Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive291

Ben Stokes
Today, news reports surfaced about a family tragedy involving the cricketer Ben Stokes. Stokes has taken to social media to condemn the way the information was leaked by the gutter press, and has asked for privacy for his family. The information (with WP:RS) was added to Stokes's article as a sentence or two (i.e. nothing that could be construed as WP:UNDUE). It has since been removed by an editor with the edit summary suggesting we honour Stokes's request for privacy. Personally, I feel this violates WP:CENSOR, and inclusion of such information isn't contrary to WP:BLP. Given that this story is currently in the media, it makes sense to me to tread carefully and gauge others' opinions before we start edit warring over its inclusion. MIDI (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that it relates to privacy but I would not include it as I can see an event from before his birth and reported in a tabloid from a member of the family is not really noteworthy to his life story. MilborneOne (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Would agree with non-inclusion at this point based on Stokes' request and that it is unrelated to the BLP of Stokes. --M asem (t) 15:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree- Those RS have just requoted a UK tabloid, The Sun. The events occurred in 1988, before he was born. I would say it was undue; I cant really see how it is relevant to his biography. Curdle (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, not really about his life, not his father either, keep it out of his biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As Curdle notes, the two sources (nzherald.co.nz and stuff.co.nz) were both repeating what The Sun published, which falls well short of reliable sourcing requirements. Even so, it would be undue to include it. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Kurt Krakowian

 * Moved from Administrators' noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 254HewittTXInfo removed quite a bit of information from the Kurt Krakowian article which was true and accurate, regarding his political experience, his resignation, and involvement in a sexual harassment lawsuit while a City of Hewitt, TX Councilman. It leads me to suspect that the user is indeed himself, especially since the information was sourced from NPOV sources and written in a NPOV manner. Could someone please watch the article and the user to ensure he/she/them doesn't misbehave on this article anymore, because there's been further developments with his political involvement that are in the news and it's a pertinent part of his biography, as a public figure, both as a minor actor and as a minor political figure. THanks. Conradrock (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the subject even all that notable? he was a very minor actor (mostly single episode bit part appearances in TV series). The only reason he seems to have gotten any press is due to scandals relating to a 5 month stint as local councilman. Curdle (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And at least our coverage that we're using for those is local coverage. Notability is certainly questionable here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I also can’t see any notability. I’ve nominated it for deletion at WP:AFD. Neiltonks (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Caroline Danjuma


This has come up before but wasn't really properly resolved. Our account on this Nigerian actor has been visited a number of times over the past few years by (accounts claiming to be) the article subject, insisting that information in the article is incorrect, although at the moment it is backed up by sources which appear to be reliable, and the subject has not provided any sources to counter. A new account with her name today is trying to "correct" some of the same information, and has also emailed me for help. In the past, a different account (, see contribs) has claimed that a fraudster was adding deliberately false information to the article in what seems to amount to a hatchet job, or possibly extortion, and she has been trying to correct it, but of course without providing sources she is just being reverted. I'd appreciate if someone more familiar with BLP issues and dealing with article subjects could step in here; I've already started a discussion section on the article's talk page. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ben Norton
Ben Norton

28 of the 30 linked references on this page are to the subject's own articles and interviews. 1 of the other reference is a letter that the subject signed.

This page does not meet Wikipeda's quality guidelines in being almost exclusively promotion for articles the subject has written. There is only one third party reliable source in this entire article about the subject.

Seems in violation of this Wikipedia guideline about self-citation: "However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming."

Similar guideline in What Wikipedia is Not guidelines: "Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable."

Previous other editors have tried to delete excessive self-citations as you can see in talk page but the changes were regularly reverted by creator of page.

Potential notability issues given the almost exclusive self-citations that previous editors have noted in Talk page. Kasidy Yates (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion; subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. – Levivich 03:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support a nomination for deletion. The current article has almost no secondary coverage at all, and it is only trivial mentions rather than any significant coverage of the article subject. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have found and added multiple third-party sources, including books published by Bloomsbury Publishing, Macmillan Publishing, and PublicAffairs.GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The Public Affairs link is just yet another link to the subject's article by a colleague of the subject and not about the subject. Bloomsbury source is just a citation for an article by the subject by a friend of the subject who participated in a small occupation with the subject that is mentioned in the wiki article. Circular citations do not count as third party reliable sources. There are currently still 13 links to the subject's work even after multiple links referring to the subject writing for 1 news website were deleted. I know that many links is frowned on but an experienced Wikipediaer/s appear to be gaming the system to make this page link spamming for the subject.Kasidy Yates (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kasidy Yates, those are not "circular citations", those are direct, and largely favorable, citations of Norton's work. If he has "friends" who are established authors, that's a point in his favor. And it's absurd to deny the notability of someone who was quoted in The Washington Post while being honored by a head of state.GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABILITY is based having significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A person's friends are irrelevant unless connected to the subject by reliable sources. The cited article also does not provide any evidence that Norton is notable as it is a single two-word quote that is clearly a trivial mention. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A two-word quote is still a quote, and hardly trivial when it's a civil exchange with a world-historic figure.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Meeting a world leader does not by itself make someone notable. Even with reasonable edits that someone possibly the subject keeps reverting this page is still 14/17 links to the subject's work and only 2 references about the subject or citing his work and one of those citations is from someone that is an associate of the subject's based on a protest the 2 went to listed in the article.Kasidy Yates (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At AfD. – Levivich 04:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Meeting a world leader does not by itself make someone notable" But being personally honored, and quoted in the Post, does. Meanwhile, whether or not Blumenthal is an associate is irrelevant, what's relevant is that he's an established author writing for an established publisher.GPRamirez5 (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been to a Buckingham Palace garden party, invited by the Queen herself, according to the letter from the Lord Chancellor. Do I get an article now? Guy (help!) 12:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're from a hostile foreign country, involved in an international incident, and quoted in a major paper, then yes Guy, you may merit one.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support an article about Guy. – Levivich 18:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Eric Woodfin Naylor
Requesting input on the article talk page from editors experienced with recent death BLPs (which I am not). During a Huggle run, I partially reverted an edit that added a date of death (yesterday) without a source. I searched at the time and could not find a source reporting the death. Some time later, I was reverted by a different editor. I searched again, and this time I found a Facebook post by the article subject's university (verified account) reporting the subject's death. I added that as a reference to the death date. Subsequently, I was reverted by a third editor, indicating that Facebook is not a reliable source. I reverted the reversion, and was reverted by a fourth editor, so I started a thread on the talk page. I'm not sure how we normally handle these situations, so I'd appreciate if editors experienced with this sort of thing could chime in at the article's talk page. Thanks in advance! – Levivich 18:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That was super fast. Thanks much to for finding and adding a better source! – Levivich  19:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

paul le roux
much of Paul Le Roux is cited from articles by evan ratliff. such as: "Le Roux would frequently post angry, sarcastic and offensive messages, including harsh verbal attacks against Australia as well as racist comments." ratliff, however, does not provide any sources for his articles. I do not doubt their veracity, but I have been unable to verify his comments as anything but hearsay. becasue of this, any part of the article sourced from evan ratliff is hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.109.210.130 (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The writings of Ratliff appear to originate from The Atavist Magazine which really just looks like a open platform for longreads like Medium or the like - without any editorial control. This makes any use of Ratliff's pieces a violation of WP:BLPSPS, and should all be removed. --M asem (t) 14:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Exley


The note under [7] is a link to an article that criticizes Exley's paper published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, but the article is not retracted, even partially. Here is a link to his article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.131.25 (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Fiona Graham


On the wikipedia page it says this: In December 2010, Graham and a company owned by her were fined a combined NZ$64,000 and ordered to pay NZ$9,000 in costs after being convicted of a total of 14 charges relating to the use of a building in Wanaka to house tourists after the building had been declared "dangerous" in June 2008.[44] Graham unsuccessfully made various appeals; a final leave to appeal by both Graham and her company was rejected by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in December 2014.[45] But it should say this one instead: In December 2010, Graham and a company owned by her were fined a combined NZ$64,000 and ordered to pay NZ$9,000 in costs after being convicted of a total of 14 charges relating to the use of a building in Wanaka to house tourists after the building had been declared "dangerous" FOR SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION in June 2008.[44] Graham unsuccessfully made various appeals BECAUSE THE HOUSE HAD NEVER BEEN USED FOR SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AND WAS LEGALLY DEFINED AS A HOUSE AND THEREFORE NOT DANGEROUS; a final leave to appeal by both Graham and her company was rejected by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in December 2014. The prove is already on the documents listed on the wikipedia page. Also I would like to add more external links. Like this: https://www.sayuki.net/2019/02/21/sayuki-asakusa-first-western-geisha/ https://theculturetrip.com/asia/japan/articles/the-secret-life-of-an-apprentice-geisha/ https://thesmevt-daar.com/14-geishas-el-arte-de-ser-geishas/ https://japanophilia.xyz/2018/12/19/non-japanese-geisha/ http://lisabaer.com/real-lifesaver-helping-geisha-go-online/

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilly1985 (talk • contribs) 21:25, September 20, 2019 (UTC)


 * This is VERY clearly yet another undeclared COI and probably paid editor related to this article. See  about a "helper" that was supposedly using the account.  There has been more COI and pro-Graham POV pushing on this article that just about anything outside of politics.  Ravensfire  (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Tim Ball
A brief statement of the terms of order in the British Columbia court registry has been used as the sole source for the outcome of the Michael E. Mann v. Tim Ball libel suit, in the absence to date of a reliable secondary source or of the written decision on the case. WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically requires us to exercise extreme caution in using primary sources, and not use court records to support assertions about a living person. Since the decision has been widely misreported and its meaning is disputed, baldly stating the case has been dismissed gives undue credence to assertions about Mann.

The 22 August 2019 registry states that the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, but its significance is contested. Mann has tweeted his lawyer's statement that Ball had requested the lawsuit be terminated for delay, and there was no finding on the validity of the case. The secondary source cited at the same time as the registry entry was added says "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer, on August 22, 2019, the court dismissed the case on account of delay." This was contested at WP:RSN, and as it presents only hearsay it's reasonable to dismiss this as a reliable secondary source for the decision on the case.

Background: Mann's work has been disputed in the "hockey stick controversy" since 1999 1998, numerous investigations and scientific papers have reaffirmed its validity, and the propriety of his conduct. Ball made remarks about Mann in a 2011 interview published by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and Mann issued his libel suit. In July 2019 he settled with the Frontier Centre after they apologized for the "untrue and disparaging" comments. Blogs about the court's August ruling were used for edits to the Wikipedia biographies, e.g., and a talk page post cited the blog Watts Up With That? which promotes climate change denial.

To give proper coverage, we need the written decision or a good secondary source. . . dave souza, talk 14:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC) (1999 corrected to 1998 dave souza, talk 11:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC))


 * I disputed the worth of dave souza's insertion re the Frontier Centre apology on the Tim Ball talk page. However, dave souza is right that a court document is not a proper source for stating that the claim made by Mr Mann was dismissed, and the court's wording ("Costs will follow the event ...") is not for us to interpret. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with this assessment, thanks for clarifying these points. . dave souza, talk 11:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I also objected to the "untrue and disparaging" part of the article. Source refers to all accusations against Mann published by FCPP 2011 and 2012 and should not be used to imply "untrue and disparaging" on all of Balls accusations. I actually object to using FCPPs apology to cast any kind of judgement on Ball. On topic of case dismissal, reason for dismissal is unclear and disputed. I don't see why the fact that the case is dismissed can not be in the article as it's not disputed. Not giving "undue credence to assertions about Mann" seems like a political bias to me. Let me point to more biased wordings in our little paragraph; grounds for the case are simplified to hide it's really about the hockey stick controversy. Rakeroot (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The "untrue and disparaging" wording, as reported by the Mother Jones / National Observer source, was part of "retraction & apology" forming the basis of settlement of Mann's "claims in BC Supreme Court against The Frontier Centre for Public Policy Inc." – he added that he had not settled his "claims against Tim Ball, who remains a defendant in that lawsuit". The lawsuit was specifically about the publication of the interview with Ball, and it's wild original research to claim that the wording in some way refers to words by others. The Courthouse News Service report made it clear that the allegations were about Mann's part in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy in particular, which of course was related to the hockey stick controversy – we could add the latter to the Ball article using the Mother Jones source, but it's really background rather than a prominent part of this case. Unfortunately Rakeroot chose to edit the article on the basis of original research, so I've undone that. . . dave souza, talk 11:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rakeroot re "untrue and disparaging" for reasons given on the Tim Ball talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Think this has been resolved, as discussed extensively at Talk:Tim Ball. . . dave souza, talk 09:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it is resolved. You pushed your arguments alone and keeps undoing changes. I still disagree. I'm disappointed in the Wikipedia community for not stepping forward on either side. If none steps forward I will just assume Wikipedia has totally folded for the views and methods of user:JohnMashey carried out by user:Dave souza. This is sad. Rakeroot (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's about working together in compliance with policies, and I don't think you've got the hang of WP:WEIGHT or of policy on giving "equal validity" – Jimbo rather harshly summarised it as "What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse.' It isn't." Mann is a very reputable scientist, John Mashey is also reputable, Ball is mainly known for rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change. If you want to disagree with the reliable source for Ball's interview comments being "untrue and disparaging", you need to support that with good reliable sources, giving due weight to mainstream scientific opinion. . . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The sitaution is problematic because we don't have any reliable secondary sources, and the only primary source we have isn't great. What does seem clear is that Tim Ball has in some sense won the most recent round, because if he had not then why would Michael Mann be planning to appeal? But precisely what he has won is difficult for us to say, and why he has won is absolutely impossible for us to say, given the sources currently available.  Personally I think we do have enough sources to make a very annodyne statement, indicating an interim judgment in Ball's favour but even that is tricky to phrase. With luck things will clarify within the 30 day appeal window that Mann has referred to, so I'm happy with giving it another fortnight before we rush to precipitate decisions. But we can't simply not report this development for ever, and will have to do something at some point. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The situation where we lack reliable secondary sources is confined to the outcome of the trial, and the basis of its dismissal: obviously we all hope reliable sources will be available soon. I don't see there being any deadline to publish before good sources are found, . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that if there is no appeal then we will eventually have to report the bare fact of the outcome, because otherwise we would be allowing an incorrect statement which casts an individual in a negative light (that Ball is still a defendant in a libel case) to stand when we know it to be untrue. Since an appeal would reopen the situation I see no reason to rush into making edits now. But if the current decision stands then we can't simply ignore it for ever. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The basic fact is that we don't have adequate sources. We've got primary sources for stating that the court dismissed the action against Ball on grounds of delay, stating anything else gives support to widespread fringe allegations which cast Mann in a negative light. If we rely on the court document to say the case has been dismissed, we can also find the court document in which Ball requested that the lawsuit be terminated for delay, but I think it's better to cite a reliable seoncdary source. . . dave souza, talk 13:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jonathan A Jones! I really needed to hear another voice on the subject. I probably don't see the same meaning of winning or losing form the statement that the case is dismissed and I am certainly not the right person for tricky phrases. I'm happy as long as I know the subject isn't hijacked by a few verbal masters. I might as well apologize for the drama, I was just frustrated by arguing with only one person all the time. Now what about the "untrue and disparaging" part? I still think it's misplaced. To me, it looks unprofessional, blog style propaganda. Like "ah, they just had to put that in there to tell me how to think". To be clear I don't argue it's valid (or not). But it gets me wondering if that's what Wikipedia is for, to tell us what to think. It's done in a familiar way where it smears all over the subject and can't be challenged too. Rakeroot (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * dave souza, I think what you are trying to do here is pushing Wikipedia policies to the limit and beyond. Your overall standpoint is sound, mainstream and helpful for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia; we don't want to give fringe ideas unreasonable amount of space and we do want to make clear they are outside mainstream views and/or outside current research findings. What we don't want to do is push certain ideas or be our own judges to certain ideas, this is especially true inside BLP. Even though you might argue the political environment calls for this, this is eroding Wikipedias reputation, reliability and usefulness. Your way of implying "untrue and disparaging" and your unwillingness to report the case is dismissed are good examples of judging and pushing, totally out of place too. If you want to improve Wikipedia, improve the articles you care about, embrace the subjects you like, make sure the fringe is not going overboard but you can't use any and all opportunity to push for your point of view, mainstream or not. Rakeroot (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I've been content to show that "On 22 August 2019 the court dismissed the action against defendant Ball, on grounds of delay." The secondary source for that has since been agreed as inadequate, leaving us with primary sources for the statement. So better secondary sourcing is needed. . . dave souza, talk 13:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it in order to write "On 22 August 2019 the court dismissed the action against defendant Ball." This is subject-specific common knowledge that normally wouldn't need any source. We actually have a lot of sources, including primary source, that all confirms. Actually, I argue we should publish this information as soon as possible with reasons well put by Jonathan A Jones that we are "allowing an incorrect statement which casts an individual in a negative light (that Ball is still a defendant in a libel case) to stand when we know it to be untrue". I find this a serious violation of BLP policy and will edit soon. But then again, some common understanding would be needed as to why sources are not top standard here.
 * Writing "on ground of delay", on the other hand, would get us in trouble. There is probably a tug of war going on right now as to what should go in the judges statement. Maybe they will drop the delay part altogether as it has been the speculation that Mann caused the delay by failing to hand in some kind of numbers. There you go... We shouldn't get in to these kind of speculations. Rakeroot (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be content wth that minimal statement, but no more than that minimal statement, supported by the primary source. But as I said before I see no hurry to do this until the window for appeals has closed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand you suggest we wait because of WP:WEIGHT? Rakeroot (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest we wait because (1) the situation might well change rapidly (if Mann appeals the the case is once more ongoing and we are merely omitting a detail rather than in effect misreprsenting a clear outcome, and (2) the use of a primary source is not ideal (it seems to me that it is arguably acceptable here under the second paragraph of WP:BLPPRIMARY, but still not ideal) when there is reasonable hope a good secondary source might appear once the case outcome is finally clear. But this is a judgment call, and reasonable people mught well disagree. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. No. This will not change. If it is dismissed it is dismissed. If Mann appeals we just add that. And probably that the case has moved to Canada Supreme Court, right? 2. As discussed earlier... Rakeroot (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On which subject I wonder what people think about this opinion piece from The Seattle Times as a possible secondary source. I would prefer a news item to an opinion piece but it's the best I have found so far. Apologies if it has been discussed already. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I like it in the way that it is coming from the same line of thoughts as Tim Ball himself as opposed to other sources used here. Downside is, it doesn't give us the date of dismissal. Rakeroot (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Jonathan A Jones, yhanks for looking that out, problem is that the Seattle Times piece is not just an opinion piece, it's one presenting a fringe view with obvious falsehoods. For example, "Ball asserted a truth defense and asked for access to the data and calculations underlying the 'hockey stick' analysis. ... Mann refused to produce the documents" – as shown in hockey stick controversy and discussed at Talk:Michael E. Mann, these were made public at the outset in accordance with National Science Foundation requirements, and by 2005 had been supplemented by the Fortran program that's Mann's property. Sources need a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. @ Rakeroot, we can't say what line of thoughts Tim Ball has, since he seems to have published his viewpoint on the blog Watts Up With That? which is notoriously unreliable. . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you tell it's fringe? Some people, including Ball, states they have called for Mann to hand in something more to this case. Surely this alone doesn't make it fringe? I have seen something about R2 regression numbers but I don't know. I got the impression denying CO2 as greenhouse gas and denying AGW is fringe here but other than that? Rakeroot (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Seattle Times piece states that Ball claimed a truth defence and that statement can't be WP:FRINGE unless there are good secondary sources asserting that his defence took some other form. Reporting that somebody holds fringe views obviously does not make a source fringe. The next statement that the court "dismissed Mann’s libel case " is simply a statement of fact and entirely consistent with other sources. I'm not sure about the second half of that sentence "with prejudice and ordered him to pay Ball’s legal costs" though it is perfectly consistent with Ball's claims elsewhere.  The only troubling sentence is "Mann refused to produce the documents, even when ordered by the court", and I certainly wouldn't use this source for claims about Mann or the reason for Ball's (current) victory. But I really don't see that this renders the source entirely unusable for a siple matter of fact which is also supported by a primary source. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Johathan, sorry to be a bit slow coming back on this. The Seattle Times opinion piece is essentially a political article which has reiterated climate change denial themes (as published in recent blogs) in support of its main argument that climate science could be a hoax, so political ideas for tackling climate warming issues should be dismissed. That's what makes it fringe, at least in science, whether or not there's a political majority resisting any action. The author's not been careful (or objective) about checking facts, so using this as a source would promote a fringe view in articles. Fair point that I've not seen evidence whether or not Ball initially claimed a truth defense, the current issue is that according to Mann and his lawyer the dismissal was due to delay after Ball pled his problems and lack of influence. Their version is supported in a Daily Kos article, but don't think that's sufficiently reliable. Am hopeful we may find a better secondary source soon, . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Seattle Times and the Mother Jones articles together give a good coverage, plus the Frontier Centre for the original interview, plus the climatechart.com for the date and we should be fully covered. Of cause we have to be careful what to use from the different sources and weigh it properly and the paragraph have potential. We just need some more views on the topic below to get on with it. Rakeroot (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC) Oh, and courthousenews should stay as source too. Rakeroot (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinion columns are reliable sources only for the attributed opinion of the author, and may never be used to support factual statements related to living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tailing 56% of paragraph is in place because of WP:WEIGHT or was it WP:GEVAL? I don't see how these policies apply. Please, tell me why we need more than half of the paragraph to give weight by citing another defendants apology. The first 44% is a well written and on the point summary of the base of the case. In there we have "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State", the accusations that form the very basis of this case and as I understand it, the opinion we need to weigh with the mainstream view of the opposite opinion. I don't think we should even try to give this weight, partly as it is central in this court case. If consensus us that we should apply weight it can surely be done in a more on point fashion. Geeze, listen to yourself, "untrue and disparaging", "...wrong [to state that] Mann did not comply with ethical standards"... And it still doesn't give proper weight as it is just an opinion of another defendant. I say we have some options here depending on if we find any other value in the fact that another defendant settled with Mann. We could drop everything about the other defendants (there are actually three) or we may state that "On 7 June 2019 the Frontier Centre For Public Policy published a retraction and apology" and might add that "This settled Frontier Centres part of the case". Other than that, Frontier Centres endeavors in this case should be in the margin, this is Tim Balls BLP after all. If you all think we need to give some kind of weight, please specify what is weighed and weigh it with some good information from a good source. We all know what an apology looks like, leave it in the source. Rakeroot (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We can certainly review specific proposals for rewording on the article talk page, though of course policies have to be met, but the main issue here is the lack of a reliable secondary source. As for there being three defendants, the anonymous interviewer referred to as "John Doe" is the obvious third defendant. . . dave souza, talk 20:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Also, the basis of settlement of Ball's co-defendants is acceptance that the interview statements were untrue and disparaging, and that Mann complied with ethical standards, so we shouldn't leave that out. What we need is well sourced clarification of Ball's own defense. . . dave souza, talk 20:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Main issue here is the purpose and possible violation of WP:NPOV of the tailing part of the paragraph. Unless you are asking for a good "reliable secondary source" to the claim of "untue and disparaging". Are you? I deliberately separated the issues. From you, Dave souza, I would very much want a motivation to WHY the "the basis of settlement of Ball's co-defendants is acceptance that the interview statements were untrue and disparaging" calls for not leaving their exact wording of their apology out. We could simply argue that the basis of settlement was their apology. Please link policies you see fit and we might come to an understanding. Other than that I am mostly interested in other editors views. I think I can see that you want to defend Michel Mann and you are doing a pretty god job but we need some one else's view on this. Rakeroot (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a proposal on the article talk page now. Rakeroot (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rakeroot, will come back to you on that. Hope more editors show an interest! As outlined above in reply to Jonathan, there are considerable problems with the Seattle Times political opinion piece giving undue credence to misinformation, so am hoping to find better secondary sourcing giving due weight to mainstream science. . . dave souza, talk 18:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The following seems to be a good source in the interim, until the written court decision is available. google translate. It's a good mainstream overview in a magazine that claims it's "written by independent journalists from all over the world", and tries to provide quality journalism. It dismisses claims that Mann was sentenced by the Supreme Court in Canada for refusing to release his data, stating; "The data, algorithms and methods of Professor Mann's work are publicly available without exception. He even handed them over to Timothy Ball on a USB flash drive." The article says "The procedure was discontinued because Professor Ball described himself as old, ill and implausible. Another defendant in the process, the Frontier Foundation, had previously apologized....". This clearly gives secondary support to the statements from Mann's lawyer, as quoted on twitter, that the court "has never made any finding, directly or indirectly, that [Mann] failed to produce data", that "Ball's request that the case be terminated – for delay – relied heavily on his alleged state of health", and effectively that Ball's accusations lacked credibility for the average, reasonable reader. My inclination is simply to state that the case was dismissed for delay at Ball's request, without any decision on the merits of the claims.   .  . dave souza, talk 09:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Rubicon article is just another mainstream piece. I didn't know we needed more of those and it don't give us any details on the dismissal, right? I can see problems with the Seattle Times piece; it contains unverified and unverifiable opinion and doesn't really fit into WP:BLP policies. If you agree we could just use the courthousenews.com for date of dismissal. And again, I suggest we keep it really short and concise until we know how the case plays out. I, personally, refuse to take sides in this. At least until I understand the outcome and ramifications of this case. Notice how far apart Mann and Ball are right now. Well, you know Mann's story. Compare that to Balls statementent
 * "Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline."
 * (from same source) "As a consequence, O’Sullivan wrote on July 4 that Ball is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide..."
 * I find it remarkable how they still raise the bets while waiting for the judgement. Someone is going to be destroyed. I can imagine the judge feel a lot pressure now and maybe that's why we have to wait so long for the judgement. Rakeroot (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm not at all impressed by the Rubikon piece. The magazine seems to be recent and online only, and I can't find any evidence that it's well regarded: see for example this article from Deutschlandfunk which gives a very mixed review. Judging tone from Google translate is unwise, but the piece seems excitable and based entirely on interviews with Mann and his supporters. There is no apparent attempt to speak to Ball directly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking both Rubicon and Mother Jones are connected to plaintiff through UN and are  challengeable (through  Mann -> IPCC -> UN -> UNESCO -> MacArthur Foundation -> Foundation for National Progress ->  Mother Jones -> Climate Desk ->  Rubicon). Quote of the Day: "God almighty made women and the Rockefeller gang of thieves made the ladies." -  Mother Jones . . . Rakeroot (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Are you seriously claiming some sort of Chinese whispers connection via seven levels of conspiracy-mongering nonsense? No. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Our inability/unwillingness to report on the dismissal of the case is fueling conspiracy theories now. Look at this statement from Principia Scientific International[]: "Three weeks on and corrupt media reporting ensures that the key issue of the withheld ‘hockey stick’ graph r2 regression numbers gets zero mention. Wikipedia doesn’t even address Mann’s loss of what is now recognized as the ‘science trial of the century.’ See for yourself how Wikipedia disappears that matter here. Such craven bias and dishonesty should tell any rational soul that mainstream (global elite) sources are utterly untrustworthy." This could easily been avoided... . . . Rakeroot (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since when do we care what a bizarre climate denialist and anti-vaxxer blog says? Oh right, we don't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This edit introduced a supposed copy of the court decision, hosted on Steyn Online which is a questionable source (also, see Mark Steyn), if genuine WP:BLPPRIMARY applies. A possible secondary source is . I don't have a view about how good a source this is. . . dave souza, talk 03:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Blick is apparently a Swiss German-language daily newspaper, published by Ringier in Zürich. Doesn't go into much detail, it might be possible to use the article as a secondary source for Ball requesting dismissal for delay, which was granted on grounds of health and timing of the proposed trial. There was no request for data, the validity of Mann's work was not an issue in the hearing. . . dave souza, talk 10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: (linked from Mann's Facebook page) gives the primary source for the judgment. . . dave souza, talk 10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's clearly a good enough source to use for the dismissal and possibly for the costs, so I have made an edit. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this has been resolved. Archive? Rakeroot (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yuval Peres
Yuval Peres is a notable mathematician who has been credibly accused of sexual harassment, in a communiqué from an unrelated organization that is no longer online but is still available through archive.org, and through multiple (unusable as sources for Wikipedia) self-published sources, one of which also includes an apologetic response to the accusations from Peres. The article has also been the subject of editing by multiple single-purpose or new accounts, most of them trying to remove this information; their edits are currently under investigation elsewhere and are the reason I have semiprotected the article. However, misbehavior by some editors is not a reason for including or excluding this material. Discussion on Talk:Yuval Peres now centers on whether the single reliable source that we have is adequate to include this material in the article. It would be helpful to have editors experienced with these issues for BLPs weigh in at the talk page discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Has the accusations been covered outside of the group or mailing lists? Looks like the answer is no, so no, this should not be included per BLPPRIVACY and BLPSPS. --M asem (t) 18:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you seem to have missed the part in my first sentence above about "communiqué from an unrelated organization". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with calling the entity which is trying to distance itself from Peres after having invited him to multiple events as "unrelated". But even if that wasn't the case, one usable source (but not high quality) related to a BLP that does not meet PUBLICFIGURE is nowhere close to sufficient to deem appropriate to include. BLP is very very clear that accusations against relatively unknown people need strong sources to be included. --M asem (t) 05:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sam Hyde


Biased editing and intentional obfuscation of context/information regarding strong allegations from user Greyfell (talk).

After providing sources with verifiable input from Sam Hyde himself, removing redundant text taken from biography section then duplicated in introduction, and providing a link to his homepage, all edits (including edits that were not "infringing") were promptly removed and protected.

The history of posts from the reddit account in the citation shows proof (see post history for cited reddit user https://www.reddit.com/user/MDE-100percentREAL/ ). The other source involves a recorded conversation with a well known celebrity (Tim Heidecker).

These edits discredit the validity of wiki articles and serve only to sew distrust in an objective representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax (talk • contribs) 03:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edit removes an indisputable reliable source (the Los Angeles Times) and replaces it with a link to a right-wing subreddit and a YouTube video. No. Neither of those are reliable sources. You may wish to review Wikipedia content policies before contributing further. Sam Hyde's self-serving claim that he is not sympathetic to white supremacy should be included, but it is not entitled to deference or to be given credence over external reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the new 'website' is basically just a rant against Shopify for banning the group, again without any actual biographical information about the troupe (and who knows if they actually wrote the text? It just has the Wix placeholder text all over after the complaint), and we don't know who runs the (long-banned) Reddit account cited, not to mention for the YT video, there is definite WP:BLP issues for Heidecker, along with concerns about the posting of telephone conversations without his knowledge. You have been warned multiple times about your inappropriate sourcing. Start using WP:RS-compatible sources.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The LA times article and reference to white supremacy were pruned for redundancy from the introduction and was left alone in the biography section (FULLY INTACT). This source was NOT removed. Additionally, why was the link to his website removed? This link allows users to sign up for an email newsletter and access to user forums. The de-platforming and bans on Sam have made it nearly impossible for users to seek out information from the source. Edits being quickly reverted anytime they don't portray him as a monster are not productive or informative to an objective understanding for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax (talk • contribs) 04:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The unfinished Wix template for the website is completely in line with the artistic direction much of MDE's work encompasses and coincides with recent developments on merchandise sales on the front page. The email signup posted allows users to receive updates despite any bans. The link in question was provided on his twitter (https://twitter.com/new_engine) which is also verifiable by way of original content frequently being posted. Likewise for the banned reddit account (behind the scenes images and information provided before formal announcements).

The conversation with Heidecker was publicly available and aired live for free to all on Heideckers own program.

These reverts are looking more and more like intentional information suppression without any merit. At the very least, include the fact that these sources cant be 100% confirmed to be him but allow the reader to have awareness of these statements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax (talk • contribs) 06:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a debate. And it won't be. You will follow the site policies and edit within them; we're not here to link to unconnected opinions and unverified presences. If you don't follow WP:RS, your edits are reverted. That's how it works here and on most sites. And if you want to link the original Heidecker link, you can do so for the original, not whatever out of context clip is intended here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * We don't use reddit threads as sources at all. That's an "absolutely no". Using R/The_Donald in particular is somewhere buried well beneath "absolutely no".  G M G  talk  19:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Input from user chatter  was part of the initial issue I've had with the constant reversion of edits. The users contribution history shows subjective and politicized edits on various right leaning articles and cannot be expected to provide an objective description. None of these responses account from the blatant reversions that include links to the MDE homepage (https://milliondollarextreme.com) or redundant white supremacy claims taken from the biography section of the article and duplicated in the introduction.

Would it be agreeable to include Heideckers podcast as a citation, include the MDE homepage, and remove details from an LA times article from the introduction (leaving this intact in the biography section)? You can see, I'm new to editing wikipedia and would like to operate within the given parameters. Please include a response for each of these requests rather than singling out the unusable reddit citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax (talk • contribs) 06:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The LAT link isn't going; it's a clear source that should not be removed, and the reason the MDE pages keep getting removed is simple; they only convey non-neutral e-commerce information rather than any information about the troupe and what they do (their .tv link in the main MDE article removed a week ago just has a looping GIF and a donation button, and the site linked here is so broken that it would be a disservice to the reader to link out to it in any way). And there are plenty of good articles linking to the Heidecker issue that you can use in a RS-compliant manner rather easily.


 * Finally...I'm here to keep things neutral. I revert attacks and vandalism on left and right figures regularly, no matter my politics. Here, I go down the middle, and an attack on my neutrality on edits won't be stood for. We have policies; it's up to you to decide whether you'll respect them or not.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read my repeated comments on the LAT citation. This citation is currently present in the biography section and I have not been calling for its removal within that section. Sam's body of work hasn't revolved around claims of white supremacy and is dishonest to include as a header within the introduction. Regardless of these claims, it is redundant text. For those readers who do not read beyond the first paragraph, they will misinterpret these articles as his vocal support without any refusal on his part. He has refuted the white supremacy claims on several occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax (talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Since you're new here, please allow me to help explain a few things. There is a lot to know, so please bear with me here. First, the lede of an article is supposed to be a short summary of the body. Like you said, a good majority of people (like 90% on average) will not bother to read the whole article, so the lede provides a short summation for them. For those who do read the body, the lede provides context for further information. It's not redundant, but rather a non-linear way of giving information, because that's the way the human brain can best comprehend it. (Articles would be much harder to follow, and just look really weird and overly academic if we used a linear format.)


 * The sources we use here need to be reliable sources. Preferrably the most reliable sources. Unreliable sources like Reddit and Youtube or the Daily Mail are not usable. Sources like the LA Times are reliable ... but are still near the bottom of the barrel when compared to, say ... books published by reliable publishers. However, lacking better sources, it is highly unlikely that the statement will be removed from the article. If you can find better sources to demonstrate that the Times got it wrong, that would be one avenue for its removal, but that would take some good sources.


 * While we do include a subjects own positions, denials or refutations, in general, the subject of an article is often the least reliable person about themselves. In addition to the human tendency to embellish our own achievements and minimize our faults, as it turns out, the one person in the entire world we tend to know the least is ourselves. The whole field of psychiatry is built on that foundation. Actions do really speak louder than words, and it is through a person's actions that others determine who and what they are. In comparison, what they say, think, or even believe about themselves may be pure fiction or fantasy. That's why we usually trust the RSs over the subject's own words. (However, there's an old adage in writing that says "Show, don't tell." Reader's don't like to be told what to think, so it's far better to show the actions rather than use a generic label, and let the reader's come to their own conclusions; ie: calling Darth Vader evil is boring and an insult to my intelligence, but showing it is exciting.)


 * But just because something belongs in the body doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be in the lede. Now we're getting into issues of WP:WEIGHT and WP:Neutral point of view. If this were a longer article one could possible argue that the allegations don't carry enough weight to warrant inclusion in the lede. Unfortunately, it is a rather short article, so it's going to be very difficult for you to argue that here. A possible solution would be to work on expanding the body with a lot more info about him and his other achievements. If you can demonstrate that this has far less weight than all the other stuff, then weight becomes a valid argument for removing it from the lede. I hope that helps, but Wikipolicy is vast and nuanced, and it usually takes a person a good while to really understand it all. (I spent a whole year here just observing and participating in discussions before I ever attempted my first edit.) Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Haelyn Shastri
All the data entered in article of Haelyn shastri is True and there is no violation has been done to create the article or cannot harm the policy of wikipedia in anymanner  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globetrottle 12 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Globetrottle 12: While it may be true, it's not verifiable if there are no reliable sources cited to support the claims. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wang Peisheng
Attempted to enter a lengthy description of the life and times of Wang Peisheng as a sub-head under the title Biography. The title of the article was framed so as to inform readers that the contents were compiled by a thirty-year disciple of Wang Peisheng and that biases _might_ be apparent. The material was at first deleted on the basis of copyright infringement. I followed up by going through the Wiki-community-accepted process for copyright release (successfully). I then happily entered the material, which was then "speedily deleted" once again, with the only comment provided that the work had too much editorializing and was too lengthy. I removed as much of the editorializing as possible and resubmitted the non-editorial version only to be again told that it was based only on a single opinion. Actually, there is little "opinion" in the material at all. Much of it was simply the first-hand collection of facts related by Wang Peisheng himself. I find the editorial rejection of the material to be arbitrary and at cross-purposes to a large community of those interested in the history of Taijiquan, and one of its most prominent practitioners who is well-known in Beijing, for example, as a "great master" - not as a function of Wang's self promotion, but because virtually every other established martial art leader in the city has so recognized his skill and the profundity of Wang's contribution to the art. In China (anyway), there is no confusion as to the status of Wang Peisheng and indeed it appears to be the opinion and bias of the editor driving the "speedy deletion" of this otherwise valuable content. the edit appears to be capricious and unnecessarily passive aggressive, based on the sole opinion of someone who could not possibly have any idea of the detail of the person or his biography. The editor involved is named Diannnaaa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcapell (talk • contribs)
 * No, the editor is named . GiantSnowman 14:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP stuff involving notable Taiji people? I'll just go ahead and have a look at this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, that didn't take long. WP:NOTMEMORIAL - and WP:NOT in general apply. I'm appreciative that you want to pay homage to your sifu, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please remove the page about Fariborz Shamshiri
Please remove the page about me (Fariborz Shamshiri). I do not want my name to be published on the net (Wikipedia, google and so on). Thank you very much. It will be very helpful if you remove the page totally. Thank you again.

Also remove this entry. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelosangeles (talk • contribs) 12:27, September 24, 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello . Wikipedia policy on the deletion of articles at the request of the article subject is at WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE.  If you want to put in the request for deletion, your case will certainly be bolstered if you can show that you are the article's subject.  I suggest you email info-en-q@wikimedia.org to discuss how to prove your identity.  Once that's done, either the folks at that address can tell you how to proceed with the deletion request, or you can come back here and ask.  BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh the person is in hiding, so all this could be rather tricky for him... I wonder if this should be kicked upstairs? (OTOH this request could very well be a joe job from an opponent.)


 * , is there any particular information such as identifying information that you would like us to remove (and oversight), or consider doing so? Herostratus (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hayley Westenra
Marriage and divorce is notable in an article if sourced right? User:Drmies and User:Nerd271 are deleting the fact she was married, divorced and engaged again.

They are crying "privacy", (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/916658916) Except it was made public, mainly in Britain and New Zealand, and "unencyclopedic,"(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/917423734) except every other BLP states whether they're married or not. Westenra posted herself about her engagement, which was then reported in other news sources, (https://www.instagram.com/p/B1KCAgjg1SV/?igshid=1xxqn9w7ei3lu) so it sure as hell isn't gossip.

I don't want to violate 3RR, so I need help. Kay girl 97 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Have you discussed the disputed content at Talk:Hayley Westenra? 22:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be appropriate for the article if cited to a reliable, third-party published source or sources, but that doesn't mean we have to include it. All controversial or disputed claims about living persons require high-quality sources, and the sources used do not appear to meet that threshold. Similarly, social media posts can only be used to support claims about that person, never other living persons, so the Instagram posts are inappropriate as well. At this point, the content has been removed. If you really think it should be included, you should follow our bold, revert, discuss model and start a discussion at Talk:Hayley Westenra. I would suggest you start by finding top notch sources to back up any claims about all of the persons involved. Woodroar (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that her currently martial state cannot be verified should be a good reason not to include the reasonably-well-reported marriage, particularly if the spouse is not a public figure. It would be different if there was no indication of the possible split, then it would be responsible to include the reported marriage (as in BLPs, reporting spouses is common practice).  It is a weird situation that by the existance of the poor RS that states they divorced that the information should not be included, but that's because there is demonstrable problems with that RS. If we had no idea, we would not have any reason to throw the ray of BLP doubt at this. --M asem  (t) 00:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * From this removal [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hayley_Westenra&diff=917423734] ([//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/917423734]) we can see you cited this source https://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/115017111/i-said-yes-hayley-westenras-mysterious-instagram-post for an engagement "". But the source says: and  So the source doesn't actually support your addition. It suggests they could have gotten engaged, married or neither; we don't know for sure. Maybe there are better sources out there, but this is spectacularly poor edit from a BLP standpoint as you've added content not supported by the source you actually provided.  IIRC, Stuff does randomly edit their articles without properly mentioning they've done so. So I guess it's possible this source said something else when you read it. But I think they do usually at least update the dates. And in any case, considering it's dated 15 August and you were adding this content 23 September [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hayley_Westenra&diff=917399904&oldid=917192956] I somewhat doubt the content I highlighted was only added in in the past few days.  And from what I can tell, despite your edit summary, this is the first time that specific content was added to the article. (The older marriage stuff existed before in some form.) Maybe your other edits are better, but since you've chosen to highlight such a poor edit, I'm not personally inclined to look in to them. Please remember our BLP requirements are very strong and you cannot add material as definite when even the own source you've provided says it's not. Incidentally, this is also a good reason why we have to be careful about using primary sources, even those from the subject themselves.  Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Dominici affair
I came across this article today. It has many issues - reams of unreferenced text, appearance of significant OR, massive POV and many of the people named in the article are presumably still alive.

On top of all of that, it is just not an encyclopedia article, it's a lovingly-created and detail heavy blow-by-blow crime/investigation report.

The vast majority (98%) of the article was added by User:MorbidStories, a now indeffed user, who was socking and abusive. , and  were all admins who dealt with this account.

I have serious concerns about the article but no strong suggestion on how we might reasonably proceed. I considered stubbing it, but don't want to throw out baby with bathwater.

Input welcomed from BLPN people and the admins I mention above. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: Having looked further at the user's contribs, I now have concerns about Murder of Lindsay Buziak and Dupont_de_Ligonnès_murders_and_disappearance as well. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Dweller, yeah, I don't know what to say. I HATE those articles, with the excruciating level of detail. They are reminiscent of K-pop articles, rasslin' summaries, and plot summaries of the Aeneid written by sophomores. In Murder of Lindsay Buziak, some 80% is not baby, so there's plenty to throw out, IMO. For Dupont de Ligonnès murders and disappearance, maybe 90% can be cut. I think stubbing it is more than reasonable. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a perfectly good article, with plenty of contributions from other users and information from the french Wiki article. The other two articles concern me more. Murder of Lindsay Buziak has too little and Dupont_de_Ligonnès_murders_and_disappearance has too much. -- Auric   talk  18:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No,, these articles are ridiculously overdetailed, and in an unencyclopedic style--for starters, we don't talk about people as if we're on a first-name basis. It's gutter journalism. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I missed that part in the WP:Walloftext.-- Auric   talk  21:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

OK when I next get a chance, I'll stub them. Please do Watchlist. If we're dealing with a zealous sockmaster, we can expect a response.--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

As an editor who made occasional grammar improvements, it's extremely disappointing to me to see that the article was culled without any notification of this discussion on the article or its talk page. I'm highly tempted to revert the cull and call for an RfC. The way this was done was secretive. Akld guy (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternately, you could start a discussion on the article talk page now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing was done secretively. Dweller posted on a page that gets hundreds of views every single day; they could have just made the edits without asking anyone about it. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of us are too busy editing to follow pages like this, and don't want the drama that comes with them. At 140 kB reduction, this was not a minor edit. It should have been notified at the article in order to give interested editors the chance to comment. Throwing the onus onto me to start a discussion shows a breathtaking arrogance. Akld guy (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Breathtaking arrogance"?! I didn't cull the article. I didn't participate in this discussion at all.  You pinged me, and I provided a good faith suggestion, and I get "breathtaking arrogance"? Don't ever ping me again (I keep forgetting you can disable pings from individual people.  Feel free to ping me to your heart's content, I won't see it.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that culling the article was breathtaking arrogance. Your post (above) suggesting that I should start a discussion was where the breathtaking arrogance began. Akld guy (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If I were you, I'd quit before I stick my foot too much farther in my mouth. You do realize that, depending upon how you read your statement, that you just insulted Floquenbeam again, right? (ie: It could be read, "the arrogance began with your suggestion", which I'm hoping is not what you meant.) In my opinion, culling it was the right thing to do, by far. That was not an article but a novella. It was not by any means encyclopedic. Otherwise, the onus is on the one who wants it in to show why it should be reinstated, not the one who wants it out. Zaereth (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Novella it might be, but it's my understanding that it was a direct translation of the article on the French wiki, although I do not understand French. It was also my understanding that hardly any of the French language references were incorporated into the Eng article as they were thought to be of no help. This won't change a thing of course, and someone is going to point out to me (needlessly) that the two wikis are separate entities and what goes in one isn't necessarily appropriate in the other. If this had been notified properly, I would have had the chance to point this out, and who knows but it could have influenced the decision. Akld guy (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, had no intention of pointing that out. But French, English, Chinese or Inupiat, it was a poorly written article. There's just too much detail written in a narrative style rather than an expository style. What we need is a summary, not a minute by minute recount of events. It doesn't matter what language you're writing in, encyclopedic style (a form of journalistic style) is a type of expository style. (Not to mention that English and French are almost identical; almost as close as English and Swedish; if you can rad one then the other is not too difficult to decipher.)


 * I will concede that, customarily, a person should leave a notice on the article's talk page when an issue is brought here, but people often forget, especially when there's no edit war preceding. (Hey, nobody's perfect.) I doubt it would've made much difference to the outcome, but at the risk of being arrogant, if you feel so strongly about it, may I politely suggest that you start a discussion on the article's talk page. Nothing is ever lost, and we can always add it back if consensus is in your favor. Zaereth (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This was an unusual case. Enforcing BLP requires no discussion really. I came here only to check my reading of the matter, not to discuss content, which is for article talk. I am sorry that upset you, and I can understand why it did. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Robert Whittaker
I have listed a source from the offical podcast of Robert Whittaker and his coach Fabricio Itte but it is saying it is not a reputable source. How could I get a better source than through the person in question or his team? Please resolve this issue because it is infact a reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.241.168 (talk) 22:44, September 26, 2019 (UTC)


 * Fist of all pls do not make disruptive edits as you have done in UFC 243 and Israel Adesanya pages (You have reverted your edits). Do note that fans/coaches/peers always give nicknames to other fighters in the daily basic, so we only refer sherdog.com for fighter nick name. Thirdly, his coach gives Whittaker "Biracial Angel" nick name on Grunge TV pod cast on utube recently. Source is not considered independent since he is affiliated with Whittaker. reliable sources are sources such as from major newspapers or books. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes .. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A person is a good source for themselves on some things, but not on anything that may be deemed boastful or promotional. He may want certain nicknames to be used, but it would take a third party source to say that the nickname actually is used... particularly a boastful one like "Biracial Angel". --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Wiki project mixed martial arts is very clear in that names listed on sherdog can be included and those that aren't can't. Very simple. Recommend closing this discussion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

John Hagelin photo description
The photo of John Hagelin that appears when you search for his name in the Wikipedia search bar has a description that has been vandalized. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.143.87 (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For clarity, AFAIK this is only a problem on the mobile en site and www.wikipedia.org desktop site and maybe also the mobile app. No photo should appear when you search on the en.wikipedia.org desktop site AFAIK unless you get directed to the page on the person but then there will be no description. When you search on the mobile and some other places you will get a photo along with the description from Wikidata which called the person a crank. This does not appear to be vandalism but I've removed it [//www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2668161&diff=1020933043&oldid=969261412] since at least from the en.wikipedia article, I think this would violate our BLP policy here. I'm not that familiar with their policies there so can't be sure my actions there were justified, if they weren't this is one of the problems which causes concerns about the use of wikidata content here Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Dez White
I believe this person wrote this article about herself. Her accomplishments are minimal and backed up by very little other than her own personal websites. I understand she may have accomplished some stuff in life, but that doesn't make it worthy of having an entire wikipedia page. A kid aced his math exam last week in middle school, should we include that? I've lived a more interesting life and I don't feel the need to put myself on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.210.60 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have to admit the contrib history of Special:Contributions/SimpleBlueBlazer makes me think this may have been a paid editor, although it's long stale. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have nominated it for deletion. See Articles for deletion/Dez White (businesswoman). Edwardx (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Jesse Watters
Hi - I just reverted an IP editor adding this to Jesse Watters, and am encountering some pushback. I believe that adding this descriptor is a blatant contravention of our BLP policy, and would consider continuing to revert if necessary per WP:3RRNO; I'd appreciate others' views on this though, and if anyone things I'm overstepping the mark a ping would be appreciated. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  22:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're good. I won't comment on whether I think the addition is true - wouldn't want to violate BLP on BLPN - but they can't put that there in those words like that.  I've blocked the IP for over the top insults in defense of BLP violations. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Elli AvrRam
Hi. I would like to have my artistic name correctly spelled on Wikipedia. The correct way is Elli AvrRam, (any other spelling is wrong). I have tried to figure out how I can change this myself, but with no success. Every time my name is used by media I have noticed they use Wikipedia and copy my name which is wrong spelled, and I have tried so many times to correct this, without any success. Could I kindly ask you to change this asap. Best Regards Elli AvrRam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.192.202 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, sources are really not consistent on this. I'm ok with that, based on this recent Times of India (and ignoring this older one) and what I assume is the official twitter . Opinions, editors? Also, I don't know how to make the title say AvrRam, but I assume it can be done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Article Elli Avram. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved the page. It has been moved before and moved back, but this time should be OK. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft talk:George Tyndall


This subject appears to pass notability requirements. There is a lot of material here and I am concerned there may be some WP:NPOV or WP:OR issues to deal with before moving this draft to mainspace. I am an WP:AFC reviewer and I don't have deep BLP experience. Please let me know your thoughts. ~Kvng (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assume silence is consent and accept this submission. ~Kvng (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Accepted. ~Kvng (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

james bicher
The content of the article related to the person's accusations has been deleted multiple times with no explanations and reasoning. The person doing it might be directly related to, paid by, or James Bicher himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smarttbutt (talk • contribs) 01:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If we are talking this diff, the removal is 100% appropriate under WP:BLP. We do not use court filings to make assertions about living persons. If this person has been alleged of wrongdoing, we need reliable third-party sources to discuss it. --M asem (t) 01:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me I am still in the process of learning what it andis not acceptable. I checked the diff above and compare it your comment. What I see is not a court filing, but findings of a court. There is  a diff between a filing and a finding (a judgement and a penalty). From what I understand of the situation. Bicher was found guilty, as a result his license was revoked. That is not a filing. By the same token. John Doe is found guilty of a crime and the judge sentences him appropriately, but it is not reported in a RS, maybe (if at all) in some obscure local paper. Say the crime was murder or grand theft auto. Does this mean that it can not  be reported because the source was not an RS, say like a major news source. Does cable news or the radio suffice as a RS? Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a court document, which is a primary source, which is not allowed per WP:BLPPRIMARY. If no RS has covered any aspect of these types of things against a BLP, we can't include them. Period. --M asem (t) 03:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Kevin Thew Forrester
I am the subject of this page and it is not an accurate account of me and my history. I would like to either delete or substantially revise the page. I have tried to revise, but none of my edits are saved when I attempt to save them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciaranjackson (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Deleting seems a reasonable solution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I would suggest caution though. While I won't personally challenge a deletion, I can't help thinking that someone who was elected bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan only to have their election rejected by the wider church, supposedly the first in 77 years is going to be notable per the WP:GNG. But I don't know much about the organisation and hierarchy of the Episcopal Church (United States). Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

larry hale hockey player
some one might want to check on this but i belive larry passed away this friday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.231.71 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone else added it to the article Larry Hale but I looked and cannot find any source, even on social media and it's also not supported by any of the current 4 refs. If one doesn't show up in a few hours, it will need to be removed. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Notable (just) footballer convicted and sentenced. Whether to include?
Hi - looking for some BLP advice. A notable (barely, by the letter of WP:NFOOTY) was recently convicted of county lines drug offences and sentenced to a multi-year jail term. Should this be included in his biography, or is it too close to wp:1E? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I say yes, include it. GiantSnowman 09:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, don't. If he's barely notable by by the letter of WP:NFOOTY, he is pretty obscure. He presumably does not meet WP:BIO, or wouldn't until this incident. Since he doesn't meet WP:BIO, we normally wouldn't have an article on him. So he's essentially a private person. WP:NFOOTY exists for the purpose of completness, neatness, and having a bright line to obviate arguments. It's not for shaming private persons. If if gets contentious, you could just try to have to article deleted, since WP:NFOOTY is just a guideline. Herostratus (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If he is notable for an article then include it. If he is not notable for an article then delete the article. What good is there having incomplete biographies? GiantSnowman 09:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He doesn't meet the WP:GNG I assume, which is a guideline. There are SNGs (Special Notability Guidelines) for certain classes of articles, and some of them are more liberal than the GNG, and FOOTY is one of them. One great virtue of this is that it provides a bright line which obviates tedious arguments. And it makes for completeness, and these articles don't hurt anyone, and the small amount of material is reliably ref'd (I think), and they are popular with football fans, of which they are very many. So for good or ill FOOTY is here to stay.


 * That said, it's silly to pretend that everyone is equally notable. Assuming just two levels of notability -- "does/does not have an article" -- is simple, but also simplistic. If let us say Boris Johnson was convicted of a felony, that is something that should be included in his article. This guy's different. He just is, is all. Herostratus (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Adding to the notability facets, I am going to assume this person has a career mostly after 2000's so any details that can be used to flesh out the article should be readily available by Internet searching. If you cannot find more for them beyond basic play stats and this criminal charge, this is where to evoke the fact they are not notable (keeping in mind NFOOTY is only a presumption of notability), and should not have the article on them in the first place. It helps to avoid the question in the first place by addressing if the person is really notable to start. On the other hand, if there's clearly sources to expand on that person, those should be added before adding the criminal charge part to avoid the perception of BLP1E. --M asem (t) 17:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, mnmh... I'm not sure WikiProject Football would agree with that... yeah it does say that, but... it depends on how one defines "presumed" and so on. WikiProject football has "How to know if an article should be on Wikipedia or not" and then points to NFOOTY, which it describes as an "official Wikipedia guideline". I would advise against nominating individual players that meet NFOOTY for deletion on an ad-hoc case-by-case basis, but rather engaging WikiProject Football on the issue. (However, for this particular person, deleting the article would obviate the need to worry anymore about this situation, but then, to get a deletion passed you'd have to speak publicly about the situation, so...)


 * There are certain people who criminal charges are definitely important. Politicians, businessmen, and some others. Anybody who is very famous, probably. Football players, it really doesn't have much to do with anything. If a United States Senator or the president of ExxonMobil is convicted of (say) embezzlement, that's germane to understanding who he is as a public figure and where he fits in the great scheme of things. Football players, not so much. We mainly want to know where he fits in as a player -- how good he is at scoring, who he played for, and like that. Sure some basic personal info might be included -- birthplace, spouse, stuff like that -- but we don't really need to know his favorite dessert or what kind of car he drives or what kind of trouble he's gotten into off the field, really. That's not helpful for understanding who he is as a football player. And negative information should not be published for obscure people if it is at all possible to avoid it without fatally compromising our encyclopedic mission. Which not publishing this information wouldn't. So let's not. Herostratus (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking exactly how presumed notability works. NFOOTY like all subject-specific notability guidelines, allow for a presumption of notability based on meeting one or more metric that are generally assured to have led to further coverage, coverage that would take time and effort to locate. That presumed notability allows for a standalone article to be made so editors have no deadline to expand the article. But if an editor can show there is no further sourcing available for that topic, demonstrated by a thorough search of appropriate sources, then deletion is allowed, as the presumption of notability has failed. This is "hard" as that thorough searching often is much more effort than an Internet search, but includes a trip to the library and perhaps even to the libraries where the topic originated from (eg for an Indian cricketeer, one may have to look for India print sources). Now, in this case, I'm guessing that if the person has a career in the 2000s and beyond and nothing before, a thorough search may only require Internet searching, but that depends on several factors. The point though is that NFOOTY is not absolute, and presumed notability by that can be challenged; and in this specific case, a valid step to avoid a BLP issue is to make that challenge to see if we even need to deal with it. --M asem  (t) 22:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem makes good points here. Haukur (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumed notability works however people want it to work. WP:FOOTY says that anybody who "played" -- and I suppose that means even one game -- for an important team or in an important league, gets an article. And so as a point of actual fact, if you try to delete this article, you will have to say why. Otherwise the football people will probably stop you. But saying why is a BLP violation itself, so... hmmm.


 * Maybe the best answer would be for someone to go talk to the football people and give them the situation as outlined by the original post here. And email them the name of the actual article. If they support deleting the article because of the circumstance maybe you all can think of some way to do that -- maybe an admin could just quietly delete the article per WP:IAR and salt it, or something. But maybe not, so the best solution might be to just not put the info in the article, I guess. Altho it might become as headache as people put it back in. But that probably won't happen. Herostratus (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BLPTALK actually does allow us to talk about allegations as long as it is towards improvement of the encyclopedia (which this discussion clearly is, or an AFD discussion would be too). The other facet is: has anyone actually tried to add this to the article? If no one has, but we know it has potential, then maybe the best action is to do nothing. If there are a mass of people trying to add it, and not balance that against expanding coverage of the rest of the BLP, then maybe we have to take other actions. --M asem (t) 13:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you may well be right about. I didn't know that about BLPTALK... I'm sure any ref to the incident *anywhere* would have to be ref'd (you don't usually have to ref stuff on talk pages, but this'd be an exception I assume, otherwise people could engage in any kind of libel and gossip they wanted to). And then people neglect to that (or don't know they need to) and it's kind of a mess. But maybe it's moot, just let it lie. Herostratus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, yes, you would need to include the link to the source that discusses the accusation to be able to talk about the accusation and whether it is appropriate or how to include, per BLPTALK. If you see someone claiming accusations have been made about a person and it is not incredibly obvious that those exist, you should be demanding sources or otherwise the talk content should be removed/rev-deleted. --M asem (t) 16:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If any of you have wiki email enabled and would like me to mail you the article and the link to the source of the conviction, please let me know either here or on my talk page. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I found out we have a list List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes. It may be worth someone giving a once over. I just removed someone who's offence was breach of the peace and a bunch of potentially non notable people from the list [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_professional_sportspeople_convicted_of_crimes&diff=918245034&oldid=918243113]. And I think some of them may be sourced exclusively to prison records or similar. Anyway I'm reminded of the case of Madiea Ghafoor although they seem to more clearly notable as a former olympian. Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * yeeah, as a separate matter, I think we need to strong BLP level guidance for that lists (required sourcing that avoid first-party sources, what minimum-level of crime should be included), otherwise that can be a mess of BLP violations not just there but any others. Not that the lists aren't inappropriate altogether but they feel like a magnet for BLP vios. --M asem (t) 18:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I don't think we need strong BLP level guidance for this sort of thin. We just need a freaken moral compass. That article is absolute bullshit.


 * I'm going to nominate it for deletion *again*. After that I probably won't participate in the discussion, as I have no stomach for engaging with people who think some petifogging rules on their hobby website supersedes their obligation to not use their position of power (as editors on one of the world's biggest website, making a database that might last for centuries, writing about individual private citizens) to bully people. Herostratus (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking there might be a chance since the last nomination was in 2009 when we were probably weaker with BLP. But not so sure anymore. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah well I'm probably a poor nominator. I'm not super up on which ALLCAPSPAGE to use against SOMEOTHERALLCAPSPAGE and so forth. I'm more interested in the first principles and making arguments from those than parsing the details of WP: pages. The spirit of BLP is "We are not here to make people sad" and that's good enough for me to figure out most cases. That makes me a poor debater here pretty much, and I suppose I should have let George do it. Oh well.


 * We're not really a "constitutional" organization except as regards RS, NPOV, and BLP. Everything else is up for grabs. If the community decides to use only British English, or that we're not going to use images, or that every article created has to be balanced with one deleted, or what have you, fine; that's democracy. However, the community can't decide we're not going to require sources, or that we will overtly push political agendas, or that we can harass people. Most people here think that RS and NPOV are sensible, so that's not been a problem; but a lot of people have no use for BLP, and it shows. That's a problem. So far we've been getting by, so if when we don't we can look then at what to do. Herostratus (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol
This article has previously been brought to this Noticeboard twice (Archive 279 and Archive 286) as well as in other venues. The talk page of the article has become a mess due to a group of connected contributors (likely a sock of Nafeby633) trying to argue and remove the material about the subject's ban of homosexuality and the procurement of computers, both of which are well-sourced. I am asking some experienced editor to take a look at the article and take action as may be deemed appropriate. Thanks. --G(x) (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I happened upon these edits the other day while on recent changes patrol. The above looks like a fair summary to me. In addition, the article is plagued by repeated, aggressive (re)additions of excessively promotional quotes, invalid or off-topic citations, and unfounded original research insinuating the article subject is to be credited for Thailand's recovery from the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on Taweetham Limpanuparb Associate Professor at Mahidol University International College Verified email at mahidol.edu - Homepage [2] researched that the ultimate source of the information is Bangkok Post only. I have consulted all the relevant articles/books. All of them points to the same Bangkok Post articles on 26 December 1996

1)Educating desire: Thailand, transnationalism, and transgression RC Morris - Social Text, 1997 - JSTOR At the end of December 1996 Cited by 54 [3]

2)Media Fortunes, Changing Times: Peter A. Jackson (2002). Russell H. K. Heng (ed.) [4] Three Versions ,Cited by 18 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Arkom Engchuan Duputy Minister in 2000 fired 6 person involved in the Computer Scandal,They sue the Ministry of Education,they won the case against Ministry of Education in 2013 [5] ศาลปกครองได้รวมการพิจารณาและศาลปกครองสูงสุดได้มีคำพิพากษาในคดีหมายเลขดำที่ อ. 654-659/2551 คดีหมายเลขแดงที่ อ. 832-837/2556 เมื่อวันที่ 19 ธันวาคม 2556 /19 December 2013 The Ministry of Education had to hired them back and paid compensation.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You have mentioned the possible canvassing effect at the subject's talk page, which is more than likely. I have discovered a previous incident concerning his daughter, shownoutside hereenwiki. While it's not really canvassing in English Wikipedia, it can be shown that the article concerning the subject and/or the daughter alike may be prone to canvassing. Suggest the page's follower to file a report (can also be interpreted as "police report")

User: G(x)wrote to134.196.182.161 (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * User: G(x) Contribution

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol



Try to keep Deformation in the article,even though it is against the law in Thailand now a day.

Translation:Computer Crimes Act 2007




 * The Fake News Deletion

I have been watching this problem for quite some time and it is possibly the time to speak out. --Taweetham (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With regard to 1, as per WP:BLP, I think it should not be mentioned at this point otherwise the article is giving undue attention to criticism of the person.
 * With regard to 2, the ultimate source of the information is Bangkok Post only. I have consulted all the relevant articles/books. All of them points to Bangkok Post articles.  I have informed the daughter of the former Minister of Education to contact the newspaper as she denies that the Minister was misquoted.  I said that if the newspaper retract them or issue an apology, this matter may be cleared.


 * The edit byUser:Dyveldiwith 903121834&oldid= 902037510 this editwill be deleted.

Based on '' Taweetham Limpanuparb Associate Professor at Mahidol University International College Verified email at mahidol.edu - Homepage '' researched that ''' the ultimate source of the information is Bangkok Post only. I have consulted all the relevant articles/books. All of them points to the same Bangkok Post articles on 26 December 1996 '''

1)Educating desire: Thailand, transnationalism, and transgression RC Morris - Social Text, 1997 - JSTOR At the end of December 1996 Cited by 54

2)Media Fortunes, Changing Times: Peter A. Jackson (2002). Russell H. K. Heng (ed.) Three Versions  ,Cited by 18 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Arkom Engchuan Duputy Minister in 2000 fired 6 person involved in the Computer Scandal,They sue the Ministry of Education,they won the case against Ministry of Education in 2013 ศาลปกครองได้รวมการพิจารณาและศาลปกครองสูงสุดได้มีคำพิพากษาในคดีหมายเลขดำที่ อ. 654-659/2551 คดีหมายเลขแดงที่ อ. 832-837/2556 เมื่อวันที่ 19 ธันวาคม 2556 /19 December 2013

The Ministry of Education had to hired them back and paid compensation.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have mentioned the possible canvassing effect at the subject's talk page, which is more than likely. I have discovered a previous incident concerning his daughter, shownoutside hereenwiki. While it's not really canvassing in English Wikipedia, it can be shown that the article concerning the subject and/or the daughter alike may be prone to canvassing. 

"Suggest the page's follower to file a report (can also be interpreted as "police report")"

''User: G(x)wrote to Paleo Neonate  49.229.220.26 (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

All of the above is very difficult to understand, you may wish to reformat it so that readers of this noticeboard can understand what you are talking about and what action you are requesting. See also WP:NLT. MPS1992 (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have much expectation that the group of IPs connected with the subject in this section would reformat and present the argument in better terms. However, I invite the editors to have a look on the talk page of the subject (whose formatting doesn't appear to be much better). As for the Legal Threats you mentioned, the IP was referring to my discussion with PaleoNeonate about content outside enwiki that demonstrates the meatpuppet behavior and suggest that those affected should file a "report" (which, in traditional sense of Thai word, can also refer to the police report). --G(x) (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore
Over at Jimmy Dore a (not quite yet, but its getting there) edit war has erupted over this [], a serious accusation of paid advocacy. The problem is it has only one source, and as you can see attribution was removed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

More eyes needed on Harmeet Dhillon
Dhillon has recently cropped up as an attorney for a number of controversial figures like Andy Ngo and James Damore. I just removed some fairly egregious personalized disparagement from her page, but it looks like there's a persistent problem in the page history. There's also some mild puffery, and possibly some previous editing by the subject herself. Obviously the COI editing is somewhat less of a pressing issue, but the page history gives the impression that the page needs more disinterested watchers. Nblund talk 15:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Brock Blomberg
Hi, I'm Tom and I work for Ursinus College (as declared on my profile page and at Talk:Brock Blomberg). I've created a Wikipedia account to address what I believe is inaccurate and misleading information on the page about the college's president, Brock Blomberg. On the Talk page, a box at the top mentions that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article." That is the what I'm seeking help with today. While the details I'm asking about have citations, they don't support what's written and, ultimately, those details are not about Blomberg himself. They reflect news about other people and/or the college.

I submitted an edit request to remove 2 paragraphs of text which were a clear misinterpretation of the references. I've identified problematic text and explained how the content is inappropriate based on the citations. However, User:Spintendo said my edit request was not formatted properly. I re-submitted my request after trying to format as instructed, but my request was collapsed and declined because he said I should only offer replacement text and not ask to have it removed. I am new here and acknowledge that I may not do everything perfectly, but the issue is that this material isn't appropriate in a biography about Blomberg.

If you uncollapse the "Extended content" part of the most recent edit request, you'll see I've identified problematic text and what sources actually say about these "controversies" (which, again, I truly believe are more about other people and Ursinus than Blomberg himself). While I thank User:Spintendo for reviewing, I'm asking other editors to review as well, since he doesn't seem to understand the point I'm trying to make. I acknowledge that editors reviewing my requests will be skeptical. But I also think if editors look at this from an objective viewpoint, there is a good likelihood they'll agree that this contentious material misrepresents sources and is unfair to include on this biographical page. Please let me know if there is a better venue for this discussion. Thank you! TY Ursinus (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at this now, and might have some feedback shortly. MPS1992 (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've acted on what I believe is your most recent edit request. Sorry that this took so long, it should have been self-evidently inappropriate to remain in the article. (We seem to have a lot of articles about living persons with content like that, unfortunately.) Do you consider that other aspects still need attention as well? MPS1992 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg
I am not finding any understanding on the talk page of the 2 issues I am trying to raise; but I still feel they are valid issues.

1:I'm thinking that if someone is not old enough to sign a contract or to be party to any binding agreements that that status should, at the least, call for a somewhat different treatment in an encyclopedia. Especially when we get into the area of personal health; in this case the article often references her as having "Autism", which Wikipedia describes as "a developmental disorder". After she is grown up she may not choose to tell the world about her personal health situation and regret that she did so when 16. Many of us did or said things at 16 that we have regretted as adults. If Wikipedia has a widespread custom of treating underage Blp Subjects the same as adults, I think that is really kind of ridiculous from a human rights standpoint. Children are entitled to special protections, care and attention beyond what adults are, in any civilized society.

2: What is also concerning to me is that since she is not of legal age, virtually all of her activities which are typically handled by adults, e.g. speaking to the U.N., must, perhaps, be seen as having been done under the direction of whatever adults are responsible for her and thus should not be credited to a Blp in her own name. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't agree with you on any of that. If there is cause to erase things from the article in the future, that is one thing... but her autism is hardly a secret, is covered broadly in mainstream sources. And while there may be adults involved in her appearances just as there are adults involved in the public appearances of other adults, that does not negate the fact that she is involved in them as well. We should not be attempting to erase this high-impact person's existence just because of her age, or the assumptions that you make about her based on her age. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but this seems like an odd position to take. WP:MINORS (NB, it's an essay not policy) does suggest that we should be extra careful and considerate when editing articles like this, and it's true that minors are entitled to some special rights and protections (which vary by jurisdiction), but that's not the same thing as being voiceless or wholly unable to make decisions for themselves. The world is full of artists, musicians, activists, etc who are below the age of majority but have made a conscious choice to become public figures,and we have articles about lots of them. I'm all for treating them carefully but suggesting that we can't ascribe their own public statements to them is going way too far. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that in cases where mainstream media withhold the names of minors we should do the same. For example, minors charged in juvenile court generally have their names withheld, even after they become adults. But when juveniles are charged as adults, their names are made public. We want to avoid a situation where readers find things in Wikipedia that they normally wouldn't find in quality media or books. But equally we don't want to withhold information they would normally find there. So basically we should defer to reliable sources to determine how to treat this. TFD (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * We do want to be careful around minors that aren't the center of public attention, but no question Thunberg is there and is a public figure. However, she has clearly spoken to having Aspergers/autism and actually how she has used that to help fuel her campaigns, so there is zero issue for us to include that, that's all of her own self-statement and she is of an age to understand. (If she were like, say, 5 or 6 where we'd not expect kids to know what that means, then I would think that a problem). I take concern on the second statement: Yes, as a minor, there are certain things she cannot do herself, but that's a far cry for questioning if she is just being a minor being used by concerned adults trying to hide behind that, and absolutely don't have sourcing to even suggest that. We should assume how the media and RSes cover her, in that she is going after these environmental concerns on her own volition with the help of a group of adults to help grease the required wheels. --M asem  (t) 04:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Although Thunberg is 16, she has actively sought out media coverage. As for the health angle, she has talked openly about having Asperger's syndrome so it isn't a privacy/confidentiality issue.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 04:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I also can't agree with any of your points, especially the second point, which I strongly disagree with. There is absolutely nothing to suggest she is doing anything under the direction of someone else, therefore this isn't something we should spend any time considering. Also, it is not up to her to decide whether we should be talking about her health issues or not. BeŻet (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the well reasoned responses, which I accept as a consensus. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Lawrence Academy (Groton, Massachusetts)
There are a couple of SPAs who are slowly edit-warring here to re-add some superficially referenced content regarding a sexual-abuse issue from a past decade. I am not able to take the time right now because of IRL deadlines/my proverbial cup overflowing to determine whether the alleged perpetrator is the subject of a WP:RS identifying him, but my internal warning buzzer is going off loudly that this may not be okay. I apologize for not being able to deal with this myself. Thanks in advance. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems that the content being added is vastly out of proportion to what would be WP:DUE. It furthermore appears from the added text that the contributor(s) may have a conflict of interest in the topic, e.g. the last paragraph would violate WP:ADS. That said, there are two local paper stories on the topic, and a Boston globe story that's behind a paywall . -Darouet (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition... in the version that I recently removed, which had also been previously re-added by at least one editor who should know better, large parts of the material, including claims about living persons, were emphatically not supported by the sources cited. MPS1992 (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging two other experienced editors and  so you can discuss with  here. -Darouet (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I had reverted the edit flagged on 'Recent changes' as dubious as it was a large removal without adequate explanation and I had done two additional checks: firstly that it appeared to have some valid sources, and secondly that the IP had only edited to remove negative content on this subject and a geolocate showed they were from the local area invoked so appeared to have a clear bias and trying to whitewash. I admit I did not read/verify the the entire section but failed to notice the section had been created and re-created by the same one purpose account (at least they asked for constructive feedback on why it was not up to our standards ). Having a quick scan I totally agree that it cannot stand in the form it was when included, the completely unsourced sections/sentences definitely have to go. However I would say the sources indicate enough to merit inclusion. It appears we have an editor who is probably trying to add the content in good faith but does not appear to be neutral and it shows in the wording and extension from the sources, and a local IP editor who would appear to be trying to whitewash the events probably related to the subjects (people and/or academy). So what I believe this needs is an impartial editor to review and add back a shorter, neutrally written, properly sourced section and for the two involved warring editors to be told that additions or removals must have well supported sources or reasons. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

User User:Optimistaverdad is doubling down on this and not apparently reading talk-page messages from multiple editors requesting that they cease and desist with re-adding this content. There was an insinuation of "bullying" in one of their edit summaries. I welcome suggestions as to further steps; I think this is past the point where a block is probably appropriate but I don't want to vex anyone with requesting same at the wrong venue (is this edit-warring, or AIV-adjacent, or ANI-requiring?). Thanks again for paying attention to this! -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  19:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes the information as presented is WP:undue but I don’t understand the grounds for removing the material entirely rather than editing it. Instead of the current eight paragraphs compressing the information into two or three paragraphs would give this important subject due coverage. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with what has been said thus far. The section in question should be more concise. The material does merit include on the Wikipedia page. I am willing to refine it initially and if anyone else is willing to work on it afterwards and over time, fine by me. Initially when I saw the large removal of bits, I thought that does not make sense considering the material being on the page for some time and containing reliable citations, that is why I reverted it a couple of times back. Aviartm (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Should we use an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner for a BLP issue at Racial hoax?
This concerns Erica Thomas who was involved in an incident at a Publix store. Our article on her says "On July 19, 2019, Thomas was in a Publix supermarket express lane when she alleged a man "degraded and berated" her. Thomas later contacted police requesting the man be charged. Upon completion of their investigation, the Cobb County police announced no charges would be filed. "

The incident is being added to Racial hoax as an "alleged hoax" first by User:AyaK without sources calling it any kind of hoax. I reverted and they restored, after my 2nd revert it was restored by User:Wtmitchell who also started a discussion at Talk:Racial hoax. I think that was the wrong way around, discuss and get consensus before restoring for a BLP issue. This time however a different source was used an opinion piece (as WtMitchell noted) from the Washington Examiner, a conservative news source. Our perennial sources page says "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline." I think we need to be very careful about even calling something an "alleged hoax" when there are BLP issues, even more so when the person holds political office (she's a Democrat and Black, perhaps it's no surprise a conservative news outlet was interested). I also think that if her main article doesn't call his an "alleged hoax" we shouldn't call it that elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a case where I would say the WashExam is reliable for their op-ed opinion of the issue but I would have two concerns with this edit. By including the incident in the wiki article on such incidents we are basically confirming this in Wiki voice.  Thomas's version of the story is not conniving but saying this was a racial hoax implies a deliberate motive.  A single op-ed isn't sufficient either in terms of DUE or reliable sourcing given we are effectively saying "She set out to lie about this".  Even if this were not an op-ed I would still be concerned about DUE given this would fall under BLP restrictions.  We don't know if this was a deliberate action by Thomas or if she honestly thought her version of events was factual.  Unless we have RSing showing she knowingly lied, I would say keep it out.  I certainly don't think the single OpEd is sufficient for such a damning claim in wiki voice.  Springee (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If WashExam is the only source calling a racial hoax, it does not belong. First, in general, opinion pieces of any type should not be used to include items on a list like racial hoax, incidents should be called "racial hoax" in the news reporting of RSes, not from op-eds. This is further tainted by the reputation of the WashExim which has a known bias in this area, and thus their opinions should be avoided if they are the solitary source being used. --M asem (t) 13:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Masem and adopt his position in full. We should not describe anything as an "alleged" racial hoax unless the allegations are substantiated by something like formal criminal charges, disciplinary action, etc. - we need far more than a single partisan op-ed in a partisan source to make such a description. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Given that its an opinion piece from a publication not explicitly considered reliable we need to take the author into consideration, the author not being a subject matter expert or reliable journalist this would appear to disqualify this article’s use for any purpose on wikipedia even to cite non-contentous information. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a clear BLP violation to add this material to racial hoax with this source. The source is far below the bar for negative material about living people, and it's a bit alarming that this is considered a gray area. MastCell Talk 16:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I am the editor who most recently restored this now re-deleted item to the article. The item has been in and out of the article multiple times since its unsupported insertion in this 23 July insertion with discussion of its merits, unless I've missed something, having taken place by exchange of edit summaries in inserting and removing edits. Looking back at that I see that, though I don't recall having done so, I supplied a supporting source in a subsequent edit. I haven't researched insertions and removals beyond that but, after seeing the recent insertions and removals, it seemed to me that this ought to be more clearly and more visibly decided after a consensus discussion on the article talk page. Accordingly, after a removal with an edit summary pointing out that the then-cited source did not call this a hoax, I restored it with a cite of a source which did call it a hoax. The source I cited did go to the point of the most recent removal but was an opinion piece. I pointed that out and mentioned due weight in a talk page discussion I initiated to explain my action. Beyond that, I did not take an advocacy position regarding this one way or the other, and have no present intention of doing so. That talk page discussion contains a wikilink to this discussion here, and I will mention and wikilink my comment here in that discussion. Whichever way the editorial consensus comes out on the article talk page, that discussion can stand as a record of the consensus arrived at there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitesh_Narayan_Rane
The sentences have been written in patronising tone and the person in question has not done enough to warrant a page here,he is infamous in India for his acts of violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.211.191.103 (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You might find this two pages useful: General notability guidelines and policy on biographies of living persons. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

OK to say BLP was accused of Islamophobia?
As part of the Andy Ngo article the article contains a sentence, "Ngo was accused of Islamophobia    and subsequently issued a correction" My concern with this sentence was initially 3 fold, RS, DUE and LABEL. I'm less concerns about RS but it still applies to a number of the citations.

LABEL While we aren't saying in Wikivoice that the article subject is an Islamaphobe, we are saying others have applied that label to him. This is clearly a value laded label and per LABEL should have in text attribution but the article only says "was accused of..." with no statement as to who made the claim.

RS Next, are the sources reliable for the claim in question. That's mixed. Some sources say a WSJ article written by Ngo was accused of being Islamaphobic. The Wikipedia article says Ngo was accused of being so their is a bit of SYNTH going on here. I think it's clear that both Ngo and his WSJ article were accused of being Islamaphobic but was that by random social media posts or reliable voices? Newser is a news aggregation site with no evidence of editorial oversight. Commune Magazine is self described as, "a popular magazine for a new era of revolution." []. Thus I would rule both out as not RS. I couldn't find a Wikipedia article about the source and no evidence that RSs pay any attention to it. The Stranger appears to be the blog (SLOG) portion of The Stranger. I've found no evidence that The Stranger is considered reliable in general. The SLOG said an article by Ngo was decried as Islamaphobic but didn't say he was personally. This source is perhaps the only one that provides a link to back the claim. That link was a Medium posting (thus effectively a blog post). It supports that the article was criticized but not that Ngo was personally called Islamaphobic and actually offered evidence that the claim was not true. The same is true of The Origonian other than it doesn't link to a source for the accusations against the article. I don't see much evidence that RSF/Reporters Without Boarders is widely viewed as reliable but they are simply stating that counter-protesters/Antifa said Ngo was Islamaphobic but provides no specific. Finally we have an interview with Ngo where he says he was accused of being Islamaphobic in "messages and comments" via Twitter etc after the article but again we have no evidence that any RS voice say Ngo himself or even the WSJ article was Islamaphobic. Thus we are left with a question of WHO is saying this. Are these reliable opinions or just the mad masses?

UNDUE This brings me to my last concern, UNDUE. While we are skirting actually calling the BLP subject Islamaphobic, we are allowing the accusation to stand in the article without challenge. Even more disturbing is that neither the article nor the sources actually trace back to who is really making the claim. Given the contentious label and the lack of any authoritative source it seems like this is failing a proper in text attribution and thus is UNDUE. The article reasonably talks about negative backlash associated with the article but given this is a BLP why include a contentious label that is attributed to, in effect, "they say"? Springee (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Springee: are you questioning whether or not Ngo was accused of Islamophobia here? Do you think the RSF and Oregon Live sources just fabricated accusations of Islamophobia or something? Did the Washington Times and Washington Examiner participate in the fabrication? I don't see it. This might need further substantiation and specificity, but WP:V has clearly been met here. IMHO: you should just drop the other stuff focus on the WP:DUE weight question. Nblund talk 17:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt Ngo was accused but my concern is this is a BLP. We can't say who made the accusation thus we can't properly attribute the claim. When we just say "he was called X" then we aren't that far from Wiki voice and we certainly don't allow the reader sufficient evidence to decide if the source of the claim was legitimate. Frequently we will have a case where the article subject does something. For example Reports said Ford recklessly produced a dangerous car. Then we can link to the specific reports where the accusation is made. What is really problematic is when we take what is in effect hearsay then treat it with minimal attribution. That's not OK, that's just perpetuating a rumor mill. If 500 Twitter nobodies flood Ngo's account with accusations that he's a racist that doesn't mean we put, "he was accused of racism" in the article in a way that implies the accusers are in effect RSs. Springee (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should tell the reader that Ngo has been accused of Islamophobia, since it's true and it's prominently part of his reputation. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then find the RS that says it's part of his reputation. Springee (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following: is it literally, as presented, the isolated case of one article that Ngo authored? RECENTISM and UNDUE scream not to include unless this has created a wave of followup. Again, BLP are not laundry lists of every complaint leveled at a person, but should be a summary of the larger picture (Ngo is known negatively for other things that had much more substantial and RS coverage to be used). --M asem  (t) 18:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ngo has had several controversies related to his statements on Islam. The WSJ article seems to have been the most prominent, and Ngo himself has commented on the fairly widespread backlash to that particular piece. It comes up frequently in media accounts of his career (Buzzfeed, VoxThe Independent), and is useful context for why he is a polarizing figure. It might be more appropriate to talk about this as part of a larger subsection on his statements on Islam, but I don't think we can escape the discussion given how often it comes up. Nblund talk 18:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with discussing the WSJ article. My concern is that a number of the quotes seem to be included simply as a way to weasel LABELs into the article.  It's likely significant that the story was widely criticized for errors etc.  If this resulted in a change to how he reported or where he worked that's significant.  What isn't is the laundry list of particular quotes.  Really, this is something that is a widespread problem on Wikipedia.  You read an article and get the feeling the Wiki-editor wants the reader to morally condemn the subject of the article (person, organization, company etc).  Rather than using a neutral tone to present the information we get "scare quotes".  Since this is a LABEL and BLP concern, how is the article worse off for leaving out the contentious labels?  Given it's a BLP shouldn't we err on the side of not using inflammatory labels even if we attribute them to others?  Springee (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The full text of the current paragraph below:
 * On August 29, 2018, Ngo wrote an op-ed titled "A Visit to Islamic England" for The Wall Street Journal. In the article, Ngo wrote of his experiences in two neighborhoods in East London, including visits to a Mosque and an Islamic center. From these experiences, he concluded that London was afflicted with "failed multiculturalism". He falsely connected alcohol-free zones in parts of London to the Muslim-majority populations. Ngo was accused of Islamophobia[24][18][25][26][27][28] and subsequently issued a correction.[29][18][30][31] Alex Lockie from Business Insider criticized Ngo's article for "fear monger[ing] around England's Muslim population" and cherrypicking evidence, and for mischaracterizing the neighbourhood near the East London Mosque.[32] Steve Hopkins from HuffPost stated that "some of his [Ngo's] assertions have already been disproved".[33] Splinter News' Libby Watson described the op-ed as "racist".[34]
 * Most of the sources say the article was islamophobic. Some say he was accused but they don't name the accusers. I would also note that the last sentence, "the op-ed as racist" has questionable sourcing. Splinter News doesn't seem to be a very RS and why do we care about Libby Watson's opinion? Springee (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Given both Nblund and Springee's comments, I would simply "fold up" the specific article in question into the larger opinion that Ngo has written controversial pieces on Islam, without necessarily focusing on any one piece. --M asem (t) 18:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the paragraph lays it on a little thick with the quotes from his critics, but I do want to emphasize that WP:NPOV requires Wikipedia to cover notable controversies. Whether Ngo is Islamophobic is a matter of opinion, but whether he has been called Islamophobic (or accused of unfairly or inaccurately stigmatizing Muslims) is a matter of established fact. It's reasonable to mention the existence of this controversy, and it's reasonable to cite an example to substantiate that claim, it's also reasonable to cite Ngo's response. Nblund talk 19:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the assertions he has been called that seem both well-covered and, presented in summary, reasonable to include to understand why he is a controversial figure. But a point: NPOV does not require use to include all noted controversies, UNDUE should still be applied to cover those that are deemed more representative of the BLP in question. So one can argue that this issue over one article Ngo wrote is a notable controversy, in the larger picture, so much focus on it relative to the general opinion that Ngo is Islamaphobic is undue. (Again, my point that BLPs should not just be laundry lists of every negative comment made towards a person). --M asem (t) 19:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point and agreed.  Nblund talk 19:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

So to bring this back around, am I correct in saying that we have a general agreement that summarizing that the article caused controversy is DUE. I think we also agree that this needs to be more of a summary of the controversy rather than quoting of individual reactions. I'm less certain if we agree on the use of LABELS in the quoted responses and if people agree that if we can't trace a particular quote back to a particular source we should avoid it. I'm particularly concerned since the article says "he was accused of Islamaphobia" which certainly implies it could be true but none of the sources can trace back to any RS actually saying he (or even his article) is Islamaphobic. Springee (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that it seems that this article spawned a few articles of criticism that Ngo responded to, and has gone no further, detailed quotes from those that commented on Ngo's article are definitely inappropriate, giving excessive weight to a minor part of a larger issue. --M asem (t) 02:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we are usually better off avoiding quotes. If the primary objection is the use of the word "Islamophobia", I don't think it's essential to use that term, but readers should understand that some commentators accused Ngo of stirring up unfounded fears about Muslims. Nblund talk 19:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Islamophobic would be appropriate to use as a description of the article if it is used in the reliable sources. It appears to be adequately sourced, and is clearly about the article written by Ngo rather than about Ngo as a person. In response to a concern by Springee, reliable sources are not required to provide support for their statements, as that is the point of their editorial review and fact-checking that makes them reliable sources. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is most sources about that article don't use the term and none use it in first person. That is, they say some unnamed people, Twitter comments etc, said it.  Also, most of the sources don't pass RS muster.  Springee (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources using a term in "first person" is only relevant if the Wikipedia text directly states something, and not in this case where the disputed language already includes "was accused of". "Unnamed people" making criticism is fine, as the Wikipedia article should reflect the sources in whether they name particular criticizers. For example, "Oregon Live reported that Ngo's article was 'widely panned as racist and Islamophobic'" would be a properly sourced and attributed. I think the issue is whether that type of attribution is needed. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are missing two critical issues. The first, is that the Wiki article doesn't say Ngo's WSJ article was accused, it says Ngo himself was accused.  That isn't supported by Oregon Live.  Second, not all sources critical of the article said it was panned as racist or Islamaphobic and none said that in first person.  Since we are dealing with a contentious LABEL it must be attributed a RS saying "others said" doesn't cut it.  As Masem noted, we should summarize, not pick the most inflammatory quotes used by only some sources.  Springee (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that several sources mentioned that the article has been accused of being Islamophobic, and plenty of other sources have described accusations that fall within this mantle: racism, miscategorizing (i.e. lying about) the Muslim communities in London, spreading unwarranted fear, race baiting etc., it seems to me that the inclusion of this descriptor seems very due and important. BeŻet (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First, you should note that you are an involved editor. Second, we don't have several sources that "accuse Ngo of...". We have a few reliable sources that say "the article was accused of being...".  The sources that nake the extreme claims you are putting forth (racism, lying etc) are either not RS's or are saying "others said" but are unwilling to make the claim themselves. The description offered by unknown Twitter trolls et al is neither due nor important to a neutral telling of the facts. Springee (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone working on improving the article is an "involved editor". With all due respect, arguing that there is a meaningful difference between accusing the article of being Islamophobic and accusing the author of the article of being Islamophobic is quiet nonsensical. The sources making the "extreme claims" are certiainly reliable sources (you constantly and relentlessly claim they aren't without backing it up with any regulations or past decisions, and it's time you stopped doing that) and we have handled them properly by using WP:INTEXT. It seems to me that quite a lot of editors have now explained all these things to you and you refuse to back down, therefore I am not sure how we should proceed from here. BeŻet (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you were the editor who added at least some of the material in question. Involved matters in terms of getting new/independent perspectives on the discussion. You have claim Commune Magazine and Newer are reliable but based on what? I have backed my unreliable claim, you have not supported yours.  We don’t have in text attribution since you can’t say who made the claim. Masem et al are correct, the quotes are undue. Springee (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't, I just added additional sources. You have claim Commune Magazine and Newer are reliable but based on what? - Because it's a magazine with editorial oversight and there hasn't been anything suggesting they have a poor reputation for checking the facts. I have backed my unreliable claim - I don't remember seeing that, I just remember you referencing their tagline with absolutely no explaination whatsoever, as if the tagline has anything to do with their reputation for checking the facts. I've asked you several times to provide any rules or guidelines that are broken by those sources, and you've never delivered. We don’t have in text attribution since you can’t say who made the claim. - That's exactly my point, there is no need for in text attribution because the article has been widely considered Islamophobic. BeŻet (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I see you added the "racist" quote that came from The Splinter (no evidence they are a RS) []. That is more of a DUE question since there is no evidence that Op-Ed should have any weight.  Springee (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Springee: maybe you could pitch a version of what you're talking about? I'm really fine with any wording that accurately characterizes the accusations. I basically agree, but I don't see any harm if we can get the same idea across with less "charged" language.  The essence of the accusation is that he has made exaggerated or inaccurate claims that present Muslims as threatening to the west. Its possible to say that without the word "Islamophobic".   Nblund talk 17:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that language other than "Islamophobic" could be used. While it seems like an appropriate summary of the criticism to me, I would also be interested in seeing suggested alternatives from Springee. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll propose a rewrite of the material in the next few days. That hopefully can make all at least less unhappy.  To be clear, I don't mind including the criticism but far too many of our articles read is if the intent of the editors is to ensure readers hate the subject rather than understand the subject. Note: that isn't to say that the editors are acting in bad faith.  I've been accused of whitewashing articles in the past when I had no such intention.  Either way, it's better to explain the details rather than just quote the inflammatory words.  That seems to be a view held by a number of editors.  Springee (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * While I don't really plan to get too involved in this discussion, I do agree that Islamophobia" is a poor choice of word. First, it's not even a real word but a slang term. The word "phobia" suggests a medical/physiological phenomenon, which is an uncontrollable, irrational fear of something. However, we seem to use the term as an equal for "hatred", which is not at all the same thing. My sister, for example, has an uncontrollable, irrational fear of snakes. She does not hate them by any means, but cannot even look at a picture of one because it gives her the willies. I think this trend arose from the use of the word to describe hatred against homosexuals, but even homophobe is a slang term that gives that connotation of an uncontrollable fear rather than a dislike, and people shouldn't be ridiculed over a physiological conditions they cannot help. (If anyone should understand this you'd think it would be homosexuals.) Likewise, if someone truly has an uncontrollable fear of Islam it also should not be a thing of ridicule but a real psychological condition they cannot help. I'm not seeing any real phobia here, but rather a misuse of the term, so I think at best we should find a more intelligent way to say it. Zaereth (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum to push fringe person opinions as you do here. Challenging the very legitimacy of the term Islamophobia is a non-starter. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Islamophobia is not a slang term, it's widely used and well defined, and using the term is definitely "intelligent". BeŻet (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This: Not all words that end in "phobia" are proper medical terms related to psychologically-determined fears. "Xenophobia" is common to discuss broader, non-psychological fears related to foreigners, for example. But I would stress that "xenophobia" and "Islamophobia" are labels so if used must require the proper sourcing from RSes and inline attribution. --M asem  (t) 15:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Contentions that the subject/their work is Islamophobic (and racist) appear to be entirely DUE. I find the argument that these words are “inflammatory” rather than descriptive to be an odd one which I am unable to see the merits of, other than whitewashing that is. I also note that those objecting to the word's existence, like User:Zaereth has done, are advancing a fringe argument that is not accepted by mainstream academics and is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are addressing the issue here. Also, LABEL explicitly says that we need to consider the use of inflammatory terms carefully.  Your attack on 's concerns ignores the inflamatory nature of the label which is part of the question here.  Springee (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Rashid Buttar
[Rashid Buttar] The article displays extreme bias against Dr. Buttar. We are aware of his work and the successes he has had in treating patients. The article is entirely negative. As such it is damaging to the professional reputation and character of the individual. I have tried to reduce it to the first two sentences only, but that edit, whilst factual, has been rejected. Please consider removing the page. It is better to have no page than a very incomplete and negatively biased item. Thank-you, Dr. Adrian P. Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ursatech (talk • contribs) 00:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * A WP-article is meant to be a summary of the WP:Reliable sources (as defined by WP) that exists on a topic. If those sources come down on the "negative" side, that's fine, the article can still be WP:NEUTRAL, we don't want WP:FALSEBALANCE. I have not checked the sources in any detail, but at a glance, the article seem ok-ish from the WP-perspective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Brock Blomberg


Hi, I'm Tom and I work for Ursinus College (as declared on my profile page and at Talk:Brock Blomberg). I've created a Wikipedia account to address what I believe to be inaccurate and misleading information on the page about the college's president, Brock Blomberg. On the Talk page, a box at the top mentions that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article," and that is basically what I'm trying to get help with. While the details I'm asking about have citations, I don’t believe they support what is written and, ultimately, the details are not about Blomberg himself, but rather about other people and/or the college.

I submitted an edit request to remove 2 paragraphs of text which were a clear misinterpretation of the references. I have also identified problematic text and tried to explain how the content is inappropriate based on the citations. However, User:Spintendo said my edit request was not formatted properly. I re-submitted my request after trying to format as instructed, but my request was collapsed and declined because User:Spintendo said I should only offer replacement text (and not ask to have it removed.) I am new here and acknowledge that I have plenty to learn about this process, but I firmly believe the issue is that this material isn't appropriate in a biography about Blomberg.

If you uncollapse the "Extended content" part of the most recent edit request, you'll see I identified problematic text. I also tried to highlight what sources actually say about these "controversies" (which reflect the actions of other people and the college more so than Blomberg himself). While I sincerely thank User:Spintendo for reviewing a few of my previous requests, I'm asking other editors to review as well, since I may have been unable to clearly communicate the points I’m trying to make. I understand editors reviewing my requests will be skeptical, and that is completely understandable, but I think if editors look at this from an objective viewpoint, they will agree this contentious material misrepresents sources and is unfair to include on this biographical page.

Thank you for considering this, and please let me know if there is a better venue for this discussion! TY Ursinus (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, again. I'm not seeing any replies here or on the Talk page. Higher up on this page, I see posts are archived in 7 days, and I also see, "For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Requests for comment/Biographies instead." Should I go ahead and submit a request for comment now, or am I supposed to wait a few more days to see if anyone replies here? Thanks for any procedural advice or feedback on the article's text. TY Ursinus (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. I think you make some very valid points. I looked at some of the sources and it does seem that, at the very least, the author is misinterpreting them to some degree. For example, one sources says the subject kicked a person out of a high-level position, which in our article we seem to interpret as firing the guy, but that may not necessarily be the case. This sometimes happens here, because we are supposed to read a source and then restate the meaning in our own words, to avoid copyright vios, but that sometimes leads us to misinterpretations of the sources or even synthesis. (Not intentional synth, I believe. It's a natural, unconscious reaction for people to cover all the voids and gaps in our knowledge, and fill in the unknowns with our own ideals and imagination, making our understanding seem complete when it really is not. That's something that's actually hard-wired into our brains. ie: You're driving down the road and see a beautiful woman, but the closer you get the less beautiful she becomes. From far away there were many gaps in your knowledge, which your imagination automatically fills in with your own ideals of what constitutes beauty.)


 * Unfortunately, I think you've bitten off more than anyone wants to chew. It's hard enough to keep a discussion around here focused on one thing, let alone several in one request. Keep in mind, we're talking about a community that can discuss for months/years about whether the "the" in The Beatles should be capitalized or not. (Did I get it right?) I don't have time to look at it all myself, as I'm literally on a much needed vacation right now. My advice: scale your requests back to something tackleable. The purpose of this noticeboard is to report BLP policy violations, but it can work just to get some more eyes on a discussion. But what I'm seeing is more of a content discussion, which is best done at the article's talk page. If that doesn't work, you can try WP:RfC. If that still doesn't work, then you may have to either be more convincing or accept that consensus may be against you. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough reply and recommendation. I've resubmitted a much narrower request specifically seeking removal of misrepresented text and detail about Michael Marcon. I'm hoping you or another editor will review and update the article on my behalf. Thank you. TY Ursinus (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't normally work on biographies, and am here a little bit by accident, so forgive me if I'm being clueless. Have posted at the article's talk page.  Pelagic (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. I just saw the pings. (I don't always look, but do appreciate the thought.). I don't think we're trying to make people jump through a bunch of unnecessary COI loops. These rules exist for good reason. No to mention we all have other things going on in our lives. We're all volunteers here, so, sorry to say, a volunteer's response is typically what you're going to get. I'm literally checking in between flights, so I really don't have the time necessary to put into this. When I get more time, I may come back to it... or I may forget. Things around here can be fast paced or slower than molasses. We're just gradually building an encyclopedia bit by bit.


 * Another thing to consider is that I have respect for the opposing editor, so I am obligated to take their objections seriously, even if I don't agree with them. Who knows?? I may be wrong. (Believe it or not, it has happened ... more frequently than I care to admit. It's a wonder I'm still alive! ) That usually happens from rushing in too fast and not doing the proper research. I don't see any real urgency here, at least, not from a BLP standpoint. Otherwise, the best place for this discussion is at the article's talk page. Zaereth (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Lee Hsien Loong and the attempted removal of negative content about him by IP users
There are many reliable substantiation of controversies by the current Prime Minister of Singapore that are now removed in this BLP repeatedly by IP users. One example is the practice of Nepotism by Singapore's ruling government. The current Prime Minister is the son of the first Prime Minister, and many of his family members hold key posts in the government. Another content he reduced was the liberal suits against foreign press. He reason for the removal was because the suit was settled, which is a really poor argument. The content written about nepotism in Lee Hsien Loong's page (which was duly cited with reliable sources) was also removed without any strong arguments. Another attempt was to mask other controversies by messing around the subheadings around the BLP page without consulting anyone in the talk page. The effort was made and any attempt to undo the changes was reverted. Singapore's General Election is coming and there may be house-keeping attempts by certain users to turn the BLP page to something more positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that if it was properly sourced the removal is not justified. You should however stop edit warring with the IP and seek venues for dispute resolution, as you both have stepped over the three revert rule since the removal done by the IP is not obvious vandalism, specially since the subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also please note that at least on the last revert, the removed content was not explicitly sourced by the reference so deleting it was justified. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * From the reverts I don't see content removed, but rather a reorganisation. This can be discussed on the talk page.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Twin Galaxies legal team responds to Billy Mitchell's defamation allegations
Competitive video game player Billy Mitchell has threatened legal action against Twin Galaxies, alleging that the organization has defamed him. A key aspect of the defense against Mitchell's defamation allegations is the fact that Twin Galaxies has never claimed he cheated. The response from the Twin Galaxies legal team can be conveniently viewed in this tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/ersatz_cats/status/1177840834311385088 ... The relevant paragraph is at the top of the third page. For verification, the document can also be found at the Twin Galaxies website here: https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/176004-Dispute-Jeremy-Young-Arcade-Donkey-Kong-Points-Hammer-Allowed-Player-Billy-L-Mitchell-Score-1-062-800?p=1056699&viewfull=1#post1056699 ... The problem with Mitchell's Wikipedia biography is a section discussing his disputed score performances under the section header "Cheating": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell_(video_game_player)#Cheating ... My recommendation would be to change the section header to "Disputed score performances" in keeping with official statements from Twin Galaxies. The section also contains a statement which isn't supported by the cited source: "Young's analysis has been criticized by Mitchell as being from an altered tape that otherwise matches Mitchell's gameplay pixel-for-pixel ..." Mitchell has never criticized Young's analysis in this way, and my recommendation would be to remove that entire sentence. The article is currently protected. I've raised the issue of the accusatory section header with administrator Sergecross73 more than once on the article's talk page, and he's responded, incorrectly in my opinion, that it isn't a BLP violation. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is completely fair, and I will make that change (knowing enough of the situation), and make sure wording is consistent. --M asem (t) 22:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also I checked on that sentence and technically you are correct, but it is more about specificity and misplaced sources. Mitchell did suggest that Young's tape was fabricated, to which Young, in a separate article, explained why it likely wasn't. I've fixed that sentence to make sure the prose follows the sourcing and the sourcing follows needed quotes. --M asem (t) 22:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response to the BLP violations, as well as for all of your additional improvements to the article. I believe Mitchell suggested Dwayne Richard had altered the footage from the original tape by splicing in MAME footage when the barrel boards were loading, not by fabricating a tape that "matches Mitchell's gameplay pixel-for-pixel". That was the heart of the BLP violation, which you appear to have addressed in a way that's faithful to the sources. Thanks again. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my main stance was that they should start a new discussion about the concern, and make an edit request about it, because the initial concern was brought up deep within a discussion about something else. The IP instead decided to...wait 5 days and then bring the discussion here instead? A bizarre choice for someone who thinks an issue is an urgent BLP violation where there was no time to discuss it in the talk page. But that’s what they do. The page get protected, often because of their own efforts of edit warring, editing against consensus, and not using sources, and then they call everything a BLP violation from the talk page in a effort to circumvent discussion, which they likely avoid because they’ve historically had a very hard time persuading anyone into a consensus they’re aiming for. Masem, feel free to adjust as you see fit, I trust your judgment. The article isn’t perfect, it’s just that this IP has largely exasperating the patience of most of the articles maintainers with endless bickering and refusal to follow basic protocol like starting discussions and getting a consensus. Sergecross73   msg me  00:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'd asked you whether the accusatory "Cheating" section header was a BLP violation five days ago, and you'd ignored the question. Today I'd asked again, and you'd finally responded that it wasn't a BLP violation. That was your "main stance", and it was incorrect in my opinion. That's why I brought the discussion here, and contrary to one of your many reckless false accusations above, there's nothing "bizarre" about it. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who'd like to evaluate your claims is more than welcome to read the article's talk page, as well as the previous discussions you've unilaterally closed and archived. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just previous to that I told you how to handle it. Must I copy/paste that response every time you pose similar questions on the talk page? Again, your ”it’s so blatant there’s no time for discussion but also let’s wait five days to bring it up elsewhere” stance is baffling every time you do it. But that aside, thank you for finally opening up a new discussion for your new concern, rather than raising it 20 comments into an unrelated discussion. Hopefully this shows you the benefits of opening up new discussions as you’ve been instructed to do repeatedly in the past. Sergecross73   msg me  02:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently I don't have as much time to devote to Wikipedia as you do, and my understanding is that, per Wikipedia policy, BLP violations should be removed without waiting for discussion. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you don’t understand what BLP issues are so problematic that they require instant removal. An example. “An article subject is a poopface”. Blatant violation, erase on sight. But so many of your interactions play out like:


 * IP: (10 comments into an unrelated discussion) Excuse me, the article says the subject has blue eyes. Actually, they’re green.
 * Editors: Please start a discussion and provide your reliable sources.
 * IP: But this is very false and misleading and defamatory and he’s a BLP so per BLP you must delete this at once.
 * Editors: That is not so bad that it needs instant removal. Please start a discussion.
 * IP: (Idle complaining for days/weeks without opening a discussion that would ever garner participants that would get to any sort of consensus)
 * Hopefully we’ve finally broken the cycle with you actually opening a separate discussion up for once. Sergecross73   msg me  03:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you, as an administrator, refer to yourself as "Editors" (plural). WP:BLP seems to indicate that BLP violations should be removed "without waiting for discussion" regardless of whether the material is "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". I don't see any requirement for the material to meet your criterion of being especially "problematic". 208.53.226.47 (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really know or care to know what's going on here but Sergecross73 is right if you treat someone's eye colour as an urgent BLP vio requiring immediate correction you're not going to get very far here. This isn't to say it shouldn't be corrected, but even BLP, as with all policies, requires using a little common sense in application. Also we are all volunteers, and there are so many problems. Ultimately someone has to do the work and so per WP:SOFIXIT, it might as well be you. If you aren't willing or able to do the work, then you can't magically expect all problems to be fixed no matter how urgent you think they are. I don't think moaning about how others aren't fixing some problem and you "don't have as much time to devote to Wikipedia as" other helps much when Talk:Billy Mitchell (video game player) is full of extremely long posts from the person who made the comment. Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right when you say you don't know what's going on here. Administrator Sergecross73's suggestion that I've treated someone's eye color as a BLP violation is just another installment in his months-long series of lies and personal smears against me. With that said, I'd probably treat eye color as a BLP violation if an editor were repeatedly reinserting unsourced, objectively false information about it even after being directly told it was false, which is a very good analogy for what Wallyfromdilbert was doing with his repeatedly reinserted insinuations that Billy Mitchell had been driven out of competitive gaming. I'd be glad to "do the work" fixing the many obvious flaws in Mitchell's biography, but Sergecross73 has falsely accused me of multiple policy violations as a pretext for repeatedly restoring page protection to the article. I'm sorry if it seems to you that I'm "moaning". To me it seems that I'm correcting ruthless lies. Rest assured that the time I've dedicated to what you call "extremely long" comments on the talk page is time I would have much rather dedicated to improving articles. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was just a hypothetical example to illustrate your poor understand of BLP. And judging by your responses so far, it was spot on, as you’ve yet to object conceptually. You seem to think that’s proper application of BLP. It’s not. Sergecross73   msg me  22:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

If there's no reliable source for a claim that the subject has blue eyes, WP:BLP says very clearly that the claim should be removed "without waiting for discussion". We obviously disagree about which of us has a poor understanding of the policy. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My scenario never said there were no sources though. Nor would I ever suggest that. If there were no sources, then it could be removed per WP:V. You appear to be missing the point entirely. Sergecross73   msg me  04:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * From my perspective you appear to be the one who's missing the point entirely. There were no reliable sources for Wallyfromdilbert's repeatedly reinserted insinuations that Billy Mitchell had been driven out of competitive gaming. If there are reliable sources in your scenario, then you're smearing me with a blatantly false analogy, which is even more deceitful. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not accurate. In fact, your characterization was so off, no one even knew what you were talking about. At no point did the article say he was “driven from his profession”. Somebody added the word “former” next to his profession. Right or wrong, that’s not a BLP violation in itself. And you refused to discuss, explain, or provide sourcing, you just kept yelling “BLP BLP!”, so your change wasn’t made. (At the time you couldn’t make the change yourself because the page was protected from you edit warring and editing without consensus multiple times.) But above all, the change wasn’t made because you refused to explain. Multiple times I pointed out that I didn’t understand the requested change, because I did a “control F” and didn’t see the word “driven” in the article once. I asked you to provide a WP:DIF of the change you wanted. You refused. I asked for an exact change request per WP:EDITREQUEST. You refused. People literally couldn’t help you because you refused to articulate your request. Sergecross73   msg me  13:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've explained to you over and over on the talk page, I undid exactly one revision to the article without attempting to improve the content, and I only did so to call attention to the fact that Wallyfromdilbert and Smuckola were repeatedly obliterating my contributions while refusing to clarify their objections or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. I don't see how a reasonably honest and intelligent administrator could continue to construe that as "edit warring". I'd addressed your other accusations more than two weeks ago in this comment on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=916655648 208.53.226.47 (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn’t the venue to discuss your edit-warring and editing without consensus. Honestly, unless you’ve got any more requests related to BLP content to make, there’s no reason this conversation needs to keep going at all. Sergecross73   msg me  20:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many reasons for this conversation to keep going, but on the article's talk page, not here. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Claim that Emilia Clarke has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Emilia Clarke. At the talk page, I argued that "Per WP:REDFLAG, what other sources state that she has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? If it's true, other reliable sources should confirm it. That is what WP:REDFLAG, a policy, is about in cases such as these. I just Googled the matter and I am not seeing anything. Is the French magazine an exclusive interview? I will alert the WP:BLP noticeboard to this matter for more opinions." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at it, nope, it's not an exclusive interview. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * (Copying what I said on her talk page) Translated from French the June 2018 article says: ""The 1.57-meter mini-model has had an exceptional ride that now leads her to the Hollywood throne. Enough to give strength to all children, suffering like her from the syndrome of attention deficit with hyperactivity (TDHA) and for which the actress takes a treatment.""


 * It is strange that there is only one source reporting on her having ADHD and that the source itself doesn't seem to have actually interviewed her-- it seems to be based on Emilia's instagram posts. I don't think it's impossible that she really does have ADHD, it's just strange there aren't better/more sources reporting it. The top hit on google appears to be an August 2017 reddit post that mentions its source for the claim as wikipedia... but that's before the article was published... Was this claim previously on wikipedia? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(Copying what I said on her talk page) Ok, I understand your concern and I suggest we keep this out until we find a better source. I'm positive better sources exist though, because I clearly remember her mentioning her ADHD herself in an interview. It was in a morning show called "This Morning!" in the UK. She mentioned this quickly when talking about an anecdote (that she lost a data collector job due to her hyperactivity). Unfortunately, I can't find it online at the moment, but there are some links on google from conversations referring to it (i.e a reddit conversation, and a lipstickalley conversation, an IMDB list, etc etc.) Also, when googling about this in French, there are much more credible sources that mention her diagnosis and use of medication (Ritalin), notably Le Figaro on this page, as well as other french magazines. This suggests that she probably also mentioned having ADHD in an interview that took place in French. Leave it out for now, but I will look for the This Morning! interview when I have more time, and if I can't find it (or if copyright issues arise) I will look at interviews in France. Gaolinual (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

John Draper
I'd appreciate some more eyes on this article. Multiple allegations of inappropriate sexual activities surfaced in 2017 and the subject has admitted that the allegations are true, but disputes that there was sexual intent. Various IPs have been trying to completely remove the content or downplay it, labelling it as "tabloid journalism", "a hitpiece", "circumstantial" and based off "social media". To me, the sourcing seems extremely solid and given that the subject admits the events occurred, they are not just allegations, but I don't have much experience with walking the delicate line on a subject such as this. SmartSE (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ali al-Sistani
I disagree with over the content of this diff, as I feel like it misrepresents the content of the source by making it seem like the clerics engaged in pimping are followers of Ali al-Sistani and/or are doing this with his tacit approval while none of the sources explicitly say that is the case.--Catlemur (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with . The cited sources all specifically mention Sistani, directly quote his own book, post Sistani's reply to their content, and contains video footage of a Sistani-affiliated cleric who is seen on footage reiterating Sistani's fatwas. In addition to all of this, the sources are specifically centered on the Iraqi Shia religious establishment, which is headed and administered by Ali Sistani (and to a lesser, negligible extent Mohammad Yaqoobi). — LissanX (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Catlemur. I also believe this material should not be included as written. It is misleading, poorly sourced for a BLP (the tabloid Daily Star (United Kingdom) has a history of fabricating stories and images), and most importantly, as Catlemur states the articles cited aren't even about al-Sistani (in fact, the Daily Star article itself quotes al-Sistani as condemning the actions of individual cleric). The behavior is despicable but this is a BLP article and if al-Sistani is implicated in these cases, we need legitimately reliable sources explicitly stating it.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the Daily Star is generally considered less reliable than the Daily Mail so I would say yes, contentious material about BLPs definitely has to go if exclusively sourced to the Daily Star. Nil Einne (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW one of the key reasons for my "exclusively" comment is that it looks like the BBC is another ref. Some sentences are only tagged with the Daily Star which are probably a problem but it's possible the content is supported by the BBC it just wasn't tagged. Some have both the BBC and the Daily Star, these need to be checked to ensure what they say is supported by the BBC. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)