Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive287

Extra Eyes Please on Jeffrey Epstein
There's a lot of editing going on due to recent legal events. Various prominent figures, including Donald Trump and Bill Clinton have been mentioned in connection with this individual. Unfortunately this seems to be generating some edits that may not meet WP:NPOV or WP:DUE. Extra eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Mohamad Barakat
Single purpose accounts have deleted information based on reliable sources and spread advertisements, text in Portuguese and misnamed sources   in the article about this Brazilian ophthalmologist known internationally for his involvement in sports doping. Omikroergosum (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there something wrong with the article now that it needs to be brought to this noticeboard? Whatever inappropriate edits have been made have been few and far between. The last edit (before yours) was on June 30.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't know what steps need to be taken in such cases. I just noted there were three single purpose accounts all apparently with the same aim to whitewash. The corrupted information persisted for seven months before I came across. Omikroergosum (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

List of serial killers in the United States
Could someone please go to List of serial killers in the United States and remove the entry for Blanche Taylor Moore. I have explained at Talk:List of serial killers in the United States why it is a WP:BLPCRIME violation yet the pending changes patrolers ignore it. Blanche Taylor Moore has only been convicted of a single murder, therefore she is not a serial killer. That she is suspected in other cases does not make her a serial killer, she is innocent until proven guilty per BLP. Thank you. 2A02:C7D:3C72:D200:65A3:B8B1:4355:7534 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many people in the list where the number of "proven victims" is given as one. Certainly for living people these entries should be removed. Thincat (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We probably should check out any problem entries. For example Lowell Amos declares point blank that he is a serial killer. If this is not justified by the sources it needs to be fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and tried to trim out all the entries on the list who are both (a) alive, and (b) have been convicted of one or fewer murder. For several of the articles, I removed the description of serial killer, and replaced it with convicted murderer.  There are a number of articles where the person is described as something like "convicted murderer and suspected serial killer," (typically cases where he was just charged with one murder, since there was no benefit to charging him with more, as the penalty wouldn't be higher), and I think that's OK, assuming good RS supporting the suspected serial killer part.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your careful and thoughtful work. Thincat (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of Fairuz
I came across Timeline of Fairuz (offshoot of main BLP article Fairuz) in "Recent changes". None of the content has ever been sourced (since 2006, tagged in 2009). Over the past week, multiple editors have been adding large amounts of content, some of which may be potentially libelous and some is fancruft. It doesn't seem fair to revert as unsourced when nothing in the article has ever had a source cited. There's really no "last known good version" to go back to – it's always been an unsourced mess. Any suggestions on what to do with this situation? Schazjmd  (talk)  15:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I WP:PROD'd it. We'll see how that goes. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Schazjmd   (talk)  20:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

VS Ramachandran
Could we please have some eyes on this article? A longtime contributor to it, who has made quite a few derogatory comments about the bio subject (an elderly scientist and science writer) on the recent talk page, but more disturbingly just added a new section claiming that Ramachandran's testimony in a murder trial was controversial and "voodoo science." The controversy was over whether the murderer did or did not have pseudocyesis. Ramachandran said she did. Ramachandran did not say that pseudocyesis caused the murder (as Neurorel has claimed on article talk page.) No RS is given for any public controversy.

Please look at the articles talk page, at the history of edit summaries from Neurorel. I think he should be blocked from editing that article, because he clearly is not there to improve the encyclopedia. Sorry this is rushed but I have an appointment in 10 minutes.

This is not an article I claim to WP:OWN, I am pretty new there. Neurorel has been removing mentions of R's awards etc. and adding mentions of people criticizing him since his earliest edits in 2010. Articles related to Ramachandran and to some other San Diego person named Roger Bingham seem to be his only editing focus. Meanwhile he has succeeded in getting several Wikipedia newbies banned for trying to undo the article slant. I am not a newbie or an SPA. What has happened to that article is a mess and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have removed the court documents from the article. These should never be allowed to remain in any article and per BLP policy should be removed at first sight, without regard for 3RR. I haven't taken the time to go through the entire article yet, nor did I remove the disputed statements. I'll likely get back to this when I find a little more time, because, due to my fascination with neuropsychology, I have read much of Ramachandran's work and am very familiar with his theories. Zaereth (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate having more eyes on the article. And on the talk page, which currently hosts much stuff that would not be allowed in any BLP.


 * After I notified on his talk page of the BLP report, he thanked me for removing his slanderous material from the article and said he could not imagine how it got published. (See Talk:V._S._Ramachandran.) Then he continued, on the Talk page, to defend his own view of R's testimony, posting additional speculation there and in two more Talk sections: Talk:V._S._Ramachandran and Talk:V._S._Ramachandran


 * Many RS describe Ramachandran as "director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at UCSD," a simple, factual statement that Neurorel has often paraphrased or removed. There are now three different sections of the current Talk page where Neurorel expounds his negative opinions, unsupported by RS and irrelevant to the article, about the CBC. (Archived talk pages have more from him on this subject.)


 * Neurorel has claimed, in the section on Phantom Limbs, that R's 1994 paper in Nature, which multiple RS describe as "ground-breaking" etc. work, should really be attributed to a Scripps grad student named TT Yang. Today he added the identical claim to an earlier, more general section about R's research. Both times, the claim is cited to an archived version of TT Yang's personal webpage, which makes no such claim. The arguments about this are, again, on the talk page, together with more dismissive remarks by Neurorel on Ramachandran.


 * Never a dull moment, but it's past midnight here so I'm going to sleep. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Update, am I wrong that the random opinions of 4 people posting on Quora should not be added to a BLP as an example of "What do most neuroscientists think about Ramachandran? HouseOfChange (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a blog, and at best is an op/ed piece. The ref (as described in the article) appears like it comes from a University, when it really is a blog by someone who works at a university. Clearly, this is not an acceptable RS. I always get suspicious when I find too many refs for a single sentence, because that starts to raise a red-flag for synthesis.


 * Still, I don't have time to dig into this too deep yet. Could be a while. (On my best days I spend an average of ten to fifteen minutes on the computer/phone. During the summer, especially this summer with all the fires, heat, and smoke, I may be averaging only a minute or two.) Since you're fairly new here, I'll try to help by giving some advice:


 * The purpose of this noticeboard is mainly to report egregious BLP violations, to get some advice, clarification on the policy, discussion of how policy should be applied in a specific situation, or maybe even someone to help clean up an article. Things like court documents are easy to remove without discussion, but, what I'm will call "lesser violations" or "borderline vios" usually need discussion. With certain exceptions --none of which apply here-- blogs, op/ed pieces, personal websites, etc., are not reliable sources. If there is a question about the reliability of a source, WP:RS/N is usually a better place to ask. There's a noticeboard for just about every policy, but for your best chances of success, try to clarify what part of policy you believe is being violated. That can not only help you determine the best venue, but also help others determine exactly what the problem is.


 * Finally, if you believe the problem is the other user, perhaps pushing an agenda, festering a grudge, editing tendentiously. or ignoring policy and being disruptive, then it's time to get an admin involved. Most of us here are not admisn, so it's almost always better to take such cases to a place like WP:AN or WP:ANI. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(restart indent) Thanks for good advice. This page may be the wrong place to discuss a problem that increasingly looks like a long-term problem user. On the other hand, trying to move the discussion to WP:ANI will be pegged as forum shopping, so maybe instead I will try to ping some admins to this page. who helps a lot of people. who has even-handedly spoken on the talk page, so maybe she can take a look at more recent developments here. Thanks folks, and sorry to be a bother, but it is not-very-productive use of time on Wikipedia to keep putting out trash fires at one article rather than adding useful stuff to many. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not recommending forum shopping, but rather taking the specific problem to the place that can best answer your questions. Most of what you say makes perfect sense, but I'm having trouble understanding how it all rises to the level of BLP violations.


 * Forum shopping occurs when someone takes the same discussion to multiple venues. But what we have here, per your description, are multiple problems which may exist on many different levels. In that case, I'd recommend tackling them individually, at the best place, or look for that overall, underlying cause. ANI should typically be a last resort, saved only for users who you can demonstrate are acting in bad faith or without competence. The main thing in such situation is how you handle it and that you've exhausted every other avenue to a viable solution. Zaereth (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, your advice seems good. I will look into making that change tomorrow, but it is past midnight in Sweden so I'm off for now. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Like I said, I'd like to look into this a little deeper, because the subject is a fascinating one. I may not necessarily agree with everything Ramachandran says, but I have to admire him for his special gift; what Einstein would call the greatest gift of all: an imagination. We're talking about the most complex organ in the known universe --even a dog's brain-- with more possible connections than stars in space, so I think it's important for all involved to realize that what we know about it is infinitesimal compared to what we don't. Zaereth (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Taking the advice of, I have asked for help instead at WP:ANI, specifically at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Could some admin please close this discussion here, because I don't think the same discussion should be in two places. Thanks. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The good news is that the current version of the Ramachandran article is in good shape. So the participating editors have arrived at a good set of compromises, in my opinion. The Ramachandran entry is a challenging and frustrating entry to work with. There are two very different versions of Ramachandran's importance and accomplishments. Some editors see Ramachandran in the light of his books, talks and TED talks. Other editors see quite a bit of misinformation that keeps replicating itself when editors cite sources that were incorrect or misleading to begin with. The classic example would be Ramachandran's claim to be the director of the Center for Brain & Cognition at UCSD. There are dozens of references to it. However it is not recognized by the Vice Chancellor for Research as a research center. Wikpedia would call this original research and take the position that Ramachandran's claim to be the director of a research center UCSD can not be challenged on the basis of information that is in the public domain on UCSD websites. This creates a credibility problem for Wikipedia. Some medical schools are now offering courses on how to use Wikipedia. So, can students trust the information from an encyclopedia that cannot fact check the sources it uses. This is a dilemma that Wikipedia should address in some forum.Neurorel (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple RS say R is director of the "Center for Brain and Cognition." No RS says, and the article does not say, and never said, that 1) the CBC is on some official list of the Vice Chancellor for research or 2) R is director a "a research center at UCSD."
 * I admire the congenial tone of Neurorel can sometimes adopt. And yet this charmingly reasonable fellow, on July 6, added two paragraphs to the Ramachandran article, of which let me quote for you only the first paragraph;"In 2004 Lisa Montgomery murdered Bobby Joe Stinnet. Lisa M. Montgomery, then 36, was convicted of strangling Stinnett from behind and then cutting the woman's unborn child, eight months into gestation, from her womb. Mongomery was convicted and she is now on death row. The trial received global news coverage."
 * I deleted those paragraphs, came to this noticeboard for help or advice, and notified Neurorel on his talk page of this discussion. Then Neurorel warmly thanked me for deleting the paragraphs (2.5 hours after he posted them,) saying that only a technical glitch put them there. I welcome others to discuss useful proposals for the future at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Since Neurorel made identical comments here and at the ANI page about this, I am striking this section and hope the discussion can continue in one place, at ANI. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me ask you a hypothetical question: suppose that the company that is attempting to develop neurological based weight reduction (Ramachandran is an advisor to the company.) rolled out a publicity campaign claiming that they had achieved remarkable success and that Ramachandran began taking credit for developing the technique used for weight reduction (running a low voltage current into the inner ear). The company receives a good deal of positive publicity and Ramachandran receives a prize. Would you be willing to add this information to the wiki entry without attempting to determine if the claims were true. Suppose there were people who claimed that they had lost their hearing....Would you say there was a controversy? Suppose there were RS that contradicted each other...Neurorel (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The answers are simple. 1.) Yes. If it is found in a reliable source, then we trust that source to be reliable. 2.) No. A "controversy" is defined as "a widespread, public debate on a topic or issue". Unless these exists such a widespread debate, there is no controversy. 3.) When sources contradict each other, there are a few ways to approach it. First, determine which source is the most reliable. If both are equally reliable, find a third source of equal or better reliability to break the tie. Finally, if we can't do that, report what each source says, attributing it to them. If it's not in reliable sources, then simply don't add it. You sound like you have some direct experience with this subject, and hopefully not a COI, so I'll give an example. I know from personal experience in Japanese swordsmithing that the soft-iron core of a katana does not help prevent it from breaking anymore than the pearlite jacket already does. The purpose of the iron core is to diffuse vibration and ringing, like a bell with no springiness, reducing recoil and making it easier to use. (That vibration is painful to the hand.) Thus, a good sword will hit like a dead blow hammer, with no vibration, ringing, or recoil. Knowing this to be true is far different from finding it in a reliable source, so out it stays until I can locate one. Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The Farm (recording studio)
I can't figure out whether these diffs   are a BLP violation or something else. I suspect they fail the WP:V and WP:NOR requirements of BLP, but I don't know how to substantiate this. I'd be happy to outright delete the material, but I'd like to be sure first. Also, if it's delete-worthy, the diffs should probably be removed from visibility too.

I don't know much about this stuff. Thanks in advance for any help. --mathieu ottawa (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIVACY is what you want. Unless the named individuals are well known public individuals, BLP tells us to keep that information out of WP in favor of their privacy. --M asem (t) 00:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Ricardo Rosselló
Some IPs want to add a recent event (diff) with "governor Rosselló insulted various politicians of Puerto Rico and the United States on a group chat" and similar. Pretty ho-hum WP:UNDUE but watchers welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Stockholm truck attack
OK, this may be borderline, but it looks to me like the mother and family of a murdered girl are at risk of being additionally hurt here by what I see as dogged attempts by a stubborn editor to sensationalize her death and vandalism to her grave in a tabloidesque & totally irrelevant manner. The user has been asked several times to provide a reliable source that specifically would link the vandalism to the terror attack, but it looks to me like that only has led to a bit of game playing, nothing relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

BLPSPS
There seems to be some debate here regarding the use of BLPSPS, and essentially whether we have a loophole that means you can source any content you like on an article about a living person to garbage blogs and social media written by third parties, so long as you are careful not to mention the subject directly.

I didn't exactly know that it was terribly controversial that sourcing on a BLP needed to comply with WP:BLP, and there was some special case about content on a BLP not covered by BLP. If this is somehow a valid interpretation, do we need to amend the policy to clarify? To my mind, if this is valid, it opens the door for people to widely use god awful crap blogs and social media on BLPs to source whatever we like so long as we comply properly with the loophole. G M G talk  21:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm. That's a lot to dig through to find out exactly what is going on. You shouldn't think of policy as being a bunch of individual rules with loopholes. Policy is like one, big, giant equation, where each factor in that equation augments and is augmented by every other factor. The info we add should meet all those factors simultaneously in order to satisfy the equation. In general, we should try to avoid self-published sources on any article. There are some cases where self-pubs can be good, such as a book on bladesmithing by a renowned bladesmith. For BLPs, we're quite a bit stricter. Self-published sources should only be used when the person talked about in the source is also the one who published it, but only for certain types of info such as the publisher's own opinions, denials, or such. In this case we treat them like a primary source being used to augment a secondary source. In such a case we can deem them to be a reliable source for their own views. It doesn't really matter if the publisher is the subject of our article or someone merely mentioned in the article. The main thing is that they are talking solely about themselves, not being self-aggrandizing, and the source is being used only to describe their views. Zaereth (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A proposal to clarify that wording did not succeed, but that was because of an objection (as I interpreted) that the prohibition was clear enough already. And, in the particular case you're looking at, I didn't understand why, if it's not about the person, it needs to be in the person's article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Good find. I hadn't seen that thread started by SV. Basically the exact same issue: it's okay to use ramblings written on toilet paper with crayon blogs and social media in BLPs as long as we're using it for a COATRACK.  G M G  talk  22:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the claim made at AE that this is a BLP vio is not correct, as the issue is tangential to the subject of the subject of the article - the matter at hand had nothing to do directly with the article's subject, but an article someone else wrote about, and which that author was finding was being misused in some places, requiring that author to speak out about it via an SPS.
 * There definitely is potentially wrong in our wording since BLP issues can happen at any article, and we'd still not want SPSs about any BLP named in such articles - BLPSPS is not limited to BLP Articles only. But how to word it to be clear is not immediately obvious. --M asem (t) 00:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Looking at the proposal that Peter put up, it helped clarify what the issue was about without scouring through a pile of diffs. As I interpret what most people are saying at these other forums is that the issues being described are not really BLP issues, and thus are covered (or really prohibited) by other parts of policy, so no big deal. On the surface, that makes sense to me. However, in analyzing the sentence I realize that what we have here is a sentence fragment that has multiple meanings, depending upon how you look at it. "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." Without the context of all the other policies, the last part of that can be read too literally, too idiomatically, or unduly free, ie: "Any material written by the subject of a Wikipedia article, about a living person, is fair game to use in that article, regardless of which living person they discuss." Or, "Any material written by the subject of an article is fair game as long as it's not about a living person." It could mean: "Only use self-published sources to support material about a living person when author of that source is also the subject of that source." The confusing words, bearing those multiple meanings, appear to be "the subject" and "the article." I'd suggest replacing these with some synonyms and perhaps with a little wordsmithing see if we can get a clearer meaning. Zaereth (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe flip the idea around "Claims, particularly contentious ones, about an individual must come from reliable sources and may never originate from SPS, except for SPS made by the individual themselves." This would make it apply everywhere in Mainspace, not just on a BLP's page, and would cover the cases of a BLP being discussed on a completely separate page from their specific BLP topic page. --M asem (t) 14:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well the argument that seemed to be bubbling up was that it wasn't an issue of BLP; it was an issue of WEIGHT. But it seems obvious to me that the issue of WEIGHT in a BLP is a BLP issue.
 * Suppose you had an article: Sally founded Tree Corp but then left the company.Reliable source Tree Corp was later implicated in violations of trade regulationsTwitter and for worker safety issues.Blog
 * The same argument would go that the garbage-sourced content isn't about Sally. So it isn't about a living person. So it isn't a BLP violation. But from the point of view of Sally, this is her biography. It's probably the most prominent coverage of her on the internet. Everything on her biography concerns her, and is what people read when they go on the internet trying to read about her. If we are using crap sources to introduce undue weight, then the undue weight itself directly concerns BLP.  G M G  talk  22:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue in your example is a WP:SYNTH issue more than a WP:BLPSPS issue. The way you put those two sentences together carries a clear uncited implication that Sally did something wrong, which violates WP:BLP.  In the case at issue in the link, things are at more of a remove from the article's subject and don't carry that same implication. Also, even ignoring BLP, your examples probably don't pass WP:SPS in the first place, unless they're by subject-matter experts; and they risk falling afoul of WP:EXCEPTIONAL.  None of that applies to the linked dispute, which is an aside about an article concerning an event in which the article's subject was involved to provide context about the broader reaction (and which therefore, reasonably, doesn't have many implications about the article's subject.)  Putting aside the question of whether putting it in an article on a living person makes it automatically WP:BLPSPS, the use of WP:SPS was at least notionally defensible (published author commenting about their own work, ie. they're an expert) and the claim doesn't seem particularly exceptional, which makes your attempt at a more hyperbolic comparison unhelpful.  Basically, it feels like the hypothetical "loophole" you're trying to convince people exists here is just WP:SYNTH, which is already a WP:BLP violation for other reasons.  Do you think the example in the discussion you linked to is that sort of WP:SYNTH?  I'm not seeing it. --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That particular discussion relates to whether something falls under a WP:BLP WP:1RR exemption or not. My feeling is that the WP:3RR / WP:1RR exemption is for clear-cut WP:BLP violations - BLP is an important policy, but so is 3RR; if it's uncertain whether something falls under WP:3RRBLP, you're supposed to go to WP:BLPN rather than trying to edit-war yourself. I think an outcome like that ("this isn't sufficiently related to actual WP:BLP issues to justify ignoring WP:1RR") is entirely appropriate.  Whose reputation, precisely, was threatened by the removed text, and how?  (More generally, it's important to be cautious about invoking WP:3RRBLP, because if we're incautious editors will claim WP:BLP applies to at least one side of every single dispute on an article about a WP:BLP, making WP:3RR / WP:1RR meaningless on huge swaths of articles.  That's not the intent of the policy.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Geoffrey Webber
– can someone take a look at this please? It's beyond my area of expertise. I just intervened because I saw an IP leaving an uncited BLP-worrying comment so I zapped it. A quick look at the edit history, though, reveals a back-and-forth on potentially libellous comments starting on 27 April 2019. Although there are some sources, I've not seen anything very mainstream RS – so far I have seen a student newspaper and a classical music blog and I don't know how authoritatively we'd rate either of those. I take no position on this story myself – I just think that we should proceed with caution here, bearing in mind the encyclopaedia's possible legal exposure if it all goes horribly wrong. There are obviously editors interested in pushing both inclusion and removal of the material so I can imagine how this could continue for a while ... does the page need protecting? Ermmm, or something?? I'd be most grateful if someone with the knowledge and abilities could please take a look at the whole thing: for personal reasons that can't be me at the moment. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UNIGUIDE, student newspapers (like Varsity, which is the source linked) can be considered reliable sources for material related to their own institution. Given that this is a sensitive BLP issue, though, I'd look for something further to include it. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Israel Shamir
At Israel Shamir, a person who it is admittedly difficult to appear to be defending even if one is only defending WP:BLP, two editors have been removing anything Shamir has self-published on the basis of them considering him a fringe source. This has led to some interesting edits such as this in which a person in an op-ed calls this living person a "rabid antisemite" and that person's response to that charge is removed. Is Shamir's response to claims made against him UNDUE as the editor has argued? Can a living person be repeatedly called a Holocaust denier and an antisemite and have his response not included? And can Shamir's claims about his own personal life be included, or does WP:SELFPUB not apply to him saying where he lives or that he was baptized or that he says he was in the IDF (a claim repeated by sources, as his claim, such as Times of Israel.  nableezy  - 17:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging Icewhiz as the person who left the op-ed calling a person a rabid anti-semite but removed the response to provide his justification for that.  nableezy  - 17:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did a rough pass of removing WP:SPSes by Shamir (failing WP:FRIND and ABOUTSELF-4 - as the most basic bio details are contested by RSes) and others (e.g. a blog accusing Shamir of various things). The article needs a major cleanup - anything poorly sourced be removed - and there is definitely additional content that should go - I mostly removed what was clearly a SPS. Shamir is described as a Holocaust denier by RSes in their own voice - e.g. DW - this is not someone we should be using SPSes for.Icewhiz (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So your position is an op-ed by Stephen Pollard (not a news article, but a straight opinion piece) should be used to call this person in their biography a "rabid antisemite" and that Shamir's response should be removed?  nableezy  - 18:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Gregg Hurwitz
This article looks pretty promotional and the notability of the subject is borderline. Before deciding on whether to put up an AfD I was hoping to get some opinions here first. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request Lord Sheikh
Please see the request and respond at Talk:Mohamed_Sheikh,_Baron_Sheikh.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Gab (social network)
Is Jeffrey Clark sufficiently notable to warrant being addressed in the Gab article? The description is a bit borderline with regard to WP:BLPCRIME but I do remember his arrest being pretty significant to the discussion surrounding white supremacist terrorism in the aftermath of Charlottesville so I hesitate to say that it actually crosses the line. This is one where I figure a discussion would be warranted. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per BLPCRIME - probably should avoid naming him until conviction. Per a quick search - this hasn't happened as of yet. (HuffPost last week did report that a plea bargain might be near). Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That was my feeling too. I've removed for the time being with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:TOOSOON justifications and reserving the right to re-insert if he's convicted. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Alis Rowe
Hello, I am a fully disclosed paid-editor representing the subject of this article on a pro-bono basis. My client has requested that this page be deleted as she feels it is a violation of her right to privacy.

Would it be possible to have this page deleted? My client barely meets the notability criteria for living people and I don't believe there is a legitimate public interest case for this article existing.

I have left a further explanation on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alis_Rowe

Essayist1 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this here. Although you've not presented significantly different rationales for deletion than the two previous AfDs, I have reviewed the one "valid" previously AfD (from 2017) and note that it seemed rather thin on policy-based reasons for keeping the article. (I note that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE already existed in BLP policy at that time.) Perhaps the article should be nominated for a third AfD. I would be interested in others' opinions. MPS1992 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi I have tried to nominate the article for a third AfD. The AfD page was deleted by accident though and I could not get the page listed on the articles for deletion board. Do you know anyone who could help recreate the AfD page? Essayist1 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have created Articles for deletion/Alis Rowe (3rd nomination), all are encouraged to comment there. MPS1992 (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanksEssayist1 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Grassman name change
Jennifer Grassman has changed her name to Jennifer Michelle Greenberg. I've updated the name in the body, but cannot update the page title. I'm assuming a moderator needs to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleCharlie74 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Willem van Spronsen
Two AfDs about a recently deceased person that should get attention from the BLP noticeboard.
 * Articles_for_deletion/Willem van Spronsen
 * Articles_for_deletion/2019 Tacoma attack Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Turley Richards
I believe that information posted to this page is in violation of the guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. I have attempted twice to delete the information, and my edit has been reversed,. Please keep in mind, I am a novice editor to Wikipedia, however as an award winning writer, am willing to receive feedback on content and style. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this serious matter.

1. "Avoid gossip and feedback loops" As Richards was never charged and/or arrested, and the country prosecutor declined to pursue the complaint, inclusion of this television expose, although factual in it's report of the original complaint, is not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. The event occurred 16 years and 8 months ago, and is not relevant (by Richards' statement) to how he conducts business today.

2.  "Public figures" the following is copied and pasted from this section: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." As there exists only one third party source, the content about this television expose should be deleted. In addition, Richards' denial of the allegations is not reported.

3. People who are notable, but not well known. This rule states the following: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." Due to personal relationship with the subject (wife,) I have knowledge that this article has greatly adversely affected Richards' reputation and livelihood.

4. People accused of a crime. Please refer to the following: " For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." See comments regarding #1 above. This point is also relevant to "false light."

5. Images. In the linked news expose, Richards states he does not authorize his image to be captured and used by the news station. Since Richards is blind, and could not see the camera, inclusion of this link violates Wikipedia's rule for situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed.

In closing, please be aware that Richards is a 78 year old, blind man, who until 9 months ago was revered in his community. This article has virtually ended his career, even though he has coached hundreds of other individuals over 28 years with no incident reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llhess16 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Will put it on watch. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

David Bintley
This entry is very incomplete and contains a few small inaccuracies. I would like to considerably update and revise the whole entry. My question is about how to reference... There is very little published information about David Bintley except reviews and a few interviews, most of it from the last decade or so. I work for Birmingham Royal Ballet and have worked with David for 18 years. I recently completed an extensive (though not published) 380-page leaving book for him as a gift from the Company as he stepped down as our Director. I have had access to the Royal Opera House archives, the Birmingham Royal Ballet archives, the Royal Ballet School archives, been in touch with the various companies he has worked with (Hong Kong Ballet, Stuttgart Ballet, San Francisco Ballet etc) and, most importantly, I had to David's wife's diaries from 1980 to 1995, as she worked on the book with me. Obviously, none of these sources are public, so how should I write my citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leea25 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The use of non-public sources is problematic, particularly for the biography of a living person. Wikipedia is built around principle of verifiability, the idea that if you can't trust Wikipedia, you can always go to the source that the article got its information from. As such, as painful as it is, we should probably leave the information out of our article. You should also be reviewing our guidelines on dealing with a conflict of interest. As someone who is employed by the Ballet and has been working with the subject so long, you do have a conflict of interest and should probably not be editing the article directly at all, but rather placing suggestions for additions and corrections on the "talk" page for the article, Talk:David Bintley. But really, the best thing that you could do for improving the Wikipedia page would be to write a biographical article about Bintley for some other outlet, one that Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. In that way, we could use that article as our verifiable reference for things we put in our article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nat. I have read the page about reliable sources... there must be some way round this? The inference is that nobody can have a wikipedia article without prior, third-party publication of all material related in the article. This is going to sound terribly off, so forgive me, but I have personally ready dozens, perhaps hundreds of articles (mostly on obscure 20th-century classical composers) that are not fully referenced in this manner and, if they are referenced, their source links are dubious or broken. I dare say, major figures in their field aside, most articles about lesser known personalities will not be properly referenced, as they will be written by enthusiasts or specialists. I'm not sure about the confilct of interest, either... I'm aware it's not a marketing tool - all I intend to add is facts - what he did when, who he collaborated with, where his works were staged, what he choreographed when etc. (i.e. no opinions). If that is a conflict of interest, then I'm not sure putting suggestions in the Talk box isn't also (an excercise that would be, for the majority of the corrections, futile, as nobody except me would be able to carry them out). Many wikipedia articles reference blogs, enthusiast's websites etc - as a frequent reader of dance-related blogs and reviews, these are often rife with mispeelings, incorrect dates and other errors themselves. If I were to write an article for a 'reputable' source they, equally, would have no way of verifying the contents, so it would be no different to simply writing it on Wikipediea in the first place. Do you have any suggestions? The page that is there is not correct and incomplete. Is it better for that to remain, or for someone who is actually an expert (though very much unpublished!) on the subject to correct it and add to it? Would suitable citations include old ballet programmes from the 1970s and 1980s that are long out of print, but available in archives and private collections? Birmingham Royal Ballet show reports? The back end of our own website (i.e. pages no longer public)? I hope you can see my point. As a regular surfer of the fringes of Wikipedia looking for unusual composers, choeographers etc, if one were to stick to the rules for citation utterly rigidly, I dare say a large chunk of Wikipedia would disappear over night... Thanks, Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leea25 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Lots of points to address; I'm going to number my responses so that you can easily respond to any given one.
 * Actually, if a large chunk of unreferenced or improperly-referenced material were to disappear overnight, it would be a vast blessing to the project.
 * Yes, we shouldn't have significant non-referenced material. That is the goal. Wikipedia is supposed to be just a repetition of what is found elsewhere.
 * Yes, we know that there are pages with problem material. Wikipedia is not finished; that does not mean that we should strive to play loose with things.
 * We actually encourage people with conflicts to use the Talk page. They can be a great source of pointers to information, but non-conflicted editors get to choose what goes in the article, which is what we are primarily protecting.
 * Writing an article for a reliable source means that an editor may be able to access your private sources, and would be able to post corrections. If we cannot rely on reliable sources, then there is no wikipedia.
 * We are particularly protective of things written about a person who is still alive, for both legal and ethical reasons. Self-published things like personal blogs are barred from use (unless it's the blog of the person being written about.)
 * Yes, ballet programmes are citable. They may not be easy to lay hands on, but they are not private. We of course prefer things that are easy to find, online things best of all, but basically anything that has been published is considered verifiable, and a ballet company is considered a reliable source for the basic facts of who was involved in the performance.
 * To that end, the ballet troupe's own website would be considered a reliable source for non-boastful material, assuming someone but you has oversight over it and could edit your material. So if you could write an article that appears on the company's website, that would be a help.
 * As for the "back end" of the website, have you checked an archive site like ]? It can be a source for the old, since-removed versions of many a page, and would make a fine reference. But material that has not been archived is not verifiable.
 * For material that is incorrect, you can point to it on the Talk page. Even if we don't have a source sufficient to make it correct, you might be able to cast enough doubt to cause the editors to remove the incorrect information. Which yes, leaves the work incomplete, but better to be uninformative than wrong.
 * An expert writing unreferenced material may be excellent... for some other site. Wikipedia has built itself to what it is by being what it is.
 * Some of this may sound inefficient or limiting, but as someone with extensive editing experience, I can tell you that these policies and guidelines avoid more problems than they cause.
 * I hope that helps! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nat, it does help. I do understand the goals and ethics of the site, and very much agree with them, but it seems, perhaps, I should have just gone ahead and done it rather than asked for guidance - I doubt anyone would have noticed! Thoughts below.


 * 1. You guys as editors face an impossible task, but I strongly disagree that a whole chuck of Wikipedia disappearing over night would be a good thing. Although the 'fringes', as I call them, are rife with innacuracy, a fair chunk of what people write, unreferenced, or linking to dead sites, is correct. For example, I have in my book collection, an old catalogue (in English translation) of Ukrianian composers. It was written on a type writer and bound, and I have never come across another - the title is written on the front in pen! However, a lot of what I have found on Wikipedia about those weird and wonderful composers detailed in it, is correct - I can only assume someone has a copy and has not referenced it, or people from that part of the world who know, are writing the entries. Another, less good example might be the fact that several Wikipedia entries on Soviet composers used to reference a site called RussianComposers. I wrote and ran that site and, in the end, despite it being a work of some years of scouring through music dictionaries like Grove and MGG, I took it down, as there were so many contradictory sources, I couldn't be sure very much of it was factually correct and lost heart. Also, a lot of this potential source material will likely never be available from reliable sources... Soviet books, for example, definitely cannot be regarded as reliable sources!
 * 2. And yet, it has become so much more... Wikipedia is often the only place you can find obscure information from long-out-of-print books or dead websites.
 * 3. At the same time, were I to write a horribly biased and grandiose article for my Company's website (which I help administer and I exagerate, but you know what I mean) and somehow got it published, it would be considered a suitable source, just because it is elsewhere? Show reports that detail when David, for example, made his debut in a certain role, are the only record of those facts available (I know because I have asked), and were written immediately after or during the show in question. We have them going back to the 1950s, yet they are not admissable as sources because they aren't available for public viewing... historically speaking, they are primary sources. This seems rather odd to me!
 * 4. Forgive me for saying so, but this would seem in part a little pointless as nobody else would be able to verify some of it... would showing it to the man himself help in any way? Surely he could verify facts about his own life? Surely dates that are a matter of public record like the premier of a particular ballet, which would be recorded in numerous publically available places, are not things that can be biased by an editor with an alleged conflict of interest? Are those with an alleged conflict of interest banned from all editing? Would the correction or addition of a date be conflicted if done by that person? What about the correction of a spelling? I do find this all rather contradictory. Take for example the author of a book about a living person. That author would very likely have had a lot of contact with the subject of the book, got to know them well, yet (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the author himself would not be allowed to edit a Wikipedia article about the subject because of a conflict of interest. A third party would be allowed to do this, yet the information would be coming from the same source, and the author himself would have a far more detailed knowledge of the subject that anyone who had simply read the book (a bit like, well, me, for example!).
 * 5. I agree, but those sources are not available to the public. An editor could ask for permission to come and check them, and it would be granted, but nobody would take be willing to come to Birmingham and spend many, many hours trawling through cast slips and show reports to check the information.
 * 6. I understand completely. What I meant was that so-called ballet or theatre experts write reviews and articles about works and choreographers on their blogs and these are referenced, but sometimes include inaccuracies. Even papers like the Guardian or The Times occasionally print things that I know to be factually incorrect, perhaps because the writer has made a mistake in haste, but the editor who has the final say doesn't know enough to change it. The number of times I have seen him refered to as David Bentley (doubtless thanks to autocorrect)!
 * 7. That's a relief. I also do completely understand this policy, but it has huge limitations. Information about famous events and people that are well documented will easily find itself in numerous places online or in print. The problem comes at the 'fringes'. So much information, particularly sitting in that grey area you might refer to as 'recent history', will not make it's way onto the net for a long time, if ever. There are simply more sources about, say turn of the 19th/20th century composers than there are of weird composers from the 1950s. These are only likely referenced briefly, if at all, in print, and likely out of print.
 * 8. There are four of us who help maintain the website, though I find it a little odd that someone sat next to me at work apparently has less of a conflict of interest than I do... and they would certainly not be knowledgable enough to fact check anything I wrote, meaning it would in all likelihood just go up as I wrote it.
 * 9. I haven't, but will. Thank you.
 * 10. I would say better to be fully informative and correct! Oh, wait, I'm not allowed to... yes, I know... :)
 * 11. Yet, as I mentioned above, I think it has become so much more. There is so much unverifiable and unverified information on the stubs and articles for obscure people in history, I think Wikipedia would be doing itself a great diservice in removing it all without knowing whether it is correct or not.
 * 12. I do find this inefficient, to be honest, and contradictory, in that unquestionable primary sources that are not publically available are disallowed, whilst 'fan sites' (which is what a great deal of sites about obscure subjects in effect are - my RussianComposers site, for example, which looked accurate due to the sheer volume of information, but wasn't) are allowed, even though the writers of those sites probably don't reference their own sources (a horrible sweeping generalisation, I know). Although I do understand, it does seem a shame that these policies (and the time available to to editors) means that a lot of rubbish is floating around Wikipedia, whilst people like me, who have access to unique sources - the horse's mouth, so to speak - are disuaded from including their information.


 * I disagree with the policies, but understand that they are the best that can be made of a complex situation and perhaps overwhelming amount of information. I think what I might do is leave the 'story' of his career unedited (except for things like "he has created ballets for blah blah blah companies", which can be verified with a Google search and should be a matter of public record. I'll then make requests for changes to errors, and then add in what basically amount to lists of works and dates, composers, designers etc. They are almost entirely verifiable through Google or, if not, through old programmes. Does every single date and name need to be cited? You, or a fellow editor will be able to see that I am only including facts and figures, not opinions. I suspect you will ask me to put it all in the Talk, box, but I see little point as anyone coming to review it would have no idea if it is correct or not and, I believe, is very unlikely to put in the necessary hours and travel to verify it all. Better a job half done than one complete that might get deleted soon after because I have done the right thing and asked how I should proceed :) Does that sound ok to you? I can even e-mail you photos of some of the show reports, or programmes and cast slips from the archive if you like, just to show that they exist? I am, I have to say, mildly put out that that the book I wrote and created is not admissable as a source (although only 4 copies exist), but I guess that would fall under the same conflict of interest rules we have already discussed, and it is not professionally published.

Sorry to keep wandering off topic a little, too. As well as frustrating, I am finding this very interesting and appreciate your time and patience. Thanks again. Leea25 (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am in the midst of several days of heavy business and will not be able to respond. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As Nat is away for the next few days, could I point out that our encyclopedia is written using reliable published sources. That is all. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 16:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to note, Leea25 and I are having a parallel discussion about the sourcing complexities of her circumstances here. My thinking is that this is maybe an issue that might get more traction at WP:RSN; we're going to need to do some very nuanced parsing of policy regarding RS if we are going to find ways to (hopefully) make at least a small fraction of the resources at her disposable usable to augment the article in question. Snow let's rap 19:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your comments. I am finding this all rather disheartening to be honest. Having already spent some 6 weeks (full time) gathering and researching the information for 'my' book, I thought it would just be a matter of transfering it to here. I understand now that that's not the case and the rules are the rules. I still disagree fundamentally with a policy that potentially excludes SO much information, and will likely never be able to include it, but there we are. As for the definition of a 'reliable secondary source', well that's a whole other can of worms! You find me a book, magazine, newspaper or website that doesn't have at least some slant... I have a book about the Head of the Musicians' Union in the Soviet Union, Tikhon Khrennikov. I know enough to know that it is by and large propaganda, painting him as a loving father figure of Russian music. The truth is far from that, but by these rules, it would indeed be a reliable source. Any way, I'm repeating myself. I think I'll carry this chat on with Snow Rise through the Wiki Dance Project, if that's ok. Thanks very much for your help Nat - very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leea25 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Meital Dohan
At Talk:Meital Dohan a user made some edit suggestions which they wanted to share. I am posting here to request any response to the request on that talk page.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  12:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexander Temerko
This is not a dispute but simply a request for somebody to review the Alexander Temerko article for BLP issues. The subject is controversial enough and recent edits were extensive enough that a BLP review would be helpful. I'm not accusing anybody of doing anything, just suggesting a review, which I don't have time for myself. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, on the surface the only thing I see is that he is listed as both supporting and opposing Brexit. Not sure what is really controversial about this article though, not enough for me to dive into it. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Missing credits
Justine Bateman played a major roll in 2006 Mission Impossible III. She played Ethan's (Tom Cruise) girlfriend who was kidnapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:741:8000:B840:51DD:E7A5:E74B:813A (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That was Michelle Monaghan, not Bateman. --M asem (t) 18:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * any relation to Patrick Bateman? MPS1992 (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Chris Russo
Someone put that Chris Russo lives in a van down by the river... this should be addressed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5504:F100:9CBE:650D:1D18:7CF2 (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Already been fixed. Thanks. You could make that change yourself, the page is not protected. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Jess Heinig
This BLP on a former computer programmer who was once the guest of honor at a not-notable game convention that reports attendance of 255 people has, apparently, been the subject of offline "dares" to "delete it" (and was recently PRO'ed by an SPA), as well as extensive vandalism by IP editors. However, after looking at it, it appears to have no RS other than a single book (other sources include a press release, an event listing at aforementioned game convention, a blog, and an Amazon.com product page). My BEFORE was unable to find anything to redeem the article. However, I'm not intimately familiar with the topic of video game programmers and was hoping to get some input from other editors better acquainted with this subject rather than submitting it to AfD myself. Chetsford (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Controversial userpage
I happened on User:Rachel Summers. This lists people and pages linked to child sex abuse cases and conspiracies. I'm worried about some of the listings, especially "#MKULTRA GLITCHES" and I feel this is being used for a personal site rather than improving Wikipedia, but would like other views. Fences &amp;  Windows  17:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I made this big table as an overview and help of what articles I want to read through and sometimes edit/improve pages. I know I edit my user page a lot, but its a complex field and I also edit articles from time to time. I tried to fix/neutralize the mentioned caption. Please let me know what bothers you especially. But I need this overview for editing. -- Rachel Summers (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The page creator reacted by replacing that particular hashtag with one that does equally little to explain their purpose.


 * Now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rachel Summers. MPS1992 (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I reacted by anwering here and trying to comply with whatever is bothering anyone. My user page is an overview for getting a grab on a complex issue and contributing on articles and categories, as everyone can see in my edit history. -- Rachel Summers (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What is "bothering" people is that categorizing living people in such a way can be harmful to not only them, but also their families and friends, acquaintances, etc... It would need a lot of reliable sourcing to make it comply with policy. That's why we have the WP:BLP policy. It's much stricter that most other policies and it applies to all spaces, including talk pages and user pages. Don't get me wrong, I'm a proponent of being able to voice your own opinions on your user page (to a certain degree), in as much as it lets us all get to know each other, but we have to be very careful when voicing things about someone else, and such a list would be better to put on your personal computer or phone rather than up onsite, because it violates this policy. Zaereth (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry. I didn't know this also concerns the userspace. But even when I reduce the list groups to mentioned persons within an article then its not allowed to group these persons/articles on the userpage? -- Rachel Summers (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not that you grouped them, it's how. It's what you group them under. If you group them under "Articles I want to improve" or "people I want to read about" we have no problem. If you group them under "bank robberies" or "axe murders" you'd better have sources to back up the claim that everyone in the category is an axe murderer or a bank robber. If they're a famous victim of a robbery, then make that clear in the title (ie: "victims of bank robberies"), but the title must accurately reflect what the person is notable for, and you'd need sources to back up the claim. Zaereth (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand. But while you might be okay when I just change the headlines, others were questioning it's encyclopedic nature... (not as article info but as a helpful overview for me as reader and editor). - Rachel Summers (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Hatch
Requesting rev/deletion of multiple defamatory edits this evening. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Shane Bugbee
A user claiming to be Shane Bugbee has posted a complaint on the article's talk page about inaccuracies in his Wikipedia entry. --kingboyk (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert Schoch
The Robert Schoch Page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Schoch contains an unfair heading: "Fringe claims". This term is used to prejudice readers before they have a chance to review the evidence. In the "Response from academics" rubric, no actual contrarian evidence is given other than opinion statements. The reference to Robert Schneiker is in error. He is not an academic and he presents just another theory. The heading is therefore misleading readers into thinking this is a scientific theory, which it isn't. No experiment was conducted by Robert Schneiker. Robert Schoch on the other hand did perform measurements with Thomas Dobecki at the Sphinx, see reference 7 on the page.

What is needed here: 1) Replace "Fringe claims" with "Claims" 2) Replace "Response from academics" with "Response from critics" 3) List Robert Schoch's recent published papers which provide further, Egyptological evidence of an older Sphinx:

Seyfzadeh, M., Schoch, R. (2019). World’s First Known Written Word at Göbekli Tepe on T-Shaped Pillar 18 Means God. Archeological Discovery, Vol.7 No.2, PP. 31-53. Seyfzadeh, M., Schoch, R. (2018). The Inventory Stele: More Fact than Fiction. Archeological Discovery, Vol.6 No.2, PP. 103-161. Seyfzadeh, M., Schoch, R., Bauval, R. (2017). A New Interpretation of a Rare Old Kingdom Dual Title: The King’s Chief Librarian and Guardian of the Royal Archives of Mehit. Archeological Discovery, Vol.5 No.3, PP. 163-177. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with the point about "fringe" being used to prejudice readers, and on it not being justified by legitimate claims. It just seems to be a poorly-supported opinion by an editor. To the extent that Robert Schneiker is not an academic, I agree that "Response from academics" should be replaced by "Response from critics". Schneiker does NOT appear to be an academic. Googling him gives few results. In a YouTube about the Sphinx, he seems to be promoting theories based on his use of his own commercial software package. I do NOT support the inclusion of references from Archeological Discovery, out of concern that it might not meet the rigorous standards of WP:RS. Lou Sander (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the nature of the content, I have posted at WP:FTN asking for comment here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, the subject is primarily notable for their support of a number of fringe theories. And there is no question that these are fringe theories see e.g. Sphinx water erosion hypothesis. It's quite likely that the article will reflect this in some way. This doesn't necessarily mean it should mention fringe in every instance but it's quite likely it will be mentioned somewhere in some form, perhaps even in the lead. (Whether the term fringe is used or the article simply says his theories are rejected by the larger scientific community.) Remembering of course this is a biography and not really a place to offer evidence for or against Schoch's theories. I personally think the Robert Schneiker thing should probably should go. Regardless of whether or not they are an academic, a talk of that form doesn't seem to be the sort of sourcing we should use even if this wasn't a BLP. Note however that there is no requirement that someone needs to personally perform experimentation. It's reasonably possible someone could publish an extremely well accepted, respect and cited paper in a prestigious peer reviewed journal based on analysing existing data. But that doesn't seem to be what we have here from the sourcing provided. Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My assessment: the lead is a summary of the article's body's important points (WP:LEAD). WP:PSCI/WP:FRINGE policy requires that pseudoscience be indicated as such.  The body includes reliably sourced material, not only that the ideas are fringe but also at least one that I see is directly about Schoch's papers and conclusions (so not a WP:SYNTH or editor inference issue).  I don't personally see a problem.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Response: Wikipedia is applying circuitous justification here. The same editor who is reverting attempts to delete fringe from Robert Schoch's page is also reverting it on the Water Erosion Hypothesis Page. It is abundantly clear that personal bias is entering here. Fringe is not a term which should be applied to competing views in a scientific debate. The Khafre-Sphinx theory by Reisner/Hassan/Lehner/Hawass has been questioned for example by Stadelmann, Hartwig, and Dobrev, all Egyptologists no one in their right mind would label as "fringe". Yet this is what Wikipedia editors are saying here: If the model is not mainstream it's fringe. The Water Erosion Theory is based on physical evidence. If Wikipedia is not in the business of litigating positions, then Wikipedia ought not take sides and taint one position vis-a-vis another to manipulate reader response. That is exactly what this and other upper level editors of these pages are doing here. He is inserting himself into a debate of which he understands little or else he wouldn't allow the inaccuracies and omission on these pages I have listed on the fringe notifications board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Could this conflict be solved by replacing "fringe" with "not accepted by mainstream researchers"? It's wordier, but it may be less emotionally charged. ApLundell (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw this topic and was instantly taken via reverie to a younger Dumuzid listening to Coast to Coast AM in the late 90's. But enough about me!  The problem, ApLundell, is that is almost exactly the agreed-upon Wikipedia definition of "fringe."  See WP:FRINGE where it is defined thusly: "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."  Make no mistake, "fringe" is not a truth determination--a few, many, or all fringe theories might turn out to be true (though I doubt it).  I understand what you're saying about emotional charge, but if we start making that edit, we're basically up for redoing everything "fringe."  Cheers.  Dumuzid (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That quote you used here is exactly why I suggested it. If "Wikipedia parlance" defines a term in "a very broad sense", I can understand why people might object to using it that way in an article. After all, articles are not written for editors who know Wikipedia's jargon.
 * WP:FRINGE has a section on describing fringe views, but the only actual example of wording that it offers uses the phrase "most other specialists in the field reject this view". ApLundell (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, but I guess my point is that Schoch's theories, whatever their value, certainly depart significantly from the prevailing views in his field. If he's not fringe, nothing on Wikipedia is.  I think it's a valuable sort of category to have, but reasonable minds may differ.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Response: If Schoch's claim is fringe so were those of Stephen Hawking and Beckenstein in 1975, since they were clearly not mainstream and have subsequently been dis-proven: Information is conserved, even in black holes. Being wrong is not fringe and neither is being in the minority. Hawking challenged his field and the paradox fueled new insights. IN 1991, Schoch formulated a scientific model based on geological data he collected at odds with the "mainstream" Egyptological model. Schoch's model predicted, for example, that megaliths were built by much older people and this prediction came true at Goebekli Tepe (9700 BC). Schoch was ridiculed about this before GT was discovered by Schmidt (DAI) by the very same people who Wikipedia now calls mainstream. What Wikipedia does not want to admit here is that WP editors with police power are inappropriately applying labels to minority, ie "fringe", and majority, ie "mainstream" "scholarly" or "academic", scientific view points as if this has any value in the debate other than imposing the senior editor's views onto the juniors and prejudicing the public at large who apparently cannot be trusted to make its own mind. It must be "guided". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would submit that there is a big difference between a proposed model, like those of a black hole, and interpretation of observed phenomena like Schoch's take on the Sphinx. Again, he may be right!  "fringe" is not in any way truth determination.  Rather, despite your assertion that being in the minority is not fringe, that actually is a large part of how it is defined here on Wikipedia.  You may not like that, and you are free to advocate for its change, but for the moment that is the way things are.  Schoch is "fringe" for Wikipedia purpose because he has a very small minority view which departs dramatically from the mainstream view.  Again, if you'd like to change that policy, advocate for that!  In the meantime, it strikes me that, as currently defined, this is an easy application of the term "fringe."  And I would further say, just for the record, that you have every bit as much Wikipedia "police power" as I do!  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Response: Schoch proposed a model based on geological data he collected with Tom Dobecki....seismic refraction. See this is what I am saying...you and the senior editors over there don't know all the facts. It is the seismic refraction data which put a solid foundation under the Water Erosion Theory. You are biased by the "fringe" label created by your colleagues. That's exactly what WP should not be doing: Sending the message to young researchers entering academia that if they formulate an out-of-the-box model based on data that they will get chastized with meaningless labels. Once you are branded as "fringe" you get less funding, you get rejected by journals all because few take the time and look at the evidence. Most will look at labels....you just proved it. You would never call Hawking's Information evaporation theory fringe. It is a double standard by WP. WP wants to give the fringe label to models the senior editor happens not to like. That's what's really going on here. And no...the current archeologist running those pages right now overrides every attempt to delete the fringe label. You know exactly what's going on. Please don't take me for a fool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal: As expected, it is not possible to change Robert Schoch's page to reflect the facts and take out the negative slant imposed by WP. I am going to post here therefore, what I think the page should say

1) Remove "fringe" in the summary and header 2) Replace "Response from academics with Response from critics" 3) This text Schoch is best known for his fringe argument that the Great Sphinx of Giza is much older than conventionally thought and that some kind of catastrophe was responsible for wiping out evidence of a significantly older civilization. In 1991, Schoch redated the monument to 10,000–5,000 BC, based on his argument that its erosion was due mainly to the effects of water, rather than wind and sand, and also based on findings from seismic studies around the base of the Sphinx and elsewhere on the plateau.[6][7][8] These conclusions do not have consensus in the scientific community.

should instead say something like this:

Schoch is best known for his proposal that the Great Sphinx of Giza is older than conventionally thought and that a solar event-triggered climate catastrophe was responsible for wiping out evidence of a significantly older civilization. In 1991, Schoch initially re-dated the original lion monument to 7,000–5,000 BC, based on his observation that vertical erosion channels only seen on the enclosure walls of the Sphinx and not elsewhere on the Giza Plateau were due the effects of rain and run-off, rather than wind and sand which cause horizontal erosion channels, also seen elsewhere on the Giza Plateau, corroborated by seismic refraction measurements he obtained with Thomas Doebcki around the base of the Sphinx and elsewhere on the plateau.[6][7][8]. The original estimate was based on linear modeling of the seismic data and Schoch later revised his estimate to circa 10,000 BC using a more realistic non-linear subsurface decay model of the data. Schoch's model predicted that megalithic building by prehistoric people need not leave an archeological footprint and this was later confirmed when Goebekli Tepe was discovered by Klaus Schmidt and the German Archeological Institute. Schoch also proposed that that the head and rump section of the Sphinx were the only parts actually carved during the Old Kingdom, presumably, but not necessarily by Khafre. This explained the disproportionately small head of the Sphinx relative to the size of its body.

Schoch's re-dating of the original construction of the Sphinx is not accepted by the scientific community though some Egyptologists have also questioned if it might not have been Khufu or Djedefre, and not Khafre, who made the Sphinx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So, a couple thoughts: first of all, I do not take you for a fool, but I legitimately have no idea what a "senior editor" is. There is certainly some inertia with regard to articles, but I have seen consensus reformed by fairly new editors.  I can tell you quite honestly that I am part of no cabal (see WP:TINC) and my interest here is in conveying information in a logical and consistent way.  To that end, I might not be opposed to a label other than "fringe," but I do think we need a way to convey that a theory or idea is not generally accepted.  To me, representing that all ideas have equal acceptance would be worse and would do a disservice to the reader.  Secondly, I think your rewrite is not bad, although I would obviously keep the "fringe" in there.  We would definitely need cites for the Göbekli Tepe sentence, as well as the "some Egyptologists" sentence.  Likewise, unless it's already covered, a cite for the "disproportionately small head" sentence.  I would suggest you either make some of these changes pursuant to WP:BRD or, even better, take to the talk page and seek consensus.  I promise, most of us are not that bad.  And Zahi Hawass doesn't pay us.  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Response [Dumuzid]: 1) I mean editors who get to revert what you edit and send you an "edit war" warning when you revert them. I call this bullying. I am actually posting substantially more detailed and factual info than he is sustaining. There is a history of these guys on Schoch's page who keep reverting. I call that a cabal which is intentionally suppressing needed details for reader to make up their own mind. I applaud that you are not like them. 2) The word "fringe" is loaded. I don't have to persuade you that it acts as mental short-cut just like "Fake News". I honestly think that WP should not even allow this term, because it is propaganda lingo. This word and "pseudoscience" are getting widely abused to devalue minority views in bona fide scientific disagreements. I understand that WP is interested in broadcasting the majority view since it cannot litigate contentious scientific topics. So that's what you should call it....the minority POV. That is loads better than fringe. "Pseudoscience" is a term correctly applied to work which looks, but isn't using the scientific method. This terms is also inappropriately being abused to label minority views the majority view holders don't like. So, in sum, I propose mainstream versus minority claim/view or orthodox and unorthodox, or conventional and unconventional. All make WP look way better than "fringe". Back to Schoch: He made measurements, formulated a minority view model, which made several predictions, one of which came true in the mid 90's. This is what science is. This is what we do. We do not want to be personally insulted for questioning orthodoxy. 3) Goebekli Tepe has a great DAI-sponsored website run by one of Klaus Schmidt's former graduate students with several great references on its discovery and interpretation as a hunter-gatherer megalithic site: https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/publications/. Rainer Stadelmann, former chief of the DAI, formulated his Sphinx theory (Khufu) here: Stadelmann, R. (2000). The Great Sphinx of Giza. In Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Egyptologists, Cairo, Vol. 1 pp. 464-468. Melinda Hartwig, Emory University, well-known Egyptologist with interest in Thebes can be seen here also favoring Khufu over Khafre: [Look for Melinda Hartwig "Whose Face Is on the Sphinx?" on YouTube, which I can't post here for being blocked]. Vassil Dobrev among several others is mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza#Dissenting_hypotheses. No one would call these dissenting theories "fringe". In fact, the fringe label appears below these Egyptologists. I think this is ample proof that WP is not using "fringe" to denote dissenting or minority, non-mainstream views, but views espoused by researchers not deemed qualified by biased/prejudiced WP staff editors...which take me back to the cabal of editors who are inappropriately calling winners and losers in this space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While I'm not disputing that it'd be possible to improve the wording, "critics" suggests WP:FALSEBALANCE. When representing a mainstream view, we don't describe it as opinions of some people (WP:YESPOV).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

''' Response[Peloneonate]: Jason Colavito is not an academic and what I posted on Schoch's page isn't spam, please retract that comment or else I will note that you are abusing your editor privileges. Why the false pretense in that category? Are you trying to tell me Lehner and Hawass are the only academics you can find to say something, anything, negative about Schoch which has nothing to do with the actual evidence? Is "pseudoscience" "fringe" and "spam" all you people can muster? The whole Schoch page reeks of a collaborative editor hit job. WP editors aren't even following their own rules. If Schoch is fringe and fringe is non-mainstream than all of these should be fringe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza#Dissenting_hypotheses. The WP editor logic displayed here by some of you is simply stunning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk • contribs)


 * Typical. I'm not wasting more time here.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Abby Martin, 9/11 Truther
There's a RfC on Abby Martin about whether to cover her involvement in the 9/11 Truther movement in the lede. Some editors have argued it's a BLP violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Sarah Halimi
This has been a controversial topic since the start, but some time passed since the article creation and there were some developments. There's a discussion at the article talk page where more independent participants would be welcome. There also were new edits that I've not reverted yet but which read like from a sensationalist tabloid. There were news articles, including some that misinterpreted other sources, describing events in relation to the trial. Unfortunately, the news sources give little detail to have a clear view of the proceedings. In France, this has been a scandal, with lobbying to describe it as an antisemitic crime, which is one of the sensitive issues. Another difficulty is that some sources claimed that he was declared unfit to stand trial because he had smoked cannabis at the time of the attack. From other sources we can determine that this was nonsense, but that his reponsibility may be in question because of delirium and intoxication at the time of the attack. It's unclear if the trial is ongoing or if those were final rulings, I've not seen any clear mention of aquittal. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 20:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: I reverted the new material which used an unacceptable tone, since it couldn't just stand as-is forever. — Paleo Neonate  – 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Marc D. Angel
There is false and slanderous information in this article. I tried to edit it yesterday, but my edits disappeared. Please remove this biography immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelarking (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Editors removing sourced material, here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of that "sourced material" is very problematically sourced, using opinion columns as sources on a BLP is generally frowned on, and combining them to make a statement is WP:SYNTH. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Bobby Sherman.
The Personal Life of Mr Sherman contains uncited references of same sex relations of two men when not even mentioned on the two mens wiki pages. These uncited references are defamatory and harmful to Mr. Sherman's good reputation maintained throughout his life. Additionally, if you should bother to read in the cited source about Sal Mineo, and analyze the information, you will see that its info about the relationship was contradicted at least three times within the same chapter and therefore should be an invalidation to the reported relationship. While Mr. Mineos efforts were instrumental in establishing Mr. Sherman's career in the entertainment field, it did not necessarily involve a sexual nature. His fan base that is still strong in numbers is offended that erroneous, unsubstantiated material is being reported about Mr. Sherman. Please remove all reports of personal same sex relationships that is libelous, defamatory, and harmful immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.130.245 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The unsourced text (which had been tagged as unsourced since May) were removed. I cannot readily access the biography of Mineo, so since I cannot disprove that the source is valid, I am letting it stand at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Contentious claims about sexual activities which are based on a single weak source (very weak) do not belong in an actual encyclopedia.  A clear case where the nature of the source is clearly not in the RS category. Collect (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Mike Godwin Mike Godwin is the author and frequent editor of his own biography page
Mike Godwin is the author and frequent editor of his own Wikipedia page. This entire article constitutes a violation of Wikipedia guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. Verification of the assertions contained in this article is impossible. note, too, that Mr. Godwin's Facebook profile links to this article, proving that the article is intentionally self-promoting. Wikipedia should adhere to its guidelines and remove this article regardless of the social and professional connections Mr. Godwin has had and may maintain with officers of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magcarta (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the article for possible COI editing. However deletion is an altogether different matter. In all but very rare circumstances we don't delete articles about individuals who pass our notability guidelines. If there are problems, we fix them. If you think there are grounds to delete the page that are consistent with our deletion criteria, then you may nominate the article at WP:AfD. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless he is editing behind an unrevealed user name or IP, Godwin edits as MGodwin, and his last edit to that page is back in 2014. Of the 5 edits that MGodwin did from as far back to 2007, 2 of the edits were to replace with new photos of him, 2 were to fix broken external links, and one was to clarify his current career position. That is nowhere close to a COI issue at all. --M asem (t) 22:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Unless you have evidence of editing that goes beyond what Masem has uncovered I am going to take down the COI tag. I will give you some time to look and reply. But as of right now I agree with Masem that, barring more than what has been put on the table, this is not a big deal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * According to xtools, Mike Godwin is responsible for only 1.2% of the content of the article Mike Godwin, again, unless he's editing from another account or IPs. He has made only 11 edits to the page. You can see all of them here. Aside from making minor corrections and changing a photo, the only substantive changes he made were removing an external link and adding a line about his new job six years ago. False alarm, I think. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The editing was acknowledged on Talk:Mike Godwin, and a disclosure of the Wikipedia accounts has been there right at the start of the talk page ever since. See also Talk:Mike Godwin. However, M. Godwin is not the author of the page. That was Aaron Swartz. Magcarta, you should probably pay more attention to talk pages and edit histories. &#9786; Everyone else, you might like to pay attention to 's clearly false claims about "Uncle Mike" and why there is a tag on the talk page connecting that IP address to Mike Godwin when it was quite obviously another "X is dead" vandal. Uncle G (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

In view of the above, the COI tag seems entirely pointless and I have removed it. --Calton &#124; Talk 02:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Deaths July 23, 2019
The Death of Nika McGuigan, 30 years old Irish actor, directs to Barry McGuigan who is an Irish boxer who is 58 years old and is alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.57.76 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears Barry is her father. That said, she's not mentioned in his article, so I returned the redirect of Nika McGuigan to go to the show in which she appeared (as it was previously), but removed the reference to her death from that show's page, as the article is about the show itself.  BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * She is now at Danika McGuigan, her birth name. All related links now point to there, including the nickname, as well as a link at her father's page. —  Wylie pedia  @ 05:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Maza
Carlos Maza posted in March 2019 a tweet which was considered by some to support antifa violence. Editor NorthBySouthBaranof has posted an AE thread in which he connects that tweet to an instance of actual antifa violence. That is a BLP violation, please delete. This comment exercises my WP:BANEX rights and I do not intend to violate any sanctions by posting here. w umbolo  ^^^  15:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn’t this AE filing related to the edit you made an hour ago where you added an accusation in a BLP cited to RT, the Russian propaganda outlet? O3000 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * lol "propaganda outlet". Is the BBC a "propaganda outlet"? w umbolo   ^^^  15:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The cite was to Russia Today. O3000 (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So what? It could have been to the BBC or to Al Jazeera. Still not a "propaganda outlet". w umbolo   ^^^  16:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean so what? This is an encyclopedia. You added negative comments about a living person based on a Russian propaganda outlet and then re-added with the same source after reversion. O3000 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a proportionate response by critics. There are a couple dozen references to the BBC (a UK propaganda outlet) at Tommy Robinson (activist) – is that a problem? w umbolo   ^^^  16:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going to argue that RT and the BBC are in the same category, I'm done here. O3000 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the BBC has slightly better reporting but at RSP it is reliable for non-controversial issues, and reporting on claims in simple disputes like this one are only controversial if you make it that. w umbolo   ^^^  16:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Negative characterizations against a living person in the political arena is obviously controversial, as is this obviously a BLP issue. Using as a cite what is called a "mouthpiece of the Russian government" by eight sources at RSP makes no sense. I suggest you use better sources when adding negative material in a BLP, particularly political in nature. O3000 (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * RT (and the barely distinguishable Sputnik (news agency)) are exactly propaganda outlets. We can call them propaganda outlets, not based solely on their close association to the Russian government (apparently the root of the BBC comparison farce), but because multiple reliable independent sources have evaluated their "reporting" and determined it to be overtly propagandistic. Government affiliation is neither sufficient nor required to be a propaganda outlet. NPR and the BBC are both funded at least in part by national governments, and yet appear to be largely editorially independent and responsible. The status of Al Jazeera (especially related to the international relations of Qatar) may be somewhat less so. RT and Sputnik are both propaganda outlets on par with Breitbart. That the former is in service of a national government and the latter in service of a political ideology is moot. We should not be using these sources even a little bit for controversial information about a living person, and we probably shouldn't use them at all for any reason. If something is only reported by sources of this caliber then there's no reason to think the information is accurate or important. If is reported elsewhere, then we should use those more reliable sources instead.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if one were to disagree that a publicly owned news organization like BBC or CBC were not entirely editorially independent, that would not be an adequate justification for using RT and Sputnik which are undeniably tainted, particularly in this context. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be using RT here. However, it seems the same point has been made on the pages of the WSJ, and NyMag. Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of those are opinion columns (one of which is written by an involved party in question) which cannot be used for claims of fact, only for sourcing the opinions of their authors where deemed relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems this tempest in a milkshake mostly involves back and forth between involved parties - probably an attributed he said/he said situation - or alternatively ignoring the whole kerfuffle all together (preferably in a consistent manner across Wikipedia articles involved). Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the whole kerfuffle would probably be the wisest course of action for the moment at least. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not commenting specifically on this case, but this thread has turned more into a discussion of RT itself. In my view, it would be inappropriate to disallow RT. As with all media outlets, we should be aware of its biases, which I do not view as stronger than those of MSNBC or Fox News. Like those outlets, its political slant is often clear (MSNBC being strongly supportive of the Democratic Party, Fox News being strongly supportive of the Republican Party, and both having a very American-centric view of the world), but like those outlets, it also does a significant amount of good reporting.

Often, non-US media will report on aspects of American politics or society that receive less coverage from American outlets. The same goes for UK and non-UK media, etc. RT has, for example, been very important in coverage of Julian Assange, a person who for political reasons receives very different types of coverage from media in different countries. Compare, for example, coverage of Assange in British vs. American newspapers, as evidenced in the RfC over whether to label Assange a "journalist," in which it has been shown that major British newspapers regularly refer to Assange as a "journalist," while American news sources rarely refer to him as such. That aligns with the political atmosphere in each country - not by accident, I think. It's important to use all news sources with caution and to know their biases, but turning a blind eye towards biases that run in one direction (e.g., allowing MSNBC and Fox News) but not another (e.g., cutting out prominent news sources from non-US-allied governments) is not the way to go. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't that RT has a point-of-view or that it's biased, the issue is that RT has a reputation for spreading disinformation in support of its bias. WP:RS doesn't require that sources be unbiased, but it does require that their biases not get in the way of the accuracy of their reporting. Without regard for the other two you've discussed (Fox is a longstanding point of controversy in that regard), RT definitely has a reputation for letting it get in the way of the accuracy of their reporting, and therefore lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that RS requires - especially the higher standard we're required to use for BLPs. --Aquillion (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Is the accuracy of RT worse than, say, MSNBC or Fox News? RT actually does a fair amount of valuable reporting, and there are certainly news subjects that would lose out if it were excluded as a source (for example, coverage of Julian Assange, as I mentioned above). Any controversial statement about a BLP should have good sourcing - preferably more than just one RS. I frankly would not be comfortable with basing controversial statements about a Democratic politician on Fox News alone, or controversial statements about a Republican politician on MSNBC alone, given the strong partisanship of both sources. To give you a recent example: CNN wrote matter-of-factly in a recent news article that "[Assange] smeared feces on the walls out of anger" (source). This is an unsubstantiated claim made by political opponents of Assange, the Ecuadorian government. Yet CNN reported it as fact. This is a case of CNN "spreading disinformation in support of its bias." There's no way we would rely on CNN in this case to insert this claim into Assange's biography on Wikipedia. My point here is that you have to be aware of the political biases of any source, not just RT. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That seems self-evident. Reliable sources are not all created equal. On the 1--10 scale, I rank news outlets and other main-stream media around a 2 or 3. Books are often far more reliable, simply because they do much more thorough research, but college-produced books, or publishers with specific expertise in a subject (ie: the American Society of Metals or CRC Press for metallurgical stuff, or Springer-Verlag for historical stuff, or Oxford Press for linguistics), are often better than standardly published books, which are usually better than self-published books. The reliability of a source may depend upon the info it is giving. In example, a book on metallurgy would be a poor source of info about the subtleties of aerial combat, even if it's a good source on metals. All sources have some intrinsic bias. That's unavoidable. The biggest factor is if they're honest about it. As the Society of Professional Journalists says in their ethics, a reporter must be open about their biases --not just to everyone else but mostly to themselves-- so they may understand them and how they may influence their writing.


 * Nearly all sources will contain mistakes, no matter how reliable. Some, obviously, more so than others, but there are several criteria for determining the reliability of a source, many of which Wikipedia details and many you can find in very reliable sources. I haven't taken the time to evaluate RT myself (number one, I don't speak Russian) so I will have to trust others in that their reporting doesn't even merit a number on the 1--10 scale. Zaereth (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't taken the time to evaluate RT myself (number one, I don't speak Russian)...
 * Since it's in English, language shouldn't be much of a barrier. --Calton &#124; Talk 02:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Can I bring my two cents to the dicussion, it is turned into dishing the dirt about RT. And I totally agree with the statement that all sources may contain mistakes, even the credible and reputable one. And  I am not lobbing in this case the RT interests,  I perfectly understand its editorial implications. IuliusRRR (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning that a person is or was a Wikipedian
Is it appropriate to mention in a BLP that a person is or was known as a Wikipedian? Naturally, that should only happen if that person acknowledged the fact, and was not outed against their will, but my question is whether such facts should be mentioned at all, or whether that would be improper navel-gazing at our inner workings? I have in mind the specific cases of Raymond Arritt, a.k.a. User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, and Aaron Swartz a.k.a. User:AaronSw, both prolific and respected editors apart their IRL notability. I would welcome pointers to prior discussions of similar cases, or perhaps there's already a guideline on this subject I'm not aware of. — JFG talk 10:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this issue is separate from any other tidbit of info. If you have WP:RS reporting on this, and Wikipedia is not a RS, it could be included. And if you don't have RS reporting on this - you don't. If the Wikipedian admitted this on their Wikipedia user page - then possibly WP:ABOUTSELF would apply - but that's weaker than external reporting. Icewhiz (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What you said. It would be weird if we omitted that Jess Wade is a Wikipedian. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

John Solomon Article
Four times, I have removed the smear by Snooganssnoogans (talk) from the John Solomon article. This editor continues to insert language in the form of a smear, reading "He is known for biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals." Continued insertion of this smear violates the BLP Rule. The repeatedly inserted language is also clearly not written from a neutral point of view. Further, the citations are to articles in the Columbia School of Journalism Review, as well as an Opinion article. None of these are reliable sources. This user refuses to discuss the issue on the article talk page, but instead continues to edit war. -BattleshipGray (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Four times? Under which accounts have you edited? And the Columbia Journalism Review is absolutely a reliable source. In fact, it is the gold standard for reporting about the media. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly tried to insert a smear which reads "He is known for biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals." This edit clearly violates both BLP and NPOV; you conveniently omit any mention of violation of these rules. Further, whether or not the Columbia School of Journalism's news articles are a reliable source is arguable at best, and in any event irrelevant - your citations were to two Opinion articles in CSJ as well as another Opinion article.  These are not reliable sources. -BattleshipGray (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * the Columbia Journalism Review is "an American magazine for professional journalists that has been published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism since 1961. Its contents include news and media industry trends, analysis, professional ethics, and stories behind news." It's chairman is Stephen J. Adler editor-in-chief for and president of Reuters. It actually is what it says it is, "It is the most respected voice on press criticism" in the US. The statements were clearly attributed to their authors and not in Wikipedia's voice. Doug Weller  talk 08:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Operation Voicer
Uncle G (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Ally Love‎


In short, this person was accused of making racist remarks and then later found guilty of it by his governing body. This is confirmed by RS, and is reflected in the wording in the article accordingly. Various IPs keep changing it to say "this guy is a definite racist" (which I think is too far and BLP). I have reverted, warned, and now protected the article, but as ever further eyes/input welcome. GiantSnowman 11:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is "he was accused of making racist comments" necessary as opposed to "he made racist comments"? Is there any doubt, following disciplinary proceedings and RS reporting, on the comments being made and/or their nature? Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that we're talking a sport league's officiating board and not, say, a court of law, I think we cannot assert that the officiating board is the authority on what is racist, but what is definitely unacceptable behavior for the league. We definitely cannot say what the IPs are saying, and we should keep it to that he was accused of making racist comments to this board, which subsequently ruled a suspension for the player as a result. GS's version of the article that I checked I think is properly worded. (From what I see, we actually have no idea what he said to the other player, at least from what I can see reported on the incident, so we certainly can't say, factually, he made racist comments). --M asem  (t) 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I took a shot at rewriting the sentence, removing the whole "accused of making" vs. "made racist comments" issue by just stating the action the SFA took and the reason they stated they took it. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The passive voice "being found guilty" does not really address Masem's above concern, however. Who found xem guilty?  Was it a court of law?  As a reader, I do not learn the answer to these questions, and I could make a misleading inference.  "after it found him guilty" would be better, presuming that that was actually the case, which I have not checked.  Uncle G (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Andreas Pavel
Article Andreas Pavel has been created and edited mostly by one person. Lacks sufficient citations to prove accuracy. Information re. Sony should have numerous public records to prove statements in the article given publicity and public records on litigation. Writing unencyclopedic. Kittyba (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you about the Sony settlement, . The New York Times coverage, for example, is extremely detailed, and makes it clear that he received an out-of-court settlement. The very nature of such a settlement means that there are no public records. Other editors have removed a lot of unsourced material, but the basic facts do not seem to be in dispute. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not a correct characterization of the edit history, either. It was created in 2005 by, completely rewritten in 2005 by , and then rewritten again in 2016 by .  That's not "mostly one person" by a long chalk, nor is it sole editing by the article's creator, whose writing style was very different to the rewrites and really not suitable for an encyclopaedia.  It should be noted moreover that 2.238.90.126 claims to have obtained xyr information from the article subject.  Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Eva Bartlett
Eyes needed at this article, which has gone from

"Eva Karene Bartlett is a Canadian activist and blogger who covers the Middle East, particularly Palestine and Syria.[1] She writes op-eds for the Russian-funded television network RT.[2][3][4]" to

"Eva Karene Bartlett is a journalist and activist who was born in Michigan, USA, but grew up in Ontario, Canada, and holds dual-citizenship for both Canada and the US. She was an Honours student in high school." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor Nozoz keeps edit-warring absurd puffery and fringey drivel to the Bartlett page while removing reliably sourced content (content that was agreed to be placed in the article via a RfC). The page is subject to DS and 1RR, yet the editor keeps edit-warring. The editor has near-exclusively edited pages that relate to Russian foreign policy issues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is Nozoz. What Snooganssnoogans claims is false. I have vastly improved the page with superior sources, more information, and less biased language, and have undone vandalism that was done to the page. The sources that were used before regularly has no relation to the statements they were following, and they were often entirely fringe / smear sources. I have added sources which are reliable, often being Eva Bartlett's own articles where she says the very thing the Wikipedia page claims that she has, and I have removed middle-men sources that were included on the page previously to instead show the first source that the previous sources were citing. Snooganssnoogans's opinion of my editing history is irrelevant. Their effort is clearly to try to keep the page on Eva Bartlett a low quality smear and attack page. Wikipedia should host neutral language and use first-hand sources wherever possible, and not spam the same low-quality sources after nearly every sentence even though they have little and often even entirely no relation to the Wikipedia page statement they're following. I invite all objective 3rd-parties to look at the page for Eva Bartlett, examine its citations, and see which is more suitable for Wikipedia standards and which is more informative and accurate. Nozoz (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that the subject is discussed in mainstream sources due to fringe stmts, we should avoid non-independent sources such as the subject herself.Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Icewhiz, please review WP:USINGSPS, which says that a self-published primary source is the best source to use in the case of quotations: "Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." Please also review WP:USEPRIMARY, which says the same thing of primary sources: "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." It is impossible for a secondary source to be more accurate than the primary source for a quote because at best a secondary source is perfectly copying the primary source. And so, the primary source is the source all the same. Therefore, the primary source is the ideal source for a quotation, which is why Wikipedia guidelines say so. Nozoz (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This is Nozoz again. I would also point out that Gråbergs Gråa Sång's claim about how I have changed the the introduction of the page, using incomplete quotes, is a major misrepresentation. After my changes the introduction still shows almost all the same information, but presented in a fashion that is more accurate and which isn't obviously intending to smear, while any remaining information is still talked about in its appropriate sub-section. And in addition to presenting the same information in an objective manner, I have added a lot more information about Eva Bartlett's background to the introduction. In reality, it has gone from: "Eva Karene Bartlett is a Canadian activist and blogger who covers the Middle East, particularly Palestine and Syria.[1] She writes op-eds for the Russian-funded television network RT.[2][3][4] Bartlett describes herself as an "independent writer and rights activist."[5] She is known for her advocacy in support of the Assad regime, and for promoting the falsehood that the White Helmets stage rescues and "recycle" children in its videos." - - From that, before my edits, to: - - "Eva Karene Bartlett is a journalist and activist who was born in Michigan, USA, but grew up in Ontario, Canada, and holds dual-citizenship for both Canada and the US. She was an Honours student in high school. She went to university in New Brunswick, though she also spent a year as an exchange university student in Strasbourg, France. Before becoming a journalist, Eva did various volunteer and teaching work.[1] Eva Bartlett's journalism activities cover the Middle East, Venezuela, and particularly Palestine and Syria. Bartlett publishes articles on her own website where she describes herself as an "independent writer and rights activist".[2] She also has her journalism published in news outlets such as RT, MintPress News, 21stCenturyWire, and others. She is known for reporting on-location about the Syrian Civil War, Israel's occupation of Palestine, the crisis in Venezuela, and for her criticism of the White Helmets." Nozoz (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll just state the obvious: Bartlett is not a "journalist" by any stretch of the imagination. Her sole claim to fame per all reliable sources is running pro-Assad disinformation about the Syrian Civil War. Your changes scrubbed all RS content and descriptions of her, and now instead portrays her as a widely published journalist who is renowned for on-the-ground war reporting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The only issue I see in the current version (which I assume is Snooganssoogans' version) is stating "Russian-funded" about RT. That's coatracking an issue that doesn't need to be called out. Everything else seems to be properly representative of the text of the article. The "changed" version is far too non-representative of the body. --M asem  (t) 17:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding Snooganssnoogans's previous claim, that is an accusation charged with bias and emotion, and which admits and that you take issue with basic facts being presented if they don't serve to smear Eva Bartlett. Whether you like what she reports or not, Eva is a journalist per the definition of the word, and is titled as such by the various outlets her works are published on. It is fact that Eva is published on many outlets, and the ones I have listed are but a few of the over-a-dozen that she is published on. She is certainly known for her on-the-ground war reporting, and on-the-ground and front-lines war reporting is what she does, and has done in Gaza, in Syria, and in other places. Your claim that Eva's "sole claim to fame per all reliable sources is running pro-Assad disinformation about the Syrian Civil War" is entirely false. If that's what you think, then you aren't someone who pays attention to her reporting, but only to detracting articles about her. You're trying to make the page just a flagrant attack and smear piece about Eva, and not an actual biography about her. Nozoz (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the older introduction contains a falsehood when it says that Eva Bartlett is known for "promoting the falsehood that the White Helmets stage rescues and "recycle" children in its videos." White Helmets are in-fact known to have both staged rescues, and to have reused the same people in their rescue efforts. And there is no confirmation that Eva's claim that WH have reused children in rescue footage is false. So, the older introduction was asserting things that are not known to be fact. And such things shouldn't be asserted on a Wikipedia page. The topic of Eva's claim on the subject and the criticism she has received, and the counter-criticism she and others have made in response to that criticism are talked about in depth in the sub-sections of the Wikipedia page. Since it is a controversial subject and not one that people are agreed on, saying that "she is known" for that is basically ignoring the reality-based picture to maliciously frame Eva as only her strongest critics label her. Nozoz (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , I agree with the above (including with Masem, the "Russian-funded" bit is rather gratuitous and I'd be in favor of removing that). However, as to the rest, we should be citing the most reliable sources, and we should be primarily citing independent ones as well. That means sources written about her, not by her. Self-published sources can be used in certain limited cases, but never to support claims which might be controversial or in dispute. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Seraphimblade, when you say that you agree with the above, are you saying that you generally agree with what I wrote? Regarding reliable sources, the only places where I cited Eva Bartlett's own reporting is where she made the statements that the Wikipedia page claims she did, and regarding the period in which she reported from within Gaza. A primary source there is more suitable because secondary sources are only relaying that information from the primary source, such as by quoting Eva Bartlett, herself. Nozoz (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, please keep in mind that using neutral language is one of Wikipedia's 10 rules, and also one of its 5 pillars. The older version of the page isn't neutral about anything, but is deliberately using denigrating language and sketchy sources while omitting any information that might give a non-biased impression about Bartlett, or which is presented in a neutral language. The older version of the page is simply there to attack and smear, violating Wikipedia's rules. Regarding M asem 's comment, a biography is, of course, a biography, and not an exercise in saying everything twice. If the introduction should describe the sub-sections more identically, then the sub-sections can be adjusted to feature the same information. Snooganssnoogans's version contains false information, citation spamming (the same citations that often have no relevance to the statements they follow is used many times throughout the page, to no good purpose). Wikipedia's Rule 9 says "Write neutrally and with due weight". The older version of the page isn't neutral about anything. Being neutral is one of Wikipedia's 10 rules, which state, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". Nozoz (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I very clearly was not agreeing with you. We should not primarily be citing sources by Bartlett, but instead use material written about Bartlett by reliable, independent sources. (Also as an aside, we refer to an individual by first and last name on first mention, and last name only thereafter). As to the rest, which particular sources do you consider "sketchy", or what text do you consider to not accurately represent the cited source? Without specifics, that doesn't mean much. And yes, the lead should indeed summarize the article, see WP:LEAD. Everything in the lead should be a summary of what the reader may expect to find expanded upon in the body. But no, primary sources are absolutely not more suitable, we always prefer reliable secondary sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To some extent, using material that she wrote about her background from her SPS is fine to flesh out her background, as long as we stick to the usual types of bio stuff (where born, what schools, etc.) But this absolutely cannot overwhelm what secondary reliable sources have written about her. The SPS can supplement, but cannot be the focus. --M asem (t) 18:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * M asem, I would say that supplementing (by briefly mentioning birthplace and citizenship [basic biographical details], schooling, and occupation before journalism) and not overwhelming is what I achieved with my edits. Do you agree? Nozoz (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That stuff is fine - in the body. not the lede. --M asem (t) 18:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then the solution is not to revert that information, but to move it to the body. Nozoz (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there can be no question that the older version of the page violates every part of Wikipedia's 2nd pillar WP:5P2, which says, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view - We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

The older version of Bartlett's page is not in an impartial tone, doesn't feature accurate information but false and unproven assertions. It is advocating for the critics view of Bartlett, and it doesn't present facts and views that challenge the fierce-critic viewpoint. It doesn't have verifiable accuracy, and it doesn't use authoritative sources as it uses secondary sources for Eva's own quotes that original from her articles and interview. It is loaded with personal interpretations and, as I've said, one-sided smear assertions and interpretations that WP:5P2 says do not belong. Nozoz (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Seraphimblade, when quoting a person, a direct citation is more reliable than a secondary citation, and in WP:USEPRIMARY Wikipedia states a primary source is superior to a secondary source when presenting a direct quotation: "Primary" does not mean "bad" - "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. - Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation.
 * So, my usage of primary sources for Eva's own quotes is the proper Wikipedia way.


 * Notice that the Wikipedia guidelines also say: "Secondary" does not mean "good" - "Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable". Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published." Nozoz (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe we've clarified some things: Wikipedia WP:5P2 rules state that neutral language that reflects all significant views must be used (the older version of the page doesn't meet that standard). WP:USEPRIMARY states that primary sources are fine and are better for some things such as when citing a direct quotation. Bartlett is a professional on-the-ground war-zone journalist who is professionally credited as a journalist by the many news outlets her reporting is published in, and so that should be how she is described on her biography page. Bartlett's additional background information is relevant to her biography but should be moved to the body of the page.


 * Are there any further challenges people want to say before I implement my edits, to improve the accuracy and amount of information on the page and bring it into tighter conformity with the Wikipedia rules and guidelines? Icewhiz, Snooganssnoogans, Seraphimblade, M asem Nozoz (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The answer you've gotten has been a pretty clear "no". Pretending it was a "yes", and plowing ahead anyway, is not going to end well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Seraphimblade, you are characterizing your claim about primary vs secondary sources, which is refuted by WP:USEPRIMARY, as if it is the answer voices by everybody, when it isn't. It's conclusive that your argument on that point doesn't stand as it is directly refuted by WP:USEPRIMARY, just as it is conclusive that my position and my edits surrounding that point are endorsed by WP:USEPRIMARY. The point about Bartlett's background details being useful but belonging to the page body has been agreed to by Masem. The point that Bartlett is a professional journalist who is published by many news outlets who credit her as a professional journalist is an incontrovertible fact to which there can be no disagreement or obstruction of, as outlined by WP:5P2 which prohibits personal interpretations and opinions. The language of the older version of Eva Bartlett's biography page violates WP:5P2, WP:NPOV, and WP:10SIMPLERULES, not just in the information that is presented but in failing to present the other views, as WP:5P2 requires: "In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"". It's also clear that the older version of Eva's biography page violates WP:NPOV by using "judgmental language", by "stating opinions as facts", and by failing to "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views".


 * So, no, Seraphimblade, I have not gotten a pretty clear 'no', and your personal positions on the matter are squarely refuted by all of Wikipedia's rules, pillars, and posting guidelines. Saying they haven't been is simply admitting that you don't care what the rules are or what is neutral, fair, and accurate editing, and that you simply want to make Eva Bartlett's biography page not a biography page but an wildly inaccurate and biased hit-piece against her. That isn't acceptable by Wikipedia's rules. And your personal assertions and preferences do not overrule Wikipedia's rules.


 * So, are there any new, as-of-yet unaddressed challenges to my edits which are endorsed and protected by Wikipedia's rules, pillars, and guidelines? Nozoz (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the answer you've gotten has been a pretty clear "no". Pretending it was a "yes", and ploughing ahead anyway, is not going to end well. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 20:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * How so, Roxy, the dog ., and by what authority do you see that "pretty clear 'no'" as coming from? Wikipedia's rules, pillars, and guidelines all endorse what I've argued. Icewhiz has agreed that primary sources are more appropriate for Bartlett's quotes, and Masem has agreed that Bartlett's background details are relevant but belong in the body of the page. WP:10SIMPLERULES, WP:5P2, WP:NPOV, and WP:USEPRIMARY all explicitly require that editing to be done in the manner that I have presented, using neutral language and preferring primary sources for quotations. Seraphimblade is not an overruling figure on these matters. So, where do you perceive a "pretty clear 'no'" to be coming from? Nozoz (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. I did not agree. I reverted your edit. And we should generally avoid PRIMARY sources in BLPs - we should be using independent reliable secondary sources - which our subject's blog is not.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Then I misread your comment, Icewhiz. However, Wikipedia guidelines WP:USEPRIMARY state that a primary source is better than a secondary source for a direct quotation. There is no more reliable source for a person's own words than the person's own words made by them and where they first appeared. Secondary sources are quoting that primary source and are less reliable than the primary source. To represent the person's own words most faithfully it has to be cited from where they originally said those words - and that's what I've done. And that's what Wikipedia says is the best thing to do. Nozoz (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Icewhiz, please review WP:USINGSPS, which says that a self-published primary source is the best source to use in the case of quotations: "Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." So, that's another point on which Wikipedia guidelines explicitly endorse and reinforce my edits and what I've said about them. Nozoz (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking quotes from those guidelines to form a conclusion that directly contradicts their actual intended meaning. For example, also from WP:USINGSPS: Self-published sources are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia, though there are exceptions. And even though a self-published source might be acceptable, a non-self-published source is usually preferred, if available.. Also, see WP:ABOUTSELF, which explains that what a person writes about herself can only be used for basic, uncontroversial information. And more fundamentally, from WP:RS: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So yes, self-published sources have their uses. But they should only be used sparingly, and only to supplement independent secondary sources, which make up the foundation of every article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Red Rock Canyon, I have not cherry-picked quotes from the Wikipedia guidelines to form a conclusion that contradicts their intended meaning. I have quoted them accurately and represented what they say precisely. However, you are cherry-picking and ignoring how Wikipedia rules and guidelines fit together. WP:RS says, as you've quoted, that a non self-published source is "usually", not always, preferred, and that "there are exceptions", without making any specific comment about quotations. Quotations are addressed in WP:USEPRIMARY and WP:USESPS, which both explicitly state, "Sometimes, a self-published / primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." Do you read that? A primary and self-published source is "the best possible source" when it is the original document a quotation originates from - as is the case with Eva Bartlett's quotes on her biography page. Therefore, Wikipedia rules and guidelines explicitly endorse and protect my argument and my edits, and they refute what you have argued. And you're literally taking Wikipedia guidelines out of context to argue a conclusion that contradicts what they actually say. Also, a quotation of a person is an uncontroversial usage of a primary and / or self-published source as that primary and / or self-published is the original quote in its original form, and any form other than the form which they present it is in not their quote. Nozoz (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, policy and guidelines are not hard fast rules (outside of specific parts of BLP, NFC, and COPYVIO), they are meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive.  The parts of policy/guidelines you are quoting are clearly meant as more exceptional cases, and not the typical requirements (that being, secondary, third-party reliable sources and not an SPS).
 * More problematic here is that clearly she is a controversial figure for her views on certain conspiracy theories. In such a case, it is not appropriate to use her words over what secondary sources say, unless specifically her words are necessary to counter accusations made against her. Otherwise, we're basically allowing anything that a BLP says in a SPS to be included without contest. Her basic facts - up through her education - that's non-controversial stuff, but this is where claims that she is a journalist and the like come into question. ANYONE can be claimed to be a journalist if they publish a news-y like article to a blog, but we need to use what reliable sources say about her, not what she says about her. --M asem (t) 21:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not accurate, Masem. Eva Bartlett is professionally credited as a journalist by the news outlets she has her work published in. And going by any English dictionary you choose to look the word "journalism" up in, Eva Bartlett is a journalist. Wikipedia WP:5P2 explicitly forbids "personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions", which is what you or anyone claiming Eva Bartlett isn't a journalist is doing in the face of the fact that she is professionally credited as a journalist by many news outlets, some which are listed in the edits I made to her biography page. WP:5P2 is not a guideline, but is a core principle. Now, there is no basis for your argument that it is not appropriate to use Bartlett's own quotation in its original form and place over a secondary source that is merely reporting what the primary source says. It is also entirely illogical to claim otherwise. Also, when you say, "Keep in mind, policy and guidelines are not hard fast rules", the rational, objective application of the guidelines favours what I've said, as do the literal written word of what the guidelines say. It invalidates all challenges to my edits to claim they violate such-and-such when the truth is that it is the arguments against my edits and the older text for the page that violates those rules... and then when that's pointed out irrefutably then the people violating those rules appeal to 'well, the rules and guidelines don't actually matter' - I disagree with that, but if that's the way you want to argue things then you have no argument against my edits to begin with. What we have here are edit trolls who are defying every bit of reason, of truth, of fairness, and Wikipedia's rules, principles, and guidelines to try to keep Eva Bartlett's page a flagrant example of WP:ATTACK, with false statements and unsupporting citations, with low quality citations, with missing information, and with egregiously one-sided perspectives. Everything you group of edit trolls is arguing is against every level of Wikipedia's rules, principles, and guidelines, and is spiting the truth to spread disinformation and propaganda Nozoz (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's original research for us to use a dictionary definition to call someone a journalist. And if she's being called a journalists by the sources that are publishing her material, those are not independent sources, so that begs those into question, and we have to defer to what reliable sources say. And no, its not an attack page, though I do think some tone fixes are necessary. Bartlett's notability seems to be based on how her views and her written pieces promote certain conspiracy-like theories, so unfortunately, her article is going to end up having negative information about her, but that's not against BLP when that is reliably sourced. Yes, we should also include any non-contentious background like her schooling/etc., but we cannot whitewash the criticism she has gotten. --M asem (t) 16:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please drop the mental gymnastics. They aren't making the trolling and lies look any better and they aren't fooling anybody. It's not original research to use word according to its literal English definition in every dictionary there is - what you've just claimed is as if I were to say we cannot include any word on any Wikipedia page because all of those words are based on definitions in the English language, and holding to a definition constitutes original research. It's entirely an absurd and nonsensical claim. The edits I made to Eva's page did not whitewash anything, and included the criticisms - but in neutral language while also presenting the other views and responses to said criticism, as Wikipedia's principles and guidelines direct to be done. Bartlett's notability is different things to different people, and Wikipedia rules say to include the different views on a topic and not just one. What you and others are doing is shielding the page from neutral language and from reflecting all views rather than just the one of a clique of dishonest trolls. The "biography" page of Eva Bartlett, as it currently stands, is not a biography but a WP:ATTACK page. Nozoz (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not. It's understanding that when someone is considered a controversial figure, we have to stick to reliable sources. No RS calls her a journalist, and the only ones that do are those that she writes for. We cannot say this in wikipedia voice. And you cannot create a false balance of cover for weak RS, outside of any statements she has made to counter claims made against her. --M asem  (t) 20:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Biswajit Chatterjee


Magnet for persistent disruption, introduction of unsourced content. I've requested a user block and page protection, but this could use weeding of unreferenced text and more eyes in general. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Jo Platt
An IP has repeatedly added promotional and non-neutral content to Jo Platt (a British Member of Parliament). I have removed it and attempted to explain why it cannot stand, but they have repeatedly put it back without discussion. I'm pretty sure they've read what I've said because when I pointed out they were referring to the subject by first name they promptly changed it. As it stands the article is a list of the subject's political activities as a member of HM opposition, presented in a non-neutral manner. I suspect close involvement with the subject (from the tone, references by first name). I have reverted three times so do not want to pursue this further - would an someone else care to take a look and see if they agree? Dorsetonian (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt
Someone using two IP accounts (so far) and visiting Wikipedia only to do so, has tried to add information about this man, stating (first time) that he has run brothels and (second time) sauna clubs, formatting the later entry to accentuate the brothel angle. I've tried to (first time) remove it as unsourced and (second time) tone this down a bit, but I wonder if it shouldn't be removed completely. My German is not good enough to evaluate the sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor must have confused the subject with Marcus Prinz von Anhalt. This person was adopted by Frederic and was the one reported as the owner of several brothels. After a cursory search, I found that Frederic did run sauna clubs. This source, for instance, reported that he owned several saunas in Dortmund. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Related discussion
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons on whether WP:BLPCAT's requirement of sourcing for sexual orientation should also apply to non-binary gender identities. Please participate there if you have an opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sultan Choudhury
This person (Sultan Choudhury) is not notable at all, and there is a strong ground for the deletion of this article. He was sacked as a CEO of Al Rayan Bank due to serious issues, which was clear from the statement released by the bank employed him, and is no longer active or has any notable activities that may give merits for keeping this article. Thus, we strongly recommend deletion of this article.

https://www.alrayanbank.co.uk/useful-info-tools/about-us/latest-news/april-2019/al-rayan-bank-(uk)-ceo-to-step-down

The bank that employed him deleted any connection on the web of any kind with this individual due to serious concerns and conduct related issues. Being a CEO of a bank may was the reason for creating this article, although there is a strong argument that this is not a good reason that would warrant this or make him notable. Also, the article is poorly sourced. We believe there is no reason to keep this article as this person is dormant and has no relation to anything notable that would give a ground for keeping this article.  Added at 11:08, 30 July 2019‎ by (contributions) 


 * I took a look at the material that removed from the article. It appeared to be sufficiently sourced. I saw nothing that ran afoul of WP:BLP, and I restored the text accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If you think that the article Sultan Choudhury should be deleted, then argue this at "Articles for deletion". Here's how to do this. Cite policy! "This person is dormant" won't work: after all, Wikipedia has a huge number of articles about people who one might describe as terminally and irreversibly dormant, and is right to do so. &para; I'm fascinated by your use of "we" (above, "We strongly recommend...", "We believe...", and also in this edit summary). How many of you are there? -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

AfD: Nominated for deletion; The person is clearly not notable for this article to remain. There is a clear lack of objectivity in the article e.g. Career and Early Life. The quoted sources for such sections are very poor and not independent as they could be paid for to provide a feature, as clear in such media outlets. What is the relation of pilgrimage here, it is a bit dramatic rather than objective facts. Also there is not an independent reliable source about his involvement in advisory groups to government and other organisations. It is very bold claim without proof. This is not in accordance with WIKI policies. This article should be seriously considered for deletion as it violate various Wiki's criteria. I have to disagree with the comment above about restoring the deleted parts and the reliability of sources for this article. It takes a few thorough objective and independent checks to conclude that this article should be deleted.  Added at 13:35, 30 July 2019‎ by (contributions) 


 * Above,, I wrote Not here but there. And I gave you a link to instructions on how to do this. So go ahead and do it there, as the instructions tell you. &para; No word on how many there are of you? -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

"Racial politics" claim in Ed Dwight
I'm not sure about the last sentence of Ed Dwight. Even though it's supported by a citation, it seems to be a pretty-loaded claim which might be more opinion than fact. Maybe it's something which should be WP:ATTRIBUTED, but I can't verify the source to see what was said and who said it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * broke the links to the actual supporting source citations, by blithely overwriting them with the citation that I suspect was intended to instead support that added content. Fix that, and you and others should be able to find things more easily.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for finding that diff . I tried to clean things up a bit to clarify that it was Dwight himself, not Wikipedia, claiming that "racial politics" played a role in his not being selected to be an astronaut. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

D Raja
D Raja is the general secretory of Communist party of India and member of Rajyasabha. He is a hindu dalit. His full name is Doraisamy Raja. Doraisamy is his father's name. It is evident from the links given in the reference section of the article.

But some persons from his opposition party (BJP) is trying to edit that information, to change his name to Daniel Raja. Daniel is a christian name. This is a political attempt from them to make others misunderstand him as a converted Christian. Since BJP is a hindu fundamentalist party, their supporters always paint their opposition party leaders as "Anti-Hindu". I request wikipedia to take care of this issue and prevent such unethical edit attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bency4578 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have looked into this and confirm all sources I checked either call him Doraisamy Raja [//www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/i-never-fasted-but-i-starved-cpi-leader-d-raja-on-growing-up-in-poverty/story-Cmsx3ezHM9WZUtYI1DLlmI.html] [//www.oneindia.com/politicians/d-raja-71656.html] [//archive.india.gov.in/govt/rajyasabhampbiodata.php?mpcode=2047] or D. Raja [//www.theweek.in/theweek/specials/2018/12/21/king-and-queen-of-hearts.html] [//www.thehindu.com/news/national/d-raja-takes-over-as-cpi-general-secretary/article28626860.ece] [//www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/cpi-renominates-d-raja-for-rajya-sabha/article4819729.ece] with one behind a paywall (although our title for that article mentions Doraisamy albeit it seems different now) [//www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/D.-Raja-CPI-candidate-for-RS-polls/article14767770.ece]. No source mentions Daniel. I also had a quick search and cannot find any source supporting the Daniel name. (The closest I found is stuff like this [//twitter.com/rishibagree/status/1084821037508771845]) Let alone support for claims made in these edits [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._Raja&diff=907402510&oldid=907402170]. I therefore strongly suspect that the OP is right and this is some sort of politic and ethnic-religious hit job. For this reason, I have warned everyone who has added the Daniel name in the past week or so with an only warning for BLP violations. I will also be requesting page protection. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW User:Bency4578, while I agree with that these edits are unacceptable, please take care with your comments as well. The problem is the people who make these edits, not all BJP supporters. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As warned, I have just revoked 's editing privileges. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * has done nothing but name change vandalism (in Malayalam) across multiple articles, so that account has lost its editing privileges as well. Uncle G (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * is an inactive vandlism-only account, so I have not bothered with it.  was already warned by Nil Einne, so let's see whether that person goes back to xyr more productive ways of yesteryear.   has not edited since being warned by Nil Einne. Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Eric Francis
There are NPOV and BLP issues with Eric Francis. Someone is taking sides and biasing the discussion. This is so biased as to be obvious revenge editing. In articles cited, many more facts are given than are being allowed into the piece. No outcome to the investigation was published. There is no basis to compare this person to Harvey Weinstein, when he was accused of things like asking to pet a dog. Just the mere comparison poses problems, and is strictly a matter of opinion not supported by the underlying secondary source. Many subjects are left out, including the fact of a professional investigation, which is covered extensively in both Kingston Times and Chronogram, with the odd twist that the results are confidential. Therefore they cannot be concluded to convict the subject of the article. There is no mention that the subject has challenged all of his former employers in discrimination cases. As written, this article qualifies as gossip with the fig leaf of footnotes to secondary sources that it misuses or misinterprets. https://medium.com/@ericfranciscoppolino/hey-wikipedia-about-your-biographical-guidelines-c1c167561ab1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1106:55:1043:ae5d:c4b2:6ef0 (talk)
 * I removed a blurb on the current astrologers - diff, as well as the tie-in to Weinstein (which was unsupported by the citation) - diff - leaving "In July 2018, following sexual misconduct allegations against Francis, he was dismissed from several media outlets". Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The "comes in the midst of an ongoing #metoo campaign" is in Part II of that article, for which . It makes no direct link to Weinstein, although the article does mention Weinstein, but from my reading the link to #metoo is agreed by everyone.  It's right there in that Medium piece, too.  Uncle G (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In terms of additional BLP questions - is Hudson Valley One a RS for BLPs? This is what the lead and section on #meToo is essentially sourced to. Aside from HV1, we have Chronogram description of why he was let go -, and 3 very long posts by Francis himself on ericfrancis.com (so OK for ABOUTSELF, but one would assume they are quite defensive I'd think) - leaving most of the section sourced to HV1. Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll further note that I have attempted to look for sources - however all I've been able to find is Chronogram (a local magazine) letting the subject go (as a result of a confidential investigation) - and the aforementioned HV1 report (WP:BLPSOURCES?). Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * HV1 is, it claims, an on-line compilation of the contents of several regional newspapers, including the Kingston Times. The article at hand apparently was in the Kingston Times.  We know this not least because of the efforts of  and  to make the front page of the 2018-07-19 issue of the Times be an illustration for this article.  (See also commons:Project:Deletion_requests/File:Kingston-times-2018-07-19.png.) Adding to the furore is that several of the IP addresses &mdash; including 69.206.34.100,, , , and  &mdash; geolocate to Kingston.  This isn't "hey Wikipedia, your article".  This is just Kingston people editing Wikipedia, seemingly from both sides.  Also note that  and  both blanked the content as "defamatory" and "libelous" (sic) and the latter got blocked for "BLP violations". Then there's  &hellip;   Uncle G (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well - yes - the editing looks like a mess. It looks like it got edited in via editing requests, and then stuck at that state. In the Kingston Times (a local newspaper for a town of 20,000 souls) a source we should be relying on heavily for this sort of BLP content? Icewhiz (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Just found this, on subject's Pacifica affiliate website

http://chironreturn.org/audio/PRESS-RELEASE.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1106:21ac:6179:18a6:28a7:c20 (talk • contribs) 2019-07-28 18:20:43 (UTC)
 * , there isn't much for me to do here. The blocked account, which is about the only thing I can check, isn't connected to the IPs, though there's hella quacking there. The article is still a disaster; I think that entire section should be cut down to a sentence or two: there are charges, he was fired. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I took a butcher's cleaver to it - and cut it down to one line. I'll note a new editor - inserted this OR, which I removed as well. Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is definitely not how to use that source. Uncle G (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Jiang Zemin
The "background and ascendancy" contains some dubious sourcing from Epoch Times and New Tang Dynasty Television, which are mouthpieces of Falun Gong and thus not neutral sources on the subject. --60.242.159.224 (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The epoch times and NTDTV are absolutely not under any circumstances reliable sources for statements of fact about Chinese leaders This is especially relevant when dealing with WP:BLP concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And there's a ton of other things that the Epoch Times shouldn't be used for--like comments about the media, for instance, given all their conspiracy theorizing. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and purged the epoch times and NDTV from the source list at Jiang Zemin retaining uncontroversial biographical details and deleting anything that has even the slightest whiff of contention. This is especially relevant with Jiang because, far more than Deng, Hu or Xi, he was the leader who oversaw the crackdown on the Falun Gong. The official mouthpieces of this millenarian new religious movement don't, as Drmies quite rightly said, have the best reputation for reliability at the best of times. When talking about the man who is arguably their greatest enemy, yeah, no. It's a BLP concern for sure. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ETA: Were this WP:RS/N I'd say that Epoch Times is never reliable and should be treated like Breitbart. As this is WP:BLP/N I will restrict myself to saying that it is not reliable for any uncontroversial statement regarding a BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thayne McCulloh
The paragraph on the placement of priests accused of sexual abuse at Cardinal Bea House in Thayne McCulloh contains several statements that are not supported by a careful reading of the sources cited. This issue is very controversial and it needs more eyes and ears. Here is a relevant diff. I will give you just one example. The source cited to support the first sentence doesn't say anything about Gonzaga University having a role in the national Catholic sex abuse scandal. It just isn't there. You will find more such problems upon further examination. This needs more eyes and voices. Thanks. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The role Gonzaga played was as a place to quietly hide priests with a history of sexual abuse. The university campus was used as the setting for a retirement house to move perpetrators out of sight. That's the role GU played, as stated by copious sources. All parties agree on these facts. If your quibble is over the wording "McCulloh established a commission to investigate the University's role and actions", why not suggest changing it to "McCulloh established a commission to investigate the University's part in the..." or "the University's involvement in..."? Most people wouldn't see a meaningful difference in these phrases, but if one of them bothers you, why not try to collaborate to find a consensus? The first step in collaboration is to inform your collaborators what you would like to see done to in article.<P>When you say "this issue is very controversial", it gives me the expectation that you will then cite a source which disputes a fact. A controversy is a disagreement or difference of opinion, but what is under dispute? From what I can tell, the statements in the article are all agreed upon by all parties, the media, the university, McCulloh himself. The facts presented are uncontroversial, save for the question of whether McCulloh knew about the safe house for abusive priests. He says he didn't know, while the Spokesman-Review says staff and students say off the record that he did know. But the article doesn't mention these critics directly, and sticks strictly to telling McCulloh's side. McCulloh's words and actions are cast in a charitable light, and the article only mentions constructive things he has done, making no mention of things he may have been accused of or the opinions of critics. It's not an attack page. So what controversy?<P>More editor participation is welcome, but you have made no editing suggestions about the content of the article at Talk:Thayne McCulloh, only a lot of ad hominem about other editors. It's a bit premature to escalate an issue to a noticeboard before even stating once what changes you are asking to be made to an article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ann-Marie Adams, American journalist
Could you please put "Howard University" on the knowledge panel? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:185:302:850:ce9:4058:2970:a288 (talk)
 * What is a knowledge panel? If you're referring to the Knowledge Graph on the right side of most Google Searches, or the similar panels on other search engines, Wikipedia has no control over that. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard
Two of the first links in the introductory blurb are to op-eds sharply criticizing Tulsi Gabbard. I don't believe Wikipedia's role, as an encyclopedia, should be to offer two opinion pieces which have obvious and intentional bias about a living person. One article is literally titled "Tulsi Gabbard is Not Your Friend" and the other ends with "Tulsi Gabbard cannot be trusted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.170.230 (talk)
 * I partially agree, and I have removed these from the lede. A case can be made that these are significant viewpoints that deserve mention, but two articles do not demonstrate they are so significant they belong in the top section. They would go down in the detailed discussion of her policy platform, which already contains some of this criticism. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Footballers
It is years past time that people started using the article talk page here. Is this biographical information appropriate to include in these articles? Please discuss on Talk:Cauley Woodrow. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Jan T. Gross
Jan T. Gross is a renowned Polish-American historian writing on World War II and the Holocaust. His book "Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland" is considered a landmark in Polish historiography, and has been cited more than 900 times. The book "Golden Harvest: Events at the Periphery of the Holocaust", which is the subject of the following interview, has been cited more than 90 times.

The following was added by an editor (and restored by another editor) under the "controversies" section in the BLP's article:

"In 2011 Gross stated that he "doesn't care" if the Jewish civilian losses in Poland by Poles were 100,000 or 200,000 because it is "high enough", however he stated that several tens of thousands is "easy to justify""

It is a trimmed, out of context cherry pick meant to depicts Gross as an apathetic and amateurish hack. The editor admitted as much in the TP: "I don't have particular strong opinion on [which translation to use], as long as... the fact that he doesn't care for numericall accuracy is included." This latter bit is also SYNTH, as there's no discussion of his "accuracy" or of a "controversy" in the source.

In context, Gross reads quite differently: after giving his mission statement as a historian ("to convey... the truth about that historical time... [to] write about matters that have been missing from the historiography until now"), and denying that he writes to "shock" Poles ("I'm a historian. I wanted to contribute [to] the [knowledge] of Polish-Jewish relations, which is lacking. As far as I can tell, people are interested"), he is asked the following: "Q: In the first draft of the book you wrote that Poles killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Jews. You eventually changed it to several tens of thousands. Why? A: I believe this sort of numerical description of the Holocaust is the wrong way to go about it; I [only] write these numbers because I know my readers expect them. In reality it's all the same whether I write it was one or two hundred thousand, or tens of thousands - both are significant. The first version appeared at an early stage when I sent the book to [other] experts for assessment; I believe this number fits better, but "several dozens [of thousands]" is easier to justify."

Your opinions, please. François Robere (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOENG, as Gross (a leading American scholar in the field for over 50 years) has given a multitude of of interviews to top tier mainstream English language outlets - including on this very subject - there is no need to use a non-English interview (of lesser or equal quality) - as better English language interviews are available. And yes - the interview reads differently from the out of context use of it.Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Donald Trump currently has a section that cites RS that describe various instances of his racist speech and promotion of racist narratives. It describes various public condemnations of same. The section is euphemistically entitled Racial views. Surely there's a better, more encyclopedic way of captioning that section for our readers.

Please help us find a better subheading at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&type=revision&diff=909034070&oldid=909032299#Racial_views_?_Better_heading? this talk page thread]. As a side note, there's also an article called Racial views of Donald Trump that will eventually need a better title. In both cases, these uses of "views", in my opinion, are artifacts of an earlier time when RS reporting and public understanding of the matter were less clear. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * They are still less clear and racist is still a value-laden label per WP:RACIST. Views are opinions not facts. It should be handled as allegations of racism, and if it's a news source, resist the urge to use it. Instead, go for higher quality academic sources, and cite the author making the claim using in-text attribution. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 01:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no real room for doubt here. Trump has been a racist all his life, after all, going right back to a "no blacks need apply" policy for his rental properties. Shithole countries, Muslim ban, Baltimore, "go back where you came from" (never aimed at anyone white), Mexicans are rapists - Trump's a racist, and a very large number of reliable sources say so. In fact he's a stereotype. Tom Lehrer's National Brotherhood Week satirises the dislike of New Yorkers for Puerto Ricans. That song could be about him. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This ⬆. François Robere (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a lot of ambiguity in this section title, and in the corresponding article title. First, nothing in the current text reflects any "racial views" expressed by Trump, except his blanket denial of being racist. We are mostly describing words and deeds of Trump that have been called racist by commenters. Consequently, either we call this "Allegations of racism" (focusing on opinions), or we call it "Racist speech and actions" (focusing on what Trump said and did). — JFG talk 16:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk: Brian Leiter
Could an experienced editor please take a look at these deletions made by  under the guise that they violate BLP and determine whether it was actually a violation of BLP policy?

Please note there have been previous issues on this page with editors deleting any non-positive statements on the subject  and with this editor specifically blanking/deleting portion of the wiki that were considered RS.

Thanks, You May Call Me 24 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am happy to be corrected by another editor. There are, however, plenty of critical comments about the subject on the talk page.  I removed only a few phrases that seemed to imply misconduct by the subject (beyond the subject's rhetorical excesses) that did not appear to me to be supported by the sources and to violate BLP policy.  User 24.217.247.41 is new to Wikipedia and has been at times unnecessarily hostile and accusatory of other editors.  (So have some other users on the talk page.)  I appreciate this user's input nonetheless, and encourage him to work cooperatively with other editors going forward.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Philosophy Junkie's characterization of myself as hostile and point you to the following talk page where his first message to me was to incorrectly accuse me of a malicious edit.


 * His deletions of my comments on the talk page were described as "comparable to censorship" by but have yet to been restored. Based on Javen's feedback on that page I will restore my comments, although I believe PJ (or possibly Javen) should have restored them right away once he realized they were not violations of BLP policy. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

____

Deletion discussion of article on BC trans waxing case
There is an open deletion discussion on an article that deals with the same BCHRT case that was the subject of a thread here last week. Outside input is welcome (I'm just throwing a notification of here instead of pinging everyone) Nblund talk 16:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I also added a link to the bottom of the thread from the previous discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article name, and constantly drawing attention to the full legal name of the (non-notable) trans woman raising the case, is a BLP violation. I am at a loss as how that should be corrected. --Fæ (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It might fall under WP:CSD at A10 (or G10 too for that matter) but I'm not certain something can be put up for an A10 speedy deletion while an AfD is ongoing. I'll put the A10 note up on the AfD as a comment though. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)