Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281

Vox Day
User:Grayfell Continuously re-adding poorly sourced content that violates BLP because 1. It fails basic NPOV guidelines. It ignores several other articles that don't describe Vox Day as "Far-Right" or "Alt-Right" in favor of one single, cherrypicked article, that describes him as far-right ONLY ONCE. Vox, The Guardian, Polygon, advocate.com, and Wired all fail to describe Vox Day as "far-right". 2. It fails WP:LABEL by including a label that isn't widely used by sources (and in fact, isn't used by most reliable sources), and should be an in-text attribution, not a label (i.e. "has been described as far-right") 50.107.79.14 (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC) CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸  🌹🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Setting aside the WP:SOCK concerns raised by the IP's behavior (such as this post)...
 * The Verge source is fine. The Advocate source also uses "far right": He also owes thousands to far-right writers like the anti-Islamist Pamela Geller and to science fiction writer Theodore Beale (Vox Day).
 * The body of the article includes many sources describing Beale (Vox Day) as alt-right, which is a subset of far-right.  Many of the above cited sources also use "alt-right". If there is a way to summarize this which is as simple and succinct as "far-right", I haven't seen it. I also haven't seen any reliable sources disputing the "far-right" label, nor any compelling reason to think this would be disputed. Accurately describing someone's political opinions is not a BLP violation, nor is it a WP:LABEL. There isn't a more neutral way to say "far-right" which wouldn't be a euphemism, and "has been described as" is empty WP:WEASEL words. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Verge and The Advocate sources are passing mention in pieces about Social Media & Milo Yiannopoulos respectively. Passing mentions are not reliable per WP:RSCONTEXT. Whatever labels or categorisations are applied to an article subject should be based on their prominence in sources which are primarily about that subject; not on passing mentions. If there are no sources primarily about the subject, then AfD. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC) - added Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noting here that the IP attempted to strike part of Greyfell's comment: diff - MrOllie (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This is very obviously the same sock as, who was previously blocked for evasion. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Alt-right" is not the same as "Far-right". If it were, there wouldn't be two different Wikipedia articles. They are different. It also still fails BLP due to poorly sourced content. If "far-right" is only attributed once in a single article out of several of them that mention Vox Day, then it seems strange to me that it would be included in the lede, as it isn't notable at all. 50.107.79.14 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC) CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸  🌹🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pure nonsense. We have an article for all frogs and also many articles for specific frogs, because we have articles for things which are subsets of other things. They are different, but that's doesn't mean that "alt right" cannot also be "far-right". It is notable because Beale is primarily notable for his far-right political commentary, and the article should explain why a topic is notable. That's the primary purpose of an encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alt-right and far-right are vaguely defined groups depending on who you speak to. The only commonality we can speak to directly is being farther right on a political and ideological scale. There likely is some overlap in the alt- and far-right if you use one person's definitions, across the board, but it would be very wrong to call the alt-right as a subset of the far-right in a factual statement/WP voice. As such, both should be treated as labels, and that means if the term is appropriate to include (likely in this case) we should use how the sources use it, and cannot make the OR lap of logic. --M asem (t) 02:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This position doesn't reflect the consensus of sources. Per the alt right article:
 * Stack, Liam (August 15, 2017). Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist Language. The New York Times. Retrieved: February 10, 2018. "The 'alt-right' is a racist, far-right movement based on an ideology of white nationalism and anti-Semitism."
 * October 13, 2017. Explained: Alt-right, alt-light and militias in the US. Al Jazeera. Retrieved: February 10, 2018. "The alt-right is a loosely knit coalition of far-right groups that includes populists, white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis."
 * "Alt-Right". The Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved February 10, 2018. "The Alternative Right, commonly known as the Alt-Right, is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that 'white identity' is under attack by multicultural forces using 'political correctness' and 'social justice' to undermine white people and 'their' civilization."
 * The terms are vague, in a sense, but the connection between them is documented and agreed upon by many sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, however that distinction also has to be made by the article cited. Taking a claim from an article saying "alt-right" and claiming that it also means "far-right" because other sites believe that alt-right and far-right are the same thing or interchangeable is WP:OR. 50.107.79.14 (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC) CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸  🌹🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BOOMERANG, you're really going to have to face the music at the sock-hop eventually. So you're accepting that alt-right is a subset of far-right? Why would that particular article be the place to explain the connection? Are you proposing replacing "far-right" with "alt right"? What, exactly, does this have to do with BLP? Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really care whether alt-right is a subset of far-right or not. If enough reliable sources explicitly claim that it's "Far-right" or "Alt-right", then it should be included. My point is, that not enough sources do that, and it doesn't outweigh the amount of sources that don't describe him as alt-right or far-right. 50.107.79.14 (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC) CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸  🌹🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not enough sources to do what, exactly? Call him alt-right? Call him a near-synonym for far right? The lede should act as a brief summary of the topic based on the body of the article. There is no magic threshold for how many sources is enough to use a term. Many sources support that Beale advocates extremist views, such as his opposition to women's suffrage and his belief that marital rape doesn't exist, and how he wrote a manifesto on the alt-right, which included the Fourteen words coined by a convicted neo-Nazi terrorist. So counting the number which use a specific term is a pointless exercise in pedantry. The substance of sources support that he is on the extreme right, no matter which term is used. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Do not use controversial or effusive descriptions unless commonly used by reliable sources." Also "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" 50.107.79.14 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC) CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸  🌹🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. What would be a non-laden way to say he is far-right? His opinions are controversial, but accurately labeling his positions isn't automatically controversial by proxy. We do not whitewash a controversial figure by ignoring the controversy or by using euphemisms. As I already said, if there is a way to summarize this which is as simple and succinct as "far-right", I haven't seen it. Grayfell (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (To Grayfell) While it is true there are RSes that put alt-r in far-r, I've seen some  say the reverse, enough that we shouldn't be factually state "alt is all far" or "far is all alt", but represent the vague boundaries; and when applied to BLP, careful adherence to what the specific sources say in labelling the person. --M asem  (t) 03:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Vox Day has repeatedly described himself as a Christian Dominionist which is a far-right-wing political philosophy. Furthermore, we're talking about a man who got kicked out of Science Fiction Writers of America for using their official twitter account to make racist statements about N.K. Jemisin. He's the founder of the Rabid Puppies trolling movement. Complaints that he's being called far-right should be met with the same level of scorn as complaints that we call Gavin McInnes far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Small note As a science fiction writer who has friends who were involved in SFWA leadership at the time I might be considered to have a COI here. I don't know VD personally and have happily never met him, but I felt it appropriate to disclose in the off chance that anybody sees it that way. (I have collected a paycheck for dunking on the Rabid Puppies in public before. humblebrag ) Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because X has clearly stated association with group Y, and group Y is broadly claimed (but not direct asserted by Y) to be Z, is not appropriate to say X is also Z, under BLP. Just being associated with a group doesn't mean a person necessary holds all facets of a group, so it is both inappropriate and not logical to take a label directed at a group to its members, barring any direct statement by its members. --M asem (t) 15:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I take it you are completely unaware of who Vox Day is, and all the things he's said and done. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Folks. No need to waste your time on a sock of a purely disruptive troll who was not here to improve the project in the first place. The IP is now CheckUser blocked by. Quoting, "Trolls and POV pushers are like dogs returning to their vomit". Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Zerlina Maxwell


A barrage of IP users have been editing the page to include unsourced, partisan snipes to push a narrative in favor of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, because Ms. Maxwell holds negative opinions of her. This is likely either an organized brigade from Twitter or one user with a handful of devices with IP addresses. It will likely pass within a few days, however, for now it's currently unprotected with a few folks keeping a constant eye on it. --KingForPA (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ben Swann
Editors keep trying to push a Western/Anti-Russian pov on the Ben Swann page by changing the word "narrative" to "propaganda" when source clearly uses the former term. More eyes on this would be appreciated. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This IP user has been previously blocked twice for disruptive editing on the article and is currently pending a block for socking with User:FastEddieo007. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FastEddie is not my sock. Also that's not an argument for the OR you keep restoring in the article. That's an Ad Hominem. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But if you want to go down the road of Ad Hominem attacks then we could discuss your history of smearing political figures you don't like (and I'm not the only one who sees this) and your defamatory claims against them that you refuse to support. In fact, it's difficult to find an edit of yours on the Ben Swann page that isn't repeatedly added poorly source smears and pov pushing. It's a wonder you've never been banned for this behavior. I can only imagine who else you've attempted to do this to. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's neither here, nor there. I'd rather stay focused on the issue at hand. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec. NBSB changed:
 * To:
 * Are you saying that the theory that the Sandy Hook shooting was faked and that the theory that the Democrats ran a pedophile club in the basement of a Pizza joint with no basement were not conspiracy theories; but just questioning of “media narratives”? Thaht Sandy Hook was a real shooting was just a “narrative”? Can you explain your problem with this? O3000 (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't care about my opinion. Why are you asking me questions that are irrelevant for multiple reasons? I thought you only cared about reliable sources? Why not talk about those? Why not discuss the OR you restored, or why you haven't even attempt to defend it here or in the talk page? Isn't you that said "If RS uses the term, we use the term"? You don't have to agree with me. You just have to agree with yourself. Use the term the RS uses. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your claims. And this habit of yours of linking to ancient, unrelated diffs is disruptive. O3000 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than happy to get into the weeds on these issues on your talk page. I tried to make a section addressing these concerns, but an automatic filter said it was unconstructive. If you want to start a section on your talk or mine then I can answer any questions you like. But I don't think this is the time or place to rehash old lede changes. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that this IP editor also apparently objects to factually and accurately describing the fraudulent claims about vaccines and autism as being what they are: fraudulent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's still an Ad Hominem. At least try to make an argument for the OR you keep restoring. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no OR here. It's a paraphrase that I (and others) view as acceptable. If there is a consensus that it's an inappropriate paraphrase, I will, of course, yield to such a consensus. But you haven't even tried to create such a consensus; you've just revert-warred, which suggests that you don't believe you can create such a consensus either. Notably, that's the history of your single-purpose account's activity on the article; lots of disruptive editing, ignoring discussion, multiple blocks and, frankly, no sign that anything different will come. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ignoring discussion? ...still waiting for your response there... Consensus does not override the core principles of Wikipedia. The fact that you keep bringing up consensus proves that you have no argument for the material you keep adding. Also, changing a single neutral word that's used by the RS to a different politically charged word is not  paraphrasing. It's pov-pushing. Also, the charges of "single-purpose" activity on the article and revert-warring would be better coming from someone else. You are probably the last one that should be making such charges... --74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus is literally part of WP:5P Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It says "seek consensus" as a part of the pillar that says to treat each other with respect. Which is below the more important pillar being violated here. Reaching consensus  involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. No efforts have been made here. Therefore, we have no consensus. Baranof would have you believe that consensus was achieved to include the politically charged "propaganda" in place of the neutral and source-supported term "narrative". It wasn't. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus is literally part of WP:5P Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It says "seek consensus" as a part of the pillar that says to treat each other with respect. Which is below the more important pillar being violated here. Reaching consensus  involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. No efforts have been made here. Therefore, we have no consensus. Baranof would have you believe that consensus was achieved to include the politically charged "propaganda" in place of the neutral and source-supported term "narrative". It wasn't. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * all editors' legitimate concerns
 * legitimate concerns
 * legitimate
 * Treating the patently disproven and obviously false conspiracy theories that Swann advocates as merely questioning "media narratives" is why you have no legitimacy here. Your concerns are not legitimate, they're tendentious. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought that up. From your link we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it...Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them. I know you think it's really true that Ben Swann espouses Russian propaganda. But it still has to be verifiable. Let RS's make those novel connections (like calling a narrative from state-funded media and propaganda "synonymous"). Your argument is not with me, but the sources (absent of any pov-pushing interpretations) --74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * After reviewing just article edits by the IP since they came out of their last block, I'm blocking them as WP:NOTHERE but WP:RGW. The article edits alone would be sufficient to indef an account but add in how much time and patience they're wasting for everyone else on talk pages and noticeboards and it's just not worth it to bother with them.  Were they an account, I would have indeffed so let's treat them as such. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Luke Brugnara
I've been attempting to clean up the article on Luke Brugnara, which was very POV, with extensive statements that weren't actually supported by the cited sources. User Joshualeverburg1 (the article's original creator) has reverted all my edits, first just with the explanation "reverting vandalism," and most recently with the statement that I was trying to "besmirch" the article's subject by posting "false statements." I've asked multiple times for Joshualeverburg1 to come to the talk page to discuss these edits, as well as posting a warning about edit warring on his talk page, but he has refused to engage in any discussion about the article. Any suggestions on where we go from here? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, it appears that the user threatened legal action, and has been blocked. Would it be appropriate for me to restore my edits at this point, or would that constitute edit warring? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * At a quick glance the article does have significant issues, for example long stretches of material cited to primary court documents (see references 13, 14, 25, 26 etc in this version) Can some experienced editors take a look? Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on looking at your diffs, I would agree that yours is at least somewhat better than the original version from a BLP standpoint, but stands for more improvement. --M asem (t) 00:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Harry Lloyd
On the Harry Lloyd page, the same IP address, 2.39.36.135, keeps adding the same information about the actor's wife. The information is entirely speculation on a "fake marriage", when the actor has actually confirmed his marital status here in an interview for UTP (Un-titled Project) magazine. They also keep stating that interviews given to reputable media sources by the actor are "fake", with no sourcing of this theory, and claims the actor is actively vandalising his own page to "troll". Other than perhaps a throw-away sentence in a life section of some sort I don't think his wife needs any mention at all, as she is not notable and a low-profile individual.

Myself and other users keep reverting the edits, but as this material continues to be added I thought it would be appropriate to raise the issue here (apologies if this isn't correct procedure, I'm new!). The material added also infringes POV and OR rules as the edits consistently paint the actor as a "troll" as part of this person's wild speculations, without trustworthy sources. If this isn't the correct board for this, could someone point me in the right direction?

I thought the issue was worth raising here because of how the same defamatory content is repeatedly added time and time again. (I also cross-posted this to the OR noticeboard, apologies if that was incorrect)

SillyRoundKatie (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted and warned. Although it looks like this died down several hours ago. So they've likely moved on to something else to occupy their time.  G M G  talk  20:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

SillyRoundKatie (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC) They have unfortunately just begun making the edits again, is there anything further I can do other than keep removing them? I don't want to seem that I am edit-warring SillyRoundKatie (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They're blocked now. If this nonsense happens again, please report on WP:AIV, saying it's repeated vandalism and ask that the admin look at the history. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the action and advice! Much appreciated SillyRoundKatie (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

User Jimmy Bing
Contributions from Wikipedia user Jimmy Bing displays several edits that would reveal an admitted conflict of interest. Many defensive edits to the W. Mark Lanier page leaves room for question that someone close to the indivdual or possibly employed by the Lanier Law Firm is making edits in his best interest.

Examples below:

22:35, 17 June 2009 diff hist +135‎  Virtuality (film) ‎ Fox has no official site. Check futurefox.com, they've linked to us.

20:51, 17 June 2009 diff hist +63‎  Virtuality (film) ‎ We're working with FOX to promote the show.

Special:Contributions/Jimmy_Bing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:c8c0:ec90:89a:e7fb:f034:c4a1 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"holds dual American and Japanese passports" = "has dual American and Japanese citizenship"?
See Naomi Osaka. I'm not actually sure if the source technically supports the content we attribute to it, since having two passports is essentially the same as holding dual citizenship for almost all purposes. But Japan doesn't recognize dual citizenship for anyone over the age of 20; presumably this is quietly overlooked in the case of talented athletes who live outside Japan but want to represent Japan in their chosen sport, but it seems highly likely the Japanese Ministry of Justice would feel differently if she took up residency in Japan and decided to play tennis as an American. And I can't escape the sneaky feeling that if it really was a matter of her holding dual citizenship, our source would just come out and say that directly rather than specifically referring to the number of passports she possesses. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at Japan Times coverage of this in depth. Seems there is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in Japan about dual citizenship (and in this case - don't hear or see - I guess - relevant in two years). Japan Times should support the content. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles should contain sourced facts as they are, not extrapolation based on what editors assume that fact must mean: see WP:SYNTH. Absent any reliable source saying that Naomi Osaka has "citizenship" in Japan and the U.S., the article should say that she holds a Japanese passport and U.S. passport.  (The literal phrase in the Time article, "holds dual American and Japanese passports", is awkward.)  And then there's the whole thing about Haiti, which makes the word "dual" a bit ambiguous, since it's possible that she is a citizen of Haiti through her father, and has neither renounced nor exercised Haitian citizenship.  The way to avoid arguments about citizenship law, and when passports mean or don't mean proof of citizenship, is to avoid using the word "citizenship" or "nationality" when reliable sources didn't use those words.  (And for anyone that thinks that passports always mean citizenship, the following examples probably don't apply to Osaka, but will give you an idea of what kind of madness comes from this sort of thing: The U.S. has nationals that are not citizens but get passports and U.S. protection.  The UK has 5 levels other than British Citizen that also get passports and British protection even though they don't have the right of abode in Britain itself.  Then you have refugee travel documents, which look like passports and sometimes refer to the "protection" of the issuing country.) --Closeapple (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * actually basically solved this problem with the Japan Times article linked above. It seems to be the "quietly overlooked" possibility I alluded to: dual citizens by birth are encouraged to give up one or the other, but not actually subject to any penalties for not doing so, which is apparently the way Japan manages to handle cases of people who identify as Japanese and would renounce their other citizenship but are unable to do so. My own feelings about JT are well-known (actually at around the same time they printed a borderline anti-Japanese hate piece that referred to kikoku shijo as "repatriated children" and described Japan as a "highly racialized" society and made a bogus claim that "They’ll claim us if we’re famous" was a common phrase used to describe "such societies"), but my opinions are not widely shared among the WP:JAPAN editors, and that particular article seems pretty good, and handily solves the problem with our article on Ms. Osaka. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Zofia Klepacka
Anti-LGBT/homophobic vandalism. Please, lock the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.80.21 (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Homophobic? No. Vandalism? No. Protecting the article? No. It's a content dispute about whether some of her recent comments merit a mention in her article or not. GiantSnowman 16:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

documenta artist notability
Quick general question: is there some kind of consensus on whether participation in a documenta makes an artist notable? My notion would be yes, it being an invited and highly prestigious event; but not sure of precedents. (specific case in point - Nomin Bold, who also has other international exhibitions under her belt, so probably not riding on that) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sharad Tripathi
Derogatory article mentioning Cow belt, whether Indian govt has spine, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajnp1 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been cleaned up somewhat, and I've copy-edited it for grammar. It desperately needs improving as it's largely unreferenced, but my knowledge of Indian politics is sketchy at best so I'm not comfortable attempting it myself. Neiltonks (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Gabe Hudson


A bio turned into a press release, filled with promotional blurbs. More eyes on this, please. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've rolled back to a stable earlier version, which looks a lot more acceptable in my opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, . There was more likely to be an edit war if I'd done so. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Lee Nailon


Problematic edits by eponymous account. Unsourced personal content, including some with WP:BLP issues that may need to be rev/deleted. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hank Johnson's Guam gaffe in lead
In 2010, Hank Johnson expressed fears about Guam capsizing during a Congressional hearing, should his comment be mentioned in the lead paragraph of his entry? The gaffe is currently covered in the article body, but not the lead. Here's the edit in question. Nblund talk 20:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No. The lede should be a quick overview of what the subject is. It's a poor place to put what is obviously (to me, at least) a joke, or maybe a slip or a misunderstanding (although I doubt it). Such things look completely out of place in the lede, just as I would not expect Dan Quayle's potato gaffe to be in the lede of his article nor John F Kennedy's jelly-donut flub to be in the lede of his. Funny as they are, they're just too insignificant compared to the other things they're notable for. Zaereth (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Jérôme Rothen
I'm unsure if this is the correct place to address this issue, apologies if it isn't. Article on Jérôme_Rothen is subject to (at the moment) minor vandalism related to the recent PSG-ManUtd champions league match. Patrice_Evra referred to him in a disparaging way that has gone viral, i believe the french version of the article has been locked and it might be worth putting a temporary lock on the article until the fuss dies down.Zaq12wsx (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The way to ask for articles to be protected is by going to WP:RFPP and following the instructions there. However in this case I'm not sure protection is actually needed. There has been some vandalism but it's always been reverted within a few minutes and this type of fan-driven vandalism usually dies down after a few days. Neiltonks (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Jose Miguel Bernardo
I am Professor Jose M Bernardo. Years ago, someone created a biography on me José-Miguel Bernardo I have now an ongoing argument against ISBA. I am fighting legally their reasons to exclude me: I consider their action to be seriously libelous and a violation of my honorability, and I do not want their original decision (never supported by any form of legal jury) to be mentioned in my bibliography. I have edited out that paragraph twice, and someone (who obvously holds a grudge on me) has added it again. If this cannot be stopped, I would rather have my entire biography removed from Wikipedia (I guess I am entitled to that). I am editing out this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseMBernardo (talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think the information should be included, as it is only sourceable to a publicly visible letter from the ISBA, and without a secondary source discussing it, the biographies of living persons policy states "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". I think it behooves us to leave this information out. I don't think it's likely your article will be deleted entirely, as your papers for Bayesian statistics are widely cited on Google Scholar. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. That's a clear violation of BLP policy, and thanks to Ritchie for helping out. One thing I will mention is that you have a clear WP:Conflict of interest with this article, and as such, policy deems that you should avoid editing it yourself. Instead, please ask others to make the changes for you, either on the article's talk page or, in cases such as this, bring them here. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As the editor who has twice reverted Prof Bernardo's deletion of the ISBA judgement (but not the originator of that part of the entry) I would like first to point out that contrary to Prof Bernardo's assertion, I do not hold any "grudge" against him. I am aware of him purely through his outstanding work on Bayesian analysis (which, incidentally, needs to be better reflected in this entry). My reasons for the reversion was that (a) the ISBA judgement is a matter of publicly announced fact; (b) the reversions appeared to have been initiated by someone with an apparent WP:Conflict of interest, which Prof Bernardo has now confirmed. I would argue for the reference to the ISBA judgement being retained, but supplemented with the additional information supplied by Prof Bernardo concerning his rejection of the judgement and recourse to legal remedy. I would be happy to make this addition to avoid any suggestion of WP:Conflict of interest against Prof Bernardo. Robma (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Using the ISBA judgment as the source of this information is a clear and blatant violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. It's no different than using court documents, birth certificates, or other public records. If you can find this info in reliable, secondary sources, then that would be a different matter, but such primary documents should be removed from an article immediately on first site, without discussion. The subject was right to request their removal, even if they did not know the right way of going about it. Zaereth (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Bob Garfield
I don't know what's going on here, some kind of edit warring over marital status going back to June last year, ongoing today. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note, some of those diffs are me; I'm not sure what the truth is, and am taking this off my watchlist. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Kenneth Blum, Please help me I have no experience with Wikipedia and need help to get the article right.
Please help me with...



I have no experience with Wikipedia and need help to get the article right. Kenneth Blum is a living persons and according to your guidelines high-quality sources should be used and any material must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Recently there seems to have been postings that are not neutral, or verifiable.

Ref {2} and {7} refer to the same article cited on the Quackwatch website. The website Quackwatch is endorsed by a group of naysayers who call themselves “ Skeptics.” Stephen Barrett and his board of 20 are known for many non –scientific attacks on alternative medical approaches including vitamins and minerals or any nutritional supplement. Barrett appears to have no understanding of basic scientific exploration having had no experience in the field. Therefore, any statements cited in this Wikipedia page must be read with caution and dismissed based on unsupported claims. Stephen Barrett is a self- proclaimed promoter of unscientific bias against all alternative medicine. Most experienced scientists and practitioners of alternative medicine and traditional medicine oppose Quackwatch and Barrett. Donna Ladd, a journalist with the Village Voice, says that "Barrett relies mostly on negative research even to the point of rejecting positive [peer reviewed] studies.” Throughout life Linus Pauling winner of two Nobel Prizes, was also called “the world’s biggest Quack,” and even Albert Einstein stated that Pauling’s research was too complicated for him to understand. MargMad (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargMad (talk • contribs)


 * Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Elvera Sanchez
Biography says Sammy Davis Jr was her only child then end of article says she was survived by her daughter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.0.168 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The New York Times obituary in the references backs up that she was survived by a daughter, so she had at least two children ('survived by' leaves open the possibility that there were children who predeceased her). To avoid confusion, I've removed the Children parameter from the infobox - we don't know for certain how many there were so unless someone can find a cite for it, it's best to omit the detail. Her famous son is mentioned enough in the article, so we don't lose anything by not listing him in the infobox. Neiltonks (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see no conflict here based on the NYTimes obit. Also, keep in mind, this is definitely not a BLP (she's been dead for nearly 20 years). --M asem (t) 16:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In Black and White: The Life of Sammy Davis Junior the book notes that Ramona was raised by her aunt, Julia and as such wouldn't be considered a child of her mother, like Sammy Davis Junior.-- Auric   talk  11:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sword and Scale
There has been some long-term edit warring going on at Sword and Scale between (and some IPs) and  over a section of the article that MBoudet claims is defamatory. If MBoudet is who he claims to be, then it's clear they have a COI (see WP:COIN); however, his BLP concerns probably shouldn't have been laughed off in edit sums by Satani per WP:BLPREMOVE. There's been no article talk page discussion about this at all, so it might be a good idea to for some others to get involved and sort through this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There are certainly problems, with synth and POV wording if nothing else. I've trimmed it back for now, and I'm not sure how reliable we should regard Mamamia as being when it comes to very strong BLP claims. I'll do some reading on this to try and get a handle on things. - Bilby (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look. I thought your version was an acceptable one, at least until this could be sorted. However, much of the controversy section you removed has been re-added by a new account. I've reverted back to your version and will encourage others to try and sort through this before re-adding. I did request WP:PP so as to try and stop this kind of thing from happening, but it was declined. Would you mind taking a look at the re-added content? Personally, it seems a bit too detailed and WP:UNDUE for an article about the podcast, though it might acceptable in a article about the creator himself. Mentioning how it impacted podcast ratings, etc. is probably OK, but care needs to be taken with the phrasing and the reliability of mamamia.com as a reliable source for so much detail needs to be discussed. It would be better to have more sources corroborating these kind of claims in my opinion since only one source covering this gives the impression that it might haven't been as much of a controversy as is being made out. Have you been able to find any other information on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for creating this discussion. I'm the original editor of the Sword and Scale Controversy section and it is unfortunate, but expected for debate to ensue when editing for BLP. While the authenticity of Mamamia as a journalistic source may be in question, the controversy involving Mr. Boudet is indeed ongoing and is likely to continue to spawn new articles in the coming days. Besides this, however, I've taken to compile a list of other sources and claims that discuss past and current controversy revolving around Boudet and his podcast. Furthermore, in relation to the wording of my edits in the article, I do see I neglected to write in-line with the podcast itself and may have referenced the host's name too frequently. Make note though that I have no personal quarrels with Boudet and simply wish to list the claims as I do see criticism of the podcast itself worthy of mention. ACollegeThinker (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This thread was started by me in attempt to try and sort this out and address the apparent concerns about it being raised by . Content about the "controversy" seems to have been originally added in July 2018 with this edit by, and MBoudet and Satani have been edit warring over the content on multiple occasions since then. Since your account was only created last month, I'm assuming your reference to yourself as the "original editor" means you were not aware of these previous edits. My concerns about the Mammamia source (see WP:RSN for more) are that it might not exert the type of rigorous editorial control over its content than a more traditional news source would and it might be a WP:BLPSPS for content such as this. I tried googling for other sources, but I haven't been able to find anything which would unquestionablely be considered reliable for this type of content. Stuff like this from The Independent are more blurbs than not, while this is an Op-Ed piece and really not usable at all even though it was published in The New York Times. It would be very helpful to find an article on this from a well-established reliable source (more than one would be better) which shows that this is not WP:UNDUE and worthy of mentioning in some more detail the article and worthy of a separate section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To get my 2 cents in: Not sure about edit warring as such, it was clear that MBoudet wouldn't want something negative on his thing's Wikipedia page. I didn't care much, but thought it was important to add it (even if the cite wasn't from something rock-solid like, I don't know, the NYT or similar), but it was the COI that tipped me to keep re-adding it. Satani (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were some issues with MBoudet's editing of the article; at the same time, the repeated back and forth reverting would have likely led to someone (possibly both of you) getting a stern warning or even a block if things had ended up at WP:AN3. It would've been better, at least in my opinion, to at least explicitly claim an exemption to 3RR per WP:3RRNO or seek assistance at WP:BLPN or WP:COIN after the first couple of reverts than continuing to go back and forth and leaving "LOL", etc. edit sums. The fact that the edit warring carried over to your user talk page also probably was an indication to seek assistance from others. Anyway, it's possible as you say that he just didn't want anything negative in the article; however, when someone starts removing content about themselves for BLP concerns (even if the content is sourced), it might be better to be cautious and get other opinions. Doing so might stop a potentially serious mistake from being made or repeated, but it might also establish a strong consensus that there is no BLP violation at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the linked article, the main problem I see with it is that there is no way for us to know whether Hannah Blackiston is a staff journalist at Mamamia: the website provides little information about this writer on her page. In this case I'd lean towards unreliability, and avoid relying on this particular Mamamia article for contentious BLP claims. feminist (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Biff Rose
Maybe some of you can have a look at this article and its recent history, and make a judgment on the content and the sourcing. Thank you all so much, Drmies (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Mei Melancon
Hi. I have reviewed this article and find it to be really poorly sourced and primarily self-promotional. Moreover, the individual in question is hardly notable in any way. Frankly, she is little more than an extra. I would nominate for deletion. Coffee312 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You were answered last time you raised the matter here: see WP:BEFORE for a guide to proposing the article for deletion.  It's unlikely that anyone else will do the work for you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Jamie Moyer
In the wiki page on Jamie Moyer, the section on his personal life implies that he is still married to Karen Moyer. Karen and Jamie were divorced in 2017. I'm a friend of Jamie's. He has expressed the desire to see his personal information updated to reflect reality but has no idea how to do it. I told him I would try. I can't find a reference online to the Moyers' divorce but I know it is true. You might try contacting him.24.17.11.63 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)M A Ganong


 * Sorry but that's going to be tough. It seems the couple have led a full and happy life, and no publications want to talk about their separation. Wikipedia people don't normally contact real life people, because it makes real life people feel paranoid :) MPS1992 (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's an unfortunate situation to have outdated information in the article, but all information has to be published somewhere else first before it can be added to Wikipedia. If Moyer is still in the public eye and gives interviews, or articles are written about him, maybe his marital status is mentioned and those articles can then be used as a source to update the Wikipedia article. The source doesn't have to be online, so for example a newspaper article can be used as a source even if there is no online link to it. -kyykaarme (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I made a note of this on the article talk page. I'm not sure what else we can do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson
I would like to call editors experienced with BLP to the breaking news about Tucker Carlson's comments from a couple years ago on a call-in show. An editor at the article talk page said that Carlson "is a public figures, which negates WP:BLP concerns." I am, of course, not defending the comments, but I think some context is missing, the way it is written now isn't optimal, and we should still presume BLP applies to that page. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't quote a fragment out of context. O3000 (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming we are talking the section that was removed but since re-added from, a question to ask is "why is this important"? One instance of making comments on a shock jock radio show doesn't seem to hold much weight at this point. If there are lingering effects of the comments, then it is appropriate, but just because these statements made in the past have arisen now and a few sources talked about them, doesn't mean it is appropriate to included. RECENTISM and all that. If the comments are still the subject of news in the week, then maybe they should be added. --M asem (t) 15:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If one instance, I'd agree. Appears that he made these comments over many instances over years. I removed it at first because of the sourcing. But, it's now hitting RS. If someone makes their living making high profile, negative comments about other folks, their own glass walls may be exposed. O3000 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Its being repeated by those sources and like a lot of instances recently where the MSM has had to walk back outlandish reports that they gobbled up from less than trustworthy minor sources, its best to wait a bit to see where this goes.--MONGO (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We'd need source(s) to point out that these have been comments about misogyny over the years; as editors, we'd not be able to compile those without such summation sources and say "he's been saying these over many years". That said, I'm just watching the news bubbles and this is gaining legs, including a story about advertisers looking to pull from his show, etc. It's on a trend to be a "career-affecting" situation which is appropriate for inclusion, just wait for the news cycle to work through before including. --M asem (t) 16:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to the WP:RECENTISM argument and that we should wait and see how this all plays out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Patience will out. O3000 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This incident should definitely be mentioned. GiantSnowman 15:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Mark Foster Gage
This whole article has just been turned into an advert for this person. Very little sourcing done for the majority of the article, struggling to see actual notability here. Equine-man (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * agreed - I have culled the article. GiantSnowman 15:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Harris Bokhari
Needs some scrutiny. I'm particularly concerned with Harris Bokhari. I see that one source on the issue of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood is to the website of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, which I don't think is a suitable source for a BLP. I've just been dealing with an issue involving combining two sources to make an argument here and which is how I came upon Bokhari's article. Note that I have no sympathy for Bokhari's position on Ahamdiyya. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Contentious claims need strong WP:RS sourcing. "Workers Liberty" does not meet that requirement. Collect (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Brody_Dalle
(specifically Brody Dalle

Brody Dalle's age is stated when she met Tim Armstrong, but Tim Armstrong's age isn't given. I have added that I believe he was 30 in 1995 (I did this last month and someone removed it). I think this is important information for both newer fans and older fans to be aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.22.176 (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed it again. It's not your opinion on what information is significant about the personal life of a living person, but whether reliable sources say that a particular fact is significant. Do they? MPS1992 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

List of American State and Local Politicians Convicted of Crimes


The list of politicians listed as having been convicted of crimes in California has the same exact names on it as the list for Arkansas. If you click on the names, you will see they are ARKANSAS politicians from their descriptions; therefore, it seems that there is no list for California, which is what I was looking for when I came across this serious error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpecheur (talk • contribs) 04:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like this major edit caused the problem. Might be worth looking through to make sure it didn't screw up anything else. 38.68.203.42 (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Bobby Beausoleil
Looking for a second opinion here. Beausoleil was a very minor (probably non-notable at that point) musician and artist who was convicted of murder as part of the Manson "Family" and has been incarcerated since 1970. He is now going through the parole process. Someone apparently close to Beausoleil has been editing the article to (in my view) give undue weight to his "career" as a musician and artist, and give undue detail in the lede as to the parole process. I've reverted them, but they have responded with further reversions and threats to "report me" on the article talk page. I'm reluctant to get any further into edit-warring threats, and would appreciate uninvolved editors taking a look, and helping to determine where the balance should lie. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody interested in this? The current lede gives a misleading impression of the person's notability, and we have a single but determined editor who is very insistent on maintaining that imbalance.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I took a look, and the editor in question is using some really poor sources. The first source is Tumblr, a blogsite. The second source is a court transcript, which is a blatant BLP vio. The third is AllMusic, which I'm not sure is an RS or not. Four is Tumblr again. Five is "Please kill me.com" (which by the name I can't even take seriously), and six is Bardo Methodology, which also looks questionable as an RS to me. And the last four are all to support a single sentence, which immediately raises a red flag for synthesis. And that's just the first paragraph.


 * Seven is Rolling Stone. Finally, a really good source. Eight, court transcripts again. (Blatant vio, should be removed immediately.) Nine, LA Times. Also a good source. Does anyone see a pattern developing. A lot of bad or questionable sources used to puff up certain info in the article. I'm pressed for time right now or I would go prune it myself, but if you want to do the honors I will watchlist the article and keep an eye out for a while. (Going a little deeper I see we have court transcripts all over the place, which should be dealt with immediately. Unfortunately, I've got to go for now.) Zaereth (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm back sooner than I thought, at least for the moment. I took some time to weed out all the court documents and arrest records, and even one inmate locator site. Still don't have time to sit down and properly weed out the info attached to those sites, but it will need mush weeding to bring it even close to BLP standards. The article reads like a narrative. In other words, it reads like a novel about a character rather than an article about a subject. There are still way too many questionable sources, or completely bad sources. Way too much use of self-published sources in serious disproportion to secondary sources. In many cases these self-pubs are used without any secondary source for them to augment, thus serve no purpose but to inflate the article with non-published/peer-reviewed material.


 * It's also weird to start off with, "Subject is a man incarcerated in a prison." That's not what he is notable for, nor is he notable for being a musician. He's clearly notable as being a convicted murderer, and the article should begin with just that. Everything else about his notability is without a doubt a far second to this, and the balance of the article should reflect that. Once again, I'm outta here for the weekend, so someone else may have to take over cleaning up this article and making it more encyclopedic, because it needs a lot of work. Zaereth (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I think major issues remain with the article - if others would like to assist in cleaning it up, they would be more than welcome.  In the meantime I've reverted the lede to the relatively more neutral wording it had before this edit.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * They certainly do, and when I get some more time, I'll try to help. However, I think the opening sentence is still too off-point. I would start off with the main thing he is notable for as quickly as possible, and add the other information in the expected order. For example, I would begin with: "Bobby Beausoleil is a convicted murderer as part of the Manson murders. He was convicted of killing what's-his-name in wherever, California on such-and-such a date, because of the direction of so-and-so a person.", or something like that. Does that makes sense? Then, once you've summarized the story within a paragraph or two, mention something about his rehab in prison (where, being convicted, he obviously is, hence no need to begin with that), and how his musical talent all ties into that. Once you have a good lede in place, you'll have a basic model of the layout of the rest of the article. (This is also described in the essay I linked above. To see an example of what this looks like, see Basic fighter maneuvers.)


 * To eliminate the narrative style and switch to expository style, it's in some ways necessary to think of the subject as being a "thing" (noun) that we are defining rather than a person we are describing. The main question to answer is: "What is a Bobby Beausoleil?" That he's a man is obvious. That he's an American is of low importance. That he is tied to the famous Manson killings is paramount. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle and Zaereth

I have been editing this page since 2016. It hasn’t been until recently (when Bobby Beausoleil was granted parole on January 3, 2019) that there has been a sudden interest in this page specifically the first paragraph or two. You imply that in your opinion that someone close to him is editing the article to give undue weight to his career and detail to his parole process. In fact, I’m not some one close to Beausoleil…just someone who feels strongly that he deserves recognition for his body of work. My special interest is in underground, counterculture, and experimental film, music and art. This area has been a passionate interest of mine since I was a teenager and I became aware of Beausoleil’s work through his soundtrack for the film by Kenneth Anger, Lucifer Rising. This film, the soundtrack in particular, is widely renowned by fans who have a similar interest. This work and other works by him are known in America, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Russia. His music has been released by legitimate and respected music labels in this country, the UK, Sweden, and Italy while his work has been featured in magazines published on both sides of the Atlantic.

It is clear that both of you are oriented to the sphere that Beausoleil should only be known as a murderer. You have both flatly stated this. Be advised that any attempt to prevent this Wiki page from including information about his work as an artist and musician is tantamount to censorship. Removing valid and significant information from a wiki page devoted to a living subject for the purpose of vilifying or presenting a one-sided perspective amounts to defamation, and is strictly prohibited by the wikipedia parameters. This editor will vigorously resist any attempt to represent Beausoleil as a murderer only unworthy of being recognized for his work.

You have implied that I have a bias and I could just as easily say the same for you and some of the other editors I have had to deal with the past two months. In my view, you are part of the contignency of people that want to put forth a biased agenda due to his past associations, i.e. Charles Manson, in an effort to sway public opinion. Mnpie1789 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Zaereth

Let me make it clear that I believe that Beausoleil’s crime is repugnant. I had no intention of changing any of the page detailing that part of the history. I hoped that other editors who continue to harbor harsh attitudes towards Beausoleil would be willing to meet halfway on the documentation of his history. So far it seems to have been a futile hope.

You are absolutely right, and thank you for pointing out to me what the correct Wikipedia criteria for sourcing information. Honestly, since other editors who have contributed to the page over the years have relied on references to the cielodrive website, which is almost exclusively a repository for court records, police records, and other public records, that I could use it as reference. It was never questioned in the past years, so I assumed it was allowed.

There is no pattern developing with the sources. Ghmyrtle was very insistent that the first paragraph was not properly sourced, so I went out of my way to give as many references as possible. I didn’t realize that would be cause for alarm or cause further issues. Since there are issues with using a blog that I found that has lots of well referenced articles on it, I have no problem getting rid of those and putting the actual referenced book/article/interview, etc. You may be right that the page should simply be gutted. It could simply be left that way, with all improperly sourced material discarded, or abandoned entirely. Be careful what you wish for.

As for you having an issue with PleaseKillMe.com because of the name, that reflects unmitigated bias. The website is named after a best selling book, Please Kill Me, which is a well-known definitive oral history about NYC punk by the writers, Legs McNeil and Gillian McCain, that has been in print for 20 years. Their website that I have referenced is considered their home where they post their recent articles as well as overseeing the other writers who contribute articles about art, music and pop culture. I highly recommend you look up Legs and Gillian’s Wikipedia pages to verify this. I used their review of Beausoleil’s last album to show that a well-established writers/rock journalists were behind it. If that isn’t considered a reliable source, then I’m at a loss as to what is.

I’m going to follow your suggestion and clean up the sourcing on the page, and eliminate the “narrative” language bits in the text. Thanks for your input. It was mostly on point. Mnpie1789 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So far as I'm concerned, there is no problem over including sourced information on Beausoleil's musical and artistic activities, both before and during his incarceration, in the article. I'm aware of his activities before he was jailed, in Anger's film, etc..  However, the balance in the opening two paragraphs must clearly identify that the main reason for his notability - in fact, the only reason he has an article here at all - is that he is a murderer, not an artist.   I agree with  that the wording of the lede needs to be improved, but for the time being I've reverted to the longstanding earlier version which is far preferable to 's unbalanced version.  The sourcing in the rest of the article should be improved - though I have no problems over using Allmusic.com in this case, or Pleasekillme.com (obnoxious name) - but there is no good reason to change the balance of the lede in a way which gives undue importance to his artistic endeavors.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Some of his activities before he was jailed were him being a member of the Grass Roots (before they became Love), the founder/lead of The Orkustra who is considered the official band of The Diggers and played with many famous bands such as Steve Miller Band, Buffalo Springfield and Charlatans at various shows in the bay area, and working on the Lucifer Rising soundtrack with another band he founded called the Magick Powerhouse of Oz in 1967 in exchange for Kenneth Anger wanting him to appear in the short film as an actor. Those are just some examples to show that he was an accomplished musician and artist before his crime and indeed shows that it is your opinion (which is unbalanced) that the only reason he has an article here is because he is a murderer. As for the longstanding version you are referring to that you edited, it has only been up for almost two months. A longstanding version would be my edit that goes as far back as 2018. With my edit there is a proper balance. It clearly shows the facts that he was a musician and multi-disciplined artist before prison and then it goes into his crime and association with Manson and the Manson family. Again, this is tantamount to censorship. As I said before, removing valid and significant information from a wiki page devoted to a living subject for the purpose of vilifying or presenting a one-sided perspective amounts to defamation, and is strictly prohibited by the wikipedia parameters. This editor will vigorously resist any attempt to represent Beausoleil as a murderer only unworthy of being recognized for his work. BTW, Please Kill Me is what Richard Hell wrote on his shirt before a gig with Television and he wound up giving it to Richard Lloyd to wear. You may find it obnoxious, but it's part of NYC punk history and should have no bearing here. Mnpie1789 (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe not longstanding, but certainly earlier - now clarified. Just to clarify further... I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in trying to "vilify" or "defame" this person - in whom I have almost no interest of any sort.  What I am interested in achieving is an article that meets the criteria of WP:BLP and other guidelines (such as, yet again, WP:HYPOCORISM) and presents a balanced rather than unbalanced assessment of his life and notability.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The WP:AIV case that made against me has been rejected.  So, do any other editors here think that the best way forward, given Mnpie's intransigence, would be some form of censure against that editor (for edit-warring, for example), or some form of protection or topic-banning for that article?   Or is there a better way forward?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support a topic-ban for Mnpie1789 - seems to be a SPA. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with this assessment. I just took a look at their contributions, which are solely dedicated to about three or four people, number one of which by far is Beausoleil and his soundtrack. (Note: Anyone can have a soundtrack. All you have to do is pay a studio to make one for you. I personally know a studio owner and many people with soundtracks who've never gotten famous.) By some of the edit summaries that seem to indicate intimate knowledge of these subjects, I'm wondering if a little COI is also happening? Zaereth (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll start with, I have heard of the book, Please Kill Me. It's what the NY Times describes as: "Story of Punk: More the Ugly Gossip Than the Music's Impact... Please Kill Me, named after a T-shirt once worn by a member of Television, doesn't have much to say about the music itself. It's a book of gossip, usually from the participants themselves, about couplings, petty crime, hustles, pratfalls, snubs, traffic mishaps, fistfights, knife fights and overdoses." So, no, I didn't look too closely at the website. Upon further examination, the site actually looks pretty well-written, but I'm still not sure how they stack up to other RSs in terms of editorial oversight and other factors, because I don't have time to dig that deep.


 * No one's looking to censor anything. In fact, I wish people would actually look up the definition of the word before using it. WP:UNDUE works both ways. The article should be in balance with the things he is notable for. This doesn't mean an equal share of perceived good or bad, but the things he is notable for in proportion to the scale of that notability. (For example, we wouldn't expect an unfair amount of bad info in Mother Teresa's article due to the high proportion of good stuff she's known for, nor would we expect an unfair amount of good info in Jesse James' article, who is clearly notable foremost as being a train robber.) Let's face it, he would have to reach the level of Mick Jagger for that to outweigh the notability of such a high-profile crime as the Manson murders, the most famous murders of the last century. I grew up watching the movies and documentaries. I'm also a huge fan of music, particularly rock, metal, and punk, and I've never heard of this guy outside of his association with Manson. And a quick search of reliable sources seems to confirm that. Even in sources like Rolling Stone, his involvement with the Manson case is the top thing they talk about. The4 article, both the lede and body, should reflect that. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. This isn't a matter of how we want Beausoleil to be known. It's about trying to describe how he is known, relying on independent (secondary and tertiary) reliable, non-fringe sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Jesse Brown (journalist)
The article Jesse Brown (journalist) seems highly reliant on Twitter as a source, particularly for its "criticism" section. It looks like an editor with a personal grudge against Brown is using the article as a form of retaliation. Could editors please review it? 75.119.247.233 (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a quick peek, but there is way too much use of twitter, which is not usually a reliable source within itself. Way too much use of blogs and op/ed pieces from newspapers like the Globe and Mail or Huffpost. That section reads like a gossip column of random opinions cherry picked and nestled together. Zaereth (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Twitter is 100% unusable for sourcing about criticism per BLPSPS. --M asem (t) 02:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Twitter should be used sparingly, and only to cite the article's subjects own opinions and nothing else per WP:BLPPRIMARY. If those opinions are genuinely important, they will appear in secondary sources. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter
In January 2019, Carter hoped Cory Booker to run for president.  This quickly got removed by another editor, citing "fails noteworthiness test" as the reason. Please help. I have tried to resolve the edit-dispute by:-


 * Leaving a message at that editor's Talk Page;

On 2nd thought, "Carter hoped Booker run for president" is the correct grammar, thanks. Tony85poon (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Using the Request for Comment function at Politics.
 * Both versions are ungrammatical. And this is not obviously noteworthy anyway. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/13/jimmy-carter-trump-1207385 Tony85poon (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony85poon now blocked as sockmaster. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:DUCK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd block as clear DUCK but I'm not allowed to block socks. Please consider WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 10:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Already done by MrX . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Clayton Jennings
Another tricky article, where the sexual misconduct allegations, at least some of them, are better sourced than the sections about him as a possibly notable person. This needs some attention from an article writer (I did some scrapping), and esp. the last section needs attention--is the content properly verified to reliable sources? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , article creation was by copying from Simple English wikipedia, and the Simple English article was started by an SPI who hasn't edited since. valereee (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And yeah, once the dreck sources are removed, all that's left is the controversy, and even that's not sourced very well. He's literally in the MIDDLE of the biggest news of his life and it's getting coverage only in ChristianPost.com and CharismaNews.com and GospelHerald.com valereee (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, valereee. Thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Articles for deletion/Clayton Jennings. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch mosque shootings
There is an RfC of interest at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. w umbolo  ^^^  10:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Denham
The note at the end of the first para on Liz's lack of legal training is unsourced and frankly offensive given her 15 years of specialist work as the Deputy Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the British Columbia Privacy Commissioner and now the UK Information Commissioner. She is one of the key international leaders in this field.

Whether she went to Law School is irrelevant - and the recent edit doesn't make a case for why it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.6.10 (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for raising this issue. The undue and non-neutral remark about her academic background -- added by another unregistered editor a few weeks ago -- has been removed by User:Bbb23 and I will watchlist the article. I will also remove some of the promotional wording that's found its way in there. MPS1992 (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Providence (religious movement)
Hello, thank you for your time in reviewing this report.

I believe that this article exposes one weakness of the incredible resource that is Wikipedia; namely, that on articles with many sources in a foreign language, a few editors are able to control the content without a complete picture of the incident.

The article on the Providence religious movement has been a bit of a battleground between church members and editors for several years, which is unfortunate to see; however the article violates the BLP policy for several reasons.

In its current form, the article details that several former members accused Jung of sexual crimes, and their accusations were published in newspapers throughout the region. These are the papers that are generally being used as source material for the article.

However, as the trial developed, several investigative journalists published detailed reports which indicated several lapses on the part of the media, and false testimony from some of the witnesses(including one of the accusers eventually being convicted of perjury.)

Yet because these articles were not published in English, they were not easily accessible to the editors (I lived in Asia for several years, and as such was able to track sources in the original Korean.)

Here are a few examples of missing information:

1. The SBS was found in a court of law to have doctored and photo-shopped material of Jung. The Christian Gospel Mission sued SBS for this, won the lawsuit, and received 900 million won in compensation($900,000 USD). The court also gave the following orders: SBS must not broadcast material provided by the involved informant (Kim OO); SBS must inform the Christian Gospel Mission 48 hours before broadcasting any material related to their organization; SBS must guarantee 5% of the broadcasting time to the Christian Gospel Mission so that their rebuttal will also be aired. If these orders are violated, SBS must pay damages in the amount of 30 million won(30,000 US dollars) for each violation. SBS later issued an official letter of apology to the CGM.

2. It was discovered that Kim Do Hun of the anti-CGM group EXODUS, who originally orchestrated the press conference for the four plaintiffs against Jung, had demanded settlement money from Jung and the Christian Gospel Mission in the amount of 2,000,000,000 won (2 million USD) without the knowledge or consent of the four accusers. 3. During the trial of Jung's trial, one of the four original accusers, last name Jang, officially withdrew her lawsuit, stating on record that not committed a single act of sexual abuse, but that he was innocent. The court warned that recanting her testimony at that stage would mean she had committed perjury. Ms. Jang later appeared in court with her mother, said she did not care if she was punished, but maintained that no sexual abuse occurred and Jung was innocent. Additionally, she stated that plaintiff D--who filed together with her in a joint lawsuit--had also fabricated her allegations at the instruction of the original informer (Kim Do-hun of the anti-JMS group EXODUS). Jang was later convicted of perjury.

There are plenty of other examples as well.

I have access to the sources and tried to edit them into the article before simply as a section detailing the controversy around the trial, but was prevented from doing so.

The article should be fair and balanced in according with your policies; failure to include this information would be detrimental to the integrity of the article.

Thanks for your assistance, and I am happy to answer any additional questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOScali (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Above is a single purpose account who only edits pages related to Providence. This user is the same as, and on that account only edited Providence pages. There's a real problem for years where SPA would come in and make sweeping changes to Providence related pages, claim it's all lies, try to push sources tied to Providence, all in an attempt to white wash the article. Multiple users have been banned in regards to this. This happens about once every few years it seems. It's just a cycle that never ends. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Alejandro Vandenbroele
This article's references Alejandro Vandenbroele are all pointing to media sources, all of them largely known as opposition biased media. Considering the whole of the article treats about alleged crimes, the sources should be proper legal documents, or the criminal references completely removed from the article, as they're not properly sourced. This article, as it is sourced, is not different than fake news, and a shame for Wikipedia's image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.46.37.216 (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Marios Kyriazis
Is being edited to remove the tag, and to include "man of the year" designation and other vaguely promotional content by, probably by a sock of the article subject. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This article has been something of a sock magnet in the past. I've put it back on my watch list. τ℗ʍ (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sock investigation launched. τ℗ʍ (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Jamie Shupe


This article's history is full of irony. It was created by the subject on November 23, 2018. That account (and another) have been blocked by me as socks. At the time, Shupe had been successful in a legal petition to have their gender declared non-binary, meaning they were neither male nor female. Since then, Shupe has changed their mind about how they self-identify and wants to be considered male. The editing became tendentious, principally because the socks had not yet been blocked and there were obvious COI edits.

Shupe, who was likely pleased with the Oregon judge when the petition was succesful, is now less happy because of their change of mind. Shupe wrote an op-ed in which they accuse the Oregon judge of bias because supposedly the judge has a transgender child. has added the following to the article: "Shupe has since stated that he believes the judge, who has a transgender child, should have recused herself from the case due to the apparent conflict of interest, claiming 'she was advancing her child’s transgender identity, too.'" and citing to the op-ed. I have reverted twice as it's self-serving, WP:COATRACK, and a BLP violation of the judge. The material clearly violates WP:BLPSELFPUB.

I don't wish to edit-war even if my reverts are exempt under the BLP exception, so I've brought it here (skipping a discussion on the article Talk page, I know).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Is an op-ed SELFPUB? If it is, then the sentence above runs into the prohibition on using such sources for claims about third parties. Even if op-eds are not considered self-published, we have to be careful about the parts that go beyond merely expressing Shupe's identity and go into claims about the judge, since BLP governs "material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page" and hence also comes into play when there are accusations that the judge acted improperly. -sche (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the offending sentence per BLP. The user that restored it cited that the source is primary, which still means it should be removed as per policy stating not to use primary sources for negative information related to people. Valeince (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah this should be removed. Just because a person is notable doesn't mean that everything they say is due for inclusion. It may be useful to offer a general description of Shupe's beliefs about how the legal system handles gender identity issues, but it is definitely not encyclopedic to share Shupe's rumor about the child of the judge who heard his case. The wording also states that a rumor as a fact when it clearly isn't a reliably sourced claim. Nblund talk 17:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just seeing this now, won't replace in the lede - is his take on the trial not worthy of a body mention? BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 16:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the issues raised above apply to the body as well as the lead. It's a (negative) claim about a living third party (so needs to meet BLP with respect to the judge, not just with respect to Shupe; BLP governs content about living people in any article, even outside biographies of the people the material is about), it was presenting what is apparently only a rumor about the judge as if it were fact (so there are issues with the presentation and neutrality / POV of it and how it was added), and it's sourced to an op-ed by the article subject — I'm not sure if that's SELFPUB or not, but it means it's not clear that it's a WP:DUE (or in laxer parlance, "notable") comment, either. (I see someone has boldly cut down on some of the more general issues with the article, like the fact a large chunk was apparently written by the article subject and was citation-overkilled.) -sche (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau
Hi. Maybe a simple question. The Mary Kay Letourneau BLP specifies the age of her child victim as 12 or 13 at earliest point. If you gather the sources, you have about a 50-50 split on this question. Half say 12, half say 13. Based on the principles of BLP, do we specify the age as 13 (the most clearly substantiated age), or present it as "12 or 13" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents is to say "12 or 13". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone who understands what "conservative" writing is, please review my appraisal here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau#age_of_victim

Ok, another try:

I've come to conclusions about this article:


 * Though reliable sources broadly reported perhaps half the time that the child was 12, he was 13.
 * Though reliable sources broadly reported the child was a current student, he was a former student.
 * Though reliable sources broadly reported the subject was found having sex in a car and arrested, they were only kissing.
 * NPOV-secondary reliable sources provide evidence that strongly disputes the most salacious claims, and proves (to me) the lesser ones are true.
 * This pattern of subtle errors in reporting is probable for a tabloid sensation news story.
 * This pattern of subtle errors needs coverage on Wikipedia.

But first, people insistent on defending the most salacious facts among the spectrum of alleged facts reported (even by reliable sources, like People!) need to be admonished. A pattern of more conservative claims that are also more credible is absolutely enough to abandon the more titillating claims.

When writing conservatively, ask what evidence-based explanation is most substantiated. It's a super-useful way to think about covering both tabloid and legal events. But it takes some clarity about what details reliable sources provide about the core claims, and whether we merely count instances or examine evidence to resolve uncertainty.

You and I are expected at all times to treat other editors with politeness, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. That hasn't been happening on this article.

Also, the following statement is a limit, and an opportunity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources

In this policy, verdicts (and other court documents, but especially verdicts) can only augment NPOV-secondary sources. In this situation, that policy sounds powerful. We have a massive NPOV-secondary reach on this article, but obvious divergences in claims among those sources. I believe NPOV-primary sources would absolutely corroborate the NPOV-secondary sources that provide evidence (and favor the lesser-saliciousness). All of the verdicts in this matter are admissable as sources because they absolutely do augment NPOV-secondary sources about these legal events. However, I do think the police report is covered excellently by the Washington Post, and police testimony is covered by the Associated Press. Primary sources shouldn't be needed, but we sure could go there! Mcfnord (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * While I'm not inclined to dig too deep into this at the moment, I will point out that court documents, driver's licenses, birth certificates, telephone books, marriage licenses, tax records, census information, or other primary sources that may contain personal and private information cannot be used on Wikipedia --not even to augment a secondary source. BLPPRIMARY goes hand -in-hand with BLPPRIVACY. When you have a situation where sources give conflicting information, sometimes it's ok to point out the inconsistencies in the article and sometimes a little editorial judgment is required to separate the wheat from the chaff. Zaereth (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Mcfnord has already been told that we follow what WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. And that we report on conflicting information with WP:Due weight. Anyone is free to see the RfCs on the article's talk page. This has nothing to do with editors "defending the most salacious facts." I've found arguing with Mcfnord over BLP matters to generally be pointless. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I get that impression. The above argument suggests we're getting into OR and possibly a little synth, even in interpretations of policy, but I haven't really looked that deep. When I mentioned editorial judgment, I was referring to evaluation of the sources themselves, not just the info they contain. (Not all are created equal.) But nothing I say on the matter could beat the advice given by Robert Shaw: "The task of the fighter pilot is to obtain as much tactical information as possible from every available source and then filter and analyze this information based on knowledge of its source and his best estimates of its timeliness, accuracy, and reliability. Some of the information received may be conflicting, and pilot judgment is required to separate the wheat from the chaff.... Overreliance on any one source of tactical information is a common problem and often leads to disaster. This condition can be the result of actual lack of available informational sources, loss of some sources (through jamming, for example), or simply ignoring available inputs. The disregard of some available information can be fostered by a tactical doctrine that relies heavily on one source to the exclusion of others, or it may be caused by sensory overload from too much information being fed to the pilot at critical moments." Zaereth (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Your Robert Shaw citation is astute. I want you to dig "too deep" here! I will draw up the coverage from NPOV-secondary sources that shows core claims by Flyer22 Reborn are libelous. I'll stay focused on NPOV-secondary sourcing. It's just that NPOV-primary ALSO refutes Flyer22 Reborn's claims. Thanks. -- Mcfnord — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:115:F:2138:0:0:0:620E (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 has a very good reputation for not only adhering to policy, but also for making sure articles and, especially BLPs, also adhere to those policies. Now let me get this straight. We're talking about a child's age here, right? In many cases reliable sources will purposely keep such personal information ambiguous, basically for the same reasons we often do 1.) for the privacy and protection of the child, and 2.) because such details are really trivial. By that, I mean, it makes no difference to the story either way. We know he was in an age range that clearly shows the act was both despicable and illegal; the exact age does not improve our understanding of the subject anymore than that. So why do you feel this is so important?


 * In evaluating sources, we have to do that based upon the reputation of the source, along with its style, editorial oversight, neutrality, relevance, expertise, etc... For example, in the honey article, people are always adding info about how honey cures this or that, whereas peer-reviewed scientific sources that adhere to WP:MEDRS guidelines show little evidence of such a miracle substance. In such an instance, we can rely more on the peer-reviewed sources than the thousands of more-questionable sources out there. In cases like this, we can simply stick to the ambiguity we're given.


 * I'll also add that: "To meet the Supreme Court's definition of libel involving a public figure, a quotation must not only be made up or materially altered. It must also defame the person quoted, and damage his or her reputation or livelihood...". So, how does simply saying "12 or 13" defame and damage a person? Zaereth (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I finally had a few moments to look at the article's history, and all I can say is Yikes! It would take me a good month or two and an excavator to dig through all that mess. You all should really hammer this stuff out on the talk page rather than discussing it through edit summaries. Copy/paste the paragraph or section you want changed, then propose your suggested changes there, and wordsmith it until everyone can agree on a version that should be transferred to mainspace. This does three things. It doesn't clutter up the history with reversion after reversion, so outsiders like me can better sift through it all. It keeps the article from being unstable and possibly (even unintentionally) introducing new policy vios, and it better allows people to follow each party's line of reasoning. While most of us, I think, have the patience to dig into a problem, few of us are archeologists.


 * I'd also suggest (particularly to Mcfnord and Smmary) to avoid these wall-of-text arguments without any paragraph breaks, because it begins to read like stream of consciousness, becoming impossible to tell which point is leading to which other point. My advice is to take some time to summarize your points as briefly as possible. Aside from that, this is the type of story that really turns my stomach, so I'm glad we have others here brave enough to take them on. Zaereth (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I read Smmary so you needn't. I write professionally for 25 years but value your feedback. BLP experts are needed here, especially ones who aren't squeamish about the subject matter. Mcfnord (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting. So you are saying you're her advocate? I think we can judge for ourselves the merits of the concerns, keeping in mind (if she truly is the subject) that it puts her in the position of most bias. However, I think she could help herself in taking some time to better communicate those concerns. (One of my favorite quotes is "I'm sorry for the length of this letter, but I didn't have the time to write a short one." --Blaise Pascal) Zaereth (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ben Swann
My name, William W. Thompson, is used in the story regarding Ben Swann.

1. I am still an employee at the CDC. I have worked there continuously since 1998 and I am currently a senior scientist in the Division of Viral Hepatitis. This can be confirmed by contacting the CDC.

2. The claims I have made have never been discredited by legitimate scientific sources. I don't want to go into the details here because I am trying to adhere to the current gag order that has been put on me by the CDC until an internal investigation has been completed. This can be confirmed by contacting the CDC.

In my opinion, the current information in this story regarding me is libelous.

Sincerely,

Bill Thompson.(phone number removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.68.58 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed the sentence to reflect the fact that Thompson still works at the CDC (at least as of the 2018 factcheck.org story), but the claims made by Thompson have been debunked or have not been supported by reliable sources. SWL36 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The source cited makes clear that anti-vaxxers misuse Hooker's words - I phrased the claim in a more neutral manner. Debunking what a person did not say is really facile. "The transcripts of Thompson’s conversations with Hooker (and why they don’t show what antivaccine activists claim they show) are discussed in detail here." from the source cited. Collect (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this might be a case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:BLPNAME and also maybe even WP:SUSPECT in a way. William W. Thompson does not appear to be Wikipedia notable and the only mention of him anywhere on Wikipedia appears to be that single sentence in the Swann article. Does mentioning him by name equate to any real significant increase in the encyclopedic understanding of Swannor this particular incident. Thompson is mentioned by name in the cited sources, so that information is there for those interested to find; specifically mentioning him by name, however, in the article seems WP:UNDUE. It seems the same encyclopedic information can be just as easily expressed and understood without the name.@ IP 76.122.68.58 (Bill Thompson): Please be careful in making any types of comments which might be mistaken for some sort of threat of legal action or claim of libel against Wikipedia or any editor in particular. Bringing your concerns to the attention of others here on this noticeboard is a good thing, but Wikipedia has a strict policy against legal threats, etc.;  so, you need to be careful when posting anything related to "legal stuff" on Wikipedia. You also shouldn't be posting personal contact information as well for your own protection; Wikipedia pretty much automatically removes such information for privacy concerns, especially since there no way to verify that an IP address is a particular individual. If, however, you'd like to create an account per WP:REALNAME, have your identity confirmed by emailing Wikimedia OTRS and then post such information on your user page, then you may be able to do so.  -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nader El-Bizri
Just to request the contributions of experienced Wikipedia editors to improve the content of the article and address any flagged issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.54.56 (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We are seeking the intervention of experienced Wikipedia editors to improve the article and evaluate whatever issues are raised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.144.26 (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

All the references in the article are properly connected to institutions such universities, BBC, France Culture, academic press; so the issues flagged have been cleared and yet a note is still placed on the article and it therefore needs to be evaluated by experienced Wikipedia editors to reach consensus that the issues have been resolved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.194.28 (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please can again any experienced Wikipedia editors look into improving the article and clearing the issues raised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.144.15 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The article has a lot of issues. First, it reads like a resume rather than an encyclopedia article. In other words, it's mostly just a list of jobs he's had rather than telling me something about the person. Most of the sources are university profile pages, which are primary sources. There are also many links to sites that are selling books, such as Global.oup.com or Springer, which doesn't give any info other than the price of the book. (Starts to look promotional.) There is almost a total lack of reliable, secondary sources, and without those the notability of the subject is questionable. In short, the article looks like it was written by the subject himself, or someone very close to the subject, and will need a lot of work to bring it into a state where it reads like an encyclopedia article rather than a resume. Only when all of these issues are taken care of will we be able to remove the tags. I'm not up for that much work right now, so we may just have to wait until someone who is comes along. Zaereth (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you focus on- or provide more details about what he has done that warranted coverage. This is because the article is mostly about his career, hence the impression that it reads like a resume. So, you might want to give more attention to the Kuwait Prize 2014 he received and his ranking in the list of "Thought Leaders" in the Arab world. In this vein, you can begin the lead with a sentence saying that "Nader El-Bizri is a British-Lebanese scholar who specializes in Arabic classical traditions." Then, work your way from there. This sentence is just an example (and needs to be verified, since the source I used is not definitive) and you might want to follow a different angle. But I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The article had a long section on "Ideas" that was elaborated by multiple editors over time but it was deleted by the editor who placed the tags and that is why perhaps it reads now like a resume. Instead of deleting the whole section it could have been improved (although it had citation like the ones used in academic papers). Anyway more experienced editors can look into this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.194.26 (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't mean that as an insult, but there's a matter of style to consider. Take a look at other bios, like Eric Kandel, Barack Obama, Harrison Ford, and note how differently they read from this article. This man is obviously notable, but we have to focus on what makes him notable. His status as a University professor is obviously a big part of that, but how? And why? Focus on what makes him stand out from the crowd (his peers).


 * Then look at the references. University profiles can be a great source of bio info --up to a point-- and then they really just establish that he worked there. What would really be helpful are secondary sources like newspapers, magazines, television news or documentaries, book reviews, peer-reviews, etc... And, yes, we can even use printed books as sources, even if not available online. (I do it all the time.) However, instead of linking to the publisher, who is only trying to sell the book, simply give the title, author(s), publisher, copyright date, and, most importantly, the page(s) that talk about him. See WP:CITE for more on citing sources, but as long as you have all of that there shouldn't be a problem.


 * Same with books that the subject has authored or co-authored. A simple ref to the book itself is enough of a source for that information, so no need to link to a site that is trying to sell the book. You don't even need to link at all, if one is not available. You can link to say, Google Books, but what available on there today may not be tomorrow. And along that vein, it's not necessary to list the publisher after each mention of a book. That's fine in a list but awkward in the middle of a paragraph and too much like academic writing. Similarly, there are way too many parentheticals. When you put something in parentheses, that's usually an unconscious indication that it really isn't necessary information, and most of the time it can be removed, and this is especially true for encyclopedic writing, which should be a summary rather than reading like a textbook or study. There's a big difference between academic style and encyclopedic style. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar
Ilhan Omar has explicitly said in her Yahoo News interview that her mother was ethnically Yemeni.@9:14 The article currently says she was partially Yemeni. Shouldnt we take the subjects word for it in this case? I was reverted several times on the page. Magherbin (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The two things are not mutually exclusive. - Nunh-huh 21:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Abiy Ahmed (Prime Minister of Ethiopia)

 * }

To many, the election of Abiy Ahmed, closely followed by the release of political prisoners and a real peace with neighbouring Eritrea, was one of the most hopeful recent developments in Africa.

However, the subsequent diminution in the power of ethnic minorities in the north of Ethiopia has meant a concentrated backlash.

Recently, the lead section of this BLP has become slanted in a way that I personally find unacceptable. What do others think? --BushelCandle (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Editor has been blocked for, among other things, BLP violations. This article is one of several where the editor's misuse of sources makes me believe a rollback - removing all their edits from the article history - is due. 2601:194:380:1320:8D96:B063:7218:E20F (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Happily, the opening section has now been reformed to be a fairer "executive summary" of the rest of our biography and subsequently effective administrative action has been taken. --BushelCandle (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Tariq Mahmood Idris
Hi, I removed unreferenced death place and death date from this article but a search of the web shows that he may well have died, eg. https://www.facebook.com/BritishMuslimHeritageCentre/posts/janaza-salah-islamic-funeral-prayer-arrangement-for-tariq-mahmood-idris-tomorrow/1329959593752853/ and https://eternalidolinterlude.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/in-loving-memory-of-my-friend-tariq/comment-page-1/ Can either of these be used to reference his death in the article ? or can someone find a reliable source, thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the statement in Facebook by the British Muslim Heritage Centre can be used, but technically it may be subject to interpretation as this could be described as chicken or the egg problem. According to WP:SPS the British Muslim Heritage Centre could probably be considered an "expert source" for that particular matter since they claimed to have held the ceremony and are notable. That would make it a valid reliable source. The problem is that according to the current reliable sources it is still a BLP and the policy also states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." So technically speaking you would need another RS to state that he is no longer a LP to use it, but my feeling is that this is a clear case where we can apply WP:IGNORE, so my advice would be to go ahead and use it.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ali Bin Fetais Al-Marri
There is presently a discussion at Talk:Ali Bin Fetais Al-Marri regarding the removal of controversial material about the subject, who is the Attorney General of Qatar. I would invite any of the regular visitors to this page to possibly weigh in on the matter, to obtain a wider consensus. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Jim Wilkes
Jim_Wilkes

Hello. I am a paid advocate of the person featured in this biography of a living person. Per Wiki guidelines, I have posted a number of facts on the Talk page of the article that we believe should be added to the article, as well as a few items we believe are inaccurate or misleading and should be deleted (all with the necessary sources). I would just like to call attention to those items and respectfully request that a Wiki editor review them. Thank you for your time. AMcKnightTaylor (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Saikat Chakrabarti (FEC complaint)
Hello BLPN. I think there are inaccurate statements in our BLP Saikat Chakrabarti, concerning a complaint filed with the Federal Elections Commission. The problematic passages are: The sources cited are Fox News, Washington Post, AP News, and Business Insider. To try to fix this, I edited the first clause to bring it closer to the sources, and removed the second clause, and posted on the article's talk page. My edits were reverted and consensus to maintain the status quo was declared on the talk page. I still think it's just a black-and-white issue of not accurately reporting what the sources are saying. So, I ask for more eyes on this. Thank you. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 21:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) ... the attorney for the Ocasio-Cortez campaign and the political action committees with which Chakrabarti was associated, refuted the complaint as baseless ... – this clause has three problems:
 * 2) The sources cited (RSes) do not say the attorney "refuted the complaint as baseless". The sources say the attorney "denied" the allegations, not "refuted" them.
 * 3) Chakrabarti isn't just "associated with" Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress. He was a co-founder of both of them. Our own article says so in the other sections, but in this clause, we use the word "associated".
 * 4) The attorney isn't just the attorney for the AOC campaign, Justice Democrats, and the Brand New Congress PAC, he is also the attorney for Chakrabarti's company, Brand New Congress LLC (a separate entity from the PAC), which is a fourth entity that the attorney represents. The cited sources identify the attorney as representing "four" entities, not three. The LLC received money from the PACs, which is the subject of the FEC complaint, so this could be a key detail.
 * 5) Legal and campaign finance experts have expressed opinions consistent with Mitrani's assessment. This is entirely an OR interpretation (and not a correct one; the experts say there may be some minor wrongdoing, whereas the attorney says there is no wrongdoing whatsoever). The cited sources do not compare the experts' opinions with the attorneys' opinion. No RS reports that any legal or campaign finance expert said that the allegations are "baseless" or "refuted", etc.
 * I have tried to improve the previous consensus version to add clarity and accuracy. The Fox News story cited did not contain any assessment by legal experts or anyone else of the strength of the claim brought by NLPC, but Business Insider, MSN/AP, and Bloomberg all quoted experts arguing against the seriousness of the complaint. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think your edits were big improvements. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Timothée Chalamet
Editors, many of them without many or any other edits to Wikipedia pages, are constantly adding that the subject (who was born and raised in New York) is a citizen of France, even though the claim isn't directly supported by sourcing. Usually, they are adding it right in the first sentence of his article. There is a source that appears to indicate he has a French passport, but, as our Wikipedia article on the topic states, a French passport "[serves] as indication of French citizenship" but "not proof [emphasis mine]; the possession of a French passport only establishes the presumption." In any case, it's original research and there doesn't appear to be a source that actually says he's a citizen. Sample edit: "To quote Art. 30-2 of French Civil Code, However, where French nationality may flow only from parentage, it shall be deemed established... Thus, born to a French father and holding a French passport, he should be considered a French citizen unless you can prove otherwise, not the other way around". This is the very definition of original research. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Without at least one source that directly states that Chalamet is a French citizen, we obviously cannot infer that is from the fact that his father is French, that he lived in France, or that he has a French passport. WP:OR applies.- MrX 🖋 18:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We can be sure that he's an actor, so I've put that in the article. MPS1992 (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Örjan Ramberg
Please see talk page there! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Jesse Brown (journalist)
User:Spoonkymonkey, who is currently temporarily blocked, has been editing Jesse Brown (journalist) to re-add derogatory information sourced only to Twitter. There are also reasons to believe he is in a COI situation Brown, which Arbcomm is aware of but which I am not going to go into here in order not to violate the policy on outing. Based on their editing patterns, it also appears that User:Spoonkymonkey used the sockpuppet User:Midlandino to edit the Brown article back in January. 104.222.125.138 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Gianna Jessen
There is no evidence provided to substantiate her claim that she survived an attempted abortion. The entry should be clear about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfreeg (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are three citations and her own testimony. What kind of evidence would you accept, besides these WP:RS? Also, who are you, and what is your interest, since you have never before edited that article, or even discussed it on the talk page? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the New York Times source, she has released some of her medical records. On those records under "Complications of Birth" it is noted "Born during saline abortion."  Her claim is as well substantiated as any such claim can possibly be from where I'm sitting. Sperril (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Moore (writer)
needs administrator attention. Two editors (User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Soibangla) are attempting to place violations into this article regardless of WP:RS (using blogspot, and a mediate source with paid pundits talking... not a journalist's report), WP:OR (stating things not stated in any source), and WP:SYNTH (by attempting to add their own rebuttals to his appointment, and to Moore's statements which simply no source is doing). I unfortunately do not have the time today to attempt to undo/change every edit against policy there. (I only happened to be editing the article at all since there was news of the appointment and not a lot about it in Moore's article for the public to read about... I wasn't out looking for bias) 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) Please edit with your normal account. (2) There is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. (3) It's OK to cite recognized experts, even if they are not published in RS (in this case, actual economists commenting on Moore's faux econ credentials). However, the cited RS in the article mirror the assessments of the cited economists (describing bipartisan condemnation of Moore getting nominated for the Fed). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not attempt to attack my character, just because I have executed my choice to not use an account to edit. I'm not violating the sockpuppet policy just by pointing out you're in actual violation of the most important policy on this site. 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Snooganssnoogans readded content in violation of WP:BLP and WP:V with the following edit summary "Both Menzie Chinn and Greg Mankiw are recognized experts, and thus OK per WP:BLOGS." The only problem with that claim is that WP:BLOGS itself states that one should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." - I've reverted that violation of BLP policy as well. 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia and congratulation on your near instantaneous knowledge of our policies! I do agree that neither of the sources in that diff are acceptable for a BLP. - MrX 🖋 19:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing I'm new here just because I'm using an IP address. I literally just don't use my old admin account anymore. 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, then welcome back.- MrX 🖋 20:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This source can be used for Mankiw's opinion. A RS obviously reported Mankiw's comment immediately, given that Mankiw is clearly a recognized expert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to use that source... but do not confuse that as meaning your previous source was actually reliable. 2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My edit points out Moore "has insisted on television that the economy is experiencing deflation, and when corrected by panelist Catherine Rampell on this unambiguous error of fact, refused to give ground," which can be seen at 2:03 in the CNN video embedded in the Mediaite source I provided. I later showed you his quote from his paywalled WSJ op-ed:"The deflation began with quarter-point interest-rate increases in September and December." He also said “The Fed is sucking the oxygen out of the economy and has created an economically debilitating deflation,” which I will also add to the edit. Moore may have been correct to assert that recent rate hikes have caused disinflation or deflationary pressure, but he is 100% factually wrong to assert that they have caused deflation. The last time the economy had a single month of deflation was April 2015. It is certainly noteworthy for his BLP that, despite being corrected on national television, Moore has subsequently chosen to double- and triple-down on a fundamental and rudimentary error that a first year economics undergrad is capable of correcting. And the fact he has chosen to do this suggests that it is not, in fact, an "error." soibangla (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate if you would login. soibangla (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * By any chance are you the editor who subsequently made edits that falsely asserted most people gave Moore high praise, which was not supported by the refs, and significantly altered a direct quote from a cited source? Just wonderin’ soibangla (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not anyone who has recently logged in. Period. I have no qualms with a single checkuser (most of whom I consider as friends still) looking to see who I am, nor the whole of ArbCom. You should be ashamed of yourself for casting aspersions about someone who has never interacted with you just so you can attempt to deflect from your, quite noticeably, deliberate violations of WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLPRS, and WP:NPOV. We shouldn't be letting our hatred of politicians write this encyclopedia. 2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to take me to ArbCom and fully substantiate this litany of false accusations, “deliberate violations of WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLPRS, and WP:NPOV,” which constitutes an egregious personal attack on the core of my integrity. And be sure you prove deliberate. As an alternative, perhaps consider a retraction and apology. soibangla (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Administrator attention requested, again - The editor is now making baseless attacks about me in their edit summaries while re-adding a copyvio: diff. Can someone do something about this, please? (IIRC this should fall under edit summary RevDel as well...) Editors/IPs aren't supposed to be facing this sort of bullcrap just because some editors feel a need to push their own personal political views onto this encyclopedia.  2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are aggressively whitewashing the truth. I am not pushing my personal political views. Please edit with your handle. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your response here and your response at the talk page stating how you will "definitely prove it. There will be no whitewashing."... seems to indicate you have a very personal vendetta going on here and that perhaps you need to step back from articles you're emotionally invested in, to maintain neutrality. Making personal attacks on me continuously, like you did on the talk page once more, is simply unacceptable behavior too. 2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I submit you are projecting. You appear determined to bury the factual reality that Moore has falsely asserted at least thrice that we have deflation. Seeing as the man is being considered for appointment to the Fed, whose primary mandate is to effect price stability through money supply management, the fact that he has tripled-down on this brazen falsehood is of paramount importance in his BLP. It would be helpful if you, as an obviously highly experienced editor, to post with your handle, so at least I can make an effort to avoid you going forward, as I suspect you and I have a "history" and you can "see" me but I can't "see" you, which allows you to bait me without consequence. soibangla (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPSPS is very explicit on this: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Adding mediate or other blog links from others is 100% against policy. --M asem (t) 19:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is "Adding mediate...100% against policy"? soibangla (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sam Hyde


Sam Hyde's affiliations to the "alt-right" have marred his career and are clearly being used as a form of defamation by user by removing any edits that provide context for these claims. Additionally, Hyde's support of pizzagate is not a defining trait and continues to be included in the header of the article instead of in the body of the biography section where it belongs. clearly has a penchant for ensuring his opinion based viewpoints on right leaning figures remain on several articles based on the users edit history. This user cannot be regarded as an unbiased contributor or moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax (talk • contribs) 00:32, March 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * The 3rd of three sources for pizzagate / alt-right is not about Sam Hyde, he's only mentioned as guest of the Gavin McInnes Show. Allegedly mocking the holocaust in a linked video, that has been removed as violating YouTube's policy on hate speech. IOW, we can't be sure if that was a parody, satire, or seriously out of order. "NYUlocal" is used as source on various pages, so I'd assume out of order. The 2nd source confirms both, and while The Hollywood Reporter isn't the The Guardian, it's no nonsense, and one pizzagate suffices for a note in the lede, unless there are more conspiracy theories to report. The 1st source The Atlantic is even worse for Sam Hyde than the 2nd source, I fear that this is a hopeless case. –84.46.53.181 (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sam Hyde and two other articles were already discussed here one month ago. –84.46.52.233 (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Gavin McInnes
This page includes multiple libelous assertions that are either sourced to partisan opinion-editorials or to articles completely irrelevant to the text at hand. In the "Career" section, there is a pattern of putting quotes and the editor's personal views together in order to create a specific narrative of events that casts the subject of the page in a negative light. Also, in the "Views" section of the page, there is a general pattern of inserting out-of-context quotes in order to try to prove the editor's personal view of McGinnes.

Thanks for taking a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyoKrsna (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I doubt if anyone is going to trawl through those Career/Views sections looking for what you mean, there are 70 or so sources in there. I can see a few that are not great, but we definitely need some specific issues to look at here. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific DaddyoKrsna, on sources you think are partisan or unfair? Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The primary issue is the beginning synopsis, as it's what most readers will read and stop there. The label "far-right" uses as its sole source a hostile New York Times op-ed. The label "neo-fascist" uses a hostile Daily Beast op-ed that offers no justifying evidence for the term, a Chicago Tribune article that doesn't even use the term but happens to quote a Democrat politician as using it, a Lawandcrime article that itself cites NBC and the previous Chicago Tribune article as using the term, and a hostile Huffington Post op-ed of all things. Unless Wikipedia editors usually use antagonistic op-eds as their basis in creating neutral summaries of political figures, none of these sources are legitimate. I would also contest the credibility of the SPLC, but that isn't as big of a deal. The other main issue is when the editor presents McInnes' view and then shoehorns in his own refutation. See: paragraph 3 of "Law Sign Controversy" and paragraph 3 of "Lawsuit Against the SPLC." Otherwise there are numerous other examples of hostile op-eds used as sources, but these aren't as harmful as those I've mentioned. Reading the Views section again, it actually seems decent enough. Perhaps the quotes are chosen selectively to find the most obnoxious ones, but they are legitimate. Thanks again.DaddyoKrsna (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Rose Byrne biography
The article cites her appearance in a movie called "Neighbours" but that is an Indian vampire film. I believe the correct film is "Neighbors" by Judd Apatow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.157.15 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the article as it has been, the film title is linked about three times directly to Neighbors (2014 film). Is there a link that is not correct? Why are you posting directly here and not to Talk:Rose Byrne? For that matter, the BLP is not protected; if there is an error, just fix it yourself! Thanks. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There was an incorrect link, in the 'Continued comedic roles (2012–present)' section. It pointed to an article with the British English spelling of the title (Neighbours) rather than the US English spelling (Neighbors). It seems these two different but similarly-named films were both released in 2014: the former is an Indian horror, while the latter is an American comedy! I've corrected the link (and spelling) so it now links to the American film. Neiltonks (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

E.J. Levy (2)
User NekoKatsun has repeatedly (and almost immediately) removed edits I made to correct inaccurate content. NekoKatsun wholesale removed my entire edit and reverted the text back to a former version with incorrect information. I explicitly stated why I made the corrections, and offered citation support. NekoKatsun is using E.J. Levy's page to promote an agenda (a singular interpretation the real-life figure Levy's novel is based on, James Miranda Barry, when IN FACT there are many interpretations of Barry's life and gender, based on published biographies and articles, many of which I've read). Argument's about James Miranda Barry's life should be made on the Barry's page, not E.J. Levy's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caprae Lac (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As a note, this user has been indeffed as a sock of a user with a declared COI. The sockmaster and other users have been repeatedly trying to insert the same edit against consensus, and have ignored repeated requests to use the talkpage. Any editor is welcome to review the talkpage and page history.


 * The short version is that Levy's page has a section on the criticism that her upcoming book has been met with (using female pronouns for Dr. James Barry); it's kept short and the sources are reliable. The contested edit cites a low-quality source (Bustle) in an attempt to downplay the controversy and refute the other, higher-quality sources. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 02:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The quotes used by Bustle are taken from an article published by The Times of London, which is a reliable source for an interview with Levy, which is in turn a reliable source for Levy's defense against the allegations. By the way, the Times article clarifies that Levy was criticized for using female pronouns for Barry in social media, not in the book, which as others note has not been published yet. Levy, in the Times says the novel refers to Barry most often as "I" but also sometimes as "she" and other times as "he."HouseOfChange (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it might be best that any further comments about this be added to the article talk page instead of here. There are two BLPN threads (the other is WP:BLPN) and article talk page discussion currently ongoing which runs the risk of fragmenting things and making it harder to reach a consensus. There now appear to be quite a number of editors discussing things on the article's talk page; so, it seems best to keep everything related to the article there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD with concerns of BLP issues
I nominated Articles for deletion/Chowkidar Chor Hai on the grounds that the article violates WP:BLP and WP:SOAPBOX. While being one of the many throw-away slogans, the title itself claims the Indian Prime Minister is a "thief", and that is just an absurd allegation made by his opposition.

It needs some extra attention.

Arbcom has clarified before that BLP applies on such stuff per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. 103.220.38.163 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The name actually means "The watchman is the thief" (चौकीदार चोर है।), not "the Indian Prime Minister is a thief" (भारतीय प्रधान मंत्री एक चोर है). Amusingly, the supposed text "चोकीदार चोर है।" meant "Chocolate is the thief," which I've fixed.-- Auric   talk  15:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sasha Grey
For Sasha Grey two contributors agree that TMZ is an unreliable source, and that a recently archived talk page consensus about Dubiously cited information under "Personal Life"&#x2009; stated in 2016 about TMZ is still valid. This consensus also explicitly covers a Complex.com source based on the TMZ report. Fun fact, the two contributors are the GA nominator and the GA reviewer for Sasha Grey.

The reviewer suggested to add the info with reliable sources including Complex, The Daily Beast, and Daily Dot. The nominator rejected Complex.com per consensus, and rejected The Daily Beast per RS/P (yellow) and the immediate removal of an attempted January 2018 use of this source; as noted at the end of the recently archived consensus.

Both consider The Daily Dot as good source (RS/P green), and the article is used as source on Sasha Grey, but not for the TMZ info. Likewise the nominator added a Mandatory.com source for another fact, ignoring the same TMZ info also quoted by Mandatory. In a second review pass both contributors started to repeat their arguments unmodified, only one "find more" suggestion is covered by Mandatory. JFTR, an unrelated The Daily Beast&#x2009; source is used on the "almost good" article uncontested. –84.46.53.4 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

With the GA review now out of the way (fail) I'm still interested in other opinions about the TMZ source, it is only tagged as "yellow" (caution) instead of "red" (verboten) on WP:RS/P. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * IMHO No "celebrity gossip" news is ever "reliable". Meanwhile the BLP is WP:Puffery for sure, and has "non-important stuff" galore about a relatively minor person. Be glad it even got a "fail".  Collect (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC) (fixed all caps)
 * No PUFF-words on the complete page (ignoring sourced "Best &hellip;" awards.) Apparently you agree with the 2016 talk page consensus that the TMZ info should not be used directly or indirectly. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Laura Dekker
In February 2018, gave an interview with American Sailing Association. The article is titled "Laura Dekker Interview, Part 1". A direct quote from that article is posted below. https://asa.com/news/2018/02/06/laura-dekker-interview-pt1/

Laura Dekker recently gave a presentation at a fund raiser for LifeSail, a Los Angeles non-profit that uses sailing as a vehicle to teach life lessons to kids. As fate would have it, Dekker has donated her beloved Guppy, the very boat she did the trip on, to LifeSail. She has similar ideals about sailing’s educational value and soon the boat will make its way from New Zealand to LA via Fiji and Hawaii.

The same reference is used in the line: In February 2018, Dekker loaned 'Guppy to LifeSail, a Los Angeles non-profit that uses sailing as a vehicle to teach life lessons to kids. [73]

However, this line states loaned, which according to the American Sailing Association article is inaccurate.
 * There is an article that could provide more insight into this conundrum. In this story, Dekker was quoted using both loaned and donated to describe the affair. She said that a couple promised payment so she could donate the boat. However, no payment was made and so this must have been the reason why she claimed that the craft was on long-term loan. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

adesuwa aighewi
Hi!

This is Adesuwa Aighewi. I was born in 1992, someone keeps changing it to 1988. They have now blocked anyone from editing. This is a problem for my career. Can we please change back to my real age of 26 and not allow anymore changing?

Thank you!

AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adesuwa Aighewi (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently resolved by Ponyo in this edit yesterday, thanks. The semi-protection expires in three days, and on a bio about you just suggest non-trivial fixes on its Talk:Adesuwa Aighewi page, otherwise you could be or get in a conflict of interests. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Gary Cohn (investment banker)
I am contacting you regarding the article for Gary Cohn, the investment banker (found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)). I do not regularly edit Wikipedia pages and am not completely familiar with the procedures, but the below paragraph struck me as strange compared to the tone of other Wikipedia articles:

Critics of Cohn's describe his work style as arrogant, aggressive, abrasive, and risk-prone. They describe his "6-foot 3-inch & 220lbs" stature as intimidating, as he might "sometimes hike up one leg, plant his foot on a trader's desk, his thigh close to the employee's face, and ask how markets were doing".[15] According to former Bear Stearns Asset Management CEO Richard Marin, Cohn's arrogance is at the root of the problem. "When you become arrogant, in a trading sense, you begin to think that everybody's a counterparty, not a customer, not a client."[15] Cohn's supporters see these qualities as advantages. Michael Ovitz, co-founder and former chairman of Creative Artists Agency and former president of The Walt Disney Company, stated that he is impressed with Cohn. Ovitz said: "He's a trader. He has that whole feel in his body and brain and fingertips."[15] Ovitz sees Cohn's toughness as a "positive" value, explaining that a high-ranking executive can't be "all peaches and cream".[11][15] Donna Redel, who was Chairman of the Board of the New York Mercantile Exchange when Cohn worked there as a silver trader, remembers Cohn as "firm", "strategic", and "driven". Martin Greenberg, her predecessor, said Cohn "was tough", and added, "Gary got in with the right people, worked his ass off, and used his head".[15]

No matter an individual’s opinion on Mr. Cohn (with whom I have no professional affiliation), I think the bolded material presents some potential issues in terms of quality and tone. The first bolded sentence appears to be a bit biased in the tone - I think a balanced approach could be taken in the description of these qualities, but this paragraph is not how it would be done. Additionally. The combination of the attribution "arrogant, aggressive, abrasive, and risk-prone.” is not quoted, which masks the fact that the referenced article (view-source:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-24/succeeding-blankfein-at-goldman-may-prove-hurdle-too-high-for-no-2-cohn) never presents this depiction of Mr. Cohn as described here. Specifically, Richard Marin is the only person in the article mentioned as viewing Mr. Cohn as arrogant, the full quote reading "Richard Marin said Cohn's arrogance is at 'the root of the problem' at Goldman Sachs. 'When you become arrogant, in a trading sense, you begin to think that everybody's a counterparty, not a customer, not a client,' Marin said. 'And as a counterparty, you're allowed to rip their face off.’” Especially since the descriptor “arrogant” is applied twice in the Wikipedia article, it seems a bit misleading considering that both references refer to a single quote which is the only use of the word in the referenced Bloomberg article. The referenced Bloomberg article never describes Cohn as aggressive, and in fact the only use of the word is from a lawyer definitively saying that Cohn was not aggressive. The referenced Bloomberg article never describes Cohn as risk-prone (which I think is a malapropism in this context in any case); in fact, the only mention of Mr. Cohn in connection with risk in the article is describing how his willingness to take risks while leader of a business unit led to great success for that unit. The phrase “intimidating, as he might” is part of the quote, and I think it is arguably displaying of a point-of-view when it is not displayed in this way. The way the phrase “the root of the problem” appears in the Wikipedia article (removed from the original quote, see above) I feel is arguably non-neutral in its perspective.

Your team may agree with any or all of these comments; I flag them for your attention in the hope that the material of the article can be reviewed by people with more experience than myself and, if appropriate, make changes. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.10.215 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The whole section "Personality and work style" is based off of one article. I would suggest removing the section, and instead putting any relevant details about his "work style" at Goldman Sachs into the section of the article on his banking career. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Robert Schwarz (astrophysicist)
I am the creator of Robert Schwarz (astrophysicist). Yesterday, anonymous user 157.132.20.166 began removing text from the page. The first removal had no description, so I undid it. Later removal descriptions say that they were done by Dr. Schwarz himself, who is upset that the page was written without his knowledge. A check of https://www.whatismyip.com/ip-address-lookup/ shows this IP address is associated with the U.S. Antarctic program, and so I believe these comments were actually written by Dr. Schwarz. I believe that all of the information on the page--including the information removed--was well-sourced and written in a neutral point of view. What is the appropriate thing to do here? EAWH (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what is going on there, on investigation I consider the removed content uncontroversial and well enough cited and so have replaced it. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we're not talking anything controversial but even if that's the case, the sources backing it are fine. The removes are inappropriate, and if that really is the person named removing it, its unfortunate that that inforamtion is out there but its removal makes no sense. Arguably if they feel there is anything sensitive that shouldn't have been published by those sources they can submit an ORTS ticket to prove their identity to potentially ask for that to be removed. --M asem  (t) 21:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Simon Palfrey Simon Palfrey
The article Simon Palfrey appears to have been written either by the subject of the biography himself, or by a person closely connected with him.

The article as a whole reads like a piece of self-advertising or self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:E41B:4100:D921:E7B4:D7CA:6D09 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the entire article is basically a chorus of reviews, reading like the back covers of several different books. The article does need someone like yourself (hint hint) to go through it and change it into a proper encyclopedic style. But there aren't really any BLP violations, per se, and if it was written by the subject then they're good enough to cover their tracks linguistically. If you think it's a conflict of interest problem, you may try reporting it at WP:COI/N. Otherwise, it's a problem that anyone can go fix. Zaereth (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have taken out the long paragraph which was awful. The rest looks basically fine to me, but I have a major COI interest here so will leave that to others. If this was written by Simon then he’s awfully good at covering his tracks: lots of different authors over many years with occasional edits by others including at least one admin. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Zulkifeli Mohd Zin
An IP editor has repeatedly been changing the birth date without a supporting source. I initially reverted to the previous version but, upon realising that the cited source was a deadlink, removed the information entirely. The editor has continued to restore the unsourced material. I am now at 3RR and do not wish to edit war, so I am posting here. – Teratix ₵ 09:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed the date and left my reasoning in a detailed edit summary. This is a rather blatant violation of BLP policy, so (technically) 3RR doesn't apply, but be careful with that exception. I'd suggest you post a note on the talk page and the editor's talk page notifying them of this discussion. Zaereth (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I have done so now. – Teratix ₵ 13:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Stephanie Singer
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephanie_Singer&type=revision&diff=889669018&oldid=878720327

Please remove the added paragraph.

The added paragraph contains a false and libelous statement.

The added paragraph has no citation and seems designed to damage my reputation.

--Symmetrysinger (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Stephanie Singer
 * The paragraph was added by an IP and had no sources; I've removed it as probably vandalism. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Robin Ficker
This article is about a lawyer for whom a section was created about multiple disciplinary items he was involved in with the Maryland state bar association. All of these issues were sourced from a single RS. However the vast number of the issues weren’t even mentioned by the RS. I subsequently deleted the entire section. I’ve no interest in cleaning up the text to find what may be sourced. It is incumbent upon the editors who added such material to make sure it was properly sourced. Some may say this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t know if there was a baby to begin with. Feel free to re-add this section if you can find adequate sourcing. Regardless, I would appreciate it if you could add this to your watchlist and if it isn’t too much trouble to indicate here that you’re keeping an eye on the article, just so I know this has some eyeballs on the thing. Much appreciated --That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Request Edit Review of Contentious BLP passage
Please see discussion at Talk:Jonathan_Swan. I have a disclosed COI regarding this discussion.BC1278 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This has now been removed by an editor. The same material was then added to the article Axios (website). See Talk:Axios (website) However, the editor altered the language by referring to me as a "public relations firm" instead of as "Ed Sussman," as the HuffPo article does repeatedly. It never refers to me as a "public relations firm." Therefore, I think it still falls under the BLP policy for removal of contentious material since only the inaccuracy makes it seem like it falls outside BLP. Not 100% sure. Haven't seen this situation before.  Thanks BC1278 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Garlic girls
I thought I would avoid the curling project and bring this up here to get NPOV as to WP:Undue etc. The details are big in the curling world; being talked about by Vic Rauter and Russ Howard on the TSN coverage of the world championships. Thoughts? 96.55.104.236 (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think mosquitos really suck. I think time can both fly and crawl but never seems to walk. I think gravity's a heavy subject and neuropsychology is mindboggling. I think the true universe around us is very different from the one we perceive. But since you haven't asked a question or posed a concern, I can't form a single thought as to what you are hinting at. Zaereth (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the OP must be asking whether to include stuff related to this [//news.yahoo.com/korean-coaches-stole-tens-thousands-garlic-girls-curlers-042852609.html] [//www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/curling/south-korea-olympic-garlic-girls-abuse-1.4904444] [//www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/curling/south-korea-olympic-garlic-girls-abuse-1.4932821][//www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2018/12/05/more-sports/winter-sports-more-sports/official-quits-garlic-girls-scandal/] which seems to have been an issue for several months Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry I wasn't more specific. I usually only get my info from Wikipedia and wondered why they weren't at the WWCC this year. 96.55.104.236 (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Bungarribee Homestead Site
Many changes were made to this article by JWSM-Bungarabee which include a number of allegations and negative personal opinions about presumably living people and current organisations. Many of the edits are large and often edit previous edits so it is hard to pin down the problems to specific edits. Some examples that particularly concern me though are:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (probably the worst, scroll down to the end of the diff)

Apart from BLP concerns, many of the edits are citing an unpublished source (citation [1]) written by the contributor (comments refer to it as their own work). A previous attempt was made by another editor to undo some of these edits but these were subsequently restored by JWSM-Bungarabee. Kerry (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like an SPA adding nothing but OR and personal commentary. Basically just ranting in many of their edits, in mostly a stream-of-consciousness style, obviously pursuing a grudge. I would simply revert back to the last good version with a very clear edit summary that this material violates not only BLP policy, but also nearly every other policy we have. If the user continues to revert and add unsourced commentary and refuses to discuss on the talk page, then there is likely a behavioral problem, in which case take it to ANI, AN, or a similar noticeboard and get an admin involved. Zaereth (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Wiles
I don't know if this is worthy to post here, but I have a concern regarding the wiki page for mathematician Andrew Wiles. The guy is a genius and highly respected in the mathematics community. He's definitely going down in the history books. However, the image used on the page is not flattering at all. There are many images available online that look much nicer, many of which compose of him writing mathematical statements on a chalkboard. There is even a beautifully done portrait of him by painter Rupert Alexander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencerkraisler (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's is going to be limited to the types of images it may be used by the copyright status of those images. Since Wiles is still living and not particularly Wikipedia notable for his physical appearance, any image used in the article to identify him is going to need to be either freely licensed or within the public domain. Most of the images you're going to find online or in publications, etc. are likely going to be considered to be copyrighted images (see c:Commons:Licensing for more on this) unless it clearly states they aren't; this means they would be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive and pretty much a non-free license is never allowed for the primary identification purposes of a still-living person on Wikipedia per non-free content use crtierion #1. This doesn't mean the image currently being used for identification purposes in the main infobox can never be replaced; it just means that any replacement by a non-free image is almost certainly going to never be allowed. If you have any questions about a specific particular image you've found online, it might be better to ask those at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions instead of here. FWIW, while there may exist better photos of Wiles you can find online that are a little more flattering or of a higher quality, I don't think this particular photo would be considered a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons and perhaps removed for the reasons given in WP:BLP; even if it was, however, it would (as I mentioned above) only be able to be replaced by a freely licensed or public domain image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Jamal Khashoggi


It seems to me there is a trend in Wikipedia to include political cartoons about Saudi monarch Mohammad bin Salman portraying killing Jamal Khashoggi in multiple articles. This issue has been previously discussed in Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi article where community consensus has determined that it violates WP:BLP and was removed. However, these pictures still show up in multiple articles (Jamal Khashoggi page for example) and most of these cartoons are published by a an Iranian based news website (Tasnim News Agency). There seems to be conflicting views on to include such political cartoons in BLP pages or not while those seeking inclusion argue about censorship so I would like to get to the bottom of it here. Isn't a political cartoon essentially an opinion? I don't mind having these cartoons published in the Editorial cartoon or it's author's page, but does this material merit inclusion in a BLP article? Would appreciate someone's who's experienced in BLP articles opinion. Thanks. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the inclusion of political cartoons on BLPs at all unless the cartoons themselves have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. We do fairly often include these on historical biographies, but with the benefit of hindsight to illustrate the political climate at the time, and without the heightened standards required of BLP.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  21:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable either, I tried to remove it as a violation of BLP but was blasted with being a "CENSOR". It seems the image is used to heighten the tension of the current political situation (understandably so), but I don't think its necessary to turn wikipedia into a political editorial specially since the people are alive. I wouldn't mind adding it to its authors page or a page specified for editorial cartoons but adding a cartoon of a living person is not merited at all. I wouldn't like Wikipedia to be have political cartoons of Donald Trump, Netanyahu, terrorist attacks, or other controversial figures that heighten political issues in BLP pages (WP is not a newspaper imo), but I must admit I'm not all-knowing in BLP issues and I don't know if those should be outright removed or not. Would appreciate second thoughts on this subject.Wikiemirati (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * People too often use the word "censor" without really having the foggiest clue what it really means. It's not censorship to leave out excessively graphic images, words or phrases used only for titillation or shock value and use a more clinical type of analysis, nor to leave out excessively boring details and summarize the info, nor to leave out things that are irrelevant to the article and text. Articles should not become a repository for random images, but rather images should have some direct relevance to the adjacent text, giving a visual to some point or of the subject. If an image doesn't fit into the context, then there is no purpose in having it. And like GMG says, unless there is some direct significance of a political cartoon to the subject's notability (for example, the artist of the cartoon, or if reliable sources show it had a direct impact on the subject's life and career --and it's talked about in the adjacent text) then it's most certainly not censorship to remove it, but rather a duty to do so. (Not to mention, unless it's on an op/ed page of a newspaper, using a cartoon to make a point in a serious article is in extremely bad taste.) Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, NOTCENSORED rarely applies in circumstances that don't involve human sexuality or swear words, and when invoked on a politically sensitive subject, is all but guaranteed not to apply at all in all the but most exceptionally rare circumstances...so rare I can't remember a single example.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  22:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with what’s posted above; the adding of the cartoon seems like a bit of image-related WP:UNDUE. If this were a non-free file, I think a strong argument could be made for it’s removal as not meeting NFCC#8, at least as it’s currently being used in the article. Some editors seem to be of the opinion that if an image is freely licensed or public domain, and it is somehow related to the subject of the article or something mentioned in the article, then it should be perfectly OK to add the image regardless; I, however, tend to think that the image should closely complement specific sourced content in the article so that seeing it is encyclopedically relevant to the reader’s understanding. I didn’t notice any discussion about this or even a notification of this discussion on the article’s talk page. Perhaps it would be a good idea to let others know that there’s a discussion here about the file. Unless someone wants to unequivocally claim WP:3RRNO, the file is likely going to be re-added each time it’s removed. If the consensus is that this is not a BLP violation per WP:MUG or WP:BLPREMOVE, then the file be discussed in more detail at WP:FFD. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking in terms of BLP, it's my opinion that the cartoon violates the very lede of WP:BLP, followed by the three subsections in the "Writing style" section, and the "Reliable sources" section, and several others on down the line. When in doubt, throw it out. It's up to the ones who want inclusion to demonstrate why it should be. So far the only reason I can see for inclusion is to cast the subject in an exaggeratedly negative light, and unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, the weight this gives is unfair. Zaereth (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to amend my previous post, but got foiled by an edit conflict. Anyway, if previous discussion reached a consensus that this was a BLP violation in the article about the assassination, then it seems the same would apply to any other related article, except possibly an article about the cartoon itself or the artist who drew it. —- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I would think so. It's one thing to have an artist's rendition of an ancient moose in the article, but quite another to have a picture of Bullwinkle J. Moose there. Or, worse, yet, a cartoon of a moose towering over buildings crushing everything in its path. There's a reason newspapers put political cartoons on the opinion page; because they represent the artist's particular point of view. Zaereth (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Too many words. Clearly inappropriate for all the reasons given. O3000 (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion in the article page Talk:Jamal_Khashoggi with a link to this discussion and pinged the user who has reverted me as suggested by Marchjuly. It's good to be clear on this subject instead of going back and forth in a long lengthy discussion about censorship and whatnot that goes nowhere which I am sure was going to unfoil if I did not start this notice. Wikiemirati (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Mark_Russell_(evangelist)
Mark_Russell_(evangelist)

Please could I ask the word Evangelist is taken out of the title of this entry? Mark is a CEO of charity. A more appropriate title would be Mark Russell (Charity Executive). The current title is misleading and leads people reading the entry to assume things that aren't the case

That would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:AF15:300:E8BA:7C6B:82F:B64E (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, the problem for wikipedia is that there are multiple notable Mark Russells so there is a need for Mark_Russell_(disambiguation) for readers to find the one they are looking for, unless one Mark Russell is especially notable that is how it works here, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think the IP is asking that we remove the parenthetical, but rather replace it with something more accurate. An evangelist is someone who preaches the gospel in a public forum to convert non-believers to their faith. (A soapbox-preacher, regardless of beliefs. We get a lot of those around here. Either that, or it's one of the four writers of the gospels.) It's not really a term used to describe preachers of a church, even if it is an evangelical church (different thing). When most people think of evangelists, they're likely thinking of people like Billy Graham, Jack van Impe, or Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. I think changing it to perhaps "preacher" would be more accurate.


 * That said, this is not really the right place to ask. The correct place would be WP:Requested moves. Zaereth (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the organization is undergoing a bit of a rebranding, but if so, the Wikipedia effort is further along than that of the main websites, which all describe Church Army as an "evangelistic" organization whose members are "evangelists". I think that it would be a mistake to identify Russell's article title with his current job title - which is something that changes quite often in a person's life, and article titles are designed to be stable. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If he identifies himself as an evangelist, then great. Website definitions may vary from dictionary definitions. You can be an evangelist and be a Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, a Catholic, or even a Mormon. And yes, even an Anglican, but the two are not mutually inclusive. The parenthetical is only there to distinguish him from others with the same name, so people can quickly find the right article. It need only describe what he is most notable as regardless of title, current or former. Still, this is not the right place to discuss this issue. There is no BLP violation, so if you want the name changed you'll have to take it to the requested moves page, which I linked above, and it can be discussed there. Zaereth (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Point of order, IP, you suggest his disambiguator be changed to "Charity Executive". But isn't that charity an evangelical organization?  Now, evangelical organizations may hire experts who don't share that faith.  Corporations hire outsiders to be their CEOs all the time.  A young Steve Jobs hired the older former CEO of Pepsico to run Apple, a few decades ago, who the fired Jobs, and almost drove Apple into the ground.  If Church Army hired an outsider, I'd agree with the disambiguator "executive".  If Russell lost his faith, so being CEO was just a job, I'd agree with the disambiguator "executive".  But that is not the case, is it?  Isn't he still an evangelical?  Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)