Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive273

Kevin Swanson (pastor) and homosexuality
At, Jeatonm made this edit, stating, "Eliminated a biased and bigoted entry that discussed superstition and Christian anti-gay bias as if they were natural. The article made no attempt at impartiality. Better that it was deleted than remain. Perhaps someone who do more than simply quote a fanatic will rewrite it appropriately." I reverted when patrolling with WP:Huggle, and stated the following on the article's talk page, "''Jeatonm, regarding this, the solution is not to remove the entire lead paragraph. We need some kind of lead. I'm not familiar with the pastor; so I don't know what he is best known for and how WP:Due weight should be applied in this case. I will take this matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard. You can weigh in there.''"

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I don't see that the lead is endorsing Swanson's views. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just judging from the comment, I think that they meant to blank the entire article, not just the lead. There is an option that allows an "edit" link to appear next to the article title, and that will open just the intro to editing; it's easy to accidentally click it when you mean to edit the whole article. (I've been doing just that mistake for years.) But of course the article should not be blanked. Edited, absolutely (do we need that he's a member of a church in the opening sentence?), but not blanked, at least not without going through proper deletion procedures. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I changed the lead. If you want to attribute a view to him, find a citeable source. The source given was a broken link. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have restored the lead, using an archive for the broken link. The material concerning homosexuality is well-sourced in the body of the article; as the intro is primarily a summary, it need not be sourced separately there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought that an assertion like that would need to be sourced where it's made, rather than buried down in the article. There are still broken links in there and, regardless of his views, they should be fixed or taken out, or better cites found. Most of the cites I can see in a quick review are partial sources rather than MSM. If the only thing he's known for are holding some odd and vile views, is he even notable? That's my 2p. Over and out. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alexandermcnabb, NatGertler is referring to WP:CITELEAD. Per that guideline, sources don't necessarily need to be in the lead. It's a case-by-case basis. But WP:CITELEAD is clear that controversial statements, especially controversial BLP statements, are likelier to need sourcing in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In an encyclopaedic sense, as the subject is well known for publicly and loudly advocating the death penalty for all homosexuals worldwide, and multiple sources are given in the article which verify that, the statement is not controversial even though that point of view is. More reliable sources or direct quotations could be added, but I agree this should remain in the lede and can rely on the interested reader examining the body of the article to find out more and to find reliable sources. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Walter Bobbie
Should bullying allegations covered in the New York Times and other reputable sources be suppressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Fielding99 (talk • contribs)


 * Right now, I would say no. It's an unusual situation where a person that committed suicide left notes blaming Bobbie here for why he took his life, but at this point, (as best as I can tell) they are allegations, and have not yet affected Bobbie's career. If either the allegations prove out, or something affects Bobbie's career due to them (like, should be put on temporary leave), then that's a reason to include. But we should be careful of including any random allegation thrown at a BLP that yet to have a lasting impact on their career. --M asem (t) 02:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

congressman Tom Reed
Tom Reed vote on a straight partisan line! 97% votes with Trump. As a constituent of district 23 New York. His voting record shows a congressman who is far from bipartisan. I would also like to add his business which was divested to wife, Debt Collections .RR Resource Recovery LLC. Bankrupting constituents who are unable to pay medical bills. he is a firm conservative. Reed's campaign finance report show he began making payments for rent, utilities and maintenance to RR Resource Recovery in June 2012. The payments totaled 45,669.24. . His wife Business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.136.12 (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2018


 * Hello anon. Presumably this is in reference to Tom Reed (politician). If you can provide full citations for the content you would like added to the article, then you should start a discussion about the changes on the article's talk page.  G M G  talk  12:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Scott Lively
ON attempting to edit the page regarding Scott Lively, I found wiki would not allow those changes. Then it referred me to the TALK page on Scott Lively which was full of people for ten years trying to edit the page. WHy isn't the page being edited, updated and sourced with reliable sources? Numerous things on the page violate wiki terms.


 * There's quite a lot to unpack there, unnamed editor. I had a look at the Lively page and, notwithstanding the usual feuds about whether or not to call his hate group a hate group it seems in good condition. What, exactly, is the nature of your complaint? Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What a lovely chap. Watchlisted. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Press template on BLP talk-pages
Would appreciate any input to this discussion on my talkpage on what standard should be followed for sources included in the template on BLP article's talkpages. The immediate impetus for the discussion is the Sarah Jeong article. If you are aware of prior discussions on the subject, please let me know. Abecedare (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to have the discussion here or on your talkpage? This and this  is at least BLP-related. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced and poorly sourced text on a WP:BLP?
I'm trying to remove unsourced and poorly sourced text from the Diamond and Silk page, but one editor is vetoing the removal and is not responsive on the talk page. The text makes unsourced allegations as to what the "black community" thinks about D&S, and falsely insinuates that Jay-Z is involved in a feud with D&S. When faced with the argument that the text is unsourced and poorly sourced, the other editor has argued that the onus is on me to find reliable sources that substantiate the text, which I'm incapable of doing (literally, because some of the text is just plain false). Here is the talk page discussion. I'd appreciate third-party input. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is crystal clear: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (Emphasis is in the original.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Eva Bartlett - attack page?
There are concerns in AfD for Eva Bartlett that her Wikipedia article is an "attack bio". Bartlett has come to prominence (i.e. it's pretty much the only reason RS have covered her) for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories regarding the Syrian Civil War. Third-party input is needed as to whether the Wikipedia article constitutes a WP:ATTACK page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced material and 3RR
Just to be on the safe side, I wanted to ask if reverting unsourced material in BLPs exempted from 3RR? A while ago I made more than 3 reverts on Najeeb Haroon within an hour to remove unsourced promotional material. The IP cited no source initially. I left him numerous warnings on the talk page (User talk:119.160.117.95) but no response. Later The IP user cited a blog post as a source. Blog posts are generally unreliable so I reverted him again. And now a newbie added some unsourced material to the same BLP. I asked the same question at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring but I was suggested to ask here. --Saqib (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the large part of the readded text, it is a cut and copy copyright violation from https://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/10879/najeeb-haroon-a-not-so-high-profile-pti-founder/ Govindaharihari (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My question remain unanswered whether reverting unsourced material in BLPs exempted from 3RR. The BLP still contain OR and unsourced material. --Saqib (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Anything that is unsourced can be questioned and theoretically removed under wp:blp, I wouldn't suggest edit warring it out unless the content is controversial, there are better ways to resolve such non controversial content as this appears to be to me. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay so what would be best course of action? --Saqib (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One or two removals and if they continue reverting then open discussion as you have here and or on the article talkpage. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Charles Ingram
I've cut most of the uncited crap from here, but it could likely use another once over reviewing the references and restoring whatever can be cited. I don't have the time to do an intensive search to verify all details of a criminal trial reported in an BLP, but I suspect some of what I removed can be sourced, and it would be interesting if you are into crime and whatnot. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Alan Sabrosky
This article is full protected until some time in September. It's since been through an AfD that was closed after multiple relistings as "no consensus". This may have been partly in response to a posting here (archive link) by the article subject,, complaining of serious inaccuracies. During the AfD, I did a rewrite in my user space, User:Yngvadottir/Alan Sabrosky rewrite. Discussion at the article talk page over whether to implement the rewrite has bogged down, largely over how far to emphasize accusations of antisemitism that the article subject has denied there and on his user talk. I am concerned on BLP grounds about the tenor of the discussion and some of the specific statements about Sabrosky made there. Docbrosk1941 has stated there that he might now prefer deletion of the article (he participated in the AfD but did not there state either a keep or a delete preference; further discussion can also be found here in my talk page archives). I know that a BLP for a subject of marginal notability can be deleted on the subject's request, but I can't for the moment find the relevant write-up; I believe the AfD's having been closed "no consensus" leaves that option open, although I argued "keep" at the discussion and would obviously prefer my rewrite to be used instead. I held off on reporting this matter here, but despite an admin warning by and the retraction of one accusation (of using the page for promotion), I think we're still violating BLP policy on that talk page. Whether I'm wrong or right, the impasse seems unbreakable and has to do with how we present a living person to the reader. So I request eyes on it from those experienced in BLP matters and I want to make it clear that I am willing to accept deletion regardless of my opinions on notability and the effort I've put into this. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject himself is disputing what is sourced to RS - . I didn't add anything factual to the article that wasn't supported by RS. I was ready to wash my hands of this article, but after your rewrite I supported keep, since your rewrite seemed to address most of the issues that had been raised. But it's been one problem after another. What is the process to verify an account's identity, btw - wouldn't he have to contact someone who could deal with private information? Or do we just take this at the editor's word? ...checking this source it doesn't identify him as an officer in the "about the contributors section" which makes me suspect the Rowman & Littlefield source may be incorrect. (It wasn't long ago that another Rowman & Littlefield book I was using turned out to have copied the content from one of our articles, which made it a circular source.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Evangelical_Church&diff=851923644&oldid=851923434] Maybe we should have a discussion about this publisher as well.) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 22:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (Noting for those unfamiliar with the article history that you created it.) He's stated that the frequently repeated assertion he was an officer is false, yes, which is why I left it out of the rewrite; since his military record is relatively unimportant in his biography, I thought there was no harm in doing so. I did use that first source you cite. It has to be his decision, and I assume he would be willing to identify himself through UTRS; he may have already mentioned an e-mail address. True, I've been taking the editor at his word. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the idea that what we include, or leave out, of a BLP "has to be his (the subject'a) decision" ?  E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a run-on answer, but it looks like what's being said is that it has to be his decision to verify his identity, which is true. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note the article was kept at AfD after it was found that he held a named chair (I changed my opinion form "delete" for lack of notability, to "keep" on the grounds that the named chair meant tha the passed WP:PROF. However, he was never a full professor, or a "distinguished professor" or tenured at any of the schools where he taught.  The named professorship was an endowment supporting his employment as head "director of studies" (working under the director,) of a minor research institute (not an independently notable institute.) It leaves us with a BLP of an a WP:MILL academic.  Subject  is actively participating in the talk page about his article. Note also that some editors are arguing to minimize the coverage in the rewritten article of FRINGE aspects of this 9/11 conspiracy theorist, the sole aspect of the  career of this retired or former academic that has received attention in the media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not head of the institute - but "director of studies". There was a director above him. Most of the media coverage on him is due to his role (past decade+?) in the website Veterans Today and promotion of conspiracy theories (particularly 9/11). He was covered at length in one ADL report. Reliable media coverage is usually brief (blurb mentioning him as a conspiracy theorist, sometimes attributed to ADL, sometimes not). Some fringe media carries the conspiracy theories themselves.Icewhiz (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting exercise in small group dynamics, no? Marginal or not, if you wish to verify my military record, my DD214 (given on discharge by US Government) has it all - I can upload it if you wish. For the rest, allegation is not evidence, and disputing the veracity of a government explanation does not consign one to outer darkness - we all know governments never lie, right? And why should Israel be treated differently than any other country? 10:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Docbrosk1941 (talk)

Note See the relevant discussion here where asks for evidence regarding the complaints about WP:NPROF #C5. I don't see the value of continuing the closed AfD discussion here or repeating these complaints without evidence supporting them. I also don't think anyone at the talk page is arguing to minimize anything. I've asked E.M.Gregory to post a proposal at least three times. When no proposal was forthcoming Yngvadottir posted to request comments here. Seraphim System ( talk ) 16:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The construction or revision of a page to good standards requires work... and time.  Note that there has been no consensus on whether this subject is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The no consensus close of the AfD was mentioned in my original post. I posted here because I am concerned that this BLP subject is being defamed. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Murray Miller
I don’t have it in me just now but if someone with the bandwidth could have a look at the wildly UNDUE situation at Murray Miller, it sure needs revision. Thank you in advance to whichever Wikipedian takes up the project. I made a cut previously but with new developments, the undue section has only gotten longer. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the section and watchlisted the page. Meatsgains (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Really appreciate your attention to it,, thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Rockin' Rebel: Dead or alive?
Bit of a tussle between sources and doubt at Talk:Rockin' Rebel. Also a subplot about professional wrestling integrity versus police authority in America, and a marital murder mystery complicating what (I assume) would've otherwise been a straighforward reflection of the exact same reporters' reports, rather than a locked-down article. Strange case with potential for strange precedent, but a rather obscure celebrity, so I invite the board to ponder it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Gayle Benson
Gayle Benson was started in May and has recently been massively expanded by Footballsaints. There has been some seemingly reasonable editing by Plandu, now reverted by an IP editor who is likely Footballsaints. As the page now stands it is perhaps too detailed and too speculative. Edwardx (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Keith Ellison - abuse allegations deemed non-credible
Ellison has been accused of domestic abuse, but numerous media outlets were approached by the accuser and did not run her allegations because they did not think there was enough there to run them. Other media outlets did report the allegations after the accuser's son posted them on social media. There is currently some edit-warring over whether this should be included or not in the Ellison article. Additional input would be appreciated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Hughey
An IP editor is attempting to add contentious material about this figure as seen here, and I've reverted three times already per WP:PUBLICFIGURE since I could not find any source other than the one referenced. The policy says, "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. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Does the IP editor need to be blocked for continuing to add this contentious material despite being aware of this per this edit? (The editor also was combative in attempting to blank most of the non-contentious content here as seen here.) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: has blocked the IP editor for a day. I do want to note that the one source is a credible one, but the lack of additional ones led me to apply WP:PUBLICFIGURE. If more sources are forthcoming, then we would need to discuss about including the content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's blocked only for 24 hours. I can't justify semi-protection for a single IP address. If it resumes disruption tomorrow when the block lifts, let me know. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Julia Garner Edits
Submitting the following edits to Julia Garner's page on behalf of her publicist's office. The following pieces of information are untrue, as confirmed by Julia:

Her sister is not a producer. Julia does not still live with her parents Monica and Bette influencing her acting style is no longer true or relevant. Smokefall is not a project she participated in.


 * I have removed unsourced or outdated statements. However, Wikipedia does not remove properly sourced statements merely because the article subject's publicist would prefer to suppress the information, especially if that status is unverified. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Faith Goldy 2


After a talk page discussion appeared to resolve the issue, we still have a number of editors descending on this article to remove the "white nationalist" descriptor beside darkhorse mayoral candidate Faith Goldy's list entry. The most recent has observed that the source being used is an opinion piece, and so it seems wider discussion is necessary.

Goldy describes herself on her own Twitter bio as a "Euro-Canadian Catholic nationalist", both Euro-Canadian and Catholic in this context being plain code for white nationalism, rather than for example the more liberal Canadian nationalism or traditional Christian nationalism. Her Wikipedia article notes that her views "have been described as far-right, white nationalist, and neo-Nazi,", and notes that she "disagrees with these labels" (her disagreement being cited to a Rebel Media YouTube video which I will neither watch nor link to). Other sources that I've found, the reliability of which I'm unsure of, describe her as:


 * Winnipeg Free Press: "Goldy’s forceful defence and the opinions she expressed about the issues that motivated the organizers should be required viewing for anyone looking for insight into the long-term goals of the white nationalist movement", "Goldy is hardly alone in her work to legitimize white extremism" (this is the "opinion piece" currently cited in the article)
 * Affinity Magazine: "prominent white nationalist", "self-proclaimed white nationalist", "high-profile alt-right politician"
 * Arthur (the Trent University press): "white supremacist", "Catholic nationalist", "alt-right, white supremacist rhetoric"
 * National Post: "It is hard to resolve, for example, [Ezra] Levant's rejection of racism with Goldy's appearance on the Krypto Report, a podcast produced by The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi outlet that advocates genocide."
 * National Post: "Goldy’s commentary was sympathetic to the alt-right demonstrators"
 * National Post "In an online interview, Goldy called [noted neo-Nazi Richard Spencer's] ideas 'robust' and 'well thought out.'"
 * Canadaland: "a proponent of the concept of 'white genocide'"
 * Huffpost: "white nationalist", "Goldy has called for a new crusade against Muslims, supports ethno-nationalism and bemoans 'white genocide.'"
 * CBC: "anti-immigration speaker", "a woman described as alt-right and a white supremacist sympathizer"
 * PressProgress: "Goldy wants Canada to become a 'white ethno-state'"
 * Red Ice: "pro-Trump nationalist", "border control advocate"
 * Narcity: "white nationalist", "advocate for ethnonationalism"
 * The Varsity (the University of Toronto press): "white supremacist", "far-right activist"
 * Toronto Star: "far-right activist"
 * iPolitics: "the alt-right's useful idiot", "Goldy believes the white race is in the later stages of 'ethnocide'"
 * Chatelaine: "Faith Goldy warning about white genocide", "Goldy was on the scene in Charlottesville and appeared to be rooting for the white supremacists"
 * Waterloo Region Record: "clear that the speaker [Goldy] values white individuals above all others and she intends to promote this on campus"
 * Ricochet: "White supremacist and former Rebel Media host Faith Goldy"
 * Torontoist: "a proponent of the concept of 'white genocide'"

These are results from skimming the first few pages of a Google search, and exclude obviously biased alt-right websites (e.g. Infowars came up but I also won't link to that) as well as various sites biased on the other end of the spectrum (Right Wing Watch, a Vice piece describing her as "shitbird", etc). Considering these results, what is an appropriate way for her to be described on Wikipedia? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yikes. Maybe "white supremacist sympathizer", per the CBC (the most RS source), which seems to cover all of the other attributes. Maybe give that a go and then have an RFC for further refinement if there is a lot of disagreement. Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think "white nationalist" is fair enough, and already kind of a nice way to describe the person. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I said so already at Talk:Toronto mayoral election, 2018, but I agree that "white nationalist" is an appropriate and reliability sourced description. (And honestly I don't even know why it's controversial to use it for someone who describes herself as a "Euro-Canadian nationalist".) Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Editing to add that if it's agreed that she should be described as a white nationalist Toronto mayoral race article, it should probably also be included at Faith Goldy. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I would actually state that unless there is a singular source that has documented all the facets being placed in the "notes" column, that column is treading on BLP violation as well as OR. As there doesn't appear to be any political party affiliation used in this race (eg candidates do not have to indicate their party as usually we have to do in US elections), the only factor to account for is the incumbent candidate (Tory) --M asem (t) 01:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting that we just remove the 'Biography' column completely from the Toronto mayoral race article, that seems completely reasonable. It is, as you say, full of potential BLP and OR problems. However I think the discussion here still has merit for how we describe Goldy in the article about her. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fine on Goldy's page for the most part. Just that here, since we're using a hodge-podge of descriptive terms, it stands out very much here and makes it a BLP issue. --M asem  (t) 02:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely understand how it's a BLP issue here, nor exactly what you mean by "hodge-podge". Goldy is a white supremacist (descriptor open to discussion) activist; if her campaign is being noted by mainstream news sources within the context of her activism then it's not a BLP issue to describe it so. I suppose there is a question of whether that reliable coverage exists - many of the links I provided are news from before her candidacy announcement. From a "past week" Google search for "faith goldy mayor" I've pulled these articles: National Post, Washington Post, Canadian Jewish News - I think the CJN is reliable here but I'm not sure given the obvious issue, and again I've excluded more obviously biased sources on both ends of the spectrum. If by hodge-podge you're referring to the many blank entries, that also reflects mainstream coverage (see my longer comment below) - without intending to be unduly harsh, these candidates are irrelevant. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The layout we have currently is typical of Toronto election articles (compare Toronto mayoral election, 2014 or Toronto mayoral election, 2010). The real-world situation is that this election attracts activists already notable because of their activism, as well as many completely irrelevant (with respect to WP:N) candidates. Local media picks out the candidates who will be contenders in the election and completely ignore the rest; it's a fascinating thing to watch in a depressing, pay-to-play-democracy kind of way, but the media pretty much completely control the ballot. In 2014, the bottom 64 candidates (out of 67) whom the media mostly ignored earned a collective 2.84% of the vote. But occasionally some outlets do soft-news write-ups on some of the also-rans (often of the "look at these weirdos" variety) and so we have intermittent reliable sources available to describe some of them, but just as many will receive no reliable source coverage at all and would have blank entries in the table. Goldy is among the individuals notable for other reasons, yet her campaign has only drawn attention from any mainstream news source with respect to her white supremacist activism (which frankly is the only thing she's really known for at all). If she had drawn no attention at all then I would agree that her bio should be blank, but I'm not sure that's the case, and it would not be WP:NPOV to omit a candidacy which has drawn mainstream attention.

As for party affiliations: excepting Vancouver, Canadian elections below the provincial level don't normally see organized parties and there is no process to register a party at that level. However, Toronto elections often organize along de facto party lines anyway: John Tory is a former leader of the provincial Conservative Party, in 2014 Doug Ford was strongly rumoured to be considering running as a Conservative for the provincial legislature (and now is the Conservative Premier), and Olivia Chow was at the time a former New Democrat member of the federal parliament and the spouse of the former NDP leader - these affiliations are called out repeatedly in the media. In 2010 Rob Ford was the Conservative, George Smitherman (former Liberal MPP) was the Liberal, Joe Pantalone (ran provincially for the NDP in 1987) was the New Democrat. This election is odd because one of the frontrunners doesn't have an obvious political affiliation; media are treating Jennifer Keesmaat as a Liberal up against Conservative Tory anyway. So describing 2018 John Tory according to his party affiliation is an appropriate way for Wikipedia to reflect real-world coverage, as it is for us to describe Goldy's activism as what it is.

Dear me, I've gone off on an incredible tangent again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue on the election page is that it appears to be WPians that are choosing what the descriptors/notes are, rather than RSes. That's original research, and particularly when only those that are far to the right are having their political position pointed out while others are just stating what their past career is, that's a pick-and-choose POV problem that makes it a BLP issue. Unless we're going to identify the politics on each one, that column should go. And if we are going to identify the politics on each one, that should come from a single source that takes any choice of how we describe them out of WPians' hands. The same issue but in a different form comes up with pointing out the perennial candidates, including the one that came in last last election; we should either thus explain all those that ran before and where the fell, or none at all. It's simply better to leave the column blank to avoid WP showing any bias here in the election. Now, I would believe that as the election date gets closer, its going to be clear who are the likely front runners, and at that point where the article has "Major declared candidates", then I expect that one can build a brief summary of each of those persons' political position, past career, and the like from the media coverage of those major candidates, at which point, if Goldy is still a possible winner, mentioning the white nationalist label is appropriate. --M asem  (t) 14:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't entirely agree, but I'm on board to remove the column (as well as the empty results columns that have appeared with the election three months away) and just describe the frontrunning candidates later in the campaign whenever they emerge. As for only those on the far right having their politics highlighted, that's more because far right activism is literally all they do: Goldy's literal career is making YouTube videos advocating white nationalism, James Sears co-publishes an "anti-Marxist" neo-Nazi hate rag, and Chris Brosky goes around doing skinhead things when he's not in jail for murdering black people, in exactly the same way that John Tory is a businessperson and career politician, Kris Langenfeld drives a bus, and Tofazzel Haque is a lawyer. They all do other things and presumably also have political leanings (they're running in an election, after all), but being the only person to ever be disallowed from running in an NDP leadership campaign is not what Brian Graff does for a living, as an example. So I still don't see the description itself as being a BLP issue, nor one of selective POV. But if we keep them all out of the list then that does address the issue of weight. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If we were listing their profession, then people like Goldy would be likely considered only an activist or advocate (at least, I think), the "white nationalist" part would not be part of that. Alternatively, if we applies a reasonable political leaning label to each candidate, that would also be less imbalanced (eg identifying Tory as a "progressive conservative lawyer and businessman" against Goldy's "white nationalism advocate"). However, I have a feeling that, as you mention above, the bulk of these names get no coverage at this stage of the election, and we would not be able to do that fairly for all. So it is better just to remove those, and then focus on the frontrunners when it becomes clear who those are. --M asem  (t) 20:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't fully agree, again, but let me preface this comment with a note that I've implemented the suggested changes already (removed the bios, condensed things). I don't think it would be appropriate to describe Tory as a "progressive conservative lawyer": that would imply that he practiced law with a deliberate conservative bias, or practiced law on behalf of the party, which seems not to be true. His profession was lawyer and businessperson, and then when he got into politics he was a conservative politician - at first literally as a member and leader of the party, and later described by reliable sources as a generally conservative partisan when he entered municipal politics where there are no formal parties. Goldy is an activist/advocate, sure, but we rarely describe any such individual as just "activist" or "advocate" without a qualifier, they are described as an advocate for something. An environmental activist, an activist in the civil rights movement, a political activist critical of the Chinese government, an advocate for a "pure" White ethno-state. Also, I believe the activist descriptor implies a person with generally liberal or left-wing political sentiments, thus in Goldy's case NPOV requires qualifying her activism for extreme right-wing issues. But that may be my own bias talking, and anyway I'm getting away from the topic again.
 * In your opinion, if candidates in the election who are not deemed to be "major" candidates make statements about the election which get picked up by reliable sources, as often happens in Toronto, would it be appropriate to include those statements in a "platform/issues" sort of column? Have a look at the registered candidates table in Toronto mayoral election, 2014 for what I mean - not universally, some of those are plain bios, but I mean the candidates' platforms, basically. What do you think about those? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Even still, a "political activist/advocate" is a more neutral statement of Goldy than "right-wing activist/advocate" if we are not including the political position of every other candidate as well. (Not the case here, but you could have cases like someone being a "pro-life activist" or "abortion rights activist" which likely will put them into one side or other of the political spectrum, but that's still at least staying neutral toward that.)  As for the short bios... I'm not 100% sure if they are necessary - they stand out there in the 2014 article since no one else has them. I would definitely have short bios for the front runners and their stance on various issues, but not for all names dropped in the hat. --M asem  (t) 15:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In that sense, a person who advocates for abortion rights being described as an "abortion rights activist" seems the same to me as someone who advocates for a white ethno-nation being described as a "white nationalist activist". Both are statements of an implied political position, but why is one ok and the other not? Assuming for the question that these descriptions are accurate and reliably-sourced. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late reply. To me, keeping in mind WP:LABEL, very few people would likely admit they are a "white nationalist activist", while I am pretty confident you'll find no shortage of "abortion rights activists" that will self-describe themselves that; that's far less a LABEL problem. Unless each candidate had to officially declare this so that we have each one's self-statement, we start to get into the NPOV/NOR part when we pick and chose what labels to use. Hence why better to zero out the column at this time. --M asem (t) 21:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "white nationalist" is fair enough. Honestly what Right Wing Watch says about her would be just as biased as what Info Wars says. That site practically lives on linking right winged people to national socialism. If you would copy 'Nazi' from them it would corrode the word Nazi. Reading the article to me it gave this reaction: "Nazi? Right Wing Watch! Yeah right..probably this is a very 'unbiased' lemma." Being Sarcastic. Don't do it. My two cents. AntonHogervorst (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Reciting documentary which makes WP:BLP allegations
There is a documentary called The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes which makes a number of claims and insinuations about Bill Browder. The Wikipedia page for the documentary uncritically and at great length recites the "plot" of the film without any secondary sources. I don't know what the Wikipedia rules for films and documentaries are, but it seems as if there are WP:BLP implications to just regurgitate the plot of a documentary, even if the claims of the documentary are WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I therefore removed the 'synopsis' section, but there is dispute over whether it was the right thing to do. See the version with the 'synopsis' section intact here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a couple tools here: besides the BLP, as well as seemingly being only a singular source on the claims, WP:NOT tells us to keep to a concise summary of even non-fictional works (understaning that this does not imply that the accusations here are "true", simply that this is presented as a non-fictional documentary). Unless the book itself is the subject of several indepth reviews to allow for a larger discussion of the work in critical analysis (as, for example, several Shakespeare plays), the fundamentals of the documents should be covered briefly, which likely means there's little space for discussion of the allegations unless those are the central theme of the work. --M asem (t) 19:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Having read the diffs of the synopsis, some of the allegations (IE: that Magnitsky was an accomplice rather than a whistleblower, that Browder may have been implicated, etc.) are central themes of the work. But even considering that, the synopsis was far too long.Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do make sure that if a brief synopsis of the book is included, be clear those are allegations. "The documentary alleges..." type language. --M asem (t) 19:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Attribution is important. For example, it spun the film as "interrogating" the accepted facts and offering a counter-narrative, without mentioning that this is actually the Russian Government's counter-narrative. Sources all seem to suggests that the movie "interrogates" the accepted account in much the same way that the GRU interrogated Magnitsky. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Cerf (school administrator)

 * Previous ANI report for 3RR
 * Previous ANI report for 3RR
 * Previous ANI report for 3RR

In my (and I believe in 's opinion), this user has for months established WP:OWNERSHIP of this article. I would describe the article as it stands now and was previously before my involvement as a hit piece. I tried to rewrite the page from NPOV starting here. Bellshook reverted my edits several times and I made the mistake of getting into an edit war with this user. I posted at 3RR; at which time, reverted to the version I edited and fully protected the page until August 2. Please see EdJohnston's edit summary for his explanation for the action as well as his post at Belshook's talk page. The protection expired 12 days ago. And, who until today has shown no other interests on Wikipedia besides this page returned today to revert to the version with BLP violations permeating throughout. Instead of reverting again, I made a request at EdJohnston's talk page for intervention and they suggested I try WP:DR. I am here to WP:SEEKHELP.

The talk page for this article can be confusing. The user has the tendency to insert comments in random places, change other user's comment, and in one instance, they changed the words in my attempt to engage in a discussion to intentionally misspell words. They also falsely accused me of vandalism. IMO, all behaviours of a troll with a mission. I have tried to reason with them.

At the very least, I believe there is a clear case for WP:NOTHERE. There is also INCOMPETENCE to communicate with others and present rationales when questioned by others.

Here is the best evidence of clear POV pushing and SOAP. This is how the page looked when accepted at AFC. Almost as soon as it was accepted, Bellshook spent a month building it to a monstrous attack page. Throughout that whole month they were uninterrupted.--- Coffee  and crumbs  09:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Single purpose editor only interested in enlarging this bio into what I and other editors consider on reading it, a hit piece, is it not just possible to block his for that alone and semi protect the bio and write it from a neutral point of view? Govindaharihari (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Julius Hunter
The article on Julius Hunter has no sources except for some items in the External links section. The article needs a good copy-edit in addition to proper sourcing. However, I'm not sure he has enough notability to even have an article. Could someone take a look at it? Indyguy (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with you about the need for a good copy-edit. Any BLP which contains phrases like "an exciting job that used all Hunter’s creative juices" and "Hunter’s last authored book is a tour de force of his 33-year career in broadcast news" definitely needs attention. However I'm not sure on the notability issue. A bit of google searching doesn't turn up much that's not local to St Louis, but then again there is quite a lot of coverage of him. I'm in two minds about whether he's genuinely notable, or just someone who did a job and was good at it, but based on what I could find I'm tending towards the latter and would support an AFD nomination. However I would appreciate a few more eyes on it before taking that route. Neiltonks (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I templated the article as unsourced, and recovered a couple of links. The only external link worth anything is about Hunter's appointment to the St. Louis Police Commission. I'll go back and add that as a proper citation. - Donald Albury 16:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Mention of pornographic activity: appropriate and necessary or helpful for readers?
Can I please get a second opinion about the two most recent edits to Butler Community College? Several years ago, a student was murdered and the question on the table is whether to include "pornographic actress" in the brief description included in the college's article. I don't know if the information is especially relevant for readers but I am also opposed to editors who remove that kind of information because they personally disapprove of it e.g., "I believe that pornography is immoral therefore I think that mentioning it in connection with someone is inherently objectionable." I have no objections to anyone removing the information from the college's article on reasonable grounds e.g., undue weight, unnecessary information. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, she is not a "Notable Alumni" and should be removed from the list entirely. Her life wasn't the least bit notable, and we don't have an article on her, only one on her murder. So why is she even listed? That's the real question. Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents - This isn't a BLP situation (dead more than 10 years). If listed - of course we say she was a porn model (for some readers this may be highly useful) - this is the way this was covered - e.g Zoey Zane Update: Man Gets Life in Porn Star Student's Murder, CBS News. I would retain this on the page (either in alumni or elsewhere, as it seems Butler Community College's article is rather sparse - this isn't Harvard University where inclusion of the wiki notable would swamp the page (leading to a 400k List of Harvard University people - this is a 7k page which mentions 7 people at the bottom).Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Softlavender is correct and write the article first applies. At any rate, it is totally WP:UNDUE to mention porn activity at Butler Community College. Does anyone really imagine that a reader will be looking for someone who (apparently) did porn work in 2007 and who attended the college? Murder of Emily Sander correctly (WP:DUE) handles the incident with nothing in the lead and a brief and neutral mention of the very minor part of Sander's life. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed this as transparent "slut shaming" and WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not Beavis and Butthead. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the mere mention of pornography is slut shaming but I don't think it matters in this case because I think that the arguments above that the person does not belong in that list at all are compelling so I'm removing her.
 * Thanks for the advice, everyone! ElKevbo (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Michael Adrian Peters
Could someone please take a look at this? I've already fixed it once, but a series of SPAs seem intent on promotion. I have a COI and have pushed it as far as I can. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted the page and will also keep an eye on it. Meatsgains (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Darcel Clark and Robert T. Johnson (lawyer)


I'd appreciate some attention to both biographies, which in recent months have become magnets for listings of mishandled or lost cases, which set off some BLP red flags. For instance, the section. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:804F:25A:47B6:E8ED (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Add James Bennet (journalist) to that list--I've reverted to a previous and more neutral version. Thanks to for help cleaning Darcel Clark. The Johnson article can also use some mopping up. 2601:188:180:11F0:804F:25A:47B6:E8ED (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Bruce Ohr
Tabloid journalism from Fox News & the Nunes Memo was used to create a false narrative that Ohr & his wife improperly caused a FISA warrant to be issued against Carter Page. Cater Page was under investigation by the FBI for years before the "dossier" was written. The Biography falsely states that Partisan politics should be excised from Biographies on Wikipedia per stated policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/us/politics/carter-page-fisa.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughingtool (talk • contribs) 02:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to believe that this person is not notable in the context of Wikipedia; essentially everything written about him in reliable sources is in the context of a single other event, which per WP:BLP1E means there's no reason or justification for a "biography" which isn't. I have nominated the article for deletion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the article for deletion and I welcome broader input both on that AfD and on the article talk page, regarding how and what we should say about Mr. Ohr with relation to policies such as WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the solution to POV pushing in this biography is to delete the biography. Instead, the solution is for experienced editors to watch the article to be sure that it complies with WP:NPOV and other content policies. I have expressed my opinion at the AfD. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we're not getting that, Cullen. Instead, we're getting partisan edit warriors trying to fill it with uncorroborated smears. Because it's easy to say "keep the article, someone will watch it!" and hard work to actually do it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

broken link under bibliography-learning styles index 2011
broken link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.106.188 (talk) 13:32, August 13, 2018‎
 * I'm not sure that this is relevant to this page.-- Auric   talk  03:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Tilda Cobham-Hervey
Site states  http://tildacobhamhervey.wix.com/tildacobhamhervey#

Is the website for Tilda Cobham-Hervey.

When going to that link, the site asks to update flash player in browser. It does not appear to be a legitimate website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.104.188 (talk) 23:25, August 17, 2018‎
 * It looks legitimate. A google cache version seems fine. -- Auric   talk  03:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Joke theft
A lot of the content on this page is poorly sourced and accuses various people of joke theft with BLP implications. Most of the accusations are well-known, so it should be easy to find and add RS, and fix the language in some places. I would appreciate some help cleaning the page up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wreathgate
We need some experienced editors here - in effect the article repeats a lot of stuff from the always controversial article about Jeremy Corbyn. The BLP issue is the addition of criticial quotes from one side of the debate only, the latest is here but we also have this which is the latest insertion by an editor who (if you check the history) also gamed the 1RR rule and whose edit summaries reference the talk page where there is no consensus for other than a mention of the complaint. There are quotes that could be put in from pro-Corbyn and pro-Palistinian sources for balance but that really doesn't seem to be a sensible route.

Its not a major issue at the moment but it could be, and a few neutral parties making the position clear would help. If its not a BLP issues my apologies for anytime wasted. I'm not as familiar with the protocols as others so advise appreciated. I'm trying to step back a little here. -Snowded TALK 19:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Situation escalating this just added and I tagged it as I'm keeping to a 1RR policy despite the BLP posiiton,  I earlier reverted this and the talk page shows concerns -Snowded TALK 22:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am in the same position I have already reverted one POV pushing addition today. But the page is under constant POV attack atm by a group of editors ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspect sourcing
Hi. I worked for Christopher Weaver in the early days of Bethesda as a programmer. I'd known him and known of him before that. I'm a pioneer in the game industry as well so I know zillions of people who knew him in the early days. In my opinion, this page is poorly sourced.

I don't have an axe to grind or a suspect claim to point out. It is just my opinion that the sources should be better.

In particular, you need to check the sourcing of literally everything in this bio. A lot of them are game publications. They don't have staff researchers and a lot of it is from a time where there was no world wide web to crosscheck something against. Any biographical info in them almost certainly came from an interview with him. If it came from one of his employees, and it's not about something they saw, obviously, they probably heard it from him. This is a case where, especially because of his fame, it's worth getting it right. Citing game press sources for biographical info is iffy. This is a case where you need to check. I would also double check reliable sources if they are from long after the fact to make sure that the subject himself isn't the source. If there's bad sourcing for something insignificant (for instance, his name) there's no need to remove it, just remove the authoritative footnote. I'm sure there's some authoritative birth announcement somewhere that can be used as a source for his age. I'm sure there's a wedding announcement somewhere that could be used to double check that you got his wife's name right, or the fact that he has one. etc.

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

thank you :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.127.239.17 (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to improve the article with better sourcing. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)
There's a dispute about the coverage of an ethics investigation, and the subject (or a representative) is involved on the talk page. I'm just not sure what should be included based on WP:DUE, and how much we should listen to the subject's requests on different issues, so any help or advice would be appreciated. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sophie (musician)
Can editors familiar with the current policies in this area check if the inclusion of the birthname of a transgender artist in the Infobox is appropriate? Abecedare (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's appropriate. First off, the birth name is widely published, appearing in the following sources: Guardian, RedBull, Queerspace Magazine, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, MusicBrainz, NME, NOW Toronto, Los Angeles Times, Exclaim and AllMusic.
 * Second, the transgender protection afforded by MOS:MULTIPLENAMES, which says "birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name", does not apply to the infobox or article body. The protection does not stop editors from telling the reader that the person was born as the other sex, or from mentioning the birth name. Of course, WP:WEIGHT always applies, so if many sources list the birth name, as in this case, then it is appropriate for us to relay this information to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Heck, NYTimes has a detailed story with snippets from Sophie, why that name, mentioning the birthname. (I'm a bit confused as to the preferred gender since this 2015 article uses "he", but I assume that our article has it right). I agree it's not important to the lede, but can be included in infobox and in body. --M asem (t) 06:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not appropriate. There's no reason to harm an individual. A trans person who changes their name does so to move away from one that causes them distress due to gender dysphoria. Continuing to use that name after they've changed it can only be deliberate harm against their wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.232.150 (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think this Sophie has complained about it, but your mileage may vary. Anyway, if multiple respected broadsheet newspapers say it, it does not violate WP:BLP to use it, though as Binksternet points out, it may not be appropriate for the lead. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does every individual have to complain on their own behalf? And those broadsheet papers are all from several years ago, before her identity was known. They also largely use the wrong pronouns for the person. People transition. That means that there's a point in time at which these things change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.232.150 (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Sophie's fame came at a time when the pronoun used was "he/him", at a time when it was common to supply the birth name Samuel Long. If Sophie's fame had come after that, with our reliable sources only referring to Sophie as "she/her", without any reference to the previous gender identity or birth name, then it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to mention the previous name and gender. But that's not the case here. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still hugely inappropriate, due to the material harm caused. Most of the sources actually refer to her as Sophie - with the name mentioned only incidentally. Not to mention that since she's Scottish it's A) Very likely her legal name is not her deadname since the process of legal name change in the UK is very simple B) Therefore would actually be illegal for her to carry on under that name and C) If she has a GRC (unknowable) it would be a criminal offence to out her even if you thought it was common knowledge. Other publications doing it does not mean it's not harmful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.232.150 (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You just violated WP:No personal attacks by calling me transphobic.
 * You talk about "material harm" to Sophie but you haven't cited any sources talking about such harm. Then you throw out some conjecture about what is her previous name, and again cite no sources. And the "other publications" are what Wikipedia is built on, per WP:SECONDARY. That's why your personal preference, unsupported by WP:Reliable sources, is not going to carry the day.Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The article should adhere to the identity guideline because it contains material about trans women. "Main biographical articles should 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. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Other articles should use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis." ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 14:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None of that seems to be at issue here, folks seem fine with the female pronoun use and such. It's just a question of the inclusion of her birth name, which has been used regularly in coverage of SOPHIE (which was treated as more of an act name, a la Weird Al or El Vez), including in the queer press. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say MOS:MULTIPLENAMES is pretty clear we should not include her birth name as her notability is not attached to that name. If Wikipedia can err on the side of not deadnaming somebody we should. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * MULTIPLENAMES says "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." The guideline applies to the lead sentence, not the infobox, nor the rest of the lead section, nor the main article body. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said above (though it may not have been clear), there's a conflict between not causing undue harm on a living person, against simply setting straight a matter of historical record. As for which is correct in this case, I'm not sure, but appearances in multiple broadsheet newspapers who we regard as being sensible and factual accurate, would suggest having the old name for factual completeness is not an obvious issue. Had the birth name been only cited to The Sun, the National Enquirer and the Daily Mail, hell yeah I wouldn't put it in. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep I got mixed up above. However I agree MOS:MULTIPLENAMES is a useful guide ~ in the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the *lead sentence* only when the person was notable under the former name. One would think that would respect would apply equally to the info box too ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 20:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with you there, but from the references given, it appears that she was notable under her birthname, before starting to identify as Sophie Xeon. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Abstracting this discussion to a more general point, for BLPs of a trans person living under a new name, the fact that MULTIPLENAMES mentions the lead but gives no indication of anything else, is not a reason to argue that Wikipedians have a duty to ensure that all trans-related BLPs have all deadnames listed in the article. This is neither our practice nor would it be respectful of the subject. Creating respectful BLPs is a higher duty on writers than including as many factoids as possible. As a rule of thumb, the only time we include deadnames is when the subject has been separately notable under that name and the weight given to a deadname should only be in proportion to its presence in sources.

I think this is not a major issue at the current time as working practice seems to be in line with this cautious approach. However if this area is a matter of regular debate on multiple trans-related biographies, then maybe it's time to propose a minor improvement to MOS and run a RFC? --Fæ (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, an RfC would be appropriate. I think it's an extraordinary leap away from normal encyclopedia practice to remove birth names from the articles of those who have abandoned those names. It's respectful to use the preferred pronoun, but to turn away from known facts is to take a step towards extinction as an encyclopedia. Our readers come here to find out facts, and if we are in the practice of concealing facts, why are we here? Birth names should always be stated when they are found in multiple reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I would suggest the spirit of policies like MOS:MULTIPLENAMES would trend toward not including non-notable deadnames. I would argue it's giving undue weight to the process of their transition, especially in the context where the individual was not notable under a previous name. Would be interested to see an RfC but I'm not sure it'll clarify anything other than that there are strong opinions on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

In regards to including her dead/birth name, I don't see how it isn't allowed. Multiple reputable music and news publications like The Guardian and Rolling Stones discuss the artist before their transition. Additionally, under Sophie's current Wikipedia page, there is a comment about how she is transgender and how she was misgendered at the Grammy's. With the inclusion of those comments, it's important to have a discussion about her transgender identity. Other similar/afilliated acts to Sophie like Kim Petras are also transgender, and her dead-name is listed in her bio as well. Sharkafter17 (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Naomi Wu
Could someone take a look at Naomi Wu? Multiple new editors want to insert claims that are based upon a Reddit thread -- claims that she says will get her in trouble with the PRC government. On the other side of the coin, Wu retaliated with an outing attempt, and multiple sources have discussed the attempt. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm monitoring her page. Her claims that she'll get in trouble with the PRC government are entirely self-sourced at this time; but I think that this is, to a certain extent, an outcropping of all the attention on Sarah Jeong that we've seen lately. I also have little patience for Twitter drama becoming a matter of encyclopedic record. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Maxime Bernier
We need some experienced editors here - in effect the controversial tweets about Maxime Bernier. The user PresidentCoriolanus is calling it a contreversity base on the information he gather however: however article such as https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-tories-must-stop-panicking-about-bernier, https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-questioning-the-promotion-of-diversity-shouldnt-be-off-limits, https://www.journaldequebec.com/2018/08/16/vive-maxime-bernier , suggest that bernier is create a deabate around the issuse and its over exgerated. I just do not want it to be pro or anti Bernier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawa11 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: previous section was in fact added by . In the meantime, I have removed one of the sections that I think are problematic per the BLP--some accusation that some park was vandalized because of the subject's tweets. Also, there were two sections on those tweets; I removed the more lengthy one. With the edit warring, and the grammatical/semantic problems in the writing of some of the editors, I can't figure out who did what, and it doesn't really matter. Anyway, that tweet section needs to be brief and not draw any undue conclusions, obviously. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you I like your version. Agree that we shouldn't give undue weight to Twitter. Ever. But you handled it well. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Help on Sources for Draft:Ann Patricia Bowling (second try)
I don't think there's a violation, but I'm trying to get some help with source for a couple claims on an article I'm working on. After some initial confusion, the subject is participating in the discussion of the article and helpfully pointing editors to 3rd party sources to verify claims. However, there are a couple claims that I am having trouble sourcing and was hoping people might have suggestions. I already posted over at Talk:WP Biography/Science and academia to try to get some suggestions, but have gotten no response so far, so I wasn't sure where else to turn. -Furicorn (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

== ::::::::::: Dear Furicorn is this the latest message - how about proceeding thwen without the 1st BMA 1998 book prize and the 2006 RCP FPH fellowship awards (great honours for me but never mind)  if they can't be cited without website evidence sadly - at least you do have the valid website link to pdf evidence for the 2015 BMA book prize anyway. (last resort - I wonder if my RCP FPH fellowship award 2006 could be moved up to go after degrees and qualifications, as they don't need a link to anything other than the awarding institutions?)I leave it to you. Thanks for trying A AnnQoLAge (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

paul schoenfield (currently schoenfeld
hope I'm in the right place. Someone edited my husband's home page, specifically he changed his birth and stage name. He was born Paul Schoenfield, several years ago legally changed to Pinchas Schoenfeld. At U of Michigan music school website is identified as Paul Schoenfeld. Throughout his career he has been Paul Schoenfield, all recordings reviews, articles etc. I tried to correct but the editor insisted he had gotten information from the composer and switched it back. What can I do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeluby (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If the most recent sources identify him as "Schoenfeld", that's what we should be using. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved the article back to Paul Schoenfield (before I saw SarekofVulcan's comment), and started a discussion on the article talkpage. Can continue there. Abecedare (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Keith Ellison
There's been edit warring on Keith Ellison for a few days now over a serious allegation in his personal life. I would fully protect this without the contentious material until they come up with a consensus, but I've been part of discussion (not while the edit warring has been going on) and am not fully WP:UNINVOLVED. Looking for an admin who is. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this is a content dispute about a BLP issue; I don't see the discussion on the talk page regarding what content should be included in the article (regarding the recent accusations) that I would hope for here. It's mostly "yeah-huh / nuh-uh" bickering.  I'll comment further on the talk page. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

(moved from below cuz redundant) Controversy over how to handle some allegations against Keith Ellison. Accusations and cries of "censorship!" as well as discussion descending into personal attacks. Edit warring. Page put under 1RR. Outside input appreciated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Unsubstantiated allegations have been made against Ellison, which obviously should be mentioned in the article. The dispute is over whether or not they should dominate his personal section. The other issue I have is that the allegations have arisen during Ellison's run for Attorney General of Minnesota, yet no editors have bothered to create a section about that race. These editors are single issue. They dislike Ellison and want to insert negative comment and have no interest in improving the article. TFD (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, but unfortunately it's that season of political mudslinging which invariably splatters onto Wikipedia, leaving the rest of us to clean up the mess. The sad part, as far as I can tell, is that most of these political types pick sides based on no better reason than used to pick a sports team; they like the color red or blue. I'm with Pliny, who said: "The races are on, a spectacle which has not the slightest attraction for me. It lacks novelty and variety. If you have seen it once, then there is nothing left for you to see. So it amazes me that thousands and thousands of grown men should act like children, wanting to look at horses running and men standing on chariots over and over again. If it was the speed of the horses or the skill of the drivers that attracted them, there would be some sense in it - but in fact it is simply the colour. That is what they back and that is what fascinates them." Zaereth (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Stuff like this is totally UNDUE. Allegations made "Three days before the 2018 primary election for state attorney general" are great for feeding frenzies but Wikipedia should not record them. Wait for a few months and report what secondary sources say about the effects of such allegations, if there are any of long-term significance. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious that these allegations will have a LASTING impact - e.g. they will appear in any future reasonable bio. That being said - as long as it is breaking there is a case for brevity.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You make an excellent point. The surest way to add all the negative info you want is to add a proportionate share of positive. (It's like, I wanted to add a picture to the moose article, so I wrote a diet section for it to fit in.) Zaereth (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Keaton Parks
I have been updating my son Keaton's Wikipedia page with the truth of how he got to professional soccer and someone keeps removing it. How do I keep the truth there.....the story on Wikipedia is not correct. I just updated it again. Please keep anyone else from changing it.

This is what it should be in the first paragraph.

Born in Plano, Texas, Parks began playing competitive soccer in the Classic League under the North Texas Soccer Association. His longtime coach and Director of American Academy of Soccer, Armando Pelaez (Former Venezuelan National) developed him since he was eight (8) years old, for the next ten (10) years. By coaching him in the Peruvian and Brazilian Style, TECHNIQUE was the main focus for Parks developmental process. Parks played for Club Classic, Texas Football Club (TFC), and Liverpool International Academy Texas, following always his coach during his Youth Club Soccer career. He played three (3) years with Liberty High School during that time. For three consecutive summers, Coach Pelaez took Keaton Parks and his son Armando Pelaez Jr. to train in Portugal. Once in Portugal and with the unconditional help of their FIFA Agent and friend Henrique Sousa, they trained with seven (7) different clubs where they gained experience and were exposed to a different soccer culture. The first club they trained with, was CD Feirense, then, it was Vitoria de Guimaraes, then S.C.Braga, then S.L.Benfica, then Sporting CP, then SC Varzim, and finally Gil Vicente. All of these clubs showed an interest in Parks. Coach Pelaez and Sousa were convinced by the time, that CD Feirense was the best option for the two young American dreamers. All the parties were excited about the possibility, but, in the very last minute, something went wrong in the negotiation and it was not done. Immediately after that, CD Varzim jumped up and offered a contract to both players. Even though, some newspapers stated that the Americans were signed after the NPSL Liverpool Warriors soccer tour to Portugal, the reality is that, they had trained with the SC Varzim U-19 team, and were seen six months prior to the NPSL Warriors’ trip to Portugal. Parks and Pelaez Jr., had graduated earlier in December from High School to be able to travel earlier during that year.


 * Hello IP editor. Thanks for bringing your concerns here. Please allow me to explain. In Wikipedia, we require reliable sources so that we can verify that the information is indeed correct. Please understand, I believe you are indeed who you say you are, but we just can't take any chances, because people will try to imitate family and friends of our subjects just to wreak some havoc (usually just kids playing pranks, but we always have to be careful). Because we are mostly anonymous, we can't rely on any user's say-so, which is why we require the information to already be available somewhere else, in a source we can trust.


 * That said, there are many problems with your requested addition, foremost of which is that it is obviously written by someone who is very close to the subject. This is a problem because it is what one would expect from facebook, but not a serious newspaper or encyclopedia. There are details that are very interesting from a mother's perspective, but just not found in encyclopedic works, and perspective's that only someone close to the subject could possibly know. We need to keep a certain detachment from our subjects in order to keep an article both fair and neutral, or else we will lose the confidence of our readers. There is a particular style used in encyclopedic writing that we need to adhere to. This is why we strongly encourage people who are the subject or close to the subject not to edits article with which they have a conflict of interest, which you do in this case.


 * The proper way to handle this situation is to go to the article's talk page (you'll find a link that says "talk" near the top of the page) and request your changes there. But remember to provide sources (newspaper articles, magazines, interviews, etc...) so that people there can verify the information too. Just don't try to edit the article yourself, because that violates policy. And please look into the links I provided here, to help you understand better what I mean. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Asia Argento
Unsurprisingly the recent news regarding Asia Argento has led to an influx of interest. Also unsurprisingly, a lot of the discussion is veering over the WP:LIBEL boundary. Uninvolved editors with an in-depth knowledge of WP:BLP would be handle to adjudicate these disputes. In the case of full disclosure, I am an involved editor on this page and have deleted content which I believe oversteps that bound from the talk page. I felt, in light of having taken what I see as the rather extreme action of deleting another users talk page comment, that it'd be prudent to bring in neutral parties soonest. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You were right to remove it. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can some regulars also watchlist the Anthony Bourdain article, which is being used as a proxy destination for Argento-related accusations? Abecedare (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. He wrote one of my favourite cook books anyway so happy to help keep an eye on his article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Dinesh Pathak
Dinesh Pathak(Born 01 August 1967) is a Indian journalist, columnist, child counsellor, parenting counsellor, and author of popular Hindi language book "BAS THODA SA", "Bachchon kee safalta ke mantra" and "Bachchon ke sunahre bhavishya ke sutra". his birth place is Village Singhorwa, District sant kabir nagar, Uttar pradesh (India). He is started his career from hindi daily rashtriya sahara from Lucknow in 1992. after that he has shifted prestigious hindi daily hindustan and served about 20 years. He was started as staff reporter finish Resident Editor in various cities like Gorakhpur, kanpur, Dehradun, Agra,Allhabad and Lucknow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathakd (talk • contribs) 10:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So what is the dispute about? शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they're looking for WP:AFC Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Frank Chopp
Frank Chopp reads like a hatchet job. I'm not even particularly a fan of Chopp's leadership in the Washington State Senate, but this reads like a brief for someone to challenge him from the left in a primary. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 04:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Mousa Refan
There is a dispute between me and User:Pahlevun about the inclusion or removal of one line of information from the article Mousa Refan (plus the inclusion or removal of the same info in some related articles). The discussion about this can be found at User talk:Pahlevun. Basically, we have a Mousa Refan, for whom this information is not under dispute. And we have a commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who in different reliable sources is called either Musa or Akbar Refan or Rafan. But the only source I have seen so far which makes the explict claim that both persons are the same is this, a court complaint, which is inadmissible per WP:BLPPRIMARY. This source makes it clear (through Google translate) that he worked for the IRGC, but his claimed work is far removed from being a commander.

This source was given in the article to references him being a commander, but all it says is "The first commander of the Air Force Corps was Akbar Rafan." Fram (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Rather than a "dispute", this is a matter of lack of enough knowledge about the subject. This is pretty clear Musa Refan and Akbar Refan are the same person. There are tons of sources in Persian language that confirm this (and I will provide them, if I'm asked), however, since User:Fram seems to understand Persian only through Google translate, I will bring sources in English:

"The first Pasdaran air force commander was Musa Refan, who was not able to carve out a major role for the Pasdaran air force during the Iran-Iraq war."

"Islamic Revolutionary Guard Air Force (IRGAF) Commander: Refan, Musa"

"Another Mapna executive is Musa Refan, who is a first air force commander in the IRGC."

"The first leader of the Guard Air Force (constituted in 1986, although it had been forming for several years previous) was Musa Refan."

—Pahlevun (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The only source there claiming that the Guard Air Force commander is the same as the engineer is an opinion piece which seems to be based on the court case documents I already discussed. The remainder indicates that many sources list a Musa Refan as the commander, but what we need is a reliable, independent, good source making it clear that that Musa Refan and the one in the article are the same. Fram (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your statement is pretty self-destructive. You falsely claimed that "He [Musa Refan] never was the commander, some Akbar Refan was, see Sinkaya, "The Revolutionary Guards in Iranian Politics"". Now that you saw the sources above naming Musa Refan as the commander, you consider it a Musa Refan, and not the Musa Refan without having a clue that your statement is true. Fine, you may ask a Persian contributor to investigate these sources:, ,  before checking another English source. Pahlevun (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Editors are allowed to delete information "without having a clue" if it's true or not, that's what verifiability and reliable sourcing is all about. In fact, BLP policy demands it, because the burden of proof is on the one who want's to include the claim. (You can't prove the non-existence of facts.) As policy says, when in doubt throw it out. That said, Google translate does a pretty good job of translating Persian, and it looks like (if the sources are reliable) you may be correct. Another thing to keep in mind is that akbar is often used as a title of honor or a word to show respect. Something like saying Great Alexander. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally providing reliable sources linking the two. Fram (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

A Bandarage
It is about real person and need more time to add his notable things and finding his references and other stuffs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristiWilken (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about Asoka Bandarage? Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ChristiWilken is blocked. He tried to create A Bandarage, which has been deleted twice. I think this is the copy of that article. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I don't think we need more articles about non-notable "ethical hackers" in Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Brian Meshkin
Could someone perhaps have a look at this article? There's some weird editing going on and I have currently no time to look into this. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Present version maybe looks better than the previous version. I have removed the stub tag though. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC announce: What name should we use use for James Randi's spouse?
Should James Randi's spouse be called Jose Alvarez, a.k.a. Deyvi Peña or Deyvi Peña, a.k.a. Jose Alvarez?

RfC is at Talk:James Randi.

Related edits:[Talk:James Randi#RfC: What name should we use use for James Randi's spouse?] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He seems to operate under a few AKAs, but most of the data I can find suggests his name is, "Deyvi Orangel Peña Arteaga" - which would suggest Deyvi Peña would be preferable. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Kate Fischer
Could someone take a look at the Kate Fischer article? Lately there have been a lot of additions about some issues in this former actress/models personal life from what appears to be a SPA account. I removed a big chunk, as it was unsourced, but now even more has been added, with sourcing. (Pretty much entirely from news.com.au) It now takes up half the article. In my opinion its WP: UNDUE and the tone makes it verging on an attack page. I'm not sure how to go about fixing it, as some could probably stay, just in nowhere near this much detail. Curdle (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Stephen M. Goodson
I believe that Stephen Goodson passed away on the 4th of August.Please amend your Wikipedia article. See the link below. https://uncensoredopinion.co.za/we-remember-stephen-goodson-died-last-week/

Cheers nick: milaras All rights reserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.73.18.57 (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Article updated. Edwardx (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Andrea Ponsi
Ponsi is being promoted by a difficult, non-English speaking editor who is the creator of the article: User:Osvaldo valdes 165443. Without rewriting it, which I have no interest in doing, I've nonetheless tried to keep a lid on it, but it's heavy going. The latest example is this discussion on the user's Talk page. From my perspective, given the weird, disconnected statements by the user, there's no point in discussing this further. In addition, the article Talk page is probably a waste of time given that there are almost no editors watching the page. I am therefore bringing it here hoping to get wider attention paid to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere edit warring on political/election articles, including BLPs
This user has shown an extensive, long-term pattern of edit warring under the pretense of "standardizing" content related to politics, particularly infoboxes and succession boxes of biographical articles, and has typically refused to discuss anything they've done. Of deepest concern to me is the fact that due mostly to their efforts, as well as that of a few other editors, we've been falsely presenting to readers for the past four years the notion that Byron Mallott is serving as lieutenant governor of Alaska as a Democrat. Extensive background on this matter can be found at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 63, which was duly ignored. That may have been the wrong place to try to discuss the matter, but I felt it was clearly a POV issue. To explain the current problem as simply as possible, party nominees in a general election are determined by winning a primary election or other established procedure on the state level, not by fiat of the party's central committee. To this day, Therequiembellishere has attempted to make the latter notion appear to carry more weight by virtue of cherry-picking the flurry of media reports from September 2014 regarding the Alaska Democratic Party's abandonment of its ticket of Mallott and Hollis French in favor of the nonpartisan ticket of Bill Walker and Mallott. Walker changed his party registration from Republican to nonpartisan, while Mallott remained registered as a Democrat. This was purely a procedural move so that the ADP would be in conformance with its own party rules in supporting the Walker/Mallott ticket and nothing more. Mallott did not appear on the general election ballot as a Democrat (see sample ballot) and the homepage of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor has long carried the following statement: "Governor Bill Walker and Lt. Governor Byron Mallott took office in December of 2014 as the first non-partisan administration in Alaska history". This has not deterred Therequiembellishere and others from continuing to hang on to their creative interpretations of the events of September 2014, however. That's merely four years' worth of damage to the encyclopedia's credibility that few appear to care about. Fast forward to the present and you'll see still more of this. In Walker's article, Mallott's article and Mark Begich , Therequiembellishere is trying to claim that Walker and Mallott were the Democratic nominees in 2014 and that Begich is the Democratic nominee in this year's election. To the former, once again, party nominees are determined by winning the primary election. Mallott won the primary as a candidate for governor, not the office he currently holds. To the latter, this is more creative interpretations on their part considering that the election hasn't taken place yet. While going through the above diffs, I also noticed some significant edit warring with another editor at Paul Laxalt which appears to barely comply with 3RR. There are plenty of other examples, but I'm running out of time for today. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note First of all, I am in no way taking sides as to whether either one of the two users involved was right or wrong as far as the pure content issue goes. However, there was a clear violation of WP:4RR on Paul Laxalt. It is clearly worth an administrator's time to take a look at the edit history, which is fairly brief, for August 17th and forward on Paul Laxalt. Safiel (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This sort of information can be sourced directly to the state government's own website. And, yes, infoboxes can and should have sources for both verification and to deter edit warring. That said, I don't really see what the BLP issue is, as this appears to be more of a content dispute, which are best settled by sources and discussion on the talk page. Discussion through edit summaries are just part of the warring process and prolong the conflict. So far, I see no evidence of anyone trying to open a discussion about it, and without sources it's just "s/he said s/he said" (fill in gender pronoun of choice) over a sprawling mess of edit summaries.


 * This noticeboard is really for reporting egregious BLP violations, so, unless an admin happens by, there's not much we can do from here without further clarification of how this violates the policy. What I would suggest is first opening a discussion at the article's talk page. Add sources to the disputed information, then the burden fall on the other party to be able to refute those sources with better sources. If, after that, the edit warring continues (on their part; remember, these things can boomerang) file a report at ANI, to get some admin eyes on the sitch. Zaereth (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't see what the problem is? How about habitual misrepresentation of facts WRT our coverage of living persons.  I concede that this could perhaps more appropriately be a case of WP:SYNTH by using a reliable source as cover for pushing their personal opinion, or WP:UNDUE by giving weight to the Alaska Democratic Party's view of the situation and ignoring all other facts, even when sourced or sourceable, or even WP:CRYSTAL for cherry-picking facts to contend that Mark Begich won an election despite the fact that the election isn't until tomorrow.  Really, though, it's more a case of the greater community taking the attitude of "Who cares, it's only hillbilly bumfuck Alaska we're talking about" and showing its desperation to ignore the problem, allowing it to fester for close to four years.  I really don't have the time anymore to cater to people who are only looking to pass the buck, as evidenced by the previous times I've raised these concerns.  Just remember that this is still a very popular website.  Even if Google mindlessly propagates what amounts to a reflection of someone's personal opinions across the web, there are still discerning human beings reading it and in some cases calling bullshit.
 * While I'm here, though, here's another misrepresentation regarding a BLP subject, namely Therequiembellishere's insistence of placing "(I)" next to Jahna Lindemuth, particularly at Current Alaska statewide political officials. There is no explicit line item for "independent" in Alaska voter registration.  There is "nonpartisan", meaning that a voter declares an affiliation, just not with a recognized political party, or "undeclared", meaning that they don't declare an affiliation.  There's also the Alaskan Independence Party, which was misleadingly referred to as the "Alaska Independent Party" by the Alaskan news media during the second governorship of Wally Hickel when he was elected under the AIP banner.  Evidently, Lindemuth is registered to vote under one of the rough equivalents of independent.  However, the office of Alaska Attorney General has been a nonpartisan office since 1959 and multiple holders of that office have not necessarily been in political lockstep with the governor who appointed them (Edgar Paul Boyko and Avrum Gross being the best examples).  The same principle of misrepresentation applies here as with Byron Mallott.  As the supreme court justices have no parenthetical suffixes besides their names indicating how they're registered to vote, there's no consistency here, only a horribly mistaken belief of how things work in Alaska and that Wikipedia is a "one size fits all" affair and that's it's okay to twist the facts to fit within that box.
 * Finally, why would you insist that I go start a discussion somewhere else when previous discussions have proven that the other party has no interest in taking part and most of the rest of the community is only interested in passing the buck? Like I said, I don't have that kind of time to waste anymore, as if I ever did. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No need to get testy, if you read what I am actually saying you may notice I'm trying to help. A lot of words does not always equal a lot of info. I apologize, so allow me to be more clear. I believe what you say about at least Mallott to be true, but truly don't give a rat's ass about politics. I care about BLP policy, which parts specifically violate that policy, and which parts of the policy are being violated. What do you want us to do? Block them? Protect the article? Most of us are just regular users with a strong interest in and good understanding of BLP, but we can't block people or protect an article, so reporting problem users here (if in fact they are the problem) is not really what this board is for. If you can relate --concisely-- what in your opinion what you think the problem is, what part of policy it is in violation of, how it is in violation, and what your proposed solution is, I believe you will have much better luck at getting responses from others that will actually be useful to you. I say that as someone who has a lot of experience with this noticeboard, in hopes it will, help.


 * Why open a discussion? Because it is one of the necessary steps in Bold, Revert, Discuss. If you don't complete that step 1.) how is anyone supposed to follow either person's line of reasoning? By scouring the history for edit summaries? And 2.) it shows that you are actually trying to communicate, and if they don't respond, it gives you more fuel for ANI. Without completeing that step I doubt anyone over there will take it too seriously. Zaereth (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, great apologies, I just moved to a different part of the country and wasn't on Wikipedia while I got things in order. I haven't yet read through all the discussion laid out here (though I was somewhat surprised to not have it linked on my talk), but will reply shortly. Again, deep apologies! Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Bill stone (politician)
User keeps adding malicious lines of text to the page. Please protect from edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mississippi38603 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Lionel (radio personality)
I had never heard of this fellow before seeing him referenced on a noticeboard a few days ago. During the past week there's been an outbreak of back and forth reverting and general tomfoolery on this article. I'm "involved" to the extent of removing BLP violations, correcting someone who insists he has a different surname(!), and restoring unexplained deletion of sourced content. Help in maintaining a properly sourced and WP:BLP-compliant article would be appreciated. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

"Dennis Giangreco"
Hello Wikipedia,

Re your “Dennis Giangreco” entry, a complete list of D. M. Giangreco books prior to the newest release, a greatly expanded 2017 edition of the 2009 Hell to Pay, can be found under List of Books Published here, http://www.waszak.com/giangreco/. But while this books list is nearly up to date, the various links at the Waszak site relating to articles are somewhat behind. The most recent D. M. Giangreco article (Aug. 5) is, https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/169567. It was originally titled “Down the Memory Hole: America’s Hidden Role in the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria,” but HNN changed it to something with a bit more juice:

- This Knocks the Legs Out from Under the Atom Bomb Revisionists Who Criticize Truman for Hiroshima D. M. GIANGRECO It’s the story of America’s hidden role in the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. --

I also just noticed that the Furman review linked at your “Hell to Pay (Giangreco book)” is of the 2009 edition. The same author at the same website more recently reviewed the 2017 expanded edition: http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/1610.asp. The new edition has two chapters on US-Soviet cooperation in the Pacific War, an extensive appendix on Operation Blacklist, and innumerable additions throughout the original chapters. The most recent review of Hell to Pay (Aug. 23) can be found here, http://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol71/iss4/12/.

Finally, I don’t know how your rules, restrictions, and customs apply to the listing of author names, but there are no books published under the name Dennis Giangreco. All are under D. M. Giangreco as are the 250 or so journal/popular/Internet articles published since about 1982. If it was me doing it, Dennis Giangreco would be the “also known as.” Here is the Naval Institute Press bio:

“D. M. Giangreco served at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, for more than 20 years as an editor at Military Review, followed by work in the Foreign Military Studies Office. An award-winning author of thirteen books on military and sociopolitical subjects, he has also written extensively for numerous national and international publications and news agencies.”

Regards,

D. M. Giangreco

I can be contacted through the Naval Institute Press, Annapolis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:3A00:6400:F995:B58D:409F:9FD0 (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

bona Mugabe
Dear wikipedia, just a few points on the profile of that person: -she was actually born on 16 April 1989 -she is actually the first child of her parents -she married a Captain Simba Chikore-a professional pilot -her husband has never had a criminal record anytime and has never been arrested -her spouse did not quit his job at Air Zimbabwe, but was re-assigned to Zimbabwe Airways by the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrioticDavid (talk • contribs) 09:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Norman Mailer
I came across this and it's honestly in desperate need of an overhaul. It is completely full of original research and praising tones. There are also large chunks of unsourced content. Examples of what I mean by promotional and OR are seen below:


 * Mailer is strikingly adept at identifying social and political phenomena still in their cradle. Yet even at the height of his powers, efforts to describe the experiences of women, African Americans, and other groups without typecasting from his own experiences seems outside of Mailer's consideration. Interrogation of the meaning of this exclusionary discourse leads the reader and critic to an eventual response to Mailer.


 * It is still considered to be one of the finest depictions of Americans in combat during World War II, though many contemporary readers might find it a difficult read today.
 * (With this one, the claims aren't attributed in the sentence and the claim of the difficult read is attributed to one lone obituary.)


 * While principally known as a novelist and journalist, Mailer was not afraid to bend genres and venture outside his comfort zone; he lived a life that seemed to embody an idea that echoes throughout his work: "There was that law of life, so cruel and so just, that one must grow or else pay more for remaining the same."

There's definitely more - the article isn't entirely bad, mind you, but this runs rife throughout. I'd clean it but I don't really have the time at present, so I wanted to pass this along. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: Norman Mailer is not a WP:BLP, so this rather belongs on the talk page (not here), and you can also post a WikiProject Biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel
The Bart Sibrel article has been vandalized several times and I think it should be locked for editing by non-registered editors.

John Hyams (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to request protection at WP:RFPP. Current version of the page is not ideal. It starts with weasel words such as " a controversial filmmaker, writer". That's not how BLPs are written. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're the only editor who has edited the article in two months. No protection is required.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My favourite Bart Sibrel moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hQjMTBfQs Guy (Help!) 14:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Kipper on the loose

 * - smear sourced to UKIP.
 * - right-wing talking point, guilt by association smear.
 * - abject WP:BLP fail.
 * Again, guilt by association.
 * Again, guilt by association.

The target is mainly Jeremy Corbyn. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I think, at this rate, Corbyn is going to be on my watch-list for a very long time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also it's worth noting that there has been discussion at Anti-Fascist Action where some of the usual anti-Corbyn voices have been trying to show a link, but it's actually derived from a WP:RS and doesn't try to WP:SYNTH that into links with the Provisional IRA so I've been inclined to let it stand. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA please. The IP's edits were perhaps rash, but The Times is a RS. Furthermore, Corbyn being the honorary president of Anti-Fascist Action in 1985 is covered by this Routledge book authored by dr. prof. Nigel Copsey in 2000 (the link is the 2nd edition from 2016 - which is still before the current scandal) - well before the current kerfuffle around Corbyn. I'll note that Cospey also covers the link between AFA and RA. Academic quality sourcing for a BLP politician is quite sufficient - as for phrasing, that's something else.Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wasn't so much a personal attack; your edit history suggests you have something of an anti-Corbyn bias. That being said, even if it was slightly qualified, I do support the edit you made on the page I linked from. As I also said directly above. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please avoid making personal comments / WP:ASPERSIONS, I stick to what RSes say about Corbyn. I haven't made an edit to any of the articles mentioned above - though I did start/comment on talk page sections on this. Corbyn's role in Anti-Fascist Action is clearly DUE for inclusion on Corbyn and AFA - this actually has academic sources harking back to 2000 at least - and Corbyn was the national secretary.Copsey, Nigel. "Crossing Borders: Anti-Fascist Action (UK) and Transnational Anti-Fascist Militancy in the 1990s." Contemporary European History 25.4 (2016): 707-727..Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as I said, I agree with that edit. But you'll note in my initial comment I didn't name you. And I intentionally didn't name you because the point of my original comment was to note that, although it is largely being framed through an ant-Corbyn lense, there is some legitimacy from RSes for his involvement with AFA. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Semion Mogilevich
The BLP does not have a source for him being Jewish by religion - but states
 * ''"Mogilevich was born in 1946 to a Jewish family in Kiev's Podol neighborhood.[12]
 * His first significant fortune derived from scamming fellow Russian Jews eager to emigrate to countries including the United States and Israel; Mogilevich made deals to buy their assets, sell them for fair market value, and forward the proceeds. Instead he simply sold the assets and pocketed the proceeds. He served two terms in prison, of 3 and 4 years, for currency-dealing offenses.[4] "

and categorizes him as a Ukrainian Jew. Is this in full compliance with current policy? The cite from the "All is Clouded" book does not make the claim cited (12) to page 1 in the book. Page 154 says Kiev was difficult for "Jewish youngsters like Mogilevich" and that Mogilevich "like so many Russian Jewish mobsters" moved to Israel in 1990. This may or may not be a reliable source but the page cited is wrong.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/08/05/semion_mogilevich_fbi_ten_most_wanted_list_this_obese_mob_boss_is_twice.html  is the source for the rest of the section(4). It is self-described as a "crime blog" on Slate. For this the issue is whether this is a "reliable source" for such claims about a living person. It does not, moreover, say anything at all about "scamming fellow Russian Jews" even though it is the source cited for that claim.

Mogilevich is likely horrid, but WP:BLP requires solid sourcing, not improperly cited material and sources which do not make the claims attributed to them. And which might verge on being anti-Jewish in tenor here.

Contrary opinions are welcomed. Collect (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Debra Britain Davenport
Self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.19.38.127 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the page for WP:AfD. The discussion is here. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 00:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Billy Connolly's bio on Wikipedia.
Billy Connolly is not a Sir. He received the CBE, which only allows him to put CBE at the end of his name. He would only be a "Sir" if he was knighted by the Queen which he has not been. For reference - see CBE in your own website - it states that they cannot use "Sir" and can put CBE at the end of the name when they sign their name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D9Z7antjMw

That link is where Billy actually says he isn't a Sir only a CBE and cannot be called Sir.

You need to remove the "Sir" from Billy's bio in your website.

Cynthia White — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:DA85:1700:44F4:C1F:D3B5:DFAD (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He was made a Knight Bachelor in the 2017 Birthday Honours and was dubbed by the Duke of Cambridge at Buckingham Palace in October that year. BBC Opera hat (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you aren't from a Commonwealth realm, a CBE does not allow the use of Sir. Connolly is from Scotland, which is currently part of Great Britain.-- Auric   talk  18:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A CBE does not entitle anyone to be called Sir, regardless of where they are from: it is not a knighthood. However, Connolly was knighted in the June 2017 Honours List, so has been entitled to be called Sir since then. Opera hat (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Skylab mutiny
The title "Skylab mutiny" charges that the crew, two of the three still living, of Skylab 4 committed a crime punishable by death. The article has been recently expanded to clarify the various conflicting sources of information on the subject and, just after that expansion, I moved the article to Skylab 4 human factors as we had discussed on talk, but this did not stick, with the move-back comment "no consensus yet reached - stop." I'm not sure we lacked consensus, but regardless, WP:NOCON says, "…for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal were to add, modify or remove it." It would seem appropriate to stay with Skylab 4 human factors until we can come up with that better title. See the talk page to join a discussion to identify what a better title should be. This article appeared on BLP noticeboard last month for both content and title. I believe the content issues are resolved satisfactorily. Please help resolve the title (talk). -- ke4roh (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence is about the most non-neutral opening on a noticeboard I've ever read. I'm inclined to oppose anything you suggest, as you've already established that you are being hyperbolic and hysterical about this issue. My advice is for you to drop it, go edit something else, and let the rest of the editors who stuck their noses into the issue last month hash it out. If you're the only one defending one particular position, then consider why that may be as you take a break, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few WP:RSes that call it a mutiny. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For example, The Smithsonian Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing. I'm pointing out how hysterical the first sentence of the OP is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article cites Smithsonian Magazine and several others, all around the issue. This BLP notice isn't about the body of the article, it's about the pejorative nature of the title and how that relates to BLP rules. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the title immediately gives the connotation of a crime being committed. While the technical definition may include insubordination, this is insubordination in the military sense, which is also a punishable crime. Insubordination in the civil sense is not a crime and is therefore rarely called mutiny. "Mutiny" is synonymous with "revolt", "rebellion", "riot", and it is these things a person pictures when reading that title. (Did they take over the space station by force? It's like wow, I have to read this!) It's a huge disappointment to then find out it was really just a walk-out, which, if that's what you call a mutiny then half the students in nearly every school and college are guilty of mutiny. When teachers go on strike, we don't call that mutiny.


 * I have no doubt that you can find this term in RSs, but also no doubt it was used for no other reason than to sell papers. Newspapers are notorious for using flashy headlines and pejorative words to get reader to read their stories. But we are not a newspaper and don't sell anything, thus there is no need to use such a descriptive yet inaccurate word just to entice readers to look. As an encyclopedia, we're supposed to be better and more accurate than the sources we use, using a bit of editorial judgment to determine the best descriptors. Zaereth (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I might also note that the "insubordination" part comes from a time when whaling was is full swing, and people were often "Shanghaied". Although that in itself was a crime, it was also a crime for the Shanghaied person to desert the vessel or refuse to work, in which case they could legally be whipped, hung by their wrists with their arms bound behind their back, denied food or water, or worse, which was common practice until Michael A. Healy was caught doing it on camera. Zaereth (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you think that "Skylab Mutiny" is pejorative, then you aren't familiar enough with Western Civilization to comment on aspects of it with any authority. It's a common practice for people to use hyperbolic expressions for the purpose of humor, satire, or even just as neutral slang, with the full and justified expectation that it will not be taken at face value. For example, people sometimes say something that contains some innuendo and then immediately comment that it sounded "a bit rape-ey." People often disclaim that they are "crazy" or "going to hell". It's common wisdom that if the police look closely enough one's affairs, they'll find something to arrest one over. Partygoers frequently refer to each other at "degenerates". Political shifts, be they governmental or in a private organization's management structure are frequently referred to a a revolution. Arguments are referred to as fights, and large or intense arguments as battles. Loudmouths on the internet refer to themselves with some hubris (and are frequently referred to by their opponents with an equal measure of disdain) as warriors. Charming, heterosexual men are frequently called ladykillers. Masculine homosexual men are frequently called bears.
 * If you cannot wrap your head around the fact that the "mutiny" in question is the common name of an event, and not in any way a legal or ethical accusation, then you should not be editing any article that relies upon sources written in common parlance.
 * I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm simply telling you that the suggestion that the name "gives the connotation of a crime being committed" is complete bollocks to anyone who is capable of understanding the concept of non-literal speech. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Seriously? That's the argument you're going with? Non-literal speech is what is formally known as colloquialisms. We should definitely, as a serious encyclopedia, avoid any colloquialisms in both writing and, especially, titles. Zaereth (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you've never heard of WP:COMMONNAME, nor did you fully read my comment because I already linked it once. I would also point out that WP:POVNAME (a section of a policy page) explicitly addresses this situation and refutes your assertion that the name should be changes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 2 questions: establishing consensus for a "common name" for the alleged event, and then the question of whether there was something that could be considered an "event" to be given that name. Wikipedia is supposed to dodge the second question entirely because "reliable" sources are conflicted.  Given that there are reliable sources denying the event, NPOV and BLP policies suggest at  least including "alleged" in the title.
 * As to the common name question, a Newspapers.com search for "Skylab mutiny" turns up nothing, suggesting that it might not be a common name. The first mention in that corpus of the two words in the same article comes from more than a decade after splashdown - April 1, 1984 in the Austin-American Statesman  (The irony of this article is that it accuses them of conducting a mutiny during an EVA - on Christmas day.)  According to Google Trends, "Strike in Space" is 6 times as popular as "Skylab mutiny", and "Space Mutiny" (also a B movie) has more traction, likely because of the movie. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't "establish consensus for a common name". The sources do. I don't care one bit whether you refer to it as "alleged" or not. I don't care whether it really happened or not. I don't care how it happened, whether it was a scheduled "day off" or the crew refusing to do anything they were supposed to do. If "mutiny" is not, in fact, the most common name, then I don't care if it gets changed.
 * What I took issue with was the first sentence of this notice, which was decidedly non-neutral (and thus a violation of WP:CANVASS) and completely hysterical. Continuing to assert that the name is a BLP violation for that reason is the opposite of a good argument, and it is, in fact, such a bad one that it actually drove me to respond to it. So just please: stop with the hysterics. As long as you're not trying to push that ridiculous argument, I'm happy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It would appear that there is not a common name for this alleged event, then. (See the article for a variety of names given by a variety of sources.)  It would seem to follow that the "common name" argument does not override NPOV in this case, and that a more neutral title should be selected instead.
 * Thank you for drawing WP:CANVASS to my attention—This is my first foray into such thorny territory, and the guidance there will surely help to yield a satisfactory result.
 * Please see the comments on the article talk page, where the conversation has progressed some. -- ke4roh (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Category declaring that Obama's birthplace is disputed
A recent edit at Barack Obama added Category:People whose birthplace is disputed (a new category being discussed here where there is a proposal to rename it to Category:Birthplace controversies). Of course there is (or was) a dispute regarding Obama's birthplace, but was it serious or merely a political maneuver with a side-serving of WP:FRINGE? Opinions on whether either category belongs on the article are being discussed here. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that we have the article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, I would definitely say it was disputed.-- Auric   talk  18:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not seriously disputed. We don't have to give a platform to conspiracy theorists when the conspiracy has been debunked as thoroughly as this one has. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with SarekOfVulcan - it's not seriously disputed. We don't legitimize conspiracy theories by giving them equal weight, we shouldn't do it through category additions either. I'm not sure about "birthplace controversies" if the category is renamed, but for a BLP I am leaning towards no. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If it’s added, I suggest we also add a category for Types of cheese the moon is made of. O3000 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is no more serious a dispute than whether the Earth is flat or the Moon landings were real. Things like that do not belong on categories of major articles; they belong confined to articles about the appropriately marginal theories themselves. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 03:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI birthname/pronouns at Christine Hallquist
Hello all, just wanted to let you all know that the article about trans woman politician Christine Hallquist is experiencing repeated attempts to change pronouns and reinsert birthname. While these come from IP and redlinked accounts, they also come from some established editors. has posted guidance on the talk page, and I have just added the MOS-TW template. Per the template, I'm notifying here.--Theredproject (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding it to watch. But you might also want to consider submitting a page protection request if the edits are mostly from IPs. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

H. Gilbert Welch
A recent investigation by Dartmouth College has found that one of its professors, H. Gilbert Welch, committed plagiarism. An IP previously added the finding of this investigation to Welch's article and I both removed it from the lead and added Welch's own response. Eyes requested on this article and whether/how this content should be mentioned without violating WP:BLP (note that there are 2 sources, Stat News and BMJ, supporting the content, thus fulfilling WP:WELLKNOWN). IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk  00:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence M. Krauss‎
There is a recent controversy and what appears to be well covered events have been summarized by a few editors lately. More are discussing it on the talk page. I'd be grateful if editors more experienced with BLP than I am could verify if the new material is proper and if new talk page concerns have been addressed; there are few participants. The allegations appear to be more or less substantiated but the scandal is real with repercussions. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 00:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Are business profiles appropriate sources?
Can anyone weigh in on if business profiles such as this Bloomberg one are suitable to support biographical content in an article? Some editors have expressed concerns that they're largely submitted by the companies themselves, and I feel that puts it in a murky place in terms of its reliability as being published by a third-party source. Is there a general guideline or policy regarding these types of sources? I'd prefer to follow a rule of thumb than leaving it as a decision based on an arbitrary editor's sentiment.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that we should use caution when using such sources, particularly for unduly self-serving claims. We might use them to report uncontroversial facts such as when a person worked where and with what title, for example, but avoid uncritically repeating "so and so was a key innovator in interactive celebrity marketing" and other such meaningless noise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg research is reliable (other profile sites - vary) - they accept information/corrections from the companies (as well as anyone else - literally anyone can submit a report - and while companies/execs are often involved - this isn't always the case (some companies actually try to avoid such listings - but they get included anyway if they are large enough)). However as you can see in their report form - "All data changes require verification from public sources. Please include the correct value or values and a source where we can verify." - they require a public source backing this up (which may be a press release (e.g. for someone appointed to position X - however we would accept such a press report for such info as well) or a SEC filing) - the information itself is vetted by S&P Global Market Intelligence staff.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Julia Salazar
Julia Salazar is a socialist candidate for the New York State Senate. Many WP:RS have challenged the facts of her biography. One editor, who is openly opposes her, has taken over the page, deleted much of the NPOV material, added extensive negative material about those challenges, and accusing her of lying in Wikipedia's voice. I don't want to get into a futile edit war. I'd like some editors who are familiar with policies and guideles to help me. What's the best way for me to handle this? Is there a noticeboard specifically for political articles, or BLP articles? --Nbauman (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A few days ago, this was a WP:MILL first time candidate for office. Then it turned out that she has given variant versions of her bio (most notably that she immigrated here as a baby; in fact, she was born in Florida to a U.S. citizen mother.)  I was, quite frankly, fascinated by this story. And edited as I read, deleting very little, while adding many sources. And sourced facts. These facts are shocking to  Nbauman and other supporters. Understandably so.  But not an excuse to make false assertions about my behavior and motivations on a noticeboard.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably would be up for AfD if not for the bio scandal. Possibly still should be up for AfD with the scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, now that mass deletions by candidate's supporters have begun, it would be useful to have some experienced eyes on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Flagrant and uncivil mischaracterization above. Reasoned and nuanced edit summaries were given for each consolidation of run-on/redundant claims and plain terrible writing. I have almost 50,000 edits across the project, but you're right, I'm just a hack partisan. /s. You have a clear bias and the way the article was written when I came across it had terrible non-neutral tone and run-of-the-mill poor phrasing/organization/formatting etc. It's much improved and all of the factual sources that still say she contradicted herself remain. The fact that you call this "white-washing" is egregious. JesseRafe (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the biggest problems with this piece is simple bad writing. To start with, edits have repeatedly deleted from the introduction the fact that she is running for state senate in the 18th district of New York. That's the main reason for her notability.
 * Another problem is that, because you're trying so hard to disparage her, you can't even state the simple facts (eg that she described herself as an immigrant and then acknowledged that she was born in Miami). From your edit it isn't even clear that she lied at any point. I used to write about law. The lawyers told me: first, state your facts; then state your conclusions. You're jumbling everything together. If she is lying, and multiple WP:RSs say so, then the article should clearly reflect that. But your WP:POV and WP:OR editing doesn't even do that.--Nbauman (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Icewhiz. Non-notable candidate for a state position involved in a non-notable birthplace "controversy". (Please look up the actual definition of controversy.) Without this huge scandal over where she was or was not born, this article really shows no signs of even trying to tell me about the subject itself; just about the "controversy" she is involved in, which is really no different than all of the other so-called campaign controversies across the entire nation.


 * I will agree that the writing is bad and rather disjointed and incoherent, relying too much on quotes and press statements rather than providing a summary. (Probably the result of over a hundred edits per day.) Lawyers give facts and then draw conclusions, but journalists and encyclopedias do not. That is what we call synthesis. What we do is give readers facts and notable opinions and let them draw their own conclusions. I really get worried when I see up to 5 or 6 refs for a single sentence, which just screams synthesis. I didn't go through them all to see if it really is synth, lacking the time, but from outward appearances it looks that way. (I could see using two or, at most, three --of your best-- concurring sources to back up disputed information, especially for an entire paragraph, but why else on Earth would you need 5 or 6 for a single sentence?) We are giving way to much weight to this "controversy" in comparison to the rest of the article, which I'm not sure would even exist without it, thus if anything it should be renamed Julia Salazar controversy. However, that leaves her just as non-notable as before it, and why have an article about a controversy involving a non-notable person? And that leads me back to my original statement. Zaereth (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI - Articles for deletion/Julia Salazar.Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies of living persons
Watchers here are invited to participate in the RfC: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies of living persons --LukeSurlt c 14:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Kevin McDaid
There is a section that has been removed and re-added over the years concerning some adult modelling carried out by the subject when he still may have been a minor. With the extensive quote in the reference this section accounts for over 50% of the article content; is this undue emphasis in an article that is little more than a stub of someone of fairly limited notability? Does WP:AVOIDVICTIM also apply here, as the subject was a minor at the time? Nthep (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed it per the sourcing inadequacies. Nothing in a BLP should be sourced to the Sunday Mirror, and especially these sort of things. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Dan Bilzerian


First this needs eyes for the edit warring over nationality, persistent unsourced changes to personal wealth and any other BLP issues. Then, it really needs to be protected. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Donald Wuerl
Subject is a Catholic priest, with a possibly dodgy record around turning a blind eye to child abuse, but I do not see that the material being crammed into the lead can be allowed to stand without proper consideration of whether or not it is actually both cited and merits inclusion, given that he is a living person. The IP sticking it in is clearly willing to do so forever. I'm off to bed so I'm dumping this in your laps. Sorry. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Still a problem. Pretty clear the IP involved will revert forever, and in my view the material being inserted is in violation of the BLP policy. Could really use more eyes. I've requested page protection. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Marian T. Ryan
This article needs some serious help. An editor,, blanked pretty much the whole thing, which doesn't strike me as positive--but that article certainly needs some serious balance. My guess is that serious pruning can make it more balanced, but maybe most or all of that content just needs to be cut. Please check it out. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Is sciencebasedmedicine.org an SPS?
I started a discussion at RSN of whether sciencebasedmedicine.org is considered an SPS under WP:BLPSPS, posting here as this is also relevant to BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No idea why, as there is a world of precedent for it being reliable. Is this to do with another article on an antivaxer? Guy (Help!) 12:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn
Massive issues with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSCANDAL violation and a concerted effort by multiple editors to turn it into a hit piece. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * sad reality of wikipedia. Best news is that wikipedia holds no sway, no one actually reads all the bias, headlines is what you need to attack and wikipedia has no headlines - just close this as a worthless attempt to actually action and install wp:npov Govindaharihari (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Govindaharihari (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Can Wikipedia restore a fair objective WP:NPOV to this article, when the is heavy ongoing bombardment of accusations (note the UK Press is significantly anti Corbyn etc etc) ... this article needs unbiased Administrative oversight urgently. ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 22:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sandringham House
Article is at FAC but contained contentious claims about living people sourced only to tabloid journalism. I've removed them and been reverted. Next steps? --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - In response: the claims are 1) that the Duke of Edinburgh spends much of his retirement at Wood Farm and 2) that there has been speculation in the press that the Queen may give York Cottage to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I just don't see that either claim can be considered contentious, let alone defamatory. I have provided sources for both, and suggested a wider range at the FAC page. By their nature, such commentary is more likely to run in the tabloid/celebrity end of the press. But I am not aware that such as Vogue and Harpers Bazaar are considered unreliable sources. And the York Cottage claims echo the Queen's gift of Anmer Hall, another house on the Sandringham Estate, to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
 * I would be grateful for an indication of whether the claims made are a breach of BLP, as I don't wish to engage in an edit war. If they are, so be it. The editor who raised the query has already removed them and they aren't essential to the article. But I would contend that both elements are useful additional pieces of information that supplement the article, aren't contentious and are supported by a range of reasonable sources. I've let the originator know I've responded - a courtesy that wasn't reciprocated. KJP1 (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The statement "since his retirement from official duties in 2017, it has been occupied by the Prince" was only sourced to the Express, and as WP:BLPSOURCES states "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" I think MarchOrDie's removal was reasonable. Whether or not this material is contentious is not critical to that conclusion, but the title of the Express article used as a source could certainly be considered controversial. The second paragraph is more complex, but once again parts of it were sourced only to tabloid journalism.  I'm not saying that these statements couldn't be included, but you need to source them without using tabloids. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Most helpful. KJP1 (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Tucker carlson
Tucker Carlson is just one example. His article talks about his journalism career numerous times, when he is not a journalist. He has a BA in history, and never studied or received a degree in journalism. This is also true for numerous personalities at FOX news, CNN news, and MSNBC news.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:8500:BFE:6D88:5F0F:E023:5B55 (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One does not have to have a university degree in journalism to be a journalist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term "journalist" needs to be sourced, and that it's thrown around too loosely on lots of Wikipedia pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Dashama Konah Gordon
Hello, I have been attempting to help make the page Dashama Konah Gordon up to standards, as there have been a few times requests for deletion. This page is of a notable person who has been a public person online for over 13 years, as an author writing books, speaking publicly and also making and sharing videos etc. In this article, there are many references to show and prove she is notable, over a decade of references, and even some back to when she was in high school and college 20-25 years ago.

This last few days, as many editors on wikipedia have been adding issues to the page, I went in to help fix the page. And changed many passages that could be considered not correct and added many new references, as many as i could find. I worked very hard to do this and am dedicated to get it cleaned up and perfect so it can be safe from any issues or suggestions of deletion. This page now has more highly credible references then most other pages on wikipedia. Even though the subject became a public person before internet was very wide spread and popular, so there are some years it is not easy to find references, so in those cases I tried to limit the text so there wouldn't be text without references, even if its about her life. Did I do the right thing?

I want to understand what to do to keep the page safe from people saying its not notable and from people wanting to delete it? Its clear from the number of references of media appearances and even her speaking at the united nations and traveling so many places being in the news and tv, etc. She is a known person and should be on wikipedia, since this is a place for people like her to be referenced.

Please help me and let me know what I can do, and if there are still any references or text that should be edited or removed, please let me know which ones or do that yourself so it can be perfect and acceptable.

Thank you in advance for your help. 36.75.212.103 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I had a look and I am of the opinion she probably barely meets WP:GNG - but I'll be honest, you're not doing your cause any favours with source spamming. A lot of the sources included in the article were either not reliable sources, or they didn't have anything to do with the subject. A bunch more I pulled out because "was featured in article X" might demonstrate WP:GNG notability but don't actually contribute anything to the article. It would be better to tell us what the articles said about her. EG: "Teen Vogue said X's campaign to save the manatee was instrumental in protecting marine habitat.[ref]". I'll be honest, the AfD for this article is going to be an uphill climb in its present form. I made a start at article cleanup, but it needs far more effort than I have the energy to give to it. Last thing, please note that if you have a WP:COI you should disclose it immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Tarkan (singer)
I think we are having a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY here, 'cause the last edits of the pending-changes-protected article (see its history) were done by User:Tarkandeluxe, who may or may not be the subject himself. What should I do? —Angga1061 11:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * editing biography by its subject is not prohibited even though not encouraged either. If the editor is editing promotionally then that is violation of WP:PROMO, if they're adding non neutral content, that is WP:NPOV violation and so on. I see the editor is now engaged on their talkpage about what they're removing, that is a good start. Also, as an aside please see WP:SIGLINK and correct your signature. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Hannan
Fellow wikipedians,

An article to which I contribute to has entered a stalemate where one Greek editor who seems to be very enthused by one particular issue, regarding the Parthenon marbles, is continuously restoring his revision of the article which contains libellous and false accusations about the subject.

My discussions with the contributor on the talk page today failed to reveal any additional information he had regarding the truth of said accusations, instead confirming that it was Biased editing. Specifically, the contributor is accusing the subject of supporting "nineteenth century racial theories", when it is plain in writing on the cited source (an article written by the subject) that he mentioned these theories discursively only to dismiss them. Perhaps this fellow, being a foreigner, may struggle with the wording of the source in a possible second language, but it seems in my opinion like he is instead choosing to interpret the article to his own liking - which is both poor practise, and in this case potentially libellous.

Please consult the source, the subject's own article, to see for yourself the misrepresentation of Hannan's line of argument. I also took the time to deconstruct this accusation on the Daniel Hannan talk page, which shows bare the falsehood of the contributors accusations.

Please compare the two versions below. It is my preference, given the irrelevant nature of the section both generally and specifically to his "political opinions" (since Hannan didn't state his opinion on the repatration), that the section is removed entirely. I also believe the selective inclusion of this peripheral subject out of the context of its discussion, especially whilst excluding every other column Hannan writes, leads to a heavy distortion in the article.

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Hannan&type=revision&diff=856795313&oldid=856791750

Thanks. Jean

JeanDePG (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The whole section is pure WP:COATRACK at best, and the supposed quotation from Hannan is an astonishing misrepresentation of the source. You are quite right simply to delete it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Some more eyes on Daniel Hannan would be appreciated. The same IP editor (I presume: the different IP addresses all locate to the same provider, and the editing style is consistent) has made a series of edits which give me the impression of seeking to disparage the subject.  They're not all bad edits, but there is a tendency towards WP:SYNTH and an WP:UNDUE concentration on some quite minor topics, plus a tendency to use weak sources (tabloid journalism, blogs, etc.).  Would be good to have a third opinion in case I'm being too favourable to the subject. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ramesh K. Pandey


Ramesh K. Pandey reads like a puff piece. --B (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Please vote or comment at Articles for deletion/Ramesh K. Pandey. Edwardx (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Justin Miller (attorney)


A public relations biography. Persistent addition of promotional content by likely COI accounts. Yet more reversions and page protection are probably warranted, but an AfD may be the way to go here, if anyone is so inclined. At any rate, more attention would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Shannon Sharpe -- sexual assault material
Eyes needed at. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Miriam Tey
In this entry [] Talk:Miriam_Tey_de_Salvador there are some never ending discussions without much progress. There is an issue related to "fall in love with someone" which is on the one side very difficult to demostrate and on the other hand not relevant for the profesional biography. It was asked for a third oppinion, which was also considered for the following proposed changes:

1 The sentence " Later-on she worked for the publishing house Columna Edicions where she fell in love with editor Miquel Alzueta." is not relevant for a professional biography and could be changed to "Later-on she worked for the publishing house Columna Edicions where she met the editor Miquel Alzueta." but I would prefer to delete it because it is not relevant if someone fell in love with someone else and it can not be demostrated. The first reference [8] is not relevant because Miriam Tey was not married with Mr. Alzueta. This can be checked in the civil register [9. The second reference [10] is not relevant as it is tabloid journalism and not to be used as stated in wikipedia:

Notice about sources This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. See more information on sources.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page. The third reference  [11] is not valid as it is an article that describes the biography of other persons and is not focused on Miriam Tey.

2 the sentence "She is a friend of journalist Pedro J. Ramírez and fashion designer Ágatha Ruiz de la Prada." was deleted as it is not relevant to her professional life and it is based on tabloid journalism [12] please see the notice above.

3 I agree with the third oppinion of Basilosauridae and the list of names is not relevant in the biography of Miriam Tey. This list can be included in the entry of CLAC. The sentence "This new institution received support by prominent Catalans such as philosopher Victoria Camps and writers Félix de Azúa, Javier Cercas, Laura Freixas, Juan Goytisolo and Juan Marsé." was accordingly deleted.

--Manlorsen (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Opinion column as a source for cause of death?
I posted this to ANI instead of BLPN by accident, whoops. Recently, a New Zealand journalist Greg Boyed died. If you had any experience with NZ media, the cause was clear but none of the sources spelt it out instead saying stuff like he died unexpectedly and was suffering from depression and with ample links to helplines. Recently I noticed as the main story on nzherald.co.nz (one of the major news websites in NZ) the top story was this [//www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12116224] which is an opinion column on the Bay of Plenty Times (owned by the same company) which directly mentions that he died by suicide. Since I expect someone is going to want change our article (there have been attempts in the past but without sources), any opinion on whether this is sufficient sourcing for a WP:BDP case? In many ways the claim is not particularly contentious, as I said anyone with experience with NZ media has know it since the day is death was first reported. But opinion columns tend to be iffy for BLP statements of fact. Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Opinion columns" are usable only for opinions, ascribed and cited as such. They are not "fact-checked" as a rule, and unless and until a reliable source states something as "fact", Wikipedia can not state it as "fact." Collect (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Feuerstein
This article has seen some BLP-violating edits recently, and given that Feuerstein is a highly controversial figure this is no surprise. I'd like other editors to keep an eye on this page in case something like this happens again. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk  23:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The fact that the whole article is about 4 controversial videos seems odd for a BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Matt_Flannery
Matt Flannery

Name format incorrect. "Matt," which he commonly used as an alias, does not belong in the introduction with a persons legal first and last name.
 * Have fixed that, per WP:NICKNAME. Edwardx (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Grammatical errors; past- and future statements. Did Jackley co-founder too? 'non-profit Kita" is that an organization or a charity? I think the writer is very self centered and does not focus on the biography and story of Matth Flannery.

Sources? Too many claims, not enough legible sources. Ih had to delete more than half of their sources.

This whole entire biography was one of the most disappointing I've ever came across on Wikipedia. Many statements that were made in this article seemed over-exaggerated , Since the Author's references are incomplete and unresourceful, I am having a troubled time believe in any other thing I find on the apay.

References (7) http://ideamensch.com/matt-flannery/ (8) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-magazine/qa-with-jessica-flannery_b_99298.html (9) http://www.ted.com/talks/jessica_jackley_poverty_money_and_love (13) http://skollworldforum.org/contributor/matt-flannery/ (14) http://www.skollfoundation.org/entrepreneur/matt-flannery-and-premal-shah/ (16) http://ideamensch.com/matt-flannery/ (18) https://archive.is/20140707061943/http://women2.com/2012/01/19/effective-ceo-matt-flannery (20) http://www.techrepublic.com/article/kiva-co-founder-matt-flannery-on-finding-your-startup-idea-and-getting-people-to-come-with-you/ (21) http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/10/14/kiva-founders-talk-beginnings-finding-meaning-after-stanford/matt-flannery-ceo-and-co-founder-of-kiva/ (22) http://mashable.com/2011/09/20/kiva-matt-flannery-social-media/ ^ The links in the references are not properly referenced. The sources lifted are either questionable, self-published, and self-published and questionable on as sources as themselves or even generated content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angogaru (talk • contribs)


 * Have started Articles for deletion/Matt Flannery, "Only notability seems to be as a co-founder of Kiva. Suggest we change this to a redirect to Kiva (organization)." Anyone is welcome to vote or comment on this proposal. Edwardx (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As a courtesy note, Angogaru has been blocked for sockpuppetry related to his activity on this article. I have nothing to say about nor any vested interest in the article itself. EclipseDude (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Is Maria Butina notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in her name?
To be unbiased, should the Wikipedia page Maria Butina be renamed United States of America vs Butina?

Normally criminal cases, such as murders, where the murderer is not notorious the Wikipedia page is titled The Murder of XXXX and not titled after the name of the murderer. With that in mind, Maria Butina is the person named in the lawsuit United States of America vs Butina. Previous to being named in the lawsuit she was likely not notorious enough to deserve a Wikipedia page, although that might have been an omission given she seems to have created, a possibly defunct, gun rights organization in Russia. The prosecution, the DOJ, alleges that Maria Butina was an important agent of the Russian Government and therefore should have registered as a foreign agent under 18 USC 951. Her defense claims she was not an important agent of the Russian government and therefore had no need to register with the DOJ. If the defense is to be believed Maria Butina is not noteworthy enough to deserve a Wikipedia page in her name so the WP should be named USA vs Butina and Maria Butina should redirect to USA vs Butina. If the prosecution is to be believed Maria Butina is an important 'secret' agent of the Russian government and is noteworthy on her own merit of a Wikipedia page. An issue is at this point Maria Butina should be considered not guilty and therefore not noteworthy on her own merits. Her status as an important agent of the Russian government has not been determined by the court so her Wikipedia page should be renamed USA vs Butina.

My question: Should the Maria Butina wikipedia page be renamed USA v Butina, and perhaps rewritten to be about the issues surrounding the lawsuit and not Maria Butina (as she is not determined to be noteworthy by the court)?Geo8rge (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not rename Her presumed notability comes from a long period of activity, not a single (for example) mass murder. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment When I suggested you take questions about her notability under WP:BLP guidelines here I didn't mean you should just transclude the discussion on the article naming directly from WP:NPOV/N to here - that seems a bit like forum shopping. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Gemma O'Doherty
This article needs serious help. I've already scrapped a "Controversy" section, though one or two of the sources in there could be used to write neutral content. But the entire text seems to be written by lovers and haters alternately, and much of it simply needs to be redone from scratch--besides, the lead needs to be overhauled, since it contains unverified content and is argumentative. Thank you, BLP editors, for your attention. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that saw it too: thanks Ritchie. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned out the questionable content and warned (who reported the editor removing the BLP violations to WP:AIV of all places) to not do that again, and if they still don't get it, I'll block them. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thought I would note that there has been ongoing issues with this page since at least 2016. An OTRS ticket reporting such issues is stored here: 2016051410006572. It is on my watchlist but I spend most of my time at Commons now so I don't really catch a lot of the crap anymore. Thank you both for getting it. --Majora (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Fatih Başkaya
Fatih Başkaya is a high school graduate and university student, using wikipedia as his resume?!? The article must be removed in order to stop people using wikipedia as their resume and fool others by pretending they are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8101:7AD1:78DD:D75A:E19E:1396 (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Submitted for deletion: Articles_for_deletion/Fatih_Ba%C5%9Fkaya

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

BLP violations in the Farah Karimi article
In this article, user keeps using fringe or compromised sources to add text that can be considered defamatory:
 * Karimi saw the Iranian Revolution as moment to put a form of Islamic socialism into practice. Instead the Iranian revolution, brought, in Karimi's eyes, a conservative government into power.
 * From the age fifteen Karimi became interested in progressive interpretations of Islam of Shariati.
 * For the Mojahedin-e Khalgh she worked on secretly listening to police communication. In 1983 she fled from Iran to Germany, where she got political asylum. Between 1985 and 1986 Karimi worked for the Mojahedin-e Khalgh in Paris where she developed stories for members of resistance from Iran seeking refuge in France. In 1986 Karimi broke with the Mojahedin-e Khalgh. In her 2005 book The Secret of Fire Karimi describes her political development in her youth, her experiences with the Mojahedin-e Khalgh and her break with the organization.


 * Her sister Farzanah remained active in the Mojahedin-e Khalgh, which cost her her life.


 * When she became active in GreenLeft, she did not reveal her past in the Mojahedin-e Khalgh.

Also changing titles on several Mojahedin-e Khalgh-related BLPs:


 * Changed "officeholder" to criminal
 * Changed "president" to criminal

Similar activity taking place in the Mojahedin-e Khalgh article, where another user was recently blocked for POV pushing (among other things). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that I have removed PDFs from copyrighted sources apparently copied onto some website. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though issues in the article still remain. Can someone take a look at this please? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Udit Narayan
Udit Narayan is a singer of mixed Indian and Nepali ancestry, and the 'birthplace' bit in his article has been a matter of dispute. Different news reports variously state that he was born in Bhardah village of Saptari district in Nepal, or that he was born in the Baisi village of Supaul district in Bihar, India.

This is a BLP issue, because Udit Narayan has branded the claim that he was born in Nepal as "slander", stating that it is intended to "malign" him and to stop him from receiving India's national honours (see ).

I've created a list of relevant quotes from different news articles at Talk:Udit Narayan. Need inputs on how to handle the 'birthplace' bit in the article body and infobox. utcursch &#124; talk 17:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As a guiding philosophy I prefer to side with a BLP about basic facts of their biography whenever possible. If the controversy over his birthplace is actually significant to the BLP then start with his statement that he's from India and then note that some sources say he's from Nepal instead providing some context as to why this is relevant. However if it's mostly just him annoyed that people keep screwing up which side of the border he was born on I'd honestly just leave it out. It's not harming anyone to say he's from where he quite obviously says he was born. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

James Bennet (journalist)
James and his wife have two sons.
 * I have expanded James Bennet (journalist) accordingly, using His NYT bio. Edwardx (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Geoffrey Owens
Geoffrey Owens, an actor who was part of the cast of the most popular sitcom in the United States 30 years ago, The Cosby Show, was recently photographed in a mundane job that helps pay his rent. Last week, Fox News and The Daily Mail job-shamed him by treating it like it was major news that an actor was working in a grocery store. Why is his employment at a grocery store part of his Wikipedia biography? Was WP:BLP revoked over the weekend? Has Wikipedia become a tabloid? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It does seem kind of tabloidy, but it seems to have made the rounds in more respectable media, too. What I would have done is added a single line to his career like: "Following media coverage of having taken jobs to supplement his acting, Tyler Perry offered him a role on a TV series."  That skips a lot of the stupid celebrity gossip issues.  The CBS source cites several actors who said that what Owens did is normal for a working actor, and I don't think we should be following the lead of tabloids by making such a huge deal of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Shenphen Rinpoche
This article contains claims about criminal convictions that are disputed in the talk page by a user with declared connection to the subject. Some sources look unreliable but I could not fully evaluate myself. I don't know how to handle this. Could someone review it and mediate? Thanks. --MarioGom (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the section about the criminal conviction since it wasn't reliably sourced. The other section about the legal accusations looks dodgy too, could use some serious pruning or in the alternative be removed altogether per WP:BLPCRIME, since they're just accusations and allegations. Isaidnoway (talk)  10:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are legal threats in that text-wall from the CoI editor so if you feel like it you could always bring that to the attention of AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What started out as a self-promotional article about the subject, that was unsourced and/or poorly sourced, has now devolved into an attack page primarily consisting of allegations and accusations of bad conduct. The lead of the article is also poorly sourced and contains dubious claims as well. Maybe this article should be taken to WP:AFD for an assessment by the community to see if this subject meets the criteria for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk)  06:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I went ahead and nominated it for deletion, my first nomination, hope I did it correctly. Articles for deletion/Shenphen Rinpoche Isaidnoway (talk)  07:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now pared the problematic material. Religious leaders should have their own notability guidelines, and it appears he would meet them. Collect (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * New pared-down version is fine with me. - MacPraughan (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)