Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive279

Steve King's remarks on white nationalism
The lede of Steve King's article mentions his remarks questioning why the terms "white nationalist" and "white supremacy" are offensive (these remarks have led to widespread condemnations by other Republicans, calls for resignation and a serious primary challenge for 2020). King claims that his remarks, which are from an interview with the NY Times, were misinterpreted or misunderstood, and suggests that the NY Times inaccurately transcribed the interview. Does King's response belong in the lede along with the comments themselves? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * My concern is that it violates NPOV to include a serious accusation against the subject in the lead, but then to relegate his own denial/interpretation to a much less visible section in the body of the article. Note that his interpretation does not necessarily require that the NYTs inaccurately transcribed his literal words, but simply that they may have misinterpreted his intended meaning (and then used punctuation which reflected their misinterpretation / misparsing).  There is ongoing discussion on the talk page (Talk).  King's official interpretation/response can be found here [] (but has also been reported by NYTs, etc). Also, it is worth noting that King not only denies that he questioned the offensiveness of white supremacy (which the lead treats as fact), he actually claims to consider it "evil" (see previous link), so I think the current lead creates a serious risk of misleading the readers about nature of his expressed views.  LoveIsGrue (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. King has form here, so it's entirely appropriate that his views on white nationalism etc. are mentioned in the lead; a claim of inaccurate transcription doesn't carry the same weight.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim is not "inaccurate transcription", which would be a matter of *fact*, but rather *interpretation* of an ambiguous statement (i.e. did he intend the comment about offensiveness to apply to all of the preceding items, including white nationalism, or just the last one, i.e. western civilization).LoveIsGrue (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't object to mentioning accusations of white nationalism in the lead, but we should give both sides (together), including his own interpretation of we he meant by his statements.LoveIsGrue (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe split the sentence in the lede . "Several politicians and journalist considered statements made by King about white nationalism and supremacy in a January 2019 to be racist and offensive, though King denied this was the intent of his quotes. Regardless, the RDC removed King from all congressional committees on the basis of his remarks." I think you should try to briefly include it but save the long-winded quoting for the body. --M asem  (t) 16:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this would definitely be an improvement, and it could be a reasonable compromise. Though I do worry that this wording may create the implication that the dispute is about whether the claims were "racist" and "offensive", whereas the substance of his denial is that the claims are simply being misinterpreted or mis-parsed. So I wonder if something like the following would more fairly capture these concerns: "In a January 2019 interview, King was quoted as questioning the offensiveness of white nationalism and supremacy, but King denied this interpretation of his statements. Several politicians and journalist considered his comments to be racist and offensive, and the RDC removed King from all congressional committees soon afterwards." LoveIsGrue (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the version as it exists right now is fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the current version still includes the accusation in the lead, but relegates his denial/interpretation to the body of the article.LoveIsGrue (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's appropriate because his denial is not a significant point. It's not noteworthy, unusually, surprising, or believable.- MrX 🖋 18:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is the editor's role to assess whether his claims are "believable" (see WP:NOR), but for what it's worth the original interpretation (that he disputes) is somewhat "surprising" to me given his general emphasis on culture rather than race and his claims that white nationalism and supremacy are "evil" (for example). Also, his denials of serious allegations are certainly "noteworthy" in his own biographical page, especially given that the accusations are in the lead.LoveIsGrue (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with this. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would argue that that version is improperly speaking a POV in WP's voice. Ideally, we should present the quote as printed and not pass judgetment and instead point to those that found it offensive (I read the quote, and see at least three different ways to take its meaning, including the offensive route, but also a rhetorical question as well). But this the lede, and key for the lede is that the impression his statements made has caused him to lose committee seats and other factors. Exactly what was said is outside the scope of the lede, just only how they were taken by politics. --M asem (t) 18:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your version is a reasonable compromise, and I would support it. That said, I don't fully understand your concerns with the alternate wording that I suggested above, since it does seem to stick to facts (i.e. the NYTs interviewer did interpret/quote him as stated, and he denied that interpretation).  But these are subtleties, and I would support either your version or my suggested alternative, whichever has the better chance of achieving consensus (given that both are much improved over the status quo in terms of NPOV).LoveIsGrue (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we should follow reliable sources, and their emphasis, in our coverage. (I recognize that this has become a minority viewpoint on Wikipedia, and on these noticeboards). The current text does a good job of this, and includes, in the article body, King's claim that his statements legitimizing white supremacy were taken out of context. Since his explanation has been treated skeptically, not only by reliable sources but by his own party and former allies, I think it is appropriate to mention them in the body but not to emphasize them in the lead. The existing text is fully policy-compliant. While of course it can always be improved, there is no BLP issue there. MastCell Talk 01:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP states that when public figures face negative allegations, their denials should be reported in the article; now perhaps you can meet the "letter" of this rule by including the accusations prominently in the lead and then burying his denials in the body of article, but this is almost certainly going to mislead readers who only see the lead and does not respect WP:NPOV. His official statements are reliable sources for his own page and are of particular relevance in this case given that the dispute is about the intended meaning of his own statements; not to mention that his denials have been widely reported in reliable sources.
 * A related issue is that the current lead treats it as an undisputed *fact* (not just a widely held opinion) that King questioned the offensiveness of white supremacy in the interview, which will undoubtably mislead readers into thinking that this is his *official* view; now you emphasize that his party and allies have treated his claims skeptically, but politicians are not wikipedia reliable sources for claims of fact (as this accusation is currently treated in the lead). The reality is that the current lead gives overwhelming emphasis and weight to criticisms of King (including this one), so it beggars belief to suggest that it would provide undo weight to include a brief and reliably sourced parenthetical indicating that he has denied this interpretation of his claim (as per Masem's suggestion above); on the other hand, doing so would certainly improve the balance and neutrality of the lead and avoid unnecessarily misleading readers.LoveIsGrue (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The current introduction is inadequate. He denies having intended the meaning. Perhaps the best one can hope for is the reader's conclusion that someone's a liar. That still doesn't give us the right to pick and choose which serious accusations we present without the subject's response, if any. I have a counter in my head of the number of words after the accusation it takes before the denial. In this case: Far, far too many words. Denials aren't some small print, footnote, pro forma, government-mandated requirement, but are a central component of all serious accusations in a BLP. For brevity, a fragment can suffice. "Said x, though he says he was misunderstood." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Not buying whatsoever the claims and position of User:MrX. There is no consensus here that we sneak in the claim and bury the specific response. Not buying this claim User:MrX whatsoever. Has anyone tallied a vote? This lead violates clear BLP rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The BLPs for James Traficant, Al Franken, John Conyers, and Mark Foley all have major scandals listed in their lead paragraphs. None of those articles contain any mention of their responses to those scandals. Trent Lott is probably the clearest analogue for King in recent political history, and his bio also follows the same pattern of mentioning the gaffe but leaving the response for the article body. I could see a case for Masem's proposed wording, but the important information is that he had a scandal and that scandal caused him to lose his committee assignments. His denial is part of that story, but it's not the most important part. Nblund talk 02:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Then I will set out to fix those 4 pages. If you want to bury the rebuttal, than bury the substance of the claim with it. Sounds like what Masem's proposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You would need to do a lot more than just those 5, I think. Even if we only look at good articles: Bill Clinton, Narendra Modi, Newt Gingrich, Rob Ford, and Charles Rangel all follow the same pattern of mentioning a major scandal in the lead without discussing the rebuttal from the BLP. There are cases, like Jesse Jackson Jr., where we mention how someone pleads in court, but I don't see a whole lot beyond that. The formulation in the lead at Steve King also closely parallels the lead paragraphs in most of the press coverage (New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, and CNN all do the same.  Nblund talk 03:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The key is to make sure that the lede wording is to establish that the point of issue (in this case, the meaning of King's statements) was the subject of debate, which implicitly suggests that the person at the center was counter to how it was taken by others. Whether that that person's specific response is needed to be spelled out in the lede depends strongly on the situation and how it is written. For example, I take the lded in Ford's article above as reasonable to suggest that the actions Ford was claimed to have done that led to the controversy was disputed by King, without it having to be specifically said, because the tone taken is not immediately accusational. Now, the problem with King here is that directly because of how his words were taken that key changes happened (loss of committee seats), so it seems more important to establish King's denial. It's a situation to be determined case by case, but what's clear is that if there had been debate on what exactly happened, WP should not write in a tone that ignores that debate. --M asem (t) 03:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A pattern of doing it wrong is not an argument for doing it wrong here. We do not approach this matter as the NPOV press does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem: Al Franken's case also involves a contested question of public perceptions, so does Trent Lott's. The lead needs to hit major career turning points. King's comments about white supremacy had a real consequence. His denial, by contrast, hasn't made a difference. I'm struggling to even find editorials agreeing that he was misconstrued, so what can we say beyond "he denied it"? Mumia Abu-Jamal is a useful comparison here: the debate around Mumia's innocence is probably more important to his bio than the conviction. Even in that case, we don't cite Mumia's own denials in the lead - we point to the public debate around his case instead. Can we point to a notable debate here? Nblund talk 05:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Franken's case has "Franken resigned on January 2, 2018, after several allegations of groping were made against him." which implicitly points to questions whether the allegations were true or not, so it doesn't likely need anything from Franken to counter it. Lott's has "On December 20, 2002, after significant controversy following comments regarding Strom Thurmond's presidential candidacy, Lott resigned as Senate Minority Leader." which doesn't go into any of the specific content of the statements, so again, avoids the issue. The past and current lede on King do not give that benefit doubt, which is where the problem is. --M asem (t) 06:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * These examples were helpful to look at, but I think Masem's counter-points are correct. A key problem with the current lede is that it states the contested accusations as a *fact*, whereas other wikipedia articles typically do not, e.g. they explicitly frame them as mere "allegations" (per Franken or Foley), or use abstract language that doesn't take sides (per Lott), etc. --LoveIsGrue (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the Trent Lott entry notes that he stepped down after praising Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid - so the details are there. I don't really have a problem with saying that King "appeared to question...", but it seems tough to justify that change since most reliable sources use the same matter-of-fact phrasing used in the current lead. King was very recently caught lying about his own comments to the Weekly Standard, which may be part of the reason why reliable sources are not extending the benefit of a doubt here - I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that we shouldn't lend credence to King's dissembling. Nblund talk 17:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Lott's last lede paragraph still does not assert anything about the nature of his statements (and certainly not about praising Thurmond) only that they were controversial, which gives implicit recognition that there was a dispute involved in what he said. The sentence doesn't state whom was right or wrong, in a matter-of-fact-ly voice, just that because that controversy expected, a major career change impacted him. --M asem (t) 17:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Lott approach is really the only way to keep the controversy explicitly in the lede without including his response. While I feel including subject responses can be a struggle, they often aren't. Put them anywhere, but keep them as close to the offensive claim as possible. Call it your duty to an encyclopedia if you prefer. I do it for mass-murderers and corrupt politicians every day. There's no "lede loophole" some have sought. Furthermore, I think there's obvious value to coupling statements with re-statements, especially when done consistently. I have struggled with the short sentences of Mark Lindquist. It's even a duty to give enough substance to the denial. Not that "he denies", what about "called the views 'evil'". This interaction arguably ended his political career, which is noteworthy enough. A BLP is eternally deferential to alternative explanations by the subject. I came into some headlines myself to learn this Wikipedia maxim. If you embrace it, you will write better encyclopedia copy. A persistent liar could merit a careful study in a whole section of statements and re-statements. But none of that boils down to special rules in ledes for liars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear: I'm referencing the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Lott entry which says Lott "stepped down from power after praising Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist Dixiecrat presidential bid." - the second mention is less detailed, but the first is quite specific. Lott insisted he didn't intend to praise the segregationist aspect of the campaign, but no one really took that argument seriously. I don't know that BLP's are "eternally deferential": Wikipedians have previously erred on the side of ignoring the subjects "alternative explanations" when those alternative explanations are largely ignored by reliable sources. Nblund talk 01:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see that first part, which I think is not appropriate, but that's a very confused lede (doubling up on that). The second instance is worded more neutralty in relationship to the controversy over his comments. --M asem (t) 01:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Lott page, one issue is that he doesn't deny praising Strom's campaign (or that the campaign was segregationist), so unlike the current page, the Lott lead avoids explicitly stating disputed claims as facts. That said, it's true that "segregationist" in this context arguably *insinuates* that Lott may have supported that aspect of the campaign, so I do think it would be better to avoid it in the lead, but this implicature is fairly subtle in comparison to the issues in the King page. LoveIsGrue (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also while the person is alive, or reasonable still active, we should never ignore what the BLP has to say in their controversy, but how much of what they say in the lede can be metered. Simplying stating that something they said was controversial and led to a career change is sufficient. We need to to avoid the absolute, though. --M asem (t) 01:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

How far can we go with BLPCRIME?
I've just started a stub for Vijay Mishra (politician). This source is far from being the only one that refers to his, erm, colourful reputation. It is early days but to the best of my knowledge the guy has never been found guilty of anything, although the number of cases seems to be rising.

Filing charges against politicians is common in India, and the legal process is notoriously slow. Sometimes those charges seem to be political tit-for-tat rather than necessarily likely to succeed. Do we ignore them until there is an outcome, which may be a decade or more hence, or can we say something? And if we say something, where do we draw the line? Eg: could we say he had 62 cases pending against him as of 2012? Could we say more, eg: that they included charges of murder, attempt to murder and land grabbing? It seems wrong to brush all this under the rug but, obviously, there are BLP concerns. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE - BLPCRIME is not relevant (and explicitly says so - it applies to non-public figures only) - for public figures we merely reflect the balance of coverage, including the BLP's denials.Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Should have spotted that but I tend to prefer my subjects dead, sorry. Cue comments about my murderous tendencies? - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel
Why does this guy have a Wikipedia page when the only notable event in his life is that Buzz Aldrin decked him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.144.130 (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well but he directed two films that have reasonably substantial articles here. And he has other films. Herostratus (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He was punched in part because of those films, so it's a little strange to say that the was only notable thing he was involved in.-- Auric   talk  13:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

First African Methodist Episcopal Church of Los Angeles
I need someone to have a look at this. Please check whether the sourcing is up to snuff, whether names are mentioned properly, etc.--if not, we can revdelete. I can't do that study right now, but I couldn't let the content stand. Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That diff has been redacted.-- Auric   talk  13:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about outing and redaction
WP:OUTING says:


 * "...if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator—but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority."

If an individual reveals their real identity on their user page leaves the information up for nine months, editing it seven times in that period, then blanks the page, and there is good reason to believe that the user is an undisclosed paid COI editor, would linking to an old version of his user page that shows his identity be considered outing? I think it would, but I wanted to check.

Related question: the editor never requested oversight, and has not edited in months. Should I request it for him? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Phillips (activist)
Numerous editors have tried adding text to the Nathan Phillips (activist) article that claims that he's lying about his background as a Vietnam War veteran. This is currently a big right-wing talking point, yet there's no WP:RS to support text that calls his veteran status into question. More eyes on the Phillips article would be helpful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources supporting his veteran status - they seem to be coming from interviews with Phillips - so should be attributed to him (and does seem to perhaps not add up (vs 72 to 76) - but I agree Washington Times is not the best of sources for BLP). More importantly - is he notable at all? Or is this a WP:BLP1E on this song vs. MAGA incident? Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Many RS just describe him as a "Vietnam War veteran" without elaboration or attribution. The 72-76 bit seems solely sourced to Phillips, so should be attributed as far as I understand the Wiki rules. Whether he is notable, I couldn't say. There's some non-2019 RS content about him on his article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He might just pass the threshold of GNG, but is a very good example of why that bar is too low, especially for living people. He's not a public figure, he won't be remembered in decades to come, and his article will attract a series of random factoids but as it is there is not enough to say about him to write a coherent narrative of his life. Deleting the article now would only save us problems in the future. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 15:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also speaking more broadly, the whole situation (the demonstrations/etc. event) is an example of NOT#NEWS/RECENTISM, where in such a controversial situation that now we know has several points of failure in the reporting, should not be included until we have better hindsight if it is truly a notable event and can write to why it is a notable event with more objectivity. --M asem (t) 15:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)  (ETA: this editorial from the NYTimes is absolutely essential to WP in light of this story). --M asem  (t) 16:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I understand of the Washington Times reporting (again - not the best of sources) - they aren't claiming Phillips lied, but rather he said a "Vietnam times veteran" (so - someone who served around the same time as the (winding down) war - I did look at the CNN interview and that's what he said on-air there (while the CNN anchor said Vietnam vet)) - and that then CNN (and others) misreported this as "Vietnam veteran". I would suggest attributing his service to a stmt he himself made, as it seems some of the reporting might be mildly inaccurate (and echoed down the line - lots of copy-paste reporting here) on this background detail. Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, he's also said explicitly "Vietnam War veteran". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time finding a good RS (eg not Washington Times or Red State) that notes the concern of his military status though it's clearly out there on edges of what we'd take as RSes. Add that we have nothing that actually demonstrates that fact either, so we should treat his statement as a self-claim until we can be shown otherwise. Probably best, until we can better source, using "Phillips describes himself as a "Vietnam War veteran"." which is clearly sourcable, and leave out anything else at this point related to that. --M asem (t) 16:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is CNN - they transcribed - "And I'm a Vietnam veteran and I know that mentality of "There's enough of us. We can do this" - however if you listen to the video, then at around 0:38 he says this - but doesn't use "Vietnam veteran" but "Vietnam times veteran" - so the CNN transcript is quite obviously not word for word. Icewhiz (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at coverage prior to this MAGA-song cycle - "You know, I’m from Vietnam times. I’m what they call a recon ranger. That was my role. So I thank you for taking that point position for me"Vogue 2018 - again "Vietnam times". Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Another oldie source saying "a veteran of the Vietnam era". The question still remains, should he even have an article. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And they specifically note (at the bottom) a correction to the Vietnam detail - "Note: This article has been adjusted from it's original version to show that Nathan Phillips was a Vietnam-era veteran and that he was spit on while in uniform as opposed to when he was returning from combat.". The dangers of loose copy-paste reporting.Icewhiz (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw the edit tag as well. I took it to mean they moved the spitting stuff, but eh who knows. PackMecEng (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My guess is they made the same mistake of modifying "Vietnam times"/"Vietnam era" vet into "Vietnam vet". Phillips actually seems to be very consistent in what he says (which fits the definition in Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act). Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bingo - gold standard - WaPo - "Correction: Earlier versions of this story incorrectly characterized Native American activist Nathan Phillips as a Vietnam War veteran. Phillips served in the U.S. Marines from 1972 to 1976 but was never deployed to Vietnam." inWaPo story from 20 Jan 2019 Icewhiz (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good, let's incorporate that into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A rare instance of "Milkshake Duck: Maybe Not So Bad After All." Dumuzid (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Pseudo-bio of subject known for one event. Cover lightly in the incident only. Sheesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Covington Catholic High School
Recent incident there involving minors. I initiated an RfC, here: Talk:Covington Catholic High School. I deleted the material, it was restored, so I'm fouled out. IMO the material ought to be redacted until there's a clear consensus to include it, on the grounds that is highly inflammatory material regarding minors that might not even be true, so if anybody wants to do that, fine. OTOH the minors are not named. Anyway the RfC is there, and I made my points there. Herostratus (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There's now some highly inflammatory material about a named non-minor BLP as well, with editors disagreeing as to whether sources support it or not. More eyes on this article would be greatly appreciated. MPS1992 (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes and now someone is throwing out various stuff on the talk page, including the name/mugshot of a minor who was accused of a heinous crime, which has nothing to do with the event in question. He did go to the school, and the material is ref'd, in fact its just a link, but we would never never put this in the article so it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia at all, but I deleted it and it was restored so I've fouled out. An admin taking a interest in this would be good I think. Herostratus (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Moss
link to reference 67 is dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.60.168.171 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This board is not really for reporting dead links, unless they significant affect a BLP. In this case, that did not, and the dead link was easily fixed with a trip to the Wayback Machine at archive.org. --M asem (t) 19:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Lech Wałęsa
has become an unpopular and problematic chap in recent Polish history. Still, there are some reasons to protect his honour from people like and others anonymouses. SP the page, maybe? --Edelseider (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's only the one IP, 185.7.216.130, and one edit — a serious one, granted. I've given 185.7.216.130 an "only warning". 82.132.229.79, back in December, was merely virtuously copyediting. Certainly we must protect the honour of our BLPs, but semiprotection doesn't seem needed for this one at present. Please feel free to tell me on my page if you should see any further problems, Edelseider. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC).
 * No, sorry,, but its the second time this IP 185.7.216.130 makes this edit, and if you look at the history of its contributions, this IP specializes in adding the information that "XX is a known bitter drunkard" (which in some cases is not far from the truth, but still libellous) to various BLPs. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this IP edits rarely, and the other several "drunkard" BLP vios you refer to happened in November 2018. It's a pity nobody reported them then — I would have placed a block if I'd been aware of it at the time — but I won't block months after it happened. If another admin feels differently, that's fine by me. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC).

Jeni Barnett
The section about vaccines has unsourced, blog sourced, and dead link sourced negative BLP content, I don't have time to do any more looking for sources, so I am posting this here in hopes the someone else can look into this ASAP. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed down the unsourced material, undue material, and excessive blog-related material. I've left some of the blog links in references in case there's any value in them somehow. MPS1992 (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That was an improvement, although the first line is still negative BLP content sourced to the Bad Science blog. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

vandal claiming astronaut's daughter is really a transgender boy
The only edits of TheADagone are putting in a lie about an astronaut's child, then lying on the talk page claiming he knew the person and his lie was true. Talk:Scott_Kelly_(astronaut) I reported this on the vandalism area but no action taken and it removed after four hours for being a stale report. . Anyway, can someone spread rumors about someone's child like that?  D r e a m Focus  20:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, not without sources. The only case where I would consider this close to acceptable in light of no sources or contradictory sources, is if there was a direct and immediate family relationship (single generation, biological connection), and even then, we need that editor to affirm their identity and determine if it was appropriate to include. --M asem (t) 21:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's even revdel appropriate, though that is decidedly not my call. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally, "stuff" about minor children is beyond the pale. Collect (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Even if it was true, i doubt if the trans status of a child is relevant to the biography of the parent. Surely Wikipedia would protect the child from being outed. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Hijiri88 here; not block-evading, since it's a self-block that was requested under unfortunate circumstances that have since somewhat changed, and I've basically decided to rescind my retirement notice, partly because I want to keep building the encyclopedia without "letting the harassers win", and partly to keep Dream Focus from disrupting the encyclopedia by posting plagiarized text, OR and virulently xenophobic gibberish [seriously, I don't see how he wasn't immediately blocked for this edit that inserted a dichotomy between "Illegal Undocumented youth" and those with "legal citizenship status", denying the existence of legal immigration] because he thinks that with me gone no one will bother keeping tabs on him, and he may actually be right. I figured letting the block expire and not asking for an extension, and using the opportunity for a wikibreak, would be best. Also DF is still hounding me; it was pretty bloody obvious he posted that vicious personal attack against me on his talk page, and unlike me he didn't own up to his posting logged out, which makes it illegitimate sockpuppetry, and his suddenly showing back up immediately when I was briefly blocked in August, and then again when I posted a retirement message earlier this month, is just more evidence of this.) Just noting here that, while the SPA's edits are blatantly disruptive and their talk page defense clearly indicates that they were trolling, DF's response, such as referring to transgender males who keep their gender identity private and poses as women in public -- I think that's what he's saying? -- as "boy[s in drag"] is not much better, borders on transphobia, and if it were about a bona fide transgender individual confirmed as such in reliable source would probably constitute revdel-worthy BLP violation. On an unrelated note, since BLP applies to talk pages, it doesn't make much sense to revdel the SPA's original edit but not the talk page section about it; I'd support blanking the section and revdelling. 103.5.140.133 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits to the article and talk page by TheADagone have been rev deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A few minutes after I posted the above, redacted 87 bytes worth of text, presumably especially egregious BLP-violation, but the rest of the discussion, including the alleged "male name" of the individual in question and so on, is still live. It's the whole discussion that I was talking about. 103.5.140.140 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Anastasia Vashukevich
This article is a BLP, and contains only two inline references to websites that I don't recognize as reliable sources of news. There are four article sections and seven paragraphs that are supposedly supported by those two inline references. The article appears to be a dump of speculation about pornography, prostitution, and politics. I think the BLP should just be deleted until a somebody decides to write a real article, if one is warranted. -Darouet (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's much better sourced now. She's extremely notable and has been in the news (and RS) many times. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Her story about becoming notorious needs all the references and has none. (Am I seeing things? There are no references in this section?) Noteable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 00:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There are now sections of the article that are sourced, but the whole article still needs attention. -Darouet (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Roger Stone


Please watchlist this article, Stone has just been Muellered and this is quite a big deal. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Gina Haspel
An editor has continued to push for the change of the word "claim" to "indicate" regarding the subject of this article being the Chief of Base of a clandestine CIA detention site on the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. The source only claims that the subject held this role however there isn't any confirmation of this therefore we cannot use the word indicate and can only speculate based on the reference. The editor in question has a long history of BLP violations and has been warned by numerous administrators about this. 129.100.255.32 (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Billy Burke (actor)


Some help will be appreciated re: the subject's birthplace and WP:RELIABLE sources. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Correction request
Please correct Tzachi Zamir's birth date to 1967. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:c402:8180:51e6:1103:bfb4:7359 (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Done - Hello IP editor, thank you for pointing this out. I have fixed the apparent mistake in Tzachi Zamir and added a source for the new value. For future changes, please make sure to provide a reliable published source for verification (see WP:V and WP:BLP). GermanJoe (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Boots Riley
More eyes are needed at Boots Riley where a new account is accusing Riley of "supporting murderous dictators" based solely on tweets expressing concern about the crisis in Venezuela. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Jagdish Tytler
Jagdish Tytler is an Indian politician, mostly known for being accused as involved in 1984 anti-Sikh riots and for that the subject has been a part of couple of investigations.

One user has disputed years old content about the details about investigations and the statements of the witnesses. The user claims that such statements constitute BLP violation per this edit. Though the removed these events are widely covered and have been only presented as allegations, similar to those at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Content appears to have been correctly included for years per WP:WELLKNOWN that 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."

The removed content includes:
 * an allegation that Tytler "was complaining to his supporters about relatively "small" number of Sikhs killed," which is properly sourced as allegation to this source and has been regularly covered by independent sources as: "nominal killing of Sikhs in his constituency," "nominal killing of Sikhs in his constituency,", "for the “nominal killings" carried out in the riots,", and also written in the report by Nanavati commission as "alleged to have further stated that there was only nominal killing". I am not sure about this sentence but the allegation has been deemed important by independent reliable sources.


 * information about well known witnesses who were not contacted by Indian Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and;
 * later the CBI had to fly to New York for hearing the statements of these witnesses.

These two paragraphs about witness being not contacted by CBI and later CBI flying to New York to hear their allegations against Tytler also found major coverage in a chapter of this academic book (by ABC-CLIO).

I wonder if mentioning these notable incidents constituted BLP violation when the content found mass coverage in independent sources even after years of the initial report. They have been presented only as allegations to discuss the basis of the allegations and investigations. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Fact # 1: Tytler has been elected 4 times as a Delhi Sadar (Lok Sabha constituency) and has served for 11 years in the Union Council of Ministers. So he is clearly known for much more than just the riots.
 * Fact # 2: This living person has never been convicted or indicted or charged in any crime related to the riots. There has been tons of accusations in the media, from his rival political opponents.
 * Fact # 3: None of the 10+ investigations have found anything against him. Only Nanavati commission in its report stated that Tytler "probably had a hand in inciting the crowd"
 * Fact # 4: After #3 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India's premier investigative agency have investigated the accusations and have cleared Tytler "three times" already stating the accusations were false and fabricated.
 * Inspite of all these a section of users, having vested interests against this living person have successfully managed to maintain his WP:BLP effectively as an WP:ATTACKPAGE and for getting political points out of the wikipedia article just like they try and score political points in media.
 * WP:PUBLICFIGURE clearly states: "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.
 * Despite all this, this IP user above is consistently going overboard in his efforts to maintain this article as an attack page using poorly sourced and cherry picked egregious allegations and accusations against him.
 * Regarding the first point, I have mentioned this on the talk page section Talk:Jagdish_Tytler that his wiki bio article had stated that "Tytler, then a member of the Indian Parliament, was complaining to his supporters about relatively "small" number of Sikhs killed in his parliamentary constituency Delhi Sadar, which in his opinion had undermined his position in the ruling Indian National Congress party of India." This is a blatant WP:BLP violation. There is no evidence or reliable source that Tytler said these things. these are unsubstantiated and unproven accusations from lawyers and not Tytlers own statement, as is being stated in the wiki article. There is no reliable evidence that Tytler said those things and the Nanavati commision only mentions that "Some people have alleged that Tytler said so and so", so the original source of this egregious statement here is clearly the accusers and nothing else. Accordingly I have removed this from the article. But this IP is repeatedly restoring this (diff, diff)
 * Regarding the second point as explained on Talk:Jagdish_Tytler, the article stated that CBI went to New york to interview the witness, but interestingly the wiki article said nothing about what came out of the interview. Turns out that CBI found that these witness were lying and their statements were fabricated and did not match with other statements/evidence. So obviously including this piece of crucial information will not help in the objective of maitaining this page as an attack page, so this information was deliberately kept out of the BIO, now when I noticed it and added it, this IP is blocking the addition of interview results claiming that it is not notable.
 * IMHO, If CBI going to "New York" to interview the witness is a notable event about investigation, then "what came out of that interview"  is equally notable to mention in the article. One cannot remove one and claim that the other is relevant.
 * IP says "It is not Wikipedia's mission to prove him innocent", but point to be noted is that, neither is it Wikipedia's mission to prove Tytler a culprit when courts have not charged him.
 * The subject Tytler's own statement where he explicitly denies the accusations is needed to be included in the article according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Especially since there is no charge or convictions against him. The weightage to accusations should be equal to his denial of accusations. Far too much weightage is being given to the accusations with many sub-sections and content being added for accusations While the subjects own statement stating his denial is repeatedly blocked from the article. (diff, diff, diff)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - In my view, the first bit, an allegation made in court, should be retained. The last one, which reports part of a CBI investigation should also be retained. (If there is contrary information available about either of them, please feel free to add them.) The middle one, somebody complaining on the TV about the CBI, should go. We report all allegations, subject only to WP:DUE. So, the debate should be about WP:DUE not about WP:BLP. As per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, all allegations about them are admissible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

James S. MacDonald
Request for full page protection as one user in particular, Wald76, is not adhering to Biography of Living Persons guidelines. User is repeatedly adding content and references from non-neutral tabloid sources, and repeatedly deletes neutral content with valid references cited.


 * The article in question appears to be about James MacDonald (pastor) and the "tabloid" appears to be Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) which is a broadsheet (or possibly the Chicago Tribune which is also a broadsheet). The fairly mild statement that a lawsuit was dropped to avoid discovery appears to be well sourced.©Geni (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie
Request page protection due to tendentious editing by an IP Spoonkymonkey (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Judith Hallett
This is the third time in the space of a year that an anonymous editor has sought to introduce changes that this board has determined fall far foul of Wikpedia's content and it's ended up here (see links to archives below). Can more be done - e.g., pending changes, or protect the page - given this does now keep happening. Frankly this is consuming more time than I have to continually deal with this. Pinging Wham2001 Johnuniq Richard Nevell - how can this be better done?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive278

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive266#Judith_Hallett

Claire 75 (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing there is controversial. She posted comments on an internet forum that turned out to be wrong. Big deal. Who hasn't? She also allegedly worked on an op/ed piece that others disagreed with, possibly containing factual errors. Nothing atypical. That's why we don't accept op/ed pieces as RSs. This is pushed with weasel words saying that "some" have called it controversial. I'm sorry, but a controversy is a "widespread, public debate about a topic or an issue". There is no evidence that any of this raised a controversy, and simply calling it one doesn't make it so. It's just typical internet stuff and not even significant enough to be notable, let alone controversial.


 * Unfortunately, most of us here are not admins, but regular users with a good knowledge of and interest in BLPs. For page protection or the like, you may get faster results by taking this to ANI or a similar forum. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * My initial thought in seeing the added and removed  material was that it didn't belong in Judith P. Hallett's bio. I made a talk page note to that effect.


 * After reading the 1999 WSJ article on the subject titled "It's War!" I'm not so sure. It's possible that a short (2–3 sentence) mention of this whole affair might be warranted.


 * In brief, in 1998 scholars Victor Davis Hanson and John Heath wrote a book called "Who Killed Homer?" in which they argued, according to the WSJ, that "Contemporary classics professors, the ostensible caretakers of Greek wisdom, have turned into grant-seeking purveyors of identity politics and wreckers of the ancient spirit of the university."


 * In response Hallett, also a classicist, stated on an "e-mail forum subscribed to by more than a thousand classicists around the world" (WSJ) that she had earlier, in 1995, given Hanson and Heath's names "to the FBI during the nationwide effort to find the Unabomber" (Hallett), because of the similarity of their outlook and writing style.


 * According to Eric Adler, author of "Classics, the Culture Wars, and Beyond," Hallett still maintains that she had reported Heath and Hanson and that it was the right thing to do. Heath and the author of the WSJ article doubted that Hallett had really made a report to the FBI, suggesting that Hallett's comment was a kind of revenge for Heath and Hanson's book "Who Killed Homer."


 * Given the coverage at the time and continuing reports on the topic it's probably reasonable to have a brief description of the incident. -Darouet (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That may be so, and it may indeed be worth mentioning briefly, but not as it was written. The addition to the article was really a longwinded way of saying nothing, and most certainly didn't mention any of these things. It's really up to the person who wants to make the addition to sort out all of the details and vagueness from the real gist of it, and then convey that in a way that is the least subject to misinterpretation. If you'd like to give the info in a more encyclopedic fashion, you are welcome to give it a shot, but, given the history, I'd recommend sorting it out on the talk page before putting it up on mainspace. Zaereth (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks, agree completely. -Darouet (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems little point in having a BLP noticeboard if it's not the place to sort out these sorts of issues - the repeated re-introduction of material that contravenes BLP guidance. As Johnuniq says: "The text is silly muck racking of trivia from decades ago. It is trivia unless a reliable secondary source says otherwise. An earlier discussion was at BLPN March 2018. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)"


 * There are no "continuing reports on the topic", just the continued, anonymous vandalism of the page by repeatedly re-introducing material that editors have already decided fouls the rules. The question is what to do about the continued vandalism. What is the "ANI or a similar forum" (talk) Claire 75 (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I know it seems overly bureaucratic, but there is a limit to what a regular user can do. It's like going to the housing board to report your house has been robbed. They'll tell you to call the police. This board is for giving guidance, soliciting help with problems, discussing how something fits into the scope of the policy, etc... That doesn't give us the power to block people, protect pages, ban users, or other administrative actions. For that, you need to get an administrator involved. There are admins who patrol this page, but it could be a while before you get one's attention ... if ever.


 * ANI is the WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Most of the people patrolling that page are admins, so my suggestion is that you will likely get a quicker response over there. I'd also suggest that you clearly yet briefly state the problem (ie: so-and-so user is involved in a slow edit war, refuses to discuss on the talk page, and is persistently inserting material deemed inappropriate by the BLP noticeboard), include links to the history page of the article, specific links to the diffs (different revisions, namely the offensive ones), and link to this conversation. (The more legwork you do for them; the more likely they will be to respond.) Zaereth (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the party here; it's been one of those weeks. I agree with johnuniq over at the talk page: the material as it stands is tendentious editorialising of silly trivia from years ago and should not be in the article. Unfortunately I don't have access to the WSJ source to see whether there is enough there to justify a one-sentence mention.

In terms of stopping this happening again, you could request pending changes protection or semi-protection at WP:RFPP. If you want to go to ANI as suggested above I would think first about what you would like the admins to do about the problem; I can't personally see that any of the administrative tools other than page protection could be much help here. Wham2001 (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Larson (politician)
This article states in the lead that Mr. Larson has advocated decriminalizing child sexual abuse. This looks like a situation where inline citations to reliable sources would be appropriate due to the contentious and value-laden nature of the WP:LABEL "child sexual abuse". Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE multiple reliable published sources are needed; if they cannot be found this part should be left out. Pinging article creator whose article has been modified. 2600:1003:B100:41EB:0:55:82AF:7301 (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This was discussed on the talk page and was removed under WP:DENY.-- Auric   talk  12:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The choice of wording is a separate issue from the need for citations to support whatever wording is used in those statements, to bring them into compliance with WP:BLP policy. 2600:1003:B10F:5023:0:4E:C252:C101 (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth DeLong
Elizabeth DeLong is the chair of an academic department caught up in a minor scandal in which someone else in the department, Megan Neely, sent a racist email. Neely appears not to be sufficiently notable (by the standards of WP:PROF) for her own article. Because there is an article on DeLong, but not on Neely, at least one editor has been trying to use DeLong's article as a WP:COATRACK for the Neely scandal. More eyes on DeLong's article would probably be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 100% agreed. If Neely had an article that could be covered there, but it should not be included in DeLong's (and this is the type of thing that we really shouldn't include unless the person at the center is notable, otherwise any article it is attached to becomes a laundry list of complaints). --M asem (t) 14:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson
IS it a BLP violation to use "anti-vaccine reporting" as a section header given that she has said sh supports vaccines(the question was raised here)? Tornado chaser (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. It probably should be "Vaccine claims", like the header below, to be neutral. --M asem (t) 14:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, because it is a correct description of what she does, supported by sources. She does not report on vaccine, she engages in anti-vaccine activism under the guise of reporting, as the sources make clear., the hacking claims are not made as part of her day job, they are incidental. She engages in anti-vaccine reporting, separately and as an aside, she claims that her computer was hacked. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, per JzG. The previous header was the vacuously empty "Vaccines" -- a header which conveyed nothing whatsoever about the content -- and "Vaccine claims" is mostly empty pure false balance. --Calton | Talk 15:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ajmal Kasab and Zabiuddin Ansari - Terrorist label


I found a couple of articles where the label "terrorist" was being used in Wikipedia's voice in the lead. For WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST reasons, I changed them to "militant" (see and ). Neither had any sources in the lead, but there's plenty in the articles to support that they have been called terrorists by some groups. Both of these articles are part of the India-Pakistan conflict and almost certainly covered by WP:ARBPIA. Both of these articles have had some talk page discussion Kasab talk page and Ansari talk page with one editor wanting the terrorist label in Wikipedia's voice in the initial description with no attribution. There certainly are sources to say that group XYZ have called them terrorists and I support that, but I'm questioning the straight label, right off the bat. That's contrary to WP:TERRORIST. I'm also concerned that in the discussion on Kasab's page an editor mentioned "Each and every media source in India..." to defend the label which to me is a POV flag. Since this is in two articles, I'd like to get some wider views on how to best proceed here (and several other similar articles that I also removed the terrorist label from the lead). The other involved editors will be notified and mentions left on the article talk pages momentarily. Thanks!  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking on these tricky issues. I believe that policy strongly supports your view that calling these individuals terrorists in Wikipedia's voice is not acceptable. Just to simplify things slightly, it appears that Kasab has been dead long enough that WP:BLP does not apply to him -- though we should aim for accuracy anyway of course. MPS1992 (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The opening statement is misleading. There are several issues with it.
 * Kasab has been dead for 6 years now. So WP:BLP does not apply for him.
 * In case of Zabiuddin Ansari, the word terrorist is not used in wikipedia's voice, it is attributed with the phrase "according to to Anti-Terrorism Squad". So this is clearly not "a straight label" or "right off the bat" or anything of that kind.
 * WP:TERRORIST is not a wikipedia policy but a WP:MOS "guideline". With large number of editors against this "guideline".
 * I am not sure why Ravensfire has decided to club these two individuals, who deserve their own separate threads. So I will respond separately in each thread. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Zabiuddin Ansari

 * content from lead in question
 * Sayed Zabiuddin Ansari a.k.a. Abu Hamza or Abu Jundal is an Indian national, Islamic fundamentalist / terrorist belonging to Indian Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba according to Anti-Terrorism Squad.  He is charged in the National Investigation Agency court of being involved in 2008 Mumbai attacks.


 * Mumbai attacks was an undisputed act of terrorism and Zabiuddin Ansari is mentioned as terrorist and accused of terrorism charges in reliable media whose references are already added.
 * The WP:MOS "Guideline" WP:TERRORIST asks " . Accordingly as we can see, the attribution is added in the line.
 * Anders Behring Breivik 's article refers to him as a terrorist in the first line of the lead.
 * I note that there is no policy or rule that says the word "Terrorist" is banned in wikipedia,  WP:TERRORIST that gets frequently thrown around is itself a very controversial piece of "Guideline" with editors against this guideline.
 * If editors want such a rule of blanket ban on the word "Terrorism" then the way to do that will be an RfC, unless such a blanket ban is in place individual editors should not be enforcing their personal preference on the word in wikipedia articles.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Ajmal Kasab who is dead

 * content from lead in question
 * Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab  &lrm;; 13 July 1987 – 21 November 2012) was a Pakistani terrorist and a member of the Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamist militant organisation, through which he took part in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks in Maharashtra state of India.


 * Kasab is dead for last 6 years now. So Kasab does not qualify for a WP:BLP and is out of scope for WP:BLPN.
 * I note that there is no policy or rule that says the word "Terrorist" is banned in wikipedia,  WP:TERRORIST that gets frequently thrown around is itself a very controversial piece of "Guideline" with editors against this guideline.
 * If editors want such a rule of blanket ban on the word "Terrorism" then the way to do that will be an RfC, unless such a blanket ban is in place individual editors should not be enforcing their personal preference on the word in wikipedia articles.
 * Please note that Wikipedia is based on the WP:MAINSTREAM media. If large number of independent reliable third party media refer to the subject as a terrorist then wikipedia also has to follow that. per WP:MAINSTREAM.
 * As an example of the above, Anders Behring Breivik's article refers to him as a terrorist in the first line of the lead without in line attribution.
 * There is no rule that says the word "Terrorist" is banned in wikipedia, if you want such a rule, then please get the rule first instead of enforcing your personal opinion on articles.
 * Fact remains that he is a terrorist who has been convicted of charges of terrorism and hanged. (read charges here) 26/11 case: Apex court upholds death sentence of Kasab
 * Each and every media source in India calls this person a Terrorist, so I will skip them. Here are some examples from international reliable media neither associated with India or Pakistan.
 * KASAB THE FACE OF 26/11 By Rommel Rodrigues
 * The 50 Worst Terrorist Attacks By Edward F. Mickolus, Susan L. Simmons
 * The Mumbai Massacre By Forgione David
 * The Australian
 * Terror in Mumbai - ABC news
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Jeremy Bedford-Turner
Jeremy Bedford-Turner was the subject of a fairly high profile prosecution, but I can't decide whether this meets the threshold for notability or not. I wrote up Draft:Prosecution of Jeremy Bedford-Turner some time ago, I suspect I should nuke it on the basis of lack of continuing coverage but I don't really know. Anyone have any thoughts on this please? Guy (Help!) 17:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there is no angle of long term notabily in this case or person or the original issue and does not warrant a wp article - I am especially against a biography wp:blp Govindaharihari (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Stroth


More than a whiff of promotion in recent changes, especially the introduction of clients represented, often accompanied by cites that don't mention Mr. Stroth. More eyes on this appreciated; there may be some COI here. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So far I'm seeing mostly peripheral mentions, a sentence or two in articles about his clients and cases. See Articles for deletion/Andrew M. Stroth, which seems to still be relevant. Is notability established? Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article looks to be a straight resume. The "Victims Represented" section should definitely not be in the article. Making the article more encyclopedic would probably cut it down to 4-5 sentences. I've been bold and struck the victims section entirely, as that has BLP concerns for those who are mentioned in it as well. I think its worth potentially exploring an AfD for this article, I don't think there are many 3rd party sources that specifically talk about him, just his clients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWL36 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . It appears that this is a promotional labor of a single user, who revived the article after it was deleted years ago. I can't open an AfD, but I'd support it. 2601:188:180:1481:DDF1:1860:55E5:293B (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Theodore Terbolizard
This is a page about me. It has been edited down to only reflect one single incident in my life which is horrifically misleading. Someone had previously added a bunch of annotated news articles about me which were accurate, and then they were all taken down for some reason. I believe records of that exist here. I have been in the press almost every year of my adult life, I don't understand why only one episode of my life is featured here, it comes across as slanderous almost. Much of the data here is wrong anyway.

I ran for office in 2008 as a Republican in California. I have not run for office since, that event has sort of ruined my life for many years, first in legal problems brought by various government agencies allied with my opponents. At this point I think it also still attracts me hate attacks online in social media from strangers; I have refused to be politically active for over a decade as a result of the persecution I face but the political persecution is not stopping. My life has primarily been as an artist, musician and author, I have had plenty of press in the US and overseas, none of that is shown on my wikipedia entry. www.terboted.com

I'm not vain enough to edit my own entry, I think that is wrongful. However, if wikipedia as an editorial group at large thinks my page should only reflect my disastrous and life-damaging run for office one time over a decade ago, I would like to ask that you simply remove my page entirely as I believe it would fall under the legal category of "right to be forgotten"

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terbo Ted (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To the best of my not-a-lawyerly understanding, right to be forgotten is not a concept in US law, which is the relevant legal standard. If your article is to be deleted, it would have to be because you are insufficiently notable to have an article... which there's a good case to be made if the only claim to your notability is the campaign, as simply having an unsuccessful candidacy is generally not considered to be sufficient notability. Your statements indicating that you got frequent coverage for other things is actually an argument for keeping the article. So your best move - and I see you've started on it - is to file an Article For Deletion submission on this, and hope that other people see you as unnotable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Now at Articles for deletion/Theodore Terbolizard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Owned
There have been repeated attempts to enter a Notable ownings section into this article naming a living person as being on the receiving end of said owning and with the description of the event in question as an "owning" not being supported by the sources given.©Geni (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The page has now been protected. MW131tester (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Anu Malik
There has been an ongoing edit war at Anu Malik regarding sexual assault allegations. I came across this on January 8 after someone from his "team" decided to remove material regarding sexual assault allegations. Looking in the edit history/people talk pages, this has been going on since October. These allegations have affected his job and are condensed to two sentences and one line in the lead (which I have no problem being removed). I also agree that the header could probably be changed and maybe this content could just be merged into the "television section." However, until today no one has started a conversation about this and these are since unproven allegations which he denies. I am opening a discussion here per a suggestion on Talk:Anu Malik. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Both you and violated 3RR. Page watched. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mark Dice
Mr. Dice has a long history of being critical of his Wikipedia entry and I've encouraged him to engage on the talk page. As he is often rather upset about the situation, I would like it if people who have no axe to grind and the ability to be very calm and kind chip in to help with the situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Rania Khalek
The second sentence in this article reads: Her views have been described as left-wing/far-left, pro-Assad, pro-Palestinian, and pro-Kremlin.[3][4][5][6][7] [8][9][10][11][6][12][13][14] She has also been described as anti-Semitic in opinion pieces in The Jerusalem Post,[8][9] and the Los Angeles Review of Books.[15]

This is contentious material about a living person, a matter of opinion, and the sources used do not accurately reflect the statements "pro-Assad", "pro-Kremlin", or "anti-Semitic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.160.213 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That part has been excised and the article fully protected.-- Auric   talk  11:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Arthur L. Aidala
Obviously self promotional. Looks like his law firm website bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawandjusticeinfo (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My computer is being frustratingly slow but I trimmed a lot of promotional content from a clear SPA. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's essentially an unreferenced BLP, which is always a bad thing. The inline links that do exist are either (dead) links to his law practice's website, or links to the homepages of bodies he's a current or past member of. I've done some searching to see if there's anything better but nothing I can find is anything close to in-depth and independent - I can't really see anything which shows notability. I'll nominate the article for deletion, and let's see if anyone can find anything to justify keeping it. Neiltonks (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Fazal Ahmad Khalid
Edit war over this content. PP requested at WP:RFPP, but I feel this is overly negative, inadequately sourced, partly reliant on WP:OR and gives WP:undue weight to the assertions.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there something about the cited sources that I am missing? As far as I can see, they don't even mention the negative claims made, never mind support them. MPS1992 (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to remove the section but someone beat me to it. This negative commentary was a mix of opinion plus one, unreliable source. It should not be in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

To be fair enough the original contributor of this page should accept the facts and let people know the truth. The following controversy describes his role in a specific institution and should not be taken as a biased opinion. If the contributor still disagrees with the statement, this page must be removed permanently.

Controversy During his tenure as Vice Chancellor UET Lahore from December 2014 to December 2018, he had faced harsh opposition both from faculty and staff because of his incompetency and mismanagement. He failed to recover the deteriorating standard of the university, especially the remote campuses of UET Lahore and did not contribute to improve the overall academics and research at the university. . During his tenure maximum number of faculty left UET Lahore which was an indispensable loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.4.83 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Mika Brzezinski
Brzezinski's biography currently includes this material:

Is it okay to place this material under a section heading "Tweet about Pompeo", i.e. imply that Brzezinski's homophobic remarks were made in a tweet instead of a TV broadcast? Politrukki (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed 'Tweet' to 'Comment' (as it wasn't a tweet) Neiltonks (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is an improvement, though "Comment about Pompeo" still misses the point. Pretty much nobody cared that Brzezinski's outburst was targeted at Pompeo. The controversy rose from the fact that Brzezinski's comment included homophobic remarks.
 * Normally further discussion would belong to the article talk page, but there is one user who keeps reverting improvements without discussing their edits and and without even using edit summaries. Politrukki (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A single sentence does need its own section. "Using a homophobic slur" is poor wording for a heading (see WP:STRUCTURE). It doesn't strictly violate WP:BLP, but using a heading to amplify a minor controversy probably violates WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 17:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Has there been anything about this matter in sources since December? If it was a faux pas that's been ignored since, we really should not include it. --M asem (t) 17:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah a few but seems to be dying down. Not sure homophobic comments are really just a faux pas though. PackMecEng (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Costas Cordalis
wrong birth year no 2002 - should be 1944 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.17.174.38 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean Costa Cordalis (no "s" on the end of 'Costa'). But I don't see the issue. His birth year in the article is 1944 (and always has been as far as I can tell). Neiltonks (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Phillips (activist)


Some more eyes on this would be appreciated, especially regarding npov description of military service. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Francesca Borri
Recurring unsourced potentially libelous entries are being made about Francesca Borri by (mostly) anonymous individuals, in response to anger about her most recent book, Destination Paradise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:14C3:C11E:1009:B6C2:CA03:976C (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have requested a short article protection at WP:RfPP until editors calm down. Of course any content-related disagreements can be discussed on the article's talkpage in the meantime (with reliable sources). GermanJoe (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Patty Wagstaff
There is a content dispute here between several editors and the user, who claims to be the article's subject. She has repeatedly removed her birthdate and content relating to a DUI. . These edits have been reverted several editors.

She claims that the inclusion of the material is the work of a stalker (,, - edit summary) and it is damaging to her reputation. She has said that she has the right to remove material that she deems inaccurate, harmful or "otherwise".

I have pointed out that our policy is that no single editor has any right of ownership or editorial control over an article, even one that is about them. Also, that our WP:COI policy limits their ability to remove negative information that is reliably sourced, neutrally worded and given due weight. That said, I also pointed out that we want our biography articles to be accurate, fair and balanced; and that we would never allow material that is blatantly libellous, or represent a clear threat to their life or safety.

I have searched the archives here and have found a few discussions about the inclusion or exclusion of minor criminal offenses. Does one DUI misdemeaour merit inclusion? And if the subject's birthdate already appears in a published source, should it be suppressed here? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The blog is definitely not a reliable source and should be removed. The other source looks like it may be reliable, but I'm not familiar enough with them to be sure. The question I'd ask is, in the scope of this person's entire life and career, how significant is this incident? The article is very small, so, in the entire scope of things, does it require a full paragraph, a single sentence, or is it so insignificant as to not warrant a mention at all? The idea is to put the info into balance with the rest of the article. Given the size of the article, are we giving this too much weight? (You can think of an article as loading a plane with cargo. Too much weight on any one side and you'll spin out of control.) To me, this seems like a minor incident that is being given too much weight per the size of the article.


 * The rule for birthdates is that they should not only appear in a reliable source, but rather in multiple, secondary sources, such that we can infer that the subject does not object. According to WP:BLPPRIVACY, "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." Zaereth (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Full birthdate is listed on these three sources:, , . Given that, what side of the line does it fall on? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The first source is a ticket sales agency, which I would not count as a RS. The second is the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, which is a primary source. The National Aviation Hall of Fame is also a primary source. Secondary sources would be things like newspapers, magazines, books; things that are at least one step removed from the subject. Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've found a book source that mentioned her year of birth, so with the above discussion I trimmed the birth date back to the year.
 * As for the legal issue, I've decided that based on what was said above, a discussion I followed at Talk:Brian Bonsall (a former child actor) and also Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive236, that the content should be taken out. It was a first offense and does not seem to have had any lasting effect on her career. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Blackface/KKK photo in Ralph Northam's yearbook
WaPo: "Va. Gov. Northam’s medical school yearbook page shows men in blackface, KKK robe". Should it be included on his Wikipedia page and how should it be written up? As far as I can see, no RS has confirmed that Northam is on the photo in question, and Northam has yet to comment on the story, but it looks damning and will probably be a big story in his governorship (unless it turns out the yearbook editor added the wrong photo to Northam's page or some other far-fetched explanation). More eyes and assistance will likely be needed on the Ralph Northam page. There has already been one attempt to add this to his lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless it has an impact on his career (and that will likely first require strong evidence that Northam is as pictured, and it wasn't something taken mistakenly) then is absolutely should not be included. --M asem (t) 22:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He's already admitted he is in the picture, at least per NPR.  G M G  talk  01:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He apologised about it on his twitter and there are a few commenting on his response. PackMecEng (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You're good. Put it in, confirmed by tons of the serious press (the Virginia Pilot had a reporter at the med school library today - can start there). Will be the defining fact of his governorship (which is looking likely to be very short with the raft of senior Democratic Party officials calling for his resignation).Dan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, now that the news is catching up with his admitance and calls for him to resign it can go it. --M asem (t) 05:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * He is denying it now . Since he first admitted to it, I don't think we should give too much prominence to the denial. Steve King (R-IA) is different; he never admitted to doing or saying anything racist. w umbolo   ^^^  16:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A great example of why WP:NOTNEWS should be the first thing we read after logging in every day, followed by WP:DEADLINE. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time finding a direct quote from him reversing his previous statement, but the way sources report it, he's say stuff like "the yearbook maybe got photos mixed up", which is not really denial, yet. How to approach what Northam's claims on the photo needs more time to see what he ends up coming done as his "final statement", but the situation is well past the point of where inclusion is obvious, though I would predicate on that sction in the article that this came off a week of complains about the abortion law that was being proposed (up until birth) that was already drawing him into a media spotlight. --M asem (t) 18:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Herman (publisher)
Daniel Herman

Request for full page protection as one user in particular, Maravelous, is not adhering to Biography of Living Persons guidelines. User is repeatedly adding content and references from non-neutral sources, specifically to the section he added, DILLE FAMILY TRUST.

User Maravelous has repeatedly tried to insert libelous content (the website www.geer-herman.com, and language that is not up to the standard of Wikpedia) to the Daniel Herman wikipedia page. The content he inserts has nothing to do with Daniel Herman, publisher.

The user then went to my Talk page and told me I was not allowed to post to the Daniel Herman page...which I created. Because I'm apparently Daniel Herman. If Wikipedia would like proof that I am, indeed, NOT Herman, please ask and I will upload a copy of my driver's license. Being female kind of helps too.

Also, if anything this Dille Family Trust thing should be on the Buck Rogers page.

Sorry, I've never done one of these before so I'm editing as I go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeelooMultipass (talk • contribs) 22:07, January 31, 2019 (UTC)


 * If you want an article to be protected you need to make the request at WP:RFPP, following the instructions on that page. However in this case it's probably a waste of time as an application would most likely be rejected because of the low vandalism rate. The admins over there are understandably reluctant to protect articles as this potentially means that some editors wanting to make perfectly valid edits are prevented from doing so. To be honest I'm not at all convinced that Mr. Herman meets our notability criteria for a biographical article, so the article may have to be deleted. His main notability comes from his association with Hermes Press, and a mention of him in that article may be sufficient coverage. I'll have a look around to see if I can find any independent coverage of him by reliable sources which might justify keeping the article, but ultimately I might feel I need to nominate it for deletion (which opens up a period of discussion about whether or not to keep the article).  One final point - when posting to talk pages and noticeboards like this one, please end your posts by typing four tilde (~) characters, as this will 'sign' the contribution so everyone knows who you are and when the edit was made. I'll end this sentence in that way so you can see what it generates here->Neiltonks (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Whether Herman is notable or not, that section really should not be in his article without much better sourcing. Links to purported court documents uploaded to an anonymous website with rather nasty commentary added. Backed up by an RS which doesn't actually name the subject (or his wife). Looks like a fight over comic book rights has boiled over onto Wikipedia. Curdle (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Ashley Massaro


Just want some more eyes here.

This BLP has been advocating on Twitter to change her profile picture which has caused the page to be protected. The page was protected because this attracted vandalism and the photo has no proof of copyright (seems to be a professional WWE photo and I have found this photo on Google). However, she is still advocating for it today and her photo has been uploaded to Commons by her fans with many different names (such as, to name a few), all linking to her claiming on Twitter she owns the photo. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

David Olshanetsky
Poorly sourced [2] incorrect information [6] false claim, citation does not back up claim or even mention subject of biography [7] no source [8] irrelevant [10] no source working [11] not true lots of the information present is not verifiable page should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.130.132.36 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Sadiq Khan and Harris Bokhari as well as Melanie Dawes
has been editing these articles calling Bokhari active member of the Muslim Association of Britain. and adding the text "described by a report commissioned by the UK government's Cabinet Office as a Muslim Brotherhood affiliated network conducting 'entryist' tactics. to Bokahri's article and to that of Melanie Dawes. That source says "Brotherhood affiliates are organisations established by individuals with strong personal ties to the Brotherhood but operate completely independently from any Brotherhood structure and, in most cases, transcend the national divides that characterise the first tier. Of the many organisations that fit this description, arguably the most important is the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). Over the last few years this milieu (the informal networks of the MAB) appears to have lost significant influence for a combination of reasons:" - you can read the reasons if you wish but they don't seem relevant here. This all seems poorly sourced (in fact no source for calling Bokhari an active member in both his and Khan's article). I'd appreciate comments on this. Doug Weller  talk 14:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doug just a comment in clarification, you're right the term 'active member' seems to go too far. several independent third party sources have described Bokhari as a 'member' of MAB. These are dated to 1996. I have found no reliable sources indicating that he ever left membership of the MAB - hence why I added that he was an 'active member', but happy to agree that this probably goes too far and could be unbalanced. But I do think it's fair to simply say he is a member, with link to the sources, and to leave it at that. Might I add that I believe his page is currently being vandalised by Bokhari himself or people close to him, as quite a bit of valid material about him is consistently being removed by people who claim to know about him personally. The anti-ahmadiyya report section was completely removed by someone saying that they knew he was not the same person as in the article for instance. Those changes have been reverted now. Other sections have been recently removed on grounds that they are biased when they do refer to established sources. One item in particular is of serious concern and i will highlight this in some further edits on the page later, but flagging them up FYI - someone has added an alleged statement from the president of MAB from the Muslim Council of Britain website saying that Bokhari had resigned in 1998 and was 'never a member' of MAB (which contradicts the third party independent sources btw). The alleged statement is backdated to 2007. However, I have checked the waybackmachine which archives MCB pages going back decades - and this page was not archived at all, indicating that it is in fact a new and recently created page. This indicates that the people adding this are probably connected to the subject and have essentially fabricated a document to add to wikipedia. I am not sure what to do about this vandalism issue. in the meantime, I will be attempting to edit again to try to minimise any bias. thanks for your help. Dgjefferson (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Candace M. Smith
Hey, so, I just came across this posting on upwork, a freelance marketplace:



I'm not an incredibly experienced editor, but this threw up some red flags for me re:conflict of interest. The freelancer hired was apparently named James B.:



Which is kind of interesting, considering the username of the person who created the article. I don't actually know that any of this is against the rules, which is why I'm posting this here.

PaulodiCapistrano 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Some of those sources need to go, I suspect. Mcfnord (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely! Youtube .. imdb .. the agencies she's worked for. There's hardly any independent and reliable sourcing at all. Neiltonks (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but I'm still a bit surprised by the COI tag: I can't see what that conclusion was based on, though presumably I am missing somnething obvious. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The COI issue is that it appears the subject sought out services of someone to make and edit her WP page. Whether that is the case or not, we can't immediately tell, but it does have all the signs of being strictly promotion, and a strong hint COI (related to those services rendered) may be involved. --M asem (t) 15:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Romanoff
ACT Blue is not a PAC, it is an aggregator of online donations but the donations do not come from ACT Blue itself but rather individuals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.114.101 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Kate Markowitz
I have been retained by KATE MARKOWITZ to correct false information provided about her on Wikipedia. I work directly for her, and my information comes directly from her. The Discogs page that Falkirks uses to provide information on Kate is false. There is no "article" per se stating Kate's correct proper name - which is Katherine Avril Markowitz. So how do we correct information on a living person when the information provided is directly from that living person, and not an article?

Thank you.

Eileen Vester (vestere) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vestere (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I took some basic steps based on apparent sources and may have satisfied these concerns. I agree Discog may not be a source adequate as a Wikipedia reference. Could be wrong.

Mcfnord (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The source for the discogs entry is given in the edit history as Wikipedia and OVGuide(permadead). It also says "In the ASCAP indicated as Katherin Avril Markowitz."-- Auric   talk  18:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

shin lim
Shin lim is not American as listed born in Canada makes him Canadian he might live in Boston which does not make him American and if he has retained an American citizenship he still is Canadian first American second,this website tends to do this often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.103.38 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarice Phelps
Clarice Phelps could use BLP-experienced editors. It is almost entirely based on WP:BLPPRIMARY sources (e.g. NavyBuddy, alumni lists) and fairly brief PR releases. I also suspect some details may be a synthesis from another person with the same name. The article contained at least until yesterday material misrepresentations - combined diff removing PhD and msc - Phelps has a b.sc but we were saying she has a msc (seems, per her linked in and student listing at UTexas she is a msc student) and phd (she does not present herself as Dr.). We have also misrepresented her role in the synthesis of Tennessine - e.g. a version in 8 Sep 2018 - we were saying "She was involved with the discovery of Tennessine, and is the first African-American woman to identify an element." - this has been toned down a bit in the present version, but we may still be overstating her role. (Tennessine was announced in April 2010 - a result of a collaboration between institutions in multiple countries that involved hundreds if not thousands of people. Phelps joined ORNL in 2009 and was a "Nuclear Operations Technician" at the time - she was involved in purifying Bk-249 which was used by the team that discovered 117 (per her ORNL profile)). While a glowing bio might not sound like a BLP issue - it actually is a quite serious one - as misrepresenting credentials (something Phelps did not do - the misrepresentations in the article seem to be entirely Wikipedia's work) can have serious academic and career repercussions. In this regard - some of the rather severe inaccuracies is our article have been parroted outside of Wikipedia possibly based on the Wikipedia page.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Emiliano Sala
Some editors changed the status of Emiliano Sala from missing to dead this afternoon, based on this Sky News article which seems very tenuous to me, particularly as it wasn't directly cited in the article. It is not an official confirmation of death, just the opnion of a marine biologist involved in the search, so I have reverted this because I don't think the single source constitutes an official confirmation of death that would be sufficient for us to label him dead. Certainly I would expect more mainstream sources such as the BBC to report this if it were the case. Just noting this here so that people can keep an eye on it and make sure that BLP policy is being followed. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am following up this news incident and I completely agree with Amakuru that we should wait a final confirmation of his death, until then, his status should be missing. Plane has been found or a body has been seen in the plane is not enough confirmation that this body is Sala's. It will probably take a few more days and admin's may need to add page protections if necessary. But there is no other choice for us than to wait until an official confirmation of Sala's death comes. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Potential scenario: plane ditched, Sala managed somehow to escape the plane on ditching, pilot's body in wreckage, Sala still floating on a life raft somewhere in the channel. Of course, if they had reported sighting TWO bodies in the wreckage, this would be more clear cut. But until Sala has been officially identified as deceased, we can't cite it so we can't put it in the article. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure you usually get a "life raft" in a Piper PA-46. A second body may very easily be slumped down in the aircraft and not easily visible. I must say that I find the opening sentence of his article "...is an Argentine professional footballer who plays as a forward and is contracted to Premier League side Cardiff City" somewhat more misleading than it necessarily needs to be. Could it be possibly changed to "...is an Argentine professional footballer. A forward, he was signed by Premier League side Cardiff City in January 2019." ? As far as I know, he has never played for Cardiff and sadly never will. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely he's not deceased, but until we have confirmation leave him as disappeared. GiantSnowman 10:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt that you will be allowed to use .."was" signed... at least not without a death confirmation. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no hurry to change our text - there'a a high likelihood this matter will be resolved in the near future - either via finding the body, or a missing presumed dead declaration, or finding Sala alive. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "... he was signed by Premier League side Cardiff City in January 2019" would be perfectly true if he was still alive. I'd argue it would actually be more accurate, even if he was still alive. But can agree with Icewhiz.  Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with saying 'was signed' - that is grammatically and factually correct. The same language is used for players who are not missing-presumed-dead. GiantSnowman 11:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem with "was signed" - indeed. I will also that should Cardiff decide to stop paying him (e.g. presumed dead, or no show, though one would assume they would take their PR in account) then "plays as a forward and is contracted to Premier League side Cardiff City" would be modifiable as well. Regardless, it is highly likely this will be resolved soon. Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, possibly. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Nina Mercedez
All the links on this page are dead the information is 10 years out of date. This information is conflicting with Mariza Villarreal is google search titles I tried to nominate this page for deletion with no response. Remove please

Nina Mercedez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Mercedez — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarizaVVVV (talk • contribs) 05:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, all the links are not dead, nor is it 2023. Not sure what Mariza Villarreal has to do with this, as we don't have an article for them. I also note that you claimed on that article's talk page that she has been dead for years, but provided no proof. --  Auric   talk  18:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Mike S. Miller


A recent kerfuffle re: one cartoonist appropriating another's work. Could use more eyes, since this treads WP:BLP territory. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've edited the 'controversy' section to edge toward WP:NPOV, but I'm skeptical that the incident merits encyclopedic inclusion. At least one IP may have earned a block, and page protection would be in order if the pointy edits persist. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Rolf Harris
Further views welcome at Talk:Rolf Harris. GiantSnowman 17:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Martines - help needed


Martines is an actor that played Nikolas Cassadine for a few years on General Hospital. This is a previously unreferenced article created and mostly edited by WP:SPA accounts. It was recently expanded with sourced content that Martines may have defrauded multiple people. There's been no discussions yet, and clearly the article needs a great deal of work. I've trimmed out most of the unreferenced content, but probably won't have much time to track down references and determine what material is actually encyclopedic and due mention. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like credible sources, over a dozen accusers, legal conclusions (I haven't examined), over ten years of claims. Mcfnord (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Rob Scallon
Is Rob Scallon a candidate for an A7? Almost everything on the page is cited entirely to his YouTube channel, and no real claims to notability are made. Most of the coverage on Google News seems to be incidental one-off press releases or blog posts every time he releases a new video. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Davy Spillane
Davy Spillane is a prominent Irish musician. An IP claiming to be him (and I've no reason to doubt is in fact him, or someone acting with his authority) is persistently removing information from the article, and the main photograph, and, in part, replacing it with unsourced promotional material. This has taken place several times, and the person responsible has taken no notice of warning notices and edit summaries advising him of WP:COI guidance. The same person is also removing material from the article on Moving Hearts, a band with which Spillane played. Is this simply a matter of protecting the page, or is there a better course of action? Should someone, for instance, try to advise Spillane by contacting them directly either through their website or Facebook page? In the meantime I'll continue to revert unjustified changes to the articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . As you noticed, I too tried to appeal to the IP editor (possibly Davy Spillane himself, by all accounts) but he probably does not know how to retrieve notices or check talk pages, and we’re therefore in this seemingly endless loop of edits/reverts. Let’s see what others can propose as a good solution but, in the meantime, thank you for your help and also for launching this initiative. With kind regards. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 22:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone does, they should do it carefully, remember Jytdog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a case of doing a bunch of searching and research to find a human contact associated with the name, and then call them directly, which immediately creates an unconfortable position. Using the "official" social media pages to reach out to the artist seems perfectly fair, even if that's maintained by a PR firm. Those pages have areas purposely for feedback, so that's fair enough. To me, though, that is about as far I would consider going without stepping over the "creepy" line to try to resolve the matter.
 * The only other thing might be to have a temporary notification box/maintenance box on the mainspace article that might be visible enough to point the IP to the talk page, since this IP keeps on coming back (in the same IP range, but not same IP). I don't know which box could be used for this purpose, but this is just another idea to try to flag down the IP to contribute via talk page. --M asem (t) 16:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This issue is still ongoing. I've reverted again.  Perhaps eventually they will get the message that there is a need for discussion?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Not to try and deflect the situation. I would help if I could but this is a little beyond my purview. This is a great place to discuss BLP issues or get a little intervention in helping people understand the rules and why they may be breaking them. Unfortunately, it tends to be a poor place to get an admin involved, because most of us here are just regular users. That there may or may not be BLP issues is not the question here. It's more whether we need page protection, or try to range block the IPs, or perhaps something else. What I suggest, only because I believe it will yield better answers or results, is to take the problem to a board where admins frequently patrol, such as WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, or something similar. Or do what I do and just go ask your favorite admin to check it out for you. Just be sure to tell precisely what the problem is {ie: a problem user creating BLP issues) and what you think is the best course of action. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I may try to reach out to Spillane - who may well be wholly unaware of how WP works - and if I don't get a helpful response, raise it at WP:ANI.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Then I would suggest being very, very cautious. Double or triple check everything to make sure nothing can be misinterpreted or carries any unintended connotations. Good luck. Zaereth (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done - in a cautious way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Simon Manchipp
• Very obviously created by the subject for promotional purposes • Clearly self-aggrandizing • Please delete this, it is super boring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.124.76.134 (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The oldest revision is by (t/n Charles Swenton). Do you have some evidence that they are the same? WP:BORING is also not a reason to delete.--  Auric   talk  22:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sam Hyde
Libellous associations to "holocaust denial" among other baseless claims. Citations are weak or non existent within the provided links. Wiki user vandalizing all edits made to this effect on each wiki associated with "Sam Hyde" including  *  and  *  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChromeWebStore (talk • contribs) 08:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The holocaust denial claim has been removed by another user. Mrschimpf has not vandalised any article; you cannot prove he did not think he was doing the right thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Bach
Hello. I received a complaint from the International Olympic Committee (I can forward it to the appropriate email if need be) about the signature of Thomas Bach being present and downloadable on his Wikipedia page, as they are concerned with how it might be misused. I couldn't find any policies about infobox signatures, so I wanted to bring it here to see what options/policies are available, but it seems to me to be very much a WP:BLP issue. I could, of course, take it down myself, but I don't have the permissions to get it removed from Commons. Not sure if this is the best venue; I'm happy to take it to somewhere more appropriate, but this was the first stop that came to mind (rather than the talk page, because my concern here is about signatures in general and not just Bach's). Canadian  Paul  17:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPSIGN says this: "If the person has published their own signature, and it has been reproduced by a reliable secondary source, then reproducing the signature can be discussed on the article talkpage. If the person in question (or their representative) wants a signature removed to protect from identity theft, it should generally be removed." I would just go ahead and remove it, as it doesn't really provide any encyclopedic value. As for Commons, you'd have to ask someone over there to delete it for you, citing this policy and discussion. Zaereth (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the speedy reply! Not sure how I missed that policy in the first place! Canadian   Paul  17:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Prince Andrew Romanov
There is no evidence that Andrew Romanov has made any statement or claim concerning the headship of the house of Romanov of the Russian succession. This is an unsourced and inaccurate statement. Citation necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanetNYC (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed this as unsourced, challenged, and potentially controversial. My cheap dictionary lists "claimant" as "someone who makes a claim", which would fall under WP:BLP. If it can be worded to mean "someone who may have a [rightful] claim" then it might be able to stay. Or if there is a source. MPS1992 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Devyani Khobragade and Devyani Khobragade incident
I've just closed an AfD on the BLP as no consensus, mainly because practically no-one contributed.
 * First of all, I don't think we need two articles here, and secondly, the former article has got to have numerous BLP issues, surely? Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We also have Uttam Khobragade although it was closed as keep and predated the controversy albeit I think created by the subject themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRODIGY
I've moved this proposal from a userspace of a retired user to WP-space as I think it is worth having discussed in more detail. jps (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Kevin Roberts (Politician)
A major contributor to this article, "MBlair", appears to have a close connection with its subject.

Mihcael Blair is Kevin Robert's friend and former campaign manager for congress.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelgordonblair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C8C0:EC90:81E4:105A:1755:BD5F (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty promotional and unsourced article. Doug Weller  talk 15:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Could a Spanish speaker please...
review the references at Isabeau Méndez. The absence of an article about her in Spanish and the longstanding tags on the article make me dubious that she's actually notable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, there used to be an article about her on the Spanish Wikipedia, but it was deleted on 22 January 2011. -- Auric   talk  23:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The notability tag causes some concern relative to the English Wikipedia, because although the subject of the page was born in the US she seems to have lived most of her life in Panama, and her career has been in the entertainment industry of Panama. References on the page are another issue, and it may be that some reflect one or more twitter feeds or are based on other social media posts. What to do? Tamanoeconomico (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl
There are 3 false/libelous statements on the 'Jacob Wohl' Wikipedia Page

False Statement 1: [Sentence 1 of the Page] "Jacob Wohl (born December 12, 1997)[1] is an American far-right scammer...." — This statement is completely false. While some of my previous business were the subject of government investigations, I have never been charged or disciplined in any way for "scamming", fraud or anything thing else of that type, nor any other crime.

False Statement 2: [Sentence 3 of First Paragraph] "Wohl is barred for life from futures trading due to defrauding investors in 2016 by posing as a hedge fund manager and real estate investor." — This sentence is completely false. I have not been barred in any way, shape or form from trading futures for any reason. I have however been barred from being a member of the National Futures Association, but as it states clearly on the NFA's own website, I was barred for "Failure to Cooperate with the NFA" (a group for which I was not a member at the time I didn't cooperate). This is an enormous and libelous mistruth that's been posted on my page. image.png

False Statement 3: [Sentence 2, Paragraph 2 under 'Career' Section] "The NFA concluded that Wohl had made several material misrepresentations, including the implausible claim made at age 18 years old that he had more than "ten years of experience" as a fund manager." This sentence is false. The NFA banned me from becoming a member for "Failure to cooperate with the NFA (Rule C.R.2-5)" on only that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Reicher (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: there is a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard about whether OP has a conflict of interest with the article subject. w umbolo   ^^^  20:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * you post above saying "While some of my previous business were the subject of government investigations" seems to say that you are Jacob Wohl. If so you should declare a conflict of interest on your user page. It is clear that you are a WP:SPA. Undeclared + "SPA" + getting involved in a serious dispute often results in editors getting blocked, so I'd suggest making a declaration.
 * The 3 "false statements" above look to be pretty much true. You may have a legalistic, technical point in that the NFA cannot entirely by itself bar you from the futures markets. They are a self-regulating organization for the futures markets, and anything that they do can be undone by the actual regulator, the CFTC. You'd have to appeal to the CFTC however within a fairly short time period, to force the NFA to accept you as a member.  If you are not an NFA member you are barred from taking a position of trust within the futures markets, i.e. you can trade for yourself but not act as a broker or anything similar.  If you didn't cooperate with the NFA, your appeal would go nowhere.
 * So, with a very small amount of rewriting, your claim of libel has no basis. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The NFA case is a big deal (and should be in the article and lede) - We should however be technically accurate - the "barred for life from futures trading" seems to be possibly inaccurate. Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For the sake of accuracy, I changed the lead into "...by the self regulatory National Futures Association..." For the other claims, per Wikipedia policy on Conflict of Interest, please first verify and disclose that you are, actually, Jacob Wohl himself. Then please stay away from directly editing to this article or creating/editing articles relating to yourself, your family and your associated companies. We follow secondary (i.e. third party), reliable sources, not your original interpretation of primary sources, so please resolve your issues with the CFTC, the NFA and news media first, otherwise these appeals are baseless. Thank you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: Jacob Wohl is now threatening to sue Wikipedia (archive). So I would assume that this Jim Reicher account is at least related to him or his family member/associates. Should I make a thread on WP:AN?
 * , to save your time and money, please use this link for instructions on contacting the Wikimedia foundation for your claims. We cannot solve it for you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll ask everybody to step back and calm down. If you accuse somebody of being a "fraudster" and he hasn't been convicted of fraud or something similar, you shouldn't be surprised if he starts complaining about libel and threatens a lawsuit.  Before seeing the ping here I removed the "fraudster" in the first sentence, and was in the process of cleaning up a bit more. I am now removing myself entirely from this conversation and from editing the article.  Threats of lawsuits, even off-Wiki, do have a chilling effect, even when the person making the threat IMO does not have a chance of winning the lawsuit, e.g. defending yourself from a lawsuit can cost money and time. BTW, I am not a lawyer. I would hope that nobody tries to inflame the situation and that an administrator locks down the whole article as tight as possible to prevent this from happening. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That first sentence of the lede is absolutely not acceptable, as it is not objective or impartial at all. Recognizing that Wohl's on the notability scale for some of this stuff, it's still not appropriate to lead off with subjective labels over objective facts. should really be  Same information but the tone is much more suited for the encyclopedia. --M asem  (t) 19:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the fraudster descriptor may be a bit subjective as only Snopes and HillReporter directly called him out on that, but he was indeed charged by the Arizona Corporation Commission for 14 counts of fraud, and was ordered to pay $32,919 in restitution as a result. The page has been updated to appropriately reflect this due weight. His current main career, widely repored, seems to be spinning conspiracy theories against politicians he doesn't like, so this really isn't something to dance around in "described as" about, as the "blogger" is quite inaccurate (no formal blogs, just a Twitter account), and his just a former columnist anyway. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that rushing to lay down all the negative aspects of him in the lede before addressing objective career elements sets a decidedly non-partial tone for the rest of the article which is against both BLP and NPOV. The labels and statements that he frauded people, that all can stay in the lede and be as early as the first sentence, and there should be no attempt to bury them, but they should come after neutrally and objectively stating what his career is/was. And FWIW I have seen people that only tweet their opinions called bloggers or analysis (Twitter is just meant to be a micro-blog anyway). At worst, the term "commentator" works. --M asem (t) 16:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * NFA - The language previously in our article, in my opinion, contained a bit of OR and was based in part on a PRIMARY source. I think I've rectified this with - combined diff. I opened a talk page section in Talk:Jacob Wohl to discuss NFA bit. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ashley Hicks
Entire section headed DIVORCE SCANDAL is drawn from tabloid gossip and an interview with his wife which contains many inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabloidpurger (talk • contribs) 18:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like an editor took care of this. Herostratus (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Justin Fairfax
The following edit reverted by an admin: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=881811889&oldid=881811624 I believe the edit is allowed by WP:BLP, as there is no doubt that Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of Virginia has been accused of sexual assault (the Washington Post acknowledges that it previously withheld publication due to lack of corroboration, but the allegation was brought to them over 1 year ago). While the allegation was originally publicized by a Big League Politics, a site that is not considered reliable, it has since been reported by multiple major news outlets referenced by inline citations (as well as The New York Times). Fairfax acknowledges that he knows and had a sexual encounter with the woman who has accused him; he disputes that an assault occurred. This accusation is noteworthy because it has become a significant element of the current political climate in Virginia, as Fairfax would succeed to the governorship should Gov.Ralph Northam resign over unrelated allegations of racism. Maybe not coincidentally, the allegations against Northam were also published by Big League Politics. GeoGreg (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Drmies is pretty much correct that right now, its a bit too early to know if inclusion should be done at this point. We should always be careful of inclusion fresh allegations immediately after they are made, and instead wait at least a news cycle to see what happens, if there's an impact on his career, etc. Fairfax' situation is likely going to be amplified by Northam's own problems, but treat it as separate for right now.--M asem (t) 00:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: there is an RfC at Talk:Justin Fairfax. w umbolo   ^^^  20:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone argued on the talk page that including "fuck that bitch" comment attributed to Fairfax (Fairfax denied using that specific phrase) would violate WP:BLPGOSSIP. That is interesting, but incorrect because if it were true that Fairfax used that phrase, that would definitely be a big deal. Another editor said that inclusion would be unencyclopedic. Our article says "NBC News reported that Fairfax used a misogynistic profanity to describe Tyson". NYT describes that as "obscenity" and says Fairfax's chief of staff says Fairfax used a profanity, but not to refer to Tyson and not with those words. I'm a big fan of WP:NOTCENSORED and do not see how paraphrasing (and minor editorialising) is better than a quoting three words. Politrukki (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it isn't necessarily gossip, but WP:NOTCENSORED means that we can use profanity, it doesn't mean we have to. The fact that the New York Times declined to quote him directly, and the fact that a number of other sources seem to be wary about reporting this at all makes me think that paraphrasing is better than quoting. Nblund talk 23:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between censoring something and presenting it in a more professional manner using a more clinical type of analysis. Sounds like pure gossip to me, however, because using profanities and words that really refer to dogs (and only to women as a comparison to biting dogs) is a rather commonplace thing in American society. (It's like calling someone a "pussy", a name that originally referred to cats, meaning "fraidy cat", yet people mistakenly assume it refers to a body part, in which case it makes no sense in that context.) Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Vanessa C. Tyson
Professor Tyson now has a bio of their own, which looks okay for now, but might be worth watching. I hope that won't be full of Fairfax allegations later. Politrukki (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Erich von Däniken
Editors have included information about the subject's minor brushes with the law in the article's lead (which were originally unsourced), have deleted information explaining the ideas of the subject from the lead, have deleted a line which included the number of books he has published and sold from the lead, and have deleted a quote and image from the article that illustrated the ideas of the subject. The majority of the article is not about the subject, but is devoted to debunking his ideas.

Please compare the current article and a previous version (before repeated deletions of the edits I made to improve it): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken&diff=882774887&oldid=882774472

I'm only trying to fix the lead and add examples to the small section "Claims of alien influence on Earth", which presents the author's ideas. The rest of the article (most of the article) is devoted to debunking the ideas of the subject of the article and I have not changed any of that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The main thing that I have disputed is the addition of Crucifixion of Christ - Visoki Dečani Monastery as there doesn't appear to be any sourcing where von Däniken references it directly.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, you reverted all of my edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken&diff=882774887&oldid=882774472 Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Berthold
Hardly any content, poorly sourced, extremely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.39.40 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks well sourced. If there's not much content, WP:Be Bold and add some yourself.-- Auric   talk  00:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Suzi Quatro
OK, I'm sure this question has been asked and answered many times, but a lot of people may not have seen those other discussions, and I'm one.

Normally, we accept off-line refs -- of course we do, without question. If your ref for an important fact is a book that's only held at a few libraries and is hard to get to, well... so? It's a perfectly acceptable source, and our assumption is that person citing the book is not just making it up or mischaracterizing what it says, absent some claim to the contrary. The reader is free to deprecate the material on grounds of not being able to check the ref, if she wants to.

However, what about fraught material about a living person? Assuming that the material is otherwise worth including... let's say it is "Person X was fired from Picture X because he had gained 50 pounds" for a (made up) example, but all the refs for this require a paid subscription, so that neither I, other editors, or the reader can easily check that the material actually appeared. Normally we assume that the person using the ref is reading it correctly, but... for fraught material on a living person, I would think that WP:BLP would override this usual practice? Right? I hope so. But what say you? Herostratus (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not clear-cut. What if uninvolved editor/s (perhaps found via WikiProject Resource Exchange) confirms "Yep, that's what it says, alright."? Adding a quote to the cite could be helpful as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, if another editor vouches for it, yeah. Herostratus (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I could access the article on the The Herald (Glasgow) today again without issues, if that's not what you get add <kbd style="font:smaller monospace>|subscription=yes or disable Javascript on their site. The complete reference on the BLP with the quote as suggested above would look like this:


 * Decorate it with a Charles Shaar Murray and some of the other sources suggested on the talk page as you like, but never "pull"&#x2009; good references without compelling reasons: Even if Penthouse turns out to be wrong, she confirmed it in that interview, it can't be slander&#x2009; in conflict with WP:BLP. –84.46.53.230 (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche
There are Twitter reports that the 96 year old conspiracy theorist has died. Obviously, much more reliable sources are needed to add his possible death to the BLP, but inexperienced editors have tried to add it. More eyes are needed in this article until things shake out. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A quick google search reveals a number of obits. <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>   (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * His death is being reported by the New York Times and Washington Post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - they are all conspiring to make us believe he's dead! --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger
Calling Henry Kissinger a war criminal in the first line of his biography may offer a yuk yuk feel good moment for some "contributor," but it's the kind of aggressive politicization that makes serious people roll their eyes at the idea of Wikipedia as a source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.248.28 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have reverted the vandalism. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 03:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Corey Maggette
I have challenged and removed serious, unproven allegations. Please someone have a look to see if this material could/should be added back. <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>  (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think removing it at this point is the right thing to do. Unless there is a conviction, or unless it explodes into some media frenzy such that we can deduce it will have a lasting impact on his life and career, then I don't think it wise to add unproven allegations. I'd wait a while to see how it plays out. Zaereth (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been readded <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b>   (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Xavier Khan Vattayil
First off, eww. Second, this article is a mess and looks like it has always been a mess. User:Vinuantony1989 seems intent on maintaining it as a big pile of unsourced thinly-veiled promotion. So there's that, in case anyone wants to do anything about it, or even better, if someone happens to read Malayalam and can find actual sources to write an actual article with. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ben Swann
Can somebody please correct the lede in the Ben Swann page? It claims he created the series, Reality Check, which he used to espouse conspiracy theories, such as Pizzagate, and those surrounding the Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the 9/11 attacks. As the body of the article and the RS's clearly state, these segments were on his personal YouTube channel. They were not a part of his Reality Check series. And you won't find any reliable sources that characterize the segments that way, and in fact, | the Washington Post goes out of it's way to differentiate Ben Swann's reporting from the common conspiracies surrounding Sandy Hook. Despite this source being used as an RS in the body, the lede implies the opposite and has even caused people to believe that Ben Swann | slandered the victims of the Sandy Hook. I made the following | edit, which takes previously | agreed upon language that better reflects the body and the sources to fix these | dubious and | unverified claims, but it has been reverted. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to do some more fact checking. Reality Check was first aired on WXIX-TV, and was moved to his YouTube channel after he left WXIX. The WaPo article you cite may try to work in Swann's defense, but it does so by claiming that he's "Just Asking Questions" . At least one of those talk page edits you linked to does not show what you claim it does. Seriously: Stop complaining and actually do the research. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that the Reality Check segments are on his YouTube. That does not change the fact that the Sandy Hook and 9/11 segments are NOT a part of his Reality Check series, and no reliable source claims they are as the lede does. Yes the Washington Post along with all other reliable sources claimed he asked questions because that's what he did. That's not really in dispute, so I'm not sure what your point is.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That does not change the fact that the Sandy Hook and 9/11 segments are NOT a part of his Reality Check series That is simply not true.
 * That's not really in dispute, so I'm not sure what your point is Did you click the link that's on the phrase "Just Asking Questions" ? If you didn't, that link explains it. If you did, and you still don't understand, then I'm afraid that's your problem, and I'm not willing to try to make you understand. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You can interpret that source as saying it's a Reality Check if you want, but that doesn't contradict what the RS's cited in the article say or my edit and it's still contradicted by the segments themselves, which clearly show that his Sandy Hook coverage was on his Full Disclosure series and his 9/11 coverage was a part of his Truth In Media project. Also, we're supposed to go by Reliable Sources here, not RationalWiki--74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ...but it might be worth noting that RationalWiki claims that "Just Asking Questions" is "a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable". It does not claim that it is equivalent to "espousing conspiracy theories" which is what you seem to be asserting. Regardless, it's irrelevant to this conversation. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you're just going to keep lying I'm not going to bother engaging with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Andrea Mitchell
A new section "Lies in the correspondence from Warsaw" has been added to the Controversies section of Andrea Mitchell's page. There are no citations, it is unbalanced, and the tone is very aggressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.222.213.116 (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed that (twice) as unsourced and controversial. If it turns out that reliable sources report on some great public uproar, it might end up going back in.


 * That article has some other odd or inadequately sources sections under "Controversies" as well. MPS1992 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Alice Eduardo


A blossoming hagiography, which I've trimmed to get nearer to encyclopedic standards. This really could use additional eyes, and an administrator's rev/deletion of copyright violation content--there may still be more lingering. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Files for discussion/2019 February 16
You are invited to join the discussion at. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The Administration that Roll Back many people edited
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/882183647

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/882646613

3) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/882687457

Paul 012

This administration Roll Back and remove reliable sources.

Thailand has never had discrimination about LGBT

he use the article as a source and out of the sources that the article used only one mention Sukavich Name

He deleted the fact that it was deputy minister idea and it has never been approved here in Thailand.

Someone should asked Thailand Ministry of Education before using the false information.171.99.10.12 (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

* LGBT Incident Human Rights Issues
"On January 25th, Suraporn Danaitangtrakul, a Deputy Education Minister, proposed that the Institute set a new criteria to bar people with "improper personalities," but not certain groups such as homosexuals. Anjaree, a lesbian group in Thailand, supported Mr. Saraporn's ideas but said the term "improper personalities" needs to be more clearly defined. Furthermore, members of Anjaree are working with other human and civil rights groups to request that the ban be dropped and that an anti-discrimination clause be added to the charter of the colleges. They are currently planning a conference to discuss opposition to the ban. In a recent positive development, the Commission on Justice and Human Rights of the Thai Parliament has discussed the matter and decided that the ban goes against human rights principles."

This has never been approved because it probably was against the minister of education speech recorded by UNESCO.

"* I strongly believe that, as a citizen of the world, any person has the right to learn 171.99.10.12 (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * and should be entitled to have access to education according to their competency and needs.
 * It is essential that the government provide educational services that respond to the people’s needs.
 * Education, therefore, has to be organized in such a way that people from all walks of life can participate in educational activities at levels and times of their preference.
 * With regard to the learning society, as I mentioned earlier, optimistically, people from all walks of life should be able to have equal access to education according to their needs and potentials.
 * All sort of boundaries, be their gender, age, socio-economic status, physical or mental disabilities have to be eliminated."

Computer Incident
Ministry of Education (Thailand) was using School-based management (SBM) in 1997. School-based management (SBM) "School-based management (SBM) in Thailand began in 1997 in the course of a reform aimed at overcoming a profound crisis in the education system." "authority for curriculum, budget, and personnel and virtually full authority for strategic planning. More teacher empowerment was a stated objective. Other objectives included increased discretionary resources to schools, increased evaluation of instruction, and increased community and parental involvement."

"HOW ARE BUDGET DECISIONS MADE? In most SBM systems, each school is given a "lump sum" that the school can spend as it sees fit. As outlined by JoAnn Spear (1983), the district office determines the total funds needed by the whole district, determines the districtwide costs (such as the cost of central administration and transportation), and allocates the remaining funds to the individual schools. The allocation to each school is determined by a formula that takes into account the number and type of students at that school. Each school determines how to spend the lump sum allocated by the district in such areas as personnel, equipment, supplies, and maintenance. In some districts, surplus funds can be carried over to the next year or be shifted to a program that needs more funds; in this way, long-range planning and efficiency are encouraged." "At the very beginning, the crucial element to be considered for education reform is the management system. The administrative power, in particular, has to be shifted to local authorities, and local participation in the school management is essentially encouraged." 171.99.10.12 (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Computer Incident
Ministry of Education (Thailand) was using School-based management (SBM) in 1997. School-based management (SBM) "School-based management (SBM) in Thailand began in 1997 in the course of a reform aimed at overcoming a profound crisis in the education system." "authority for curriculum, budget, and personnel and virtually full authority for strategic planning. More teacher empowerment was a stated objective. Other objectives included increased discretionary resources to schools, increased evaluation of instruction, and increased community and parental involvement."

"HOW ARE BUDGET DECISIONS MADE? In most SBM systems, each school is given a "lump sum" that the school can spend as it sees fit. As outlined by JoAnn Spear (1983), the district office determines the total funds needed by the whole district, determines the districtwide costs (such as the cost of central administration and transportation), and allocates the remaining funds to the individual schools. The allocation to each school is determined by a formula that takes into account the number and type of students at that school. Each school determines how to spend the lump sum allocated by the district in such areas as personnel, equipment, supplies, and maintenance. In some districts, surplus funds can be carried over to the next year or be shifted to a program that needs more funds; in this way, long-range planning and efficiency are encouraged." "At the very beginning, the crucial element to be considered for education reform is the management system. The administrative power, in particular, has to be shifted to local authorities, and local participation in the school management is essentially encouraged." 171.99.10.12 (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Jesselyn Radack
I removed some content from Jesselyn Radack regarding a lawsuit, as it appeared to be sourced to a mix of primary sources, and secondary sources that didn't look reliable. My edit, however, was reverted. I'd appreciate some help from editors with experience in BLP matters and more knowledge of the reliability of American political sources than I have -- I don't think the sourcing is sufficient but I could well be wrong. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are listed on the bottom of the talk page of Jesselyn Radack.  NigelRulesFine (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edits per BLP. None of the sources meet our requirements for content about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Masood Azhar
Unsure if Azhar is dead, but listed as such currently. Target of defamation based on changes to place of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsfan2014 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that would be vandalism. Thank you for that edit. Bus stop (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

William Levada
I am the authorized representative of Cardinal William Levada, William Levada. He recently saw, and objects to, the last sentence of a quote on his page which asserts an unprovable opinion that the Cardinal is either a liar or out of touch with reality, both outrageous and emotional charges.

It does seem to violate the guidelines for BLPs in that, in contrast to the rest of the page, it is not written conservatively, gives disproportionate space to particular viewpoints, and is found only on a blog, not widely published.

The sentence in question is this (hope this is okay, I don't know what "link to a diff" means):

'So, Levada's statement is either an outright lie or evidence of a very narrow understanding and perception of reality.[10]'

I have reviewed your guidelines, am what you would call a "newbie," and am reluctant to edit the page myself as an interested party. Hoping you will advise me the best path to take.

At a minimum I feel that sentence should be removed; however, that entire paragraph suffers from the same guideline violations.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADSFRep (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ADSFRep ✅ I have removed the quote in its entirety as being cited only to a blog (citing another blog). Incidentally, if you intend to continue to edit here, you should probably choose a different user name, since your current name strongly gives the impression that it belongs to the Archdiocese of San Francisco, and usernames are not permitted to represent organizations or companies, but only individuals. You should also prominently indicate your external relationship with the organization on your user page, in accordance with guidance at Conflict of interest.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Apparently the user ADSFRep doesn't exist. The links redirect to -- Auric   talk  00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Richard Blumenthal
Is this information that should be in the article? Pinging. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you for taking the time to do this, Bus stop. I don't see any reason why the information should not be included. It is a cited point, and the pages for Senators Joe Lieberman and Chris Dodd contain similar details. Markvs88 (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please identify the parts of Lieberman and Dodd's articles where it's falsely suggested they were having relationships with minors? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Not appropriate, certainly not based only on the source given. MPS1992 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your positive attitude towards my presenting this here, Markvs88. The wording that we are disputing has the implication of impropriety, in my opinion. Who cares where and how they met and what their age difference might be? And I would like to add that I am generally, but not in this instance, in favor of including information in some form. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I feel that there's too much drama on the 'pedia due to ego conflicts. I have no particular love of this material (or article, as you can see from my edit history if you want to look), but it is a cited point and that I care about. Please also note that I don't generally do much on political and/or bio articles other than rollback vandalism. As for the point itself... it is cited, and it is common knowledge that he is 15 years older than his wife. I cannot see how censoring something that is common in the majority of other articles makes any sense, really. As to who cares, that's why we have the subsection in the first place, right? Per wp:wellknown the subject should be included with multiple sources. I will add a couple to fulfill that requirement. Markvs88 (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because something might be well known still doesn't make it appropriate to include. Unless we have a lot more quality RSes that speak critically of that age difference, we should not be calling out per our BLP privacy aspects. --M asem (t) 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explain in detail why something fine in hundreds of other articles, including other Connecticut Senators Joe Lieberman and Chris Dodd is not okay here? That's not wp:npov, that's wp:censorship. Look, I'm not against a rewrite to make it more acceptable to all (though I don't see anything wrong with it now), but what you're saying is that a fact that at least two major newspapers and multiple TV news stations have covered is irrelevant is IMO a bit much. Markvs88 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It may be "cited" and "common knowledge" but it is far afield from the reasons for the notability of the subject of the article. It is therefore, I think, gratuitous. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Come on, this is very simple. The text, as written, suggests that a 31-year old Blumenthal was romantically involved with a 16-year old, which the cited source (a Heavy.com) does not at all support. The cited source clearly says "they started to date when Cynthia became an adult and began attending Harvard University" and that they married when she was a Harvard senior. Also, can anyone locate the text in the Hartford Courier where it says Blumenthal met Malkin when she was 16 - I can't find it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not against a rewrite. I have to run right now, will reply about the Courant later. Markvs88 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The circumstances of how a Senator met his wife are trivial unless it occurred through his public service. And the way the section was written did make him sound like an adult predator, preying on a teenager. I don't think this negative image was what the source implied. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Liz & Bus stop, are you aware of WP:WELLKNOWN? Your opinions are contrary to this, and you're both denying a fact that has multiple (major!) sources as inconsequential. Now, that said: I don't read it as questionable, BUT I'm (saying it yet again) open to revising the prose if it bothers some people. Please consider this below. Markvs88 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * RFC is the problem with the " They met at a party in Greenwich, when 16-year-old Malkin, who was accompanied by her parents, was paired up with 31-year-old Blumenthal in a game of tennis." line, or the "who is 15 years his junior." line, or both? Personally, I would be satisfied with something along the lines of "...who is 15 years his junior. They met playing tennis at a party in Greenwich." Markvs88 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider me another vote for the idea that this entire tangent is wildly undue and problematic. Nuke it from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.  Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Bump it's been seven days and no one has decided to weigh in on the RFC. I'll give it another couple of days and then assume it is non-controversial. Markvs88 (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What RfC? Are you referring to your comment above? As far as I can tell, every single person who has chipped in on the dispute has objected to the text that you want to add. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not "non-controversial". It is "opposed". I don't think you've convinced others that this material warrants inclusion. You can present reasons why this material is important. I don't think you have done so. Correct me if I am wrong but your argument boils down to comparisons with other articles. Such comparisons are necessarily very imperfect. Therefore the most likely argument to persuade others would be the argument that the disputed material serves some purpose. But as I've said I don't think you have presented any argument as to the purpose served by this material. My understanding is that this is gossipy. My understanding is that the disputed material implies wrongdoing or at least impropriety. My understanding is that the material is trivial and that it fails to integrate into the overall subject of the article. Why do we want to know where and how he met his wife? Why do we want to know their age differences? Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Utsav Chakraborty
Wanted to check if someone could verify sources/remove template on top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketlag (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure I still understand how people on here do things, but I think you just said no? Ketlag Ketlag

Bernard Preynat


I created a stub; has turned it into a redirect. I think there is sufficient coverage of this person to justify its own article, eg, , , (my French is rusty and a native speaker able too find more sources would be appreciated). Furthermore, a film has been made about him. Thoughts welcome. GiantSnowman 15:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "Enough sources about him" is a WP:N argument. My redirection (to the film) is based on WP:SUSPECT (a part of our BLP policy, which overrules WP:N). He is only known as a suspect of crimes, not otherwise, and isn't convicted. As for notability, see the note at WP:CRIME: "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Fram (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * From WP:SUSPECT: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SUSPECT "applies to individuals who are not public figures". Is this person a public figure? GiantSnowman 15:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The person is clearly not a "public figure" as the film article mentions the person and the Wikilink to the person is an infinite loop back to the film article. Public figures must be known for something in their lives.  He isn't. Collect (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That circular redirect was created by Fram, overwriting the stub. GiantSnowman 15:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CRIME says articles are permitted if the crime has "historic significance". Does this incident (the subject of a major film, implicating a Cardinal) have that?GiantSnowman 15:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But even then (and is debatable if this is at that level yet) only if there is no other article where it may be included: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Add some well-sourced background to the film article if you must, don't create a separate article about a BLP who is only one element in the story (the convicted higher church authorities who covered up the scandal are at least as important for the attention this case has had, the basic alleged crime in itself is just one of too many such stories around the world). Fram (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct. Collect (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I dont think he rates a biography, mainly because of the arguments Fram makes - however RE public figure, senior members of large organised religions are by their nature public figures. They occupy public and prominant positions in their communities etc and have effective control over a large number of underlings. Eg this would be Bishops-upwards for Catholics. My understanding is Preynat was merely a priest? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)