invite readers to review Talk:Russell Abrams. I'm particularly concerned about the number of single purpose accounts that have been active on the page, including one account named, which may likely represent a law firm. I will not reproduce the contents of the talk page here; readers can review it there. Instead, I request that the remainder of the discussion be held here, where it might receive wider attention than just the two editors involved so far (myself and ). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

), thank you for escalating this - a collaborative discussion on BLP is a good next step. If anyone has any questions, please contribute here or to the talk page on Russell Abrams. We may very well want to lock the page following the resolution of this conversation given the continued vandalism by single purpose accounts. The.dankest.keith (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I would note that is one of the WP:SPAs involved in this page.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know what that one sentence was doing in the lead, but I cut it. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a start, and is one of the changes I wanted to start with, but as I looked into the sources, I came to believe that none of the coverage of Abrams' legal troubles merit inclusion in the article, for reasons I've stated on the article's talk page (and will reiterate here, if requested). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , I wish I had time right now to look more closely. I did see, afterward, that you had removed that sentence earlier as well. Please do ping me if the need arises for administrative action, or if you think I can be otherwise helpful. Thanks, and thanks also for your dedication to the BLP. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per "People accused by a crime" section of Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons policy:
 * "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction."
 * According to the "probation before judgment" section of Russell Abrams' Talk page, the college firebombing case was resolved in a dismissal after Abrams served probation. If that is the case, then the information about the incident needs to be removed, per the policy cited above, because a conviction had not been secured. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the information about lawsuits by and against Abrams also have no place in this article. The suits filed by him and his wife against his former employees is a personal matter, and has little bearing on the public person about whom we are writing this article. (Yes, newspapers will trade in salacious gossip, but I don't believe that is the place of an encyclopedia.) And the countersuits filed by his former employees appear to remain largely unresolved, and so should not be included unless any actual wrongdoing has been verified. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with, I also think that the "lawsuits" section adds no encyclopedic value to the BLP and should probably be removed per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSCANDAL. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Its a bit backwards to on the one hand claim someone notable enough for a biography is not a public figure so WP:BLPCRIME applies, then claim the crimes have "little bearing on the public person". Either he is a public figure as a business leader per WP:WELLKNOWN and so BLPCRIME doesnt apply, or he isnt a public figure in which case once you remove all the lawsuits you are left with a rather standard non-notable hedge fund manager. In comparison: A lot of our other 'business leaders' (including hedge fund managers) have significantly more to back up their notability. Philanthropy etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The point isn't that WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply. The point is that Abrams was not actually ever convicted of a crime; only a misdemeanor for which he served probation and community service. The event has been expunged from his criminal record, and so really has no place here. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue with the misdemeanor seems very clear. For the other issue, I understand that WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply to the lawsuit over naked pictures because as I understand it is just a civil trial (not a criminal one), still, not every thing reported by news should be included in an encyclopedic biography of a living person. I think there is no reason to include it as it is just a personal matter with no enduring notability per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Weather or not the subject is notable enough for inclusion should be a different issue. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be on the side of removing the information that I had previously removed and which you restored. If you have more to add favoring keeping the material, please do. Otherwise I'll go ahead and remove it again. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll chime in on three separate controversies on his page: 1. the firebombing of an Apartheid protest, 2. the fraud suit, and 3. the sexual harassment cases.
 * As to the first point, the Washington Post and several other major publications indicate that Abrams was in fact convicted of felony arson. As per the below Washington Post reference, the conspiracy charge he was convicted of was a misdemeanor, and the arson charge a felony. The sentence passed down upon their conviction was probation., you characterize tothe firebombing as a 'misdemeanor' multiple times. Given the Washington Post source, I think it's fair to come to consensus that the firebombing was both a felony, and that Abrams was passed a sentence (of probation and time served).
 * Regarding the second point, I agree with . The fraud case's coverage in Business Insider, Forbes, and other notable business publications was a large contribution to establishing Abrams' notability.
 * Third and finally, the sexual harassment case is material and is cited in every single article about him following the launch of the case. The allegations were so serious that his brother's campaign for Connecticut General Assembly was derailed, when then Governor Daniel Malloy personally demanded he pull out of the race pending the conclusion of the suit. As per the law firm's site that represented the claims of the two secretaries who were allegedly sexually harassed, the case is still ongoing.
 * To address the point made regarding the sources of information regarding the case being limited to tabloids, that simply isn't true. Dozens of non-tabloid sources covered the case (including CNBC, NY Magazine, FinAlternatives, Dealbreaker, Business Insider etc.), and as a result I think that any claim of reliance on tabloids is suspect. I have included a selection of these sources below.
 * I would argue that the prominence of the case on the national level (requiring gubernatorial intervention in a major political race), and their mainstream coverage by the likes of CNBC, New York Magazine, Law360, and others, warrant their inclusion on this page.
 * I'm more than happy to discuss any of these points further or otherwise be helpful for a speedy resolution here.

The.dankest.keith (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, taking points one at a time:
 * Abrams was convicted of arson, specifically, setting fire to a makeshift shanty, a charge that was deemed a misdemeanor and for which he served probation. (No indication that he actually ever served any time for this incident.) His record was expunged after serving the required probation, meaning that as far as the state of Maryland is concerned, he does not have a criminal record. As such, his Wikipedia biography should not continue to indicate that he does.
 * If a fraud case, in which no charges nor civil suits against Abrams were ever successfully litigated, is the only reason Abrams is notable, then we probably have a case for WP:AFD, but that's not an issue to be debated here. The only issue here is whether these unproven charges merit inclusion in his Wikipedia biography. Wikipedia policy would argue that they do not merit inclusion.
 * Whether or not Abrams' brother had to drop out of his political race over the sexual harassment charges is immaterial to this matter: we are discussing Russell Abrams here, not Marc Abrams. As such, unproven allegations against him have no place in his Wikipedia biography, whether or not the press chooses to haunt him with such coverage. Until such charges are proven in a court, we should not continue to report them. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've blocked The.dankest.keith as a ✅ sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that the only person arguing for the retention of this material has been found to be a sock puppet (likely with a strong conflict of interest in this matter), may we move forward to strike the offending material? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Herbert Schendl, Herbert Koziol et al.
appears to have a clear undeclared COI and has been creating poorly sourced (often only using primary sources including (own webpage, CV, symposium webpage, university course information!) biographies of living academics in their field of linguistics. I have created a listing for Herbert Schendl at AfD and prodded Herbert Koziol but then realised a lot of similar articles by the author that need investigation. warned the user back in February. They didn't respond but also haven't edited since February either. Still a lot of cleanup of their articles needed and might need a concerted effort, hence why I'm posting here. Polyamorph (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said in my posts on Moochooroo's talk page and my talk page, I'm reasonably certain this user is <redacted per WP:OUTING.> See User talk:Meters and User talk:Moochooroo. The user is an SPA on English linguistics, including substantial edits to Stefan Dollinger, A Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles (the second edition of the DCHP was directed by Dollinger), Herbert Schendl (one of Dollinger'sPhD advisers) and Nikolaus Ritt (another of Dollinger's PhD advisers). I also suspect that the same user has also used IPs to edit some of these articles. Note also the odd edit by an IP to the Dollinger article  claiming that the article had been written by Dollinger. Meters (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input . I've sent Stefan Dollinger to AfD, as well as Herbert Koziol after the PROD was removed by an anon user. I'll take a look at Nikolaus Ritt Polyamorph (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll comment on the AFDs. Thanks for opening them. Meters (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Eric Greitens [resolved]
An article on an individual involved in a high-profile legal matter. Edits by an IP have introduced a serious BLP violation, outing a low-profile individual and an alleged victim of assault:.

Is it worth a rev-del? There are 25 revisions involved: . --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Lemme check... – Muboshgu (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think rev del applies. It doesn't meet any of WP:CRD. Those edits added information in a matter-of-fact way about a serious allegation that came out in the news today. I agree WP:CONSENSUS needs to be built on the talk page before that goes back in, but I imagine that it will in some form go back in. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into this. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Simon R Taylor
Dear Community,

I am posting this message further to correspondence with the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. I am the subject of the above-mentioned article.

I’m afraid that none of the impressive BBC references exist. The only legitimate links are to my own website, an article in the local press, and a few reviewers of my two self-published books.

Some of the revisions are defamatory and distressing. I don’t believe that I meet Wikipedia’s test of notability, and on that basis I would request that the page is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simtaylor (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that the article in question is Simon R. Taylor. The article creator,, has been inactive for 3 years. The citations being queried were introduced with the original version of the page - see . &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  17:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have never been interviewed by the BBC. I am not a public figure. Can the page be removed? Thanks Simtaylor (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the overarching issue of defamatory revisions, you can request that an administrator use the revision delete function on the affected versions. The notabilility guideline in question is WP:NAUTHOR, but I think the general notability guideline is more likely to be satisfied. Offline sources are hard to verify, especially a 7 year old radio programme. As a general rule, we assume good faith on these citations, but at the same time verifiability is a key policy. If we strike the BBC reference, then notability is borderline in my opinion, as I'm not sure about significant mention in multiple secondary sources. As such, I'd suggest nominating the article for deletion, and state your case there. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  17:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I also note that there has been previous discussion on this noticeboard - see Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive262. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  17:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps nobody was sufficiently interested at the time. I've tried to take the action you've suggested above but I'm a bit confused by it all to be honest. I anticipate that, as the subject, if I indicate the sources do not exist then the burden of proof would fall on anybody wishing to retain the article to demonstrate otherwise. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simtaylor (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * no problem, a bot waltzed in and linked the discussion, it's always hard your first time (people who do it regularly generally use twinkle to get it right). I still feel lost with the speedy deletion templates on other projects like commons. I'm not sure about the burden in this case, I'll do some digging on the offline sources page. Regarding being the article subject, as editors are anonymous, there's fairly often a degree of skepticism over such claims. Consequently, you may wish to contact the OTRS team to verify your identity, as it would make sense to me that the subject of the article challenging sources like you are would be taken with more weight. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  18:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help :) Simtaylor (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Blaire White
I'm looking for an editor to monitor the situation of the Blaire White article, which has been subject to repeated (3x) vandalism today on the basis of Blaire's transgender identity.

Disclaimer: I am not a seasoned wikipedia editor, simply a transgender bystander who noticed vandalism and is struggling to report it through the proper channels. I signed up for an account in an attempt to flag someone with more knowledge, but discovered that this process is a lot more complicated than that. This is why my profile is sparse. I am looking for an experienced editor to follow up on this problem, as I'm out of my depth.

Thank you! Foxgloved (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Update - we have now had a substantial back and forth on my talk page. The editor is using my lack of familiarity with wikipedia's policy documents, and my clumsiness in using the editor, as evidence that they can continue to make changes. (Right now the article is correct, but most likely only because the editor is trying to avoid the 3 revert rule.) I really need experienced help, please! Foxgloved (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are looking for MOS:GENDERID "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". From what I can tell, you are right in terms of what pronouns to use. --M asem (t) 14:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Zenith court case and Devita Saraf
Could use some outside input on this possible WP:BLPCRIMEish stuff. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Laura Loomer
There is a user called "Dr. Fleischman" who seems to believe that Laura Loomer is "alt-right," citing this (https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/376148/jewish-alt-right-woman-takes-on-richard-spencer-amid-infighting/) source, and ignoring an article from the same site (https://forward.com/series/forward-50/2017/laura-loomer/) where it states, "Her efforts didn’t get her much love from the 'alt-right...' ”

I am arguing Laura Loomer is not alt-right, and it is potentially libelous to characterize her as such. I am also arguing The Forward cannot be used as a source in this instance because of its own contradiction.

--72.42.159.123 (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, she's definitely alt-right, insofar as reliable sources characterise her that way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Both Forward sources call her "alt-right", although as a Jew, she squabbles with anti-Semitic elements of the chaotic and factionalized alt-right movement. The full range of reliable sources make it clear that she is a far right wing provocateur who can fairly be classified as alt-right even if every source does not use that term. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:LABEL says "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."
 * 1. In this case "alt-right" is only used by biased sources
 * 2. Non-biased NBC News calls her "conservative" commentator
 * The label "alt-right" must be removed per policy. – Lionel(talk) 05:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How did you arrive at the conclusion that the NBC News source is neutral, but everything that disagrees with it is biased? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Liam Neeson
A discussion on his citizenship is taking place, and additional input might be helpful. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel  ‖ 07:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)