Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive233

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Jeff Doucette

I'm not sure if I'm writing to the right place. There's only a single reference in the article and that's citing IMDb, which is not a reliable source. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It would have been easier and more useful to search for more sources and add them to the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, please don't WP:BITE the newbies. I performed a search and didn't find much of anything myself, so I can see where their concerns came from. I did add some credits from his IMDb profile and offhand he looks like he should pass - he had some lengthy roles in some notable productions like Newhart, so he should pass on that criteria even though sourcing is fairly lacking. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Giving advice is not biting.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It would have been easier and less bitey for you to not tell someone who already knows they're uncertain about what they're doing that they're doing it wrong and being less than useful. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If someone is uncertain about what they ought to do, I tell them what they ought to do. And that is not being less than useful, but being useful. Being bitey would be if I were sarcastic or simply posted a link to WP:SOFIXIT. I did not. I gave them advice on how to behave in the future to best improve the encyclopedia. And that was what they were in fact needing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

In the future, instead of explaining to multiple experienced users how you weren't being bitey, it may be easier and more useful for you to reflect that multiple experienced users saw your remarks as being bitey, and if it looks that way to them, imagine how it looks to the inexperienced user you directed those remarks at. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It could have been said better. But the OP has been here more than a year. Does that still qualify as a "newbie"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In this context? Probably. People only turn up at dramaboards when they are either summoned or need intervention with someone else. A good content editor who gets into few conflicts could go years without knowing any of the backroom processes... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The length of the account doesn't automatically mean that a person is aware of policy. I've seen people sign up with an account and have it for years and years, yet their edits were so sporadic that there's really no way that they'd necessarily get a good awareness of the guidelines. Vice versa, I've seen people sign up with accounts and only hold them for a few months, yet learn policy very quickly, enough to where most of us wouldn't see them as a newb unless we looked at their edit history and saw some major errors. Either way, it's usually better to try to phrase things more nicely since it's easy for things to come across wrong on the Internet since you're not there to give inflections or body language that would say that you're not trying to be overly harsh. In any case, in this case the editor may have searched but was unaware of what could or couldn't be used - and didn't know if the lack of sources meant that the person wasn't notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

NYT gives cast lists for some shows -- added one NYT "certified RS" cite just now. Collect (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

IMDB is typically considered reliable for basic facts, such as titles, dates, and cast and crew. Where it's unreliable is in matters of "trivia", such as "The length of Joe Schmoe's hair changes from short to long to short, in the same scene." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Rick Smith (American football executive)

Brought to my attention through a Reddit post, an upset fan had his way through the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.130.194 (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Done - Thanks for pointing this out. I have reverted those changes and cleaned up some minor issues. GermanJoe (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Askmen.com

I need a second set of eyes to assess an edit. I think I'm right but I've been accused of being a "rabid deletionist" recently and I'm a little gun-shy. Please review this edit. If it seems overcautious, please feel free to revert. David in DC (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Good edit. Revolting site. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Askmen.com does not have the hallmarks of a reliable source for biographical purposes, so I would agree with your removal of that contentious information. As always, very few facts which are both true and relevant are reported in ONE AND ONLY one source of spurious reliability. Things which are true and relevant can always be traced to multiple highly reliable sources, so if the fact needs to be mentioned in Wikipedia, it should be trivial to find a better source. If a better source cannot be found, it is not either verifiably true or relevant. --Jayron32 15:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reality check. David in DC (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The claim "supported" in askmen.com was controversial, on a BLP, and there were no additional sources to support it. I agree 100% with you removal. Meatsgains (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Nikki and John Pranksters in Love

Article is about a webseries/web personalities and much of the sourcing appears to be YouTube video interviews, etc. from the the subjects of the article themselves. The Wired article about the two seems to be the only source cited which is independent of the subject. Everything else is either a social media account or just a link which does not mention the show at all. Claims such as "their channel reached 1 million subscribers" and "their videos have received more than a quarter of a billion views" are made, but not supported by a reliable source. Same for most of the personal information later in the article. Anyway, I was wondering if some other editors might take a look and suggest improvements. I tried Googling for sources, but so far have only found trivial mentions and social media pages. I understand the article is not technically a BLP, but much of the content seems to be about Nikki and John themselves. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion. It's sort of borderline and can go either way. I figure that AfD is the best place for this, since they can decide if the appearances on the various shows will give notability or not. Normally it would contribute, but this is for shows that pick stuff off the Internet so it's sort of a different sort of scenario. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look Tokyogirl79. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Michael Schmidt (poet)

Page keeps getting updated with "His son Charles is a former member of the National Front and moderator of neo-nazi website Stormfront." It's been reverted a ton of times with comments like "Contentious non-sequitur meant to target and endanger", page was briefly protected but that expired and here it is again. Same thing was happening with Claire Harman (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but that page has now been protected for the same reason.

I have no idea whether this is true, nor do I care, it's just annoying.

@AlCracka: Just Googled it and there is apparently a reliable source - here and here from 2004. But there might still be issues of relevance to the article, I'm not an expert on that. Contentious and irrelevant sounds about right, especially since there's no source I can see for this person's sustained activity as a National Front person. More importantly, it might also be worth adding details that Harman & Schmidt were married as I can't see that on the articles. This seems to usable as a source for that. Blythwood (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Blythwood: Thanks man! Your links both go to the same place (ctrl-c error obv), but that seems like a viable source. But yeah, as you said, still seems irrelevant. Page is about the poet, not his kid. Also, thanks for prettying up that page in general. (In case anyone cares: I don't know Michael Schmidt, I just read his book and looked him up and here we are. Also in case anyone cares: if Michael Schmidt is himself a racist he's pretty deep undercover; he calls out anti-Semitic and other hateful attitudes in e.g. Knut Hamsun when they come up in his enormous Novel: A Biography. None of this is relevant anyway.) AlCracka (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2015 (EST)

Enrique Marquez (accomplice)

Just seen this article on the new pages feed about an associate of the perpetrators of the San Bernadino terrorist attacks. It has relevant sources, but calls the person an 'accomplice' in the title. I'm also not convinced this should be a separate article from the one on the attacks, although news articles say Mr. Martinez is expected to be charged. Can someone look at the article? I think it may at least need to be moved to a less inflammatory title. Blythwood (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've put this up for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrique Marquez (accomplice) - but frankly, someone with administrator capability may consider nuking it sooner, as this person has not even been charged yet. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

He is now under arrest. Note that I started a discussion on article's talk page asking for help with the article name almost as soon as I started the article. And that I started the article hours after every major wire service and media outlet in the country (plus Britain) had published major stories stating that the arrest would happen today. I hope that an administrator will close the AFD. AFDs at the top of a breaking news story make Wikipedia look silly. I am happy to have the title of the article changed, it has to have a disambig because there are many Enriques Martinez in on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"AFDs at the top of a breaking news story make Wikipedia look silly." Pretty strong beliefs you've got there. And the real question is this: "Is this breaking news story notable enough to warrant an immediate article, or even an article at all?" Parsley Man (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought so before I started editing, I've even heard people joke about it - as a way to disparage Wikipedia's pretension to having standards. Of course, it's just an opinion. Marquez is notable enough to top the headlines twice today, once in anticipation of his arrest, and now, again, because he was arrested: [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd move the question to "is it so important that we cover this as a breaking news story, despite Wikipedia's not being designed as a breaking news source, that it is worth ignoring our guidelines and, in Wikipedia's voice, leveling a criminal accusation against a living person who had not been charged?" --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, it's now at Enrique Marquez (US citizen) per WP:BLP. Not sure if you folks usually change the thread title or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- That would do until or if he gets convicted of something. "Accomplice" is plainly a BLP violation at the present time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Bijeljina massacre RfC

Your input is requested at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka_Arkan) Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Don Young

There has been a slow-motion edit war occurring on this article between Tiller54 and 100.14.57.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), stretching back to an edit the IP made over three months ago, centered on whether or not the lead should acknowledge the numerous controversies (contrived or not) involving Young. Seeing as how I've a) previously posted to this venue my concerns of how that article gives undue weight to those events (it's only been very recently that editing activity has gotten away from that and more towards making it a proper biographical article instead of a rehashing of yesterday's or last week's headlines) and b) previously posted elsewhere my concerns of how Tiller54 is out to maintain a rather egregious WP:OWN complex over an astounding number of articles (which could possibly have something to do with why this GA nomination has gone nowhere for over two months), I would just as soon stay out of this issue aside from bringing it to greater attention. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Tyler Rifley

AFAIC, this is what we get for encouraging people to write incidental content which more closely resembles social media fodder than encyclopedia-worthy material, and based on poor-quality media sources to boot. Oh yeah, that's the other thing – "reliably sourced" ≠ "gospel truth", especially considering the sorry shape of the newspaper industry in this day and age, but we've nonetheless pushed people in the direction of believing that, too. Regardless, I'm wondering aloud whether this should be speedily deleted instead of PRODed out of BLP concerns. As the proposer mentioned, there is little connection between the two sources and the information presented therein besides the similarities in name and age. Even though our local newspaper is frequently subject to criticism which for the most part is warranted, one would hope that they would have drawn a connection between someone sitting in jail and someone having a top-100 single rather than just lazily repeat the police department's press releases. Since they didn't, however, that leaves enough doubt. There is another police blotter hit from the FDNM related to a stalking charge the year before. The ages given in both stories don't necessarily match up with the DOB given in the article. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I speedy deleted the article. I did a search and could find no reliable sources on this person's notability. In addition, the subjects personal website is dead, another indicator that he is not notable. Add in the BLP issue and speedy deleting was needed.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Jim_Clancy_(journalist)

I am the subject of this page.

Repeatedly, someone keeps trying to insert assertions about my departure from CNN not based in fact or supported by the cited articles.

Their insertion(s) try to smear me by saying Jim Clancy claimed Israel was responsible for the Charlie Hebdo tragedy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I tried to edit it by simply saying "On January 16, 2015, Clancy announced he was leaving the network after nearly 34 years.[1][2]

Both of those articles contain my notice of leaving CNN. Both cite "controversial" tweets. IMHO opinion, the best way to address it is the way I have edited it and leave the sources listed intact.

Thank You for your consideration.

Jim Clancy (Gearscout) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gearscout (talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The content is reliably sourced. I modified the claim to better reflect the source. Meatsgains (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That removes the smear. I appreciate your fairness.

Jim Clancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gearscout (talk • contribs) 00:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. The previous claim was POV. Meatsgains (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Serbs of Croatia

Unsourced entries pertaining to living people have been repeatedly added (by different editors), then removed (by me), and most recently my cleanup edit was reverted by an IP editor.[2]

In the Balkans, spurious information about someone's ethnic background may be reasonably seen as problematic WP:BLP-wise, especially in the wake of Yugoslav Wars. Therefore, my understanding of WP:BLPREMOVE, as well as WP:LISTPEOPLE, is that editors are free to remove any and all unsourced entries from such a list. The discussion about this issue can be seen in the article's talk page.

Of course, while I believe I'm free to revert all such additions as needed, before going into WP:3RR territory I'd like to hear a second opinion regarding the interpretation of WP:BLP. GregorB (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Categorization of people by ethnicity, religion, etc. is always a problem for any living person, and best practice is not to assign categories or claims which are not self-identified. Collect (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Concur. Anything that broaches on ethnicity in the Yugoslav area is highly likely to be problematic. Especially on BLP's. Agree with your removal. Its not like you didnt warn in advance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, this seems far below the expected standard for sourcing for a BLP. Firstly its a Wordpress blog, secondly the blog does not directly call him Serbian - it starts with a paragraph about the origin of the name 'Socolovich' and only mentions in passing as the 'descendant of the Ottoman Empire'... The IP who inserted that also reverted Gregor on the above article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, inferential reasoning (i.e. WP:OR) is a problem too. Also, I'd say that poor sourcing invites more poor sourcing, just as unsourced and/or dubious entries tend to attract even more unsourced and dubious entries - all the more reason to clean things up. GregorB (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Mohammad Ali Taheri

The awards in this page are bloated, failing to have sources cited for them, and in many cases falsified to some extend (e.g. a Gold award where as there was a special award which is mostly just a participation award!) A single award that mentions a few subject was repeated many times over trying to show that there were more awards involved. An extensive search of awards returned no result other than the self reported origins for these awards.

I have removed some of the unsourced material, but the article is hopelessly out of balance. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Panagiotis Kone

Conflicting sources about ancestry/ethnicity and I argue that apart from it being OR, one of those sources can be demonstrated to be unreliable here: https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Talk:Panagiotis_Kone#Contradicting_sources. Moreover, Kone has self-declared as being of "Albanian ancestry", but this is constantly being dismissed without explanation.

Nosratollah Momtahen

Help with the article for Nosratollah Momtahen. User:Aalborzz has twice added details of the alleged death of the subject (this user also claims to be the grandson of the subject). However, the changes have been reverted twice as they don't seem to verfify this. Now the source provided is also in Persian, which I have no knowledge of. Any help with this would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The source User:Aalborzz provided is the search directory for people buried in Behesht-e Zahra cemetary. However (based on my horrendous farsi reading skills), it looks like the search link he provided doesn't show any results. To double check I searched the farsi version of his name Aalborzz provided in the search engine and got no results. But given that the website was down a few hours earlier, this could just be the site acting up. @Aalborzz: Do you know any Iranian newspapers that have an obituary for him? Brustopher (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Len Saunders

This article is a straight puff piece. I'll go through and remove some of the promotional content but a helping hand would be appreciated. Meatsgains (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

to me, not a blp regular, the article appears entirely without sources I'm rushing off to write my own blp ... Roxy the dog, one of the worlds greatest humanitarians, was born ... -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated it for proposed deletion; doesn't really seem to fit the qualities of an encyclopedic biography and a quick Google doesn't come up with anything significant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Dave Brytus

Dave Brytus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've removed very contentious, unsourced edits from this BLP a couple of times. An example is here. Could someone take a look? EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Obvious BLP violations; highly-negative, entirely-unsourced claims about a living person don't belong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Revdel is probably called for here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all cleared up. If it continues it should get protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Person is, however, likely notable per WP guidelines - AfD would be required not a simple Prod. Collect (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Allegations from the Paula Jones lawsuit

Kathleen Willey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Juanita Broaddrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have two articles Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick that are clear BLP1Es. I don't want any information discarded, as these were the talk of a nation for some time, but they are not biographies, and they concern related allegations dragged out in the Paula Jones lawsuit (itself in sorry shape, with an unsourced section tag). I would guess it is not logistically feasible to merge all three into a mega-article about the lawsuit. I would tentatively suggest something like a merge of the two to something like Sexual assault allegations in the Paula Jones lawsuit against Bill Clinton. Reprocessing to major sections about each woman should be pretty minimal, though both would benefit from an initial framing background section. What do you think? Wnt (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

BLP1Es indeed. My preference would be to reduce these articles to key aspects and merge that material into an article about the allegations, but it will be a hard task to do well... - Cwobeel (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

Now that more eyeballs are on this, discussions are ongoing at article's talk page. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following quote is out taken of context and does not reflect either its actual historical significance and/or the intention its inclusion within the Phoenix New Times article written about me (1996) by journalist Tony Ortega. The quote reads, "Ross has been reviled in print as a kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater. Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas. He's been hounded by private investigators and threatened with violence. Some of his friends fear for his life." Ortega specifically reported about Scientologists, cult leaders and their operatives attacking and harassing me, hiring private investigators, threatening me, etc. This name calling was attributed to Scientology and other groups called "cults." WP:Biographies of Living Persons "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care" Also "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light)." And "Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself." See the original article http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 From the same article explaining "reviled in print" and "blame...for the disaster at Waco," Tony Ortega reported, "In January, Freedom magazine, which is published by the Church of Scientology, carried an article suggesting that Ross was responsible for the deaths at Waco." Regarding "private investigators," Ortega reported, "Steve Kamp of the Church of Immortal Consciousness admits that the dossier of Ross documents that he gives to the press was put together by Kendrick Moxon, the Scientologist attorney representing Jason Scott." Ortega further explained in the article, "Rick Ross had labeled Kamp's Tonto Village commune, the Church of Immortal Consciousness, a destructive cult. Enraged, Kamp has followed Ross to ASU looking for satisfaction. And he's brought along his son, his attorney, the undercover investigator, the process server, the incriminating dossiers." Further reported by Ortega, "Ross is known for his facility with the Bible. His talent for untwisting the Scripture that cult leaders employ to justify exploitative or even criminal behavior has put him in great demand. And, after 13 years and some of the most notable cases in American cult history, when Rick Ross calls a group a cult, people listen." Ortega, recently wrote a retrospective about the same article. See http://tonyortega.org/2015/11/30/where-it-all-began-for-us-rick-ross-david-koresh-and-the-church-of-scientology/ Please remove this harmful and misleading quote from the Waco Siege section of my bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's correctly quoted and the source's reliable, I see no reason to remove it. KoshVorlon 16:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and have removed the quote. If there are serious concerns about negative material – as there are here – we should err on the side of caution, have a discussion and try to reach some sort of 'consensus' before re-adding it. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion with this individual has happened over and over, Hillbillyholiday. Please look at the article talk page history to get an idea of what's really going on here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

WV, I have read the talkpage discussion and I don't really see a consensus there. Others have suggested changes, and I personally think that "reviled in print" is too strong a phrase not to present in some sort of context. Collect has been involved in the discussions, so I'm pinging him to see what he thinks. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed Collect when I scanned the talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As KoshVorlon noted, the content is correctly quoted and from a reliable source. In spite of the filer's claims, it is not taken out of context. The person filing this BLPN is forum shopping and has done so previously to get the result he desires. As well as being noted by other editors for WP:NOTHERE, he also has a WP:COI as the article subject. Editors noting attempts to whitewash and skew the article go back years. No one responded (rightly) at the talk page to his demand to have the content removed, so he has come here to get the result he desires. Pinging other editors who have commented at the talk page and/or devoted enormous amounts of time and energy to the article and requests of the report filer as they should be aware of this BLPN: Jbhunley, Elmmapleoakpine, Francis Schonken, Cwobeel. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

WP: Coatrack "Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person." And anyone that digs into the history of my bio will find that it has a long history of being used and abused in exactly that way in violation of Wikipedia policy. I am seeking fact based and fair editing within Wikipedia guidelines.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is a long running saga, but I don't believe "Forum shopping" applies. This is a legitimate concern and BLPN (which has far more viewers than the article's talkpage) is the correct venue to discuss the matter. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Coming here to get more eyes on a BLP should not be considered forum shopping. If coming here when you don't get your way on a BLP was forum shopping there is no need for this board. Every section here is because there is a dispute on a BLP and someone didn't get their way. If they keep coming back for the same concern that has previously been answered then there is a problem. -- GB fan 17:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, forum shopping may not apply. That said, COI does -- especially since the filer of this report stated that he feels the in-context, unbiased content is "harmful" to him. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And he is following the proper steps for someone with a COI, discussing on the article talk page and here, not directly editing the article. -- GB fan 18:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

GB fan, yes, he is taking the right steps, but if you look at the history of the article and the article subject's time in Wikipedia (which goes back several years), he has repeatedly made demands for changes to the article that benefit his online reputation rather than actually benefitting the article or Wikipedia in general. His is a WP:SPA and he is, arguably, WP:NOTHERE. Editors at the article have become tired of trying to meet his requests and demands, hence, the lack of response to his most recent demands at the article talk page. We are not required to respond to everything he wants nor are we required to make the article conform to his liking. This has been going on for years with him. When do we draw the line and say "enough"? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't put it any better than Midsize Jake did in a recent discussion at WPO:

A cult deprogrammer like Ross would recognize the cult-like aspects of Wikipedian group behavior almost immediately, and upon realizing that the top Google result for his name is under the control of such people, it's natural that he'd be alarmed - and just as natural that antagonism would follow.

--Hillbillyholiday ^talk 19:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you can say enough anytime you want to. He is a single purpose account and he is not here to contribute to any other part of the encyclopedia other than to the article about himself but no one has to work on anything other than what they want to. I think most people would fight to make sure an article about them is correct, especially when they are as controversial as this. He should be allowed to fight to make sure his article is right. He obviously doesn't think we are doing a good enough job. He is going to try to make the article as favorable to him as he can so we need to balance that, but trying to dismiss him or drive him away will never work. We need to work with him not against him. -- GB fan 19:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The article in the Phoenix New Times in question [3] could be better summarized in that article, including material about his early youth and background information. The Phoenix New Times article is quite comprehensive. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Tend to agree, the quote "Ross has been reviled in print as a kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater. Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas" seems a little unbalanced and not especially encyclopedic. Mr Ross's editing history, whether contentious or not, hardly makes this difficulty evaporate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to follow through according to Wikipedia policies. The quote was relatively recently added and is misleading. It is not self-explanatory and unless someone had read the entire article written by Tony Ortega they would not understand the context. The Waco Siege section of my bio is a bit of a coatrack WP:Coatrack.It is being used to hang either "biased material" or quote something that is "superficially true," but that "leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject." The selected scholars quoted or referenced represent a minority view and offer "biased negative opinions." This is, in my opinion, a "fact picking device"' that provides a small faction of academics a "soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you are quite justified in your concerns. It's difficult to know how the "religion hater" view can be put across without seeming to introduce bias. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)\

Thank you.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, the article appears to be more a resume or extension of Ross' marketing rather than an encyclopedia article about him. I've started a discussion and hope more editors will help. Discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ronz please restore the historical information that you deleted from the lead of my bio. Wikipedia: Citing Sources If you look at the Talk page the facts you deleted are well supported by secondary sources.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This not the appropriate forum for such requests. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment:(I don't want the good discussion to be sidetracked with my noting other issues) I agree with Hillbillyholiday, Cwobeel, and Martinevans123 - the source is being used poorly, and the quote is too much. The quote doesn't summarize the main points of the source, let alone the source as a whole, yet that's the only time editors feel it should be used?! Rick Alan Ross was correct in coming here with the concern. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It is never forum shopping or inappropriate in any way to bring a concern about a BLP here to BLPN. It is Kafkaesque to accuse a living person of having a conflict of interest in expressing concerns about accuracy, fairness and balance regarding our biography of a living person about their own life. The very first sentence of this thread is entirely correct: The quotation from the Phoenix New Times article was wrenched out of context and cherry picked to portray Ross in the worst possible light. I just read every word of that lengthy, detailed article, and that quote is in no way representative of the overall tone of the article. It is, in effect, a "devil's advocate" type of statement, summarizing the views of Ross's enemies, not the views of the writer of the article. Winkelvi, in my considered judgment, you are way out of line here and elsewhere regarding Ross, and have personalized things. You have taken a combative and confrontational stance toward Ross, and are hectoring and badgering him about his academic credentials when he has never claimed to be an academic. It is unseemly for a Wikipedia editor to treat a BLP subject this way. Please stop it now. Rick Alan Ross, I am sorry that you have been treated this way. I have the article about you on my watch list, and will do my best to ensure that it complies with the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

"Kafkaesque"? Oh, for the love of everything that is hyperbolic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You should recuse yourself from anything having to do with Ross, since your belligerence toward him is so glaringly obvious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you can't see the difference between objecting to disruptive, SPA behavior and belligerence toward someone none of us has ever met. The latter is an incorrect judgement and not what's happening, the former is reality and what's actually happening. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Your own words, recorded forever here at BLPN, on the article's talk page, and at ANI reveal the depth of your intense and personalized hostility to the BLP subject. Nothing good for you will come of this, Winkelvi, unless you freely choose to cease and desist now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you be just a little more dramatic for effect? I don't think you've hit your stride yet. Surely, you can do better than that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Those editors who have proven themselves incapable of editing a BLP from the NPOV should not edit that BLP. Case closed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

And since my editing at the article doesn't indicate any form of POV, I have nothing to worry about. Case (truly) closed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jim Riggleman

"In 2009, Riggleman was named manager with the nastiest farts in the league. He cleared the entire dugout during a game against the Mets, leading to this honorary distinction." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.47.31.225 (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

it has been reverted. -Nat Gertler (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Jon Poling

Cross-posting link to discussion on WP:NORN#Jon Poling. Please comment there as that is where I started the discussion. Everymorning (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Naveen Naqvi

The date of birth stated was incorrect. While it has been revised by a user, the erroneous age and birthday citing wikipedia appears on Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphanti (talk • contribs) 07:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:FIXGOOGLE. -Nat Gertler (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Poulet

I recently added the following information to the article Benedict Cumberbatch: "Cumberbatch dated actress Olivia Poulet, who he met at Manchester University, for twelve years. They ended their relationship in 2011." I added the same information to the article on Poulet. The information is supported by this Radio Times article and this Independent article. I also added a brief mention of Cumberbatch's relationship with fashion designer Anna Jones, citing another Independent article. I believe these all to be reliable sources.

However, another user removed my edits, leading to a minor edit war. As it stands, the information on Poulet and Jones is up in the Cumberbatch article, but mention of Cumberbatch has been removed from the Poulet article. Would someone with greater Wikipedia expertise be willing to examine the sources I have linked above to confirm they are reliable and support the information in question, and offer thoughts on how to handle the suggestions and concerns raised on Talk:Benedict Cumberbatch? -OneLittleDragon (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if the sources are reliable, there is the issue of whether the claims made are of encyclopedic value. And the fact that some articles even list what a person had for breakfast <g> does not mean that the information nbelongs in BLPs as a rule. Collect (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

David N. Keys

I think we need to take a look at the David N. Keys. There are possible notability problems, as well as BLP issues -- especially with the largely unexplained mention of a $200 million embezzlement. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to PROD the page for lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The main source was not up to WP:RS standards when it existed - and it is now defunct. Collect (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and PROD'd the page after the primary (alternative newspaper) source was removed. Meatsgains (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the page was requested for speedy deletion in April 2012 but the tag was removed by DavidKeysProject, the page's creator. Meatsgains (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Asra Nomani

Please see the opening sentence--it is offensives and defamatory and clearly intended to slur this woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.250.56 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Done - Clearly-defamatory vandalism has been reverted and the user in question warned. Page watchlisted. Thanks for reporting this. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence Gwozdz

I am the subject of the article on Lawrence Gwozdz. I am requesting that all information in the Personal Life section be deleted. If it is not possible to do so, then kindly delete the entire article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gartists (talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Gartists. I see that you deleted that section yourself, and I understand why, since it consisted of negative information about your wife, not you. I will keep an eye on the article, which is very much in need of better referencing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I noted this discussion was going on although there did not seem to be a note on the article talk page about it (where I had started a section about the addition). As the person who made the original addition, can I please get some clarity on the BLP policy for future articles? In this case we have information that 1) is well sourced with reliable third-party sources (CBS News, newspapers), 2) involves an actual conviction rather than just a rumor, accusation etc., 3) was described factually without any sort of weasel words or trying to cast aspersions, and 4) most importantly, involves the subject of the article appearing in a national news source - he appears in the cited episode of CBS News both playing music, and also protesting his wife's innocence, and he is mentioned several times in the program. Under these circumstances it seems odd to allow the subject of an article to, without discussion, remove sourced information including a ref to a national one-hour CBS news program in which the subject personally appears. I would further note that the section that was blanked was the only section in the entire article (I did not write the rest of the article) which includes any source at all, except for the Wheel of Fortune appearance (which was also blanked although it is non-contentious, but it did not have a very good source as there was only a forum with people discussing the appearance). I am not so concerned with the inclusion of particular information, as I am about understanding the underlying policy for allowing an LP to delete a section they don't like and the accuracy of which is not in question, especially without discussion. I could see it better if the subject of the article was not, like I said, featured in the CBS News 48 Hours episode. Can you please explain, Cullen, and point me to the appropriate sections of governing Wiki rules? Thank you, TheBlinkster (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I have also tagged the talk page of the article in question with the BLP Noticeboard tag as per the directions at the top of this page, as this did not seem to have been done. TheBlinkster (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is my interpretation of BLP policy, TheBlinkster. Lawrence Gwozdz was convicted of nothing but his wife was. We do not cover the misdeeds of a family member in an article about a low profile person. The two of them were married relatively briefly before she was convicted and imprisoned. It is routine that one spouse will defend the other. If this crime is worth mentioning in this encyclopedia, and I doubt that it is, then it should be in a separate article about the crime. However, the crime, though terrible, is relatively commonplace. Perhaps the TV coverage makes it worthy of an article but I doubt it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is policy language, both general and specific:

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

"Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources."

It would have been best if he had not removed the material himself, but what's done is done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, thank you for your response. The point is well taken that this event happened some time before the couple were married, and I understand WP:COATRACK concerns. It's highly likely that one reason CBS found this a notable enough crime to cover in their series was the involvement of a well-respected and notable person, so it's a bit hard IMHO to say that crimes having to do with an immediate family member have nothing to do with said person. (I saw another debate on this a while back, but it ended up being moot because the LP involved passed away and very well-respected publications then did in-depth analyses of him, his family and the crime, relating him to it in some ways...likely this was done only after death for the same reasons Wiki has a BLP policy.)

True crime is one of my interests in editing so it's important for me to have these discussions, particularly where (as here) there is no issue of the information being inaccurate, slanted, unreliably sourced, etc. which I understood was the main purpose of the BLP board, not to allow subjects of article to delete well-sourced information. I have in the past removed various information myself from crime articles where it was not well-sourced or there was no conviction, so I consider myself fairly cognizant of BLP issues. Having said that, I am not inclined to argue about putting a very short section back in a BLP article over Christmas, and if the crime gets additional significant coverage such as an appeal, I'll consider just starting its own article. (I don't think it's to that level of notability just yet.) I will note on the talk page of the article the outcome of this discussion so others will be aware should it come up again.

The other reason I wanted to have this talk is what you noted - that it would be better if the article subject didn't just blank a section, but in the event that they do (or even request it be blanked), I would just ask that the normal BLP notification message be put on the article talk page so that other stakeholders in the article or people needing clarification about policies know to come over here and discuss. I just happened to see on the page that something was going on so if I hadn't noticed that I would probably have missed my chance to have a helpful discussion and reach the consensus that we are supposed to reach with respect to contentious material. I would further note that I am a fairly new registered editor (although I edited Wiki under IP's for a while before and was an editor in RL for other publications before that) and from a standpoint of "editor retention" the ability to discuss proposed deletions of my material is very important to me in whether I stick around. This doesn't mean I expect or even want to "win" every argument but I like to understand the thought process as it may come up again in the future. Cheers, TheBlinkster (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A few additional thoughts, TheBlinkster. Although BLP subjects are discouraged from editing articles about themselves, it is not forbidden by policy. No one "allowed" him to do so, as he did it on his own. Per WP:BRD, there is no expectation that a reversion will be discussed in advance. There is also no requirement to post a link to a BLPN discussion on the article's talk page, though it is a good idea for an experienced editor to do so. If you object to a reversion, that is the time for talk page discussion. Lawrence Gwozdz is not an experienced editor, so I suggest that we let him move on with his life. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand there may not be a requirement for certain procedures to be followed, nor are certain things "forbidden" and that an inexperienced person might not be familiar with every procedure, nor are they expected to be familiar with, every procedure. However, for the reasons I stated above, I think it's better practice to have a discussion, which we've now had, and which was all I was seeking, so thanks again. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a speedy deletion of David A. Bray

I am requesting a speedy deletion of David A. Bray as I am the subject of the article. While I have not been involved in past edits of the article, I have monitored them. Personally I never thought I rose to the level of warranting one and would prefer not to be involved in such debates. If it is possible to request a deletion review and courtesy blank upon completion, I would prefer not to be a topic of a Wikipedia article unless required. Thank you. Northernva (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Northernva: The article is currently up for deletion at AfD. Before any of us could really look at deleting the page we'd first have to be able to confirm your identity, which you can do by filing a ticket through WP:ORTS. That would make a huge difference in the way the AfD plays out, since we do try to take the requests of the article subject into consideration. However until this is confirmed all we can really do is say that someone claiming to be Bray is requesting deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tokyogirl79, I have sent an email to help confirm my identity. Truly appreciate your help. Northernva (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed section heading to make navigation easier.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Gavin Esler

BBC presenter Gavin Esler has complained on Twitter that our article on him is "full of inaccuracies " and that "Correcting Wikipedia is like picking up someone else's dog s**t." [his asterisks]. I've made a start removing uncited material, but more eyes would be appreciated, given the likelihood of vandalism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are following him on Twitter, Pigsonthewing, can you ask him to list specific inaccuracies, either there, or ideally on the article's talk.page. Then maybe we can clean up the dog mess. I will take a look and put the article on my watch list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This is already in hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've just received an email from Gavin Esler, suggesting a couple of minor tweaks, which I've already incorporated into the article, and otherwise expressing satisfaction with, and thanks for, the recent improvements to the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Funny thing -- all of his books are specifically mentioned in the body of the article and in a separate Bibliography section -- I removed the duplicated material, which was quite promptly replaced <g> with the summary "disagree, simply factual coverage, seven books is hardly an enormous oeuvre". As every single one of the seven books is already mentioned in the BLP I found this to be a tad outré. Collect (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Karl-Heinz Steffens

The article Karl-Heinz Steffens appears to me as possibly being in a state of conflict of interest. Many of the posts are done by a user called "Office Karl-Heinz Steffens", which appears to be an organization employed by the subject of the article, and violates Wikipedia policy against having group accounts. The article announces future engagements of the subject of the article, which appears to be publicity work, not biographical work. The article contains absolutely nothing about the subject personally, except his birthdate. That alone marks its contents as something other than 'biography'. A number of the references are press releases by organizations employing the subject.

Vicedomino (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vicedomino:, Hi, maybe you should post this to the WP:COIN board? This definitely looks promotional and needs help but is there anything violating BLP here? Maybe report the user name to WP:UAA as well. You could also nominate the article for deletion. I will try to do some of these things, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Aureta Thomollari

Purely self-created vanity entry that does not meet the requirements for notability. Requesting a deletion of this orphan article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.147.4 (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Chris Pig

This person would not appear to be notable and I wonder why the article has not been nominated for deletion. Tomintoul (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If you feel the article should be removed, submit it to WP:AfD. Meatsgains (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up a little and added some additional sourcing.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Dean Spanos

There have been numerous acts of vandalism on this page in response to the pending relocation of the Sand Diego Chargers. I took them out, including an allegation that "Spanos and his family were all killed in a freak gasoline accident." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B032:A4C1:0:6A:E51C:9A01 (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Simon Danczuk

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Danczuk&diff=697353499&oldid=697343532 shows an editor re-inserting a report that a living person had "broken up" with another living person whose name is mentioned not at all other in the note that there was a "break-up". As the source appears to be, at best, "celebrity gossip" and other reliable sources did not even note that there was a "relationship" to "break-up" I felt that this was gossip minutiae. The edit summary on the revert is "irrational view of relationships.) " from AusLondonder Is this factoid of a "break-up" from a non-notable "relationship" properly placed in a BLP where the source clearly is "political gossip" something which it is "irrational" to find wanting? Collect (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I said irrational view of relationships because your edit summary stated "no marriage involved etc. to make it actually a "fact" of any value" which I feel is an improper way to view relationships. Plenty of people are in relationships without being legally married. Whenever I have criticised the Daily Telegraph other editors have defended it. It is not a tabloid nor a gossip sheet. As for suggesting this matter is of no relevance it has even been covered by the Indian newspaper Sakshi here AusLondonder (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:GOSSIP states that ".Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true" which means this is not gossip. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." - multiple sources can be found. AusLondonder (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Again and again - "celebrity gossip" (The Daily Mail, for example, says the girlfriend kissed Danczuk's wife for an hour, etc. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3377061/I-dumped-Danczuk-cheated-Labour-MP-s-girlfriend-reveals-real-reason-ended-four-month-relationship.html ) is intrinsically unreliable - especially since you did not give any source for the "relationship" being of any actual significance at all. ("Simon Danczuk's girlfriend today claimed she kissed his estranged wife Karen 'for about an hour' while the MP took photos and ended their four-month fling because he cheated on her." and the DM carefully avoids using the "gossip" as a statement of fact.) The Telegraph story cited has screenshots of Tweets! A famous WP:RS type of source, yes? And the super fact that Danczuk's wife was the "selfie queen" of Twitter. The "girlfriend" appears to have no long-term "relationship" to even break up from <g> and if this is not a wondrous example of "news by tweet" I know not what is. Collect (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph is a tabloid as such but does engage in journalism. It would depend on the story. UK newspapers are quite happy to engage in gossip as well as investigative reporting. This is gossip sourced to a tweet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

G. Kogelen Govindasamy

Hi there, The biography of the person above is not a biography of a known Malaysian scientist and instead appears to be a prop for the person's unverified claims. The sources used in the article also fail to provide evidence to the claims made in the article. I recommend that the article as a whole be removed as it seems to be used to bolster the claims and add legitimacy to the subject of the biography, when in fact almost all of the facts in the article aren't able to be verified by an unbiased source. A quick search of the claims made in the article including trying to check details (e.g. whether or not the person works at a company called "Aaride J.A. International Inc") reveals them to be fake. Additionally, the writer of the article claims that the person is the chairman of the "AIHP Disease Prevention Programme Worldwide" which is not a legitimate/legal/existing body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.114.141 (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As said above much of this article fails verification: for example it claims the subject has a doctorate from a university which doesn't actually exist. I'm hacking it back, but there may not be anything left at the end. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Gabriel McQueen

New article. WP:BLP issue. Unreferenced. Defamatory? WP:Speedy delete? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The article (before you redirected it) described a fictional character. I don't think we need to worry about BLP here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hansjörg Wyss

Hello. I'd like to point editors to the Hansjörg Wyss entry and the recently added Allegations of sexual harassment section. The content here is very concerning as it includes some serious, damaging allegations without strong WP:RS references to support. My hope is that editors here can review with an eye to whether this meets BLP guidelines.

There has already been discussion on the Talk page about this section and the sources used to cite the allegations, and the two editors involved do not agree on how this should be covered. After looking at the sources myself, I would like editors to reconsider whether this information should be included at all based on verifiability. The claims are made by a blog, a website that very clearly states it was created solely to “thwart” Hillary Clinton’s “coronation”, and The Daily Caller, a publication known for sensationalism and conservative stance. These are very poor sources to support such contentious information, and I’m concerned the language in this section is asserting damaging claims that should be attributed to much stronger sources. In doing a search for other existing coverage on the allegations, I noted most of what little exists has been published solely by The Daily Caller.

I'd appreciate some help from editors here reviewing these sources and weighing in on the Talk page with their thoughts.

As a disclosure: I have a financial conflict of interest as my firm, Beutler Ink, has been hired by The Wyss Foundation to provide consulting regarding Wikipedia. My colleague, Heatherer has previously made requests to update the article and disclosed her conflict of interest—as she is unavailable today and I am concerned about this material in Mr. Wyss's article, I've stepped in to make this request on behalf of the Foundation in her stead. Neither Heatherer nor myself have made or will make any direct edits to the article.

The sensitivity of these allegations makes this a much more serious situation, so the help of an editor very familiar with BLP guidelines is much needed. Thanks in advance for the help. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby

Participation is requested in the discussion at Talk:Bill Cosby#Use of forthcoming mugshot, concerning whether a widely-published mug shot of Bill Cosby, charged today with three felony charges of aggravated indecent assault in Pennsylvania, is appropriate to include in the article. General Ization ^Talk 01:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The photo appears to be of nil value in itself, alas. Collect (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The photo has high EV at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations given his arraignment on charges of aggravated indecent assault, a Class I felony. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Charges are second degree - not first. There is, in fact, a substantial difference. Collect (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The Gamits

The text on this page discussing The Gamits (https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=The_Gamits) is directly taken from the band's website (http://thegamits.com/about/). Straight up plagiarism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.73.44.10 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard, but I removed the infringing material anyway. In the future, please use the copyright problems noticeboard at WP:CP to report these types of issues. Thanks! Sperril (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Jameis Winston

An editor Nomoskedasticity there has used the word "victim" when using the source http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24251359/report-jameis-winston-dna-matches-accusers-sample-in-test which does not use that word, but uses the neutral term "accuser." I suggest that this is a violation of WP:BLP as strongly implying a crime was committed using Wikipedia's voice to make that implication. Sigh. Collect (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Other sources use the word victim. Apart from that, you seem to struggle with a logic problem here: the fact that Winston was not convicted of rape does not mean that the woman was not raped. Or are you suggesting that she was lying in her account of what happened? Past experience suggests that you will try to avoid answering that latter question -- but perhaps things have changed and I'm being needlessly pessimistic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a completely errant interpretation of the non-negotiable policy of WP:BLP. We can not use Wikipedia's voice to state that a crime occurred or that a living person committed a crime if the source does not state that the crime occurred as a fact and that the living person committed it as a fact. I know your interpretation differs from the wording of the policy, and that you have often accused me of "crying BLP" but I suggest that my opinion is that of the general community. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh look -- you didn't answer the question... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Collect is in the right here. To state there was a victim is to state there was a crime and to paint the subject as the perpetrator, which, given the lack of a conviction, flies in the face of our BLP standard. To say that we should not label her a victim is not to say that she has been lying; to say some one is an accuser does not paint the accusation as false, it merely allows for that possibility, and thus leaves it possible that the accused may be guilty or not guilty... which is very much within the word and spirit of our BLP standard. -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So if someone reports that they were raped, we should doubt whether they were raped? Leave aside the question of who might have done it -- I'm curious to know whether we should say that someone was a victim only if a particular person was convicted. In other words, the inability of the police or prosecution to make a successful case might mean that someone wasn't actually a victim of rape. On top of that: it's quite evident that numerous sources describe the woman in this case as a victim... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Well we would say they accused someone of rape. I cant see any real situation where you could not replace 'the victim' with the accuser or their name. But from browsing the available sources, it looks like the case was not taken forward originally - not due to the inability on the part of the investigation in proving a crime, but the inability of the alledged victim to substantiate her allegations. 'Alledged Victim' would also be an appropriate alternative. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that we would replace "victim" with "accuser" if we wanted to adopt a general view that when women report being raped we should retain some doubt about whether they were raped. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

In this specific case there is doubt that the woman was raped. The police and prosecution thought so, as did FSU's presiding ex-Judge (what would effectively be a third party arbiter in the UK). So we would use the appropriate terminology. The alternative is *in wikipedia's voice* adopting a general view that every person who says they were raped was raped, which is certainly an unsound basis for a fact-based encyclopedia and frankly straight out of the feminist 'listen and believe' textbook. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Those damn feminists: they have a textbook -- who knew! And we should doubt what it says. Because feminism isn't neutral. So what I'm hearing is: "victim" is bad because it requires believing there's a good chance that when a woman reports being raped she might be telling the truth, and we can't believe that. This could get interesting. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, its not about belief, its about what is accurate. More so when it comes to BLP's. If you would rather base wikipedia on a belief system then I feel its the wrong place for you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite interested in what's accurate. And I'm referring to your belief system, not mine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

what you are hearing is not what anybody is saying, it is a convenient straw man. If you are trying to suggest that if a woman claims rape, she cannot possibly be lying or in error, then you are dehumanizing women, positing to them a moral perfection. If it is possible she is lying or in error, then we cannot use that to paint another person as a perpetrator of a heinous crime in Wikipedia's voice. If you would like to change BLP policy on that matter, you should like start elsewhere besides this Noticeboard. -Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"Victim" is not a legal term, and the use of that word does not imply that any laws were broken; it is used in many contexts, such as "cancer victim" or "victim of circumstances". "Accuser" is a much less neutral term, and is much more closely linked to legal and criminal issues. Both of them, however, characterize the individual in a way that seems to generate outrage. Try using the person's name instead of "the victim" or "the accuser". Risker (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Risker hits the nail on the head. Just stop using loaded terminology and use names instead while laying out the known facts. This is only difficult if you're intentionally trying to put your own POV into the article. Capeo (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So we should name sexual assault victims even if they have chosen to try to maintain anonymity? In this case the victim didn't exercise this right, so fine. But in some places that right has legal force. What then? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh, how about "unnamed man" or "unnamed woman" where needed? Is that all that difficult? Capeo (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia operates under the laws of the United States. In the US, there is no legal force behind the practice of not naming rape victims. It's just generally agreed upon in the media as a matter of courtesy. Sperril (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

First, contrary to what some of those who prefer "accuser" claim above, it is entirely possible to assert that a crime occurred even though its perpetrator is uncertain. That a baseball broke the living-room window is certain though whether Amy or Bobby is at fault may never be known.

Second, unless Wikipedia (as some above urge) is to take up the banner of denying the reality of rape, we have no choice but to accept, at some point, the victim’s assertion that they are, in fact, victims. We cannot make windows into the victim’s souls; we must, as @Nomoskedasticity: observes, either accept that those who say they are raped were raped -- at least until we have contrary evidence -- or we must ask victims of rape to be able to prove that they were not, and could not conceivably have been, willing partners. The latter position, once held by much of society, has now been widely rejected; were Wikipedia to adopt it, the project would be excoriated. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite right. We have no choice but to accept, at some point, the victim’s assertion that they are, in fact, [a] victim. That point is generally the point at which they have been judged so by a court. --GRuban (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Considered with a different crime in mind: John alleges that Joe, his accountant, committed fraud while managing his money. Joe denies that and states that he acted legally and ethically. To refer to John as a "victim" would be to take a side "in Wikipedia's voice": that fraud did occur, and implicitly therefore that Joe is guilty. WP:BLPCRIME absolutely applies here, just as BLP applies everywhere. Until and unless convicted, there is an allegation that a crime occurred. That is not to say we don't believe the accuser. We should neither believe them nor disbelieve them, we should only report on the situation as it stands. Until a conviction happens, the situation as it stands is that an allegation of crime has been put forth. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"Alleged victim" might work, here's short description of using the term. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps some data will help

In the UK in 2014, there were 29,265 rapes reported to the police (source). In a similar year-long period, there were 2,581 convictions for rape (source). (It doesn't matter if the periods are the same: there would be a lag in any event.) So, it would seem that there are more than 25,000 women who reported being raped (i.e., reported it to the police -- never mind those who don't report it) who are not victims. A decision to insist on a conviction before using "victim" is a decision to systematically disbelieve what women say when they say they were raped. And this is what a "fact-based" encyclopedia wants to convey? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No one but you is asserting that these individuals are not victims. That is a straw man, and you've thoroughly torn it apart. What we are stating is that, since calling them "victims" implicitly calls those who they have accused criminals, and we cannot call an individual a criminal unless they are convicted, we cannot use that term absent a conviction. Calling someone an "accuser" in no way indicates that the accusation is false, but calling them a "victim" does imply that the accusation is true. We cannot do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah -- so they are victims but we cannot call them victims. Do I got it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you don't "got it". I meant what I actually said, not something else. It's not for us to decide whether or not they are a victim or (by implication) whether or not a crime occurred. We report that the allegation was made and any other relevant and verifiable information; we don't choose a side at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomosked, in asserting we can either call them victims or call them not victims, you're asking "are you still beating your wife?" It's a fallacy. We do not have to take a side. --GRuban (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This is getting to the WP:HORSEMEAT stage quite quickly. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide whether a person is a rapist (or any other type of criminal) purely on the basis of an allegation that has not been tested in a court of law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But then it's not up to use to decide whether the accuser is really a victim or not, nor indeed to decide any factual element of the claim or decide the "correct" status of the parties involved. For all of this we are meant to be reporting on what appears in WP:Reliable sources, regardless of whether they were convicted or even appeared before a court on the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's focus on the sources

There's a whole lot of debate going on above about whose subjective logic should be applied, but surely what is called for here is a review of the sources. Does the balance in this instance support "victim" or "accuser". Our community-wide WP:verification standards do not go out the window where BLP is involved, we are simply meant to analyze them with increased scrutiny. If a substantial majority uses one or the other term, policy directs us to go with that. Note that WP:BLPCRIME is a mere blurb of guidance and directs only that we should "consider" how to approach the material; it offers no firm restrictions on content just because someone has not been convicted. Indeed, such restrictions would be A) unworkable for a great many articles on high-profile cases where no conviction or trial took place for lack of evidence, jurisdiction, or any number of other causes and B) just generally against our community standards on verification broadly.

So clearly what is needed here is for us to take ourselves out of the equation and look at the sources, as in any virtually any other case on Wikipedia. I note that a lot of people above believe they can apply the transitive principle to the facts of this case in such a way that leads unerringly to an absolute conclusion. Myself, I see plenty of situations in which this woman can be a victim and the accused still not guilty of the crime (in either the legal sense or the literal one). But the point is that on this project, none of us are meant to be evaluating for ourselves which term best applies, using our own rationale; we merely report what is said in WP:Reliable sources. So, if I can impose on those best familiar with the references in this case to compile what we have to work with in order that we might assess the WP:Weight of our various options here? Snow ^{let's rap} 22:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Source for the section Nomo restored was was titled "Report: Jameis Winston DNA matches accusers sample in test". Text from source: "A DNA sample provided by Jameis Winston to law enforcement matches DNA found in the underwear of the accuser in Winston's sexual assault investigation", "But it will indicate that Winston and his accuser were in close contact on the night of the alleged incident.", " the family of the accuser issued a statement", "police say the accuser". There is absolutely no mention of the word 'victim' in the piece. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Re other sources Use of the word 'victim' is clear in this piece that the accusers family/spokespeople use the word victim, however the authorities and the press use the word 'accuser'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, without staking out an opinion on the sources at large just yet, and responding specifically (and narrowly) to this one post, I note that the Chief of Police for Tallahassee uses "victim" as well: "'In February 2013, the case was classified as open but inactive, when the victim in the case broke off contact with TPD, and her attorney indicated she did not want to move forward at that time,' Coe said Wednesday". But in reviewing these three sources and looking a the article content again, I'm wondering, would either side of this discussion be opposed to using the term "alleged victim" throughout the section? That option has been referenced above as one variant of terminology, but it doesn't seem to have been discussed at length. It might make the prose a little unwieldy to use ti repetitively, but if it is found to be the best neutral compromise, that's surely more important. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The NYT: "Among the new details provided is that lead investigator Scott Angulo -- who the accuser's family said warned her against reporting the incident". In general all the sources when talking about rape victims as a group, use the word victim. When talking about specifics to this case, its accuser or similar. 'Victim' is only used when quoting the family/spokesmen. And even then not always. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As to "alleged victim", I see it as a bit awkward, but I don't see any BLP problem with it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Alleged victim" is awkward because it is not in itself clear who is making the allegations, and it seems odd to use it for a case where the person who made the allegation is the person being referenced; that would be more a "self-professed victim".... but in the modern climate, where declaring yourself a victim of anything is seen by some as a badge of shame, "accuser" sounds more precise and less POV-laden. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with 'alleged victim' because of this particular case the accuser maintains they are a victim whilst any official investigation has concluded there is not enough evidence to say they are. This isnt a case of where the accused is unknown or a general 'victims of rape' scenario. However 'Alledged victim' does have more of a 'we are not believing you' vibe to it. Whereas 'accuser' is more neutral. Interestingly there is a clear downward trend in the sources - the earliest dated ones have use of the word victim more than the later ones. However this could be a result of more statements by the accusers family earlier on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to say I agree that 'alleged victim' sounds more doubtful of the accusation than simply referring to them as an 'accuser.' I also don't think that there need be a hard rule about how we refer to rape victims, whether alleged or proven. This should be handled on a case by case basis. In this particular case, there is some non-trivial doubt as to whether a rape actually occurred. But I can imagine situations where there is no real doubt that a rape occurred, but there is doubt as to whether the accused was the perpetrator. In that case I could see referring to the 'victim' and the 'accused.' There is no way we could codify a policy that would cover all possible permutations of rape accusations. Sperril (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

To my ears, "accuser" sounds neutral. There is little doubt she made an accusation; hence she's an accuser. To say "victim" implies she was victimized, which is to say, that a crime occurred. It also carries some kind of modernistic baggage in the sort of PC-ish sense that decent people hope a rape victim will not remain a "victim", though that may be unfair to the English language and perhaps institutionalizes the sort of bullyish tendencies that ought not but do rule our world, that make people afraid to say they were hurt. To say "alleged victim" is also awkward to my ears, per NatGertler above, though I cannot really say it is wrong. "Complainant" works but in my mind it is purely legalistic -- for example, in the news about Cosby are accounts where a woman sued because her character was defamed when he said she lied, and he countersued because she defamed him by making the accusation. In an instance like that, whoever goes to the courthouse first is the complainant, and in theory it could go either way. So I don't like it. Bottom line: I prefer accuser. Bottomer line: if the sources show a consensus for some other term, we always have to defer to them. Wnt (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Jennifer Lawrence

Discussion at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence#Scandal. An administrator, Jehochman (talk · contribs), has removed mention of Lawrence's nude photo scandal and is now threatening to block anyone who restores it per WP:BLP. Consensus has formed against him, yet he also claims that is not good enough because WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override BLP policy. So more eyes would be appreciated, and more reasonable voices to evaluate whether or not this is a BLP violation. Elizium23 (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman is correct: this diff shows the undue material being removed. Naturally a few people think (LOCALCONSENSUS) that nude pictures!!! just has to be included, but it really is trivial. The incident was notable, so an article (2014 celebrity photo hack) exists, and any exciting tidbits can be listed there. However, decorating the article of each affected person is not needed. Encyclopedic information would involve a brief mention of something significant happening to the celebrity because of the hack. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not even close to undue or any form of BLP violation. The material was sourced correctly and the event was notable. It was still being talked about and discussed in interviews *by the subject* a year later. I have trimmed about half of it and put it back in, but admins who dont understand what is and is not a BLP violation should not be issuing threats to block editors over content disputes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the amount of material is significantly undue weight on a footnote in a person's life, and that we should discuss the material and reach consensus before any of it is restored. This is as per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which is specifically on point to this sort of material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Dont be ridiculous. Its not close to being undue given the size of the article. Secondly there is clear consensus on the talkpage to include the material in an abbreviated form. And as it is *not* BLP violating material, WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is irrelevant. And even if it was 'if it is restored without significant change' would be the relevant part. It has been cut down about as far as you can cut it, in line with the talkpage consensus that it should be mentioned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your decision to engage in an edit-war to include the material is what's ridiculous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Takes two to edit war. I have talkpage consensus that the information is notable enough, sourced enough and should be mentioned in the article. Whats your excuse? Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I reverted your bold reinsertion of the material as per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Rather than discuss the concerns raised based upon policy, you stalely initiated a revert war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: There was no WP:BLP violation, WP:Undue violation, or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS violation. The content was/is encyclopedic and significantly relevant. I made my case at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence#Scandal and would rather not repeat myself, which is why I'm linking to what I stated. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that I alerted WP:BLP, WP:Biography and WP:Film to that discussion for wider input; those are highly active pages, and the watchers of those pages were aware of the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Full details are in the photo hack article. For each subject the most there should be is a simple statement that they were a victim, with a link to the article. Anybody wanting the details can read the article with full context, rather than getting a few salacious excerpts out of context. Jehochman ^Talk 02:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be to my mind more of a BLP violation than the two or three sentence version ever could. Just stating she was a victim leaves her just that, a victim. Adding her response is giving her some leverl of agency in the matter, especially as she, of all the victims, was most forceful in its condemnation. You're quite right, details are on the photo hack article, but there's no problem having relevant details on Lawrence's page. In fact, I'd say Lawrence's comments belong more on her own article than on the hack article if anything.

Now, per WP:MULTI, can we all go back to Talk:Jennifer Lawrence please? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. Input from uninvolved editors would be welcomed. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Jozef Szekeres

Self generated, self serving promotional profile that does not adhere to wiki standards and lacks appropriate references. Should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.67.31 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed some of the problems, but the article still needs a lot more changes. GermanJoe (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

George W. Bush Incorrect or un-cited military service.

Article states: He was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974.[45]

However, article does not state that President Bush ever joined Air Force Reserve. Commission in Texas Air National Guard, with transfer and service in Alabama Air National Guard.. No mention of transfer or Commission in the Air Force reserve is mentioned or cited, and National Guard service is separate, with different chain of commands, which unless the Governor releases service members to Federal Service ends at that Governor of the State or Commonwealth.

The Summury is: Guardsmen are State Troops. Reserve Troops belong to the federal government.

See George W. Bush military service controversy - Cwobeel (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

~~You are correct. See [4]. I will edit the article accordingly. Thanks for the heads up. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)~~

Actually: On October 1, 1973, Bush was honorably discharged from the Texas Air National Guard and transferred to the inactive reserves in Denver, Colorado. He was discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974, ending his military service. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Fadi Elsalameen

I asked this on the talk page but didn't receive any response - what is the appropriate number of pictures for a biography? The amount on this page seems excessive, but I wanted to know if there was any standard guidance. Thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

While this does not seem to be a WP:BLP issue, I concur that the amount of images are excessive. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Political bosses

Category:Political bosses, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Bo Ryan

An editor added this libelous info to the article. Although it was later deleted, it remains in the page history. Can it be deleted from the page history? 32.218.38.188 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this - I've removed it from the history. - Bilby (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Danielle Senior

Hi there,

It has come to my attention that my date of birth is listed on your website which has led to this appearing on Google and other search engines. My date of birth as it appears is actually incorrect, which is the reason for this removal request.

The page in question is Danielle Senior

I do not want to see my date of birth listed on your website, or search engine results, for security and privacy reasons. This is an official request for removal.

I could not find a request for removal form on your website. If there is indeed one, please direct me to the link, otherwise please prevent search engines (including Google, Yahoo, Bing etc) from indexing this page.

Kind regards Danielle Senior [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dresden Smith (talk • contribs) 13:16, January 2, 2016‎

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukexpat (talk • contribs) 13:25, January 2, 2016‎

@Dresden Smith: In addition to what was said above, Google has a form to allow for requesting removal of content from their search results. clpo13_(talk) 17:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it worth pointing out that the subjects dob has not been in the article at all at least since August 2014. I have not looked back further than that. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The complainant should be very aware that the date of birth is not in the article, as they were the ones who started the article and who have made all of the substantial additions to the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Kane rape allegation matter

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Patrick Kane#False rape accusation heading. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed this from the BLP project talk page since it was more appropriate here. --Malerooster (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Edited and renamed - this is an example of why allegations and rumour make for poor BLPs in the best of times. Collect (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

David Tiram

What about him? I see sources in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Pete Nash (game designer)

He is not American, he is British. I went to City of London Polytechnic with him

Husain Haqqani (segments of article dealing with Mansoor Ijaz)

Discussion and edits are being undertaken with respect to my role in the Memogate matter in Husain Haqqani's Wikipedia article. I was asked to give input on these edits as it pertained to my knowledge of events, and reluctantly did so -- always citing the obvious conflict of interest problem. I have not made any edits to the article itself during this discussion.

The characterizations, detailed below, about my role in the investigation and its onset are, in my view, false and misleading and based on scholarly works that have presented a pro-civilian, anti-Pakistan army and anti-Pakistan intelligence services point of view. That's fine as it is the choice of the books' authors. But as the whole purpose of the edits in the Haqqani article are to insure NPOV, I believe the neutrality of the two sources relied upon by the editor should be reviewed.

Secondly, three statements have been made in the paragraph below that are categorically false and attempt to present my person in a manner that I believe crosses the line for WP:BLPs. I am therefore asking for review by administrators to determine the best course of action to fix the problem.

SECTION FROM HUSAIN HAQQANI (Secret Memorandum and Resignation)

Roughly a week after the raid on Bin Laden, Haqqani reportedly asked a Pakistani American businessman Mansoor Ijaz to pass a message to the Americans, at the request of President Zardari, that the Pakistani military was planning to intervene. Ijaz revealed this in an opinion column in the Financial Times in October 2011, and mentioned that the message was communicated in an undated and unsigned memo sent to Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military. Later released to the press, the memo also spoke of a "unique window of opportunity" for the civilian government to gain the upper hand due to the military's complicity in the Bin Laden affair.^[1] According to Ijaz, the military intended to stage a coup to wash off the embarrassment issuing from the raid on Bin Laden, and he drafted the memo in consultation with Haqqani.^[2] However, following a meeting with General Shuja Pasha, the head of the ISI, Ijaz changed his allegiance and accused the Zardari-led government of a deceitful campaign against Kayani and Pasha.^[1]

ISSUE #1: According to Ijaz, the military intended to stage a coup... This is not an accurate statement. I would like to note that on Page 108 of the Judicial Commission's report, in one of its section conclusions, the justices stated: Mr. Haqqani orchestrated the possibility of an imminent coup to both persuade Mr. Ijaz to convey the message [the Memorandum] and also to give it traction and credibility. I suggest that if we are sticking to facts, this is a pretty large one that needs to be accurately stated after the measure of investigation conducted by the Commission. One needs to question whether the authors of the books cited by the editor in question have even read the Judicial Commission's findings when presenting their "facts" for publication. At minimum, the Commission's findings should have been cited in footnotes somewhere, but this too has been missed.... In any event, it is a factually untrue statement that I stated the military intended to stage a coup. To state this is to slander my person for something of great relevance which I did not ever state as my own point of view.

ISSUE #2: ...and he drafted the memo in consultation with Haqqani.... I did not draft the memo. This is a false and completely misleading statement. It was incontrovertibly determined by the Commission that Haqqani was the author and architect of the memorandum. I was simply a typist at his request. To state otherwise is clear falsehood and defamatory against my person, especially when there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Forensic evidence, I might add...

ISSUE #3: ...following a meeting with General Shuja Pasha, the head of the ISI, Ijaz changed his allegiance and accused the Zardari-led government of a deceitful campaign against Kayani and Pasha. This is an absolute false and untrue statement. Please provide proof that this happened. Any proof? This is a pure statement of opinion by the author of the book cited.

I would like to point out that WP:BLP states that the burden of evidence rests with the editor....

One general observation to conclude. The editor who is persistently trying to push a particular point of view in the Haqqani article's Memogate section took my initial comments on board and made certain changes, which had that editor not done, and had I not gotten involved to correct the false and misleading statements, would have remained as factual inaccuracies. So the editor has already acknowledged certain mistakes, and has gone on to rail against me as being irrelevant and my opinion of no value when a number of other contributors asked me to get involved in this matter to clear things up. I write under my own name -- I have no need to hide from the finger-pointing of others. I strongly object as a living person to the characterizations made about my role and the manner in which information has been presented in a one-sided way. I believe the manner in which the article's Memogate section is presently written defames me unnecessarily without presenting the other point of view. Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Ijaz has raised the issues #1 and #3 already at Talk:Husain_Haqqani#Comments_from_Mansoor_Ijaz, where I responded with quotes from reliable sources that back the content in the article. As for Issue #2, the text from the source is "For this, Ijaz says, he drafted a `memo' in consultation with the then Pakistan ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, and had it sent to former American army chief, Admiral Michael Mullen..."^[2] Another source says "Mr. Ijaz claimed that Mr. Haqqani was the diplomat who had asked him to draft the memo. He said he had corresponded with Mr. Haqqani via Blackberry messages, phone conversations and emails to formulate the memo."^[3] I believe my wording in the article accurately represents the sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Ijaz says " The editor [] is persistently trying to push a particular point of view." The only "point of view" I have pushed is to use scholarly sources, which is the course recommended in WP:HISTRS. My content is based on all the scholarly sources I have found on the matter of the "memogate." I have invited Mr. Ijaz to bring in other scholarly sources that might show other points of view, but he has refused to do so. He would prefer that I use the Judicial Commission's report as a source, but I am reluctant to use it as it is a WP:PRIMARY source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b Ayesha Jalal 2014, p. 366.
^ ^a ^b Imtiaz Gul 2012, Chapter 2 (pp. 43-46).
^ Mira Sethi (21 January 2012). "The Weekend Interview with Husain Haqqani: A Hostage in Pakistan - WSJ". Wall Street Journal.

Abu Qatada

A number of serious allegations supposedly tying Qatada to al-Qaeda (he states he has no association) were sourced to primary documents, for instance a Spanish court document pdf, and a UN list. I and another editor removed some of these, though I haven't checked the article to be sure there aren't other examples. Qatada was never prosecuted in the UK and has been cleared of multiple terrorism charges in Jordan. I'm making a post here to notify interested editors of the issue and receive feedback. I suspect there may be pushback on the page from editors who believe they have a WP:CRYSTALBALL that the courts and sources don't have. Comments also welcome at Talk:Abu Qatada#Primary sources used for inclusion of controversial content on a WP:BLP. -Darouet (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

george lucas -- death

Under "George Lucas" bio is a section called "Death": https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=George_Lucas#Death which is obviously fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80dd:4490:9418:52ae:4458:212f (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism - reverted, and user warned. Thanks, Giant Snowman 18:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Austin Aries

His page says he was a WWE World heavyweight champion twice. He never performed in WWE. This should be edited.

Joshua Feuerstein

I'm giving everyone a head's up. Recently I removed some content from Joshua Feuerstein that claimed that his PP video was an inspiration for the 2015 shootings. It was backed up by a (now deleted) YT video and an article from Addicting Info, which to the best of my knowledge isn't usable as a RS on Wikipedia. I don't anticipate a huge issue, but this is a pretty big claim and something that really needs to be backed up by extremely strong RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Al Baldasaro

Adland

Hello, I am the founder of Adland, Åsk Wäppling, and often mentioned in conjunction with the article about Adland. It's rather unfortunate that an editor named GameOn has added links to my personal ID number and home address on both the talk page of Adland (which I have now archived, after unsuccessfully petitioning for the links removal prior), and on his very own user page. GameOn added the link to make a point about Sole Proprietorship, the company he points to is a Sole Proprietorship and has been dormant for many years. Since GameOn is Swedish he is surely aware that Sole Proprietorships are registered under a persons own ID number and at their home address. GameOn even explains this on his own user page where he also links the information. To be clear, the Sole Proprietorship he points to is not, and never has been, the company that owns and operates Adland, the topic of the Wikipedia page. I am very uncomfortable with having my address and ID# listed in such a fashion on such a well trafficked international page, especially since as already noted on the Wikipedia page itself, I have received death threats. Can these links please be removed from the user add talk pages, as they add nothing to the conversation, but worry for me? Thanks in advance for any advice and help I can get here. Aaskw (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the information from the archive (and user page) per WP:BLPPRIMARY, specifically "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." National ID numbers qualify. BadAndWrong (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I find it interesting that a person creates a wikipedia user just to go into fixing this issue one minute later. Since I'll assume good faith I'll assume this is NOT a case of a person coming in from Adland, Wäppling herself, her hostingcompany or something like that to support her like has happened many times before but someone who just happens upon this. I would however prefer that changing of an archived talk pages and a users own page be done by someone who actually has more experience from enwp. I've therefor reverted these changes. As a side note if Wäppling feels that she needs to protect herself (which I can see a basis in since I have read the article in question) she should get her personalid hidden since she's still very easy to find for anyone who does a search in the open registers we have in Sweden. GameOn (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

And as a side note, that isn't her personalid, the last four digits aren't visible. And the adress isn't hers either. GameOn (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

And, the registered name of the company happens to be Adland, but I do not know that Wäppling used the company that she gave the same name as her site for anything to do with the site in question. GameOn (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Richard N. Ash Suggestion

This article is being discussed for deletion but I think it needs a speedy delete because it is an unsourced biography that included information that this person uses steroids. It needs to disappear without discussion. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been deleted, but I think User:Barbara (WVS) misinterpreted "steroids" here. This can mean someone is using anabolic steroids in body building, but this was for a medical condition and included in his official bio - so not a negative thing or an attack. Also, there is a report that he died late last month and Ashcenter.com says "On Friday, December 25th, Dr. Ash passed away tragically as a result of unexpected complications following a routine medical procedure." Fences&Windows 00:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my error, Fences and windows, there was no reference and the potential for others having the same interpretation as I did concerned me. Best Regards and Grateful for your attention,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Help with Hansjörg Wyss?

Done Hello. A colleague of mine, User:16912 Rhiannon, posted last week about Hansjörg Wyss, however the post was lost during a period when there were a few high profile pages under discussion. I'm reposting to see if editors can look at the Controversy section of the article, which deals with allegations of sexual harassment against Mr. Wyss. I do not believe that the information is adequately supported by sources and I'm hoping editors from here can take a look to see if it meets the BLP guidelines.

The current sources include a blog, an anti-Hillary Clinton website, and conservative web publication The Daily Caller, which has previously published pieces critical of Mr. Wyss. If someone can review, please see the current Talk page discussion about the information and whether it should be included.

Please note that I have a financial conflict of interest as I have been working on the article on behalf of The Wyss Foundation, as part of my work for my employer, Beutler Ink. My colleague, User:16912 Rhiannon made a request here last week (and disclosed her conflict of interest) as I was unavailable. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let others know that the section in question has been removed by another editor and I feel that this matter is resolved. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

James McGee (tennis)

Done

The main photo for James McGee (tennis) in Wikipedia is NOT actually James McGee. I believe the photo is a German player (Tobias Kamke). But its definitely not James McGee - google him for yourself for comparison.

Paul (Redacted) an internet reader

You know, I think you're right. I know nothing about tennis, but I did an internet search, and it does look like James McGee has lighter head hair, much darker eyebrows, a different face, and most obviously, a baseball cap on his head 90% of the time. Tobias Kamke, on the other hand, looks a lot more like that in our article photo, right down to the alligator on his shirt. Most interesting, however, was this page: http://www.footsoldiersoftennis.com/2015/06/26/wimbledon-qualifying-gallery/ and this photo on that page: http://www.footsoldiersoftennis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/James-McGee-Tobias-Kamke-handshake.jpg It's a picture of that very qualifying match that David Iliff took this picture at. And it displays someone, who, from a distance, looks a lot like this photo, from the back, playing someone who, from a distance, looks a lot like the more common pictures of James McGee, including the baseball cap. You have to wait for it, but when it comes up on the page, it's labeled: "James McGee & Tobias Kamke: James McGee shakes Tobias Kamke's hand after his narrow first round loss". I'm willing to guess that David Iliff attended the match, heard some announcement like "James McGee plays Tobias Kamke", watched them play, and took lots of pictures of Kamke, thinking he was photographing McGee. @Diliff: Let's ask. --GRuban (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Diliff uploaded pictures of "Kamke" from the same event. And ... confirming the hypothesis ... they look an awful lot more like McGee. Let's compare:

Diliff's "McGee":

Diliff's "Kamke":

si.robi's "McGee":

si.robi's "Kamke":

.

I'm going to call that conclusive enough to replace the McGee image in the article infobox. I'll let Diliff have a bit of time to weigh in, but in a day or two I'm going to go to Wikimedia Commons and ask that all of Diliff's "McGee" images be renamed to "Kamke", and vice versa. --GRuban (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right Paul, and GRuban. Apologies for the mistake. I actually took well over 1000 photos of almost 200 tennis players during the qualification matches and the identification and upload process for all of these images was a bit of a nightmare, so it seems I've made a bit of a mistake due to the two of them looking somewhat similar. I'm more than happy for you to rename the images and update the articles if you're able to spare the time. Thanks for spotting the error. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

But when you request a renaming on Commons, you fist have to change the discription of the image (this ist the most important place for correctiions, the title is not really of importance) and the category. Commons administrators are maybe janitors - but not that kind of janitprs that do all the work the others don't want to do. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Danke, Marcus. Done. --GRuban (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Nevile Gwynne

I have just read this Wikipedia page and feel that it would benefit greatly from some editorial attention. There are far more words about the two books Mr Gwynne has written than actual biographical information. Does being an Author automatically entitle one to an entry on Wikipedia ? If so then my wife should have one as she has had six books published. Seriously, I think this Biography would benefit from an experienced Wikipedia Editor having a look at it to ensure that it complies with the guidelines. I am just a Wiki user and, occasionally, correct the odd typo. I hope that I have raised my concerns in the correct place.

Gerald Fried

Please note that Gerald Fried has four living children, in addition to the one mentioned who died.

Manitonquat

Manitonquat vandalism to this article has been alleged on its Talk page since November 24, 2015; along with previous entry to the same Talk 6 April 2012 page noting suspiciously inaccurate additions, & advising correction.

As of December 18, the page was corrected by myself. (See screenshot https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_REVISION_Manitonquat.png#globalusage)

Upon presentation of new material, it was subsequently swiftly deleted, without reference thereto. This was also alleged as possible subtle vandalism in the DRV discussion:

See DRV discussion https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_29 In this DRV, newly-available material establishes notability. Article was cleared for re-creation.

Re-created article (basically the same as my previous edit of Dec 18 (see screenshot on Commons, link above). Within a day, it had also been subject to an edit which I must allege to be subtle vandalism; whether due to malicious intent, or to such flagrant disregard for accuracy as to be effectively just as bad.

I am in the process of organizing citations included in the DRV, to comply with request for references which is now posted on this article.

However, it seems not in interests of accuracy that an editor (possibly User:CorbieVreccan ..? ) has deleted all references to Manitonquat's recognition as an official tribal elder of the Wampanoag Nation of Massachusetts; which is well-documented in the DRV. The editor also claimed that Manitonquat "lives primarily in Germany". A patently false misrepresentation, without citation, and contradicting widely-available documentaion that he has had the same address in New Hampshire for the last 30 years. The editor likewise re-inserted a link to the article Grey Owl: an Englishman who posed as a Native American spokesman. Documentation cited in the DRV confirms that such subtle efforts to cast aspersions on Manitonquat's integrity are subtle vandalism; which likewise impact the integrity of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia wisely has policy in place regarding topics of a particularly contentious nature: "Troubles-related topics" are an excellent example. That is, topics which concern violent, passionate conflict, with a long history of profound controversy. Where pages are likely to be subject to editing wars, etc.

Native American people/culture have been decimated by centuries of aggressive genocidal warfare of various colors: official and unofficial, military and para-military. Since the cessation of armed warfare between the Indian nations and the US Government, they have suffered incalculable damage from institutionalized racism, undeclared clandestine para-military violence, and a host of other ills connected with their race/cultural identity.

It seems advisable that special expertise, scrutiny, & vigilance could with justice be applied to articles concerning Native Americans.

Manitonquat's work has an added dimension of controversy; in that he is associated with the Rainbow Gathering Rainbow Family American Indian Movement (AIM) and New Age philosophy.

I reiterate for the Administrators' Notice Board my allegation that the Manitonquat page has been subject to on-going subtle vandalism; and request assistance from administrators / Subtle Vandalism Taskforce.Horse Dancing (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Suzy Miller

I hope that editors familiar with BLP policy will look at this article and its AfD debate. Information about at least two separate women, and probably three, is mashed up into a stew of falsehood and rumor. It is a classic case of WP:Don't build the Frankenstein. Please take a look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Kent Smith (politician)

In the article Kent Smith (politician) there is a claim that he diverted funds from an organization, that is backed up with a source from a blog. Wondering if this source is suitable. Quick googling seems to show that any mention of this supposed scandal comes only from this blog, and is parroted by a political opponent whom he defeated in the most recent election, and given how thin the article otherwise is as it stands it seems to give undue weight. While I wouldn't want to whitewash anything, it would seem to me that such a claim ought to be backed up by a more substantial source, especially one that is less politically charged. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The blog is clearly not a reliable source and I have removed the claim and source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Help with Hansjörg Wyss?

Done Hello. A colleague of mine, User:16912 Rhiannon, posted last week about Hansjörg Wyss, however the post was lost during a period when there were a few high profile pages under discussion. I'm reposting to see if editors can look at the Controversy section of the article, which deals with allegations of sexual harassment against Mr. Wyss. I do not believe that the information is adequately supported by sources and I'm hoping editors from here can take a look to see if it meets the BLP guidelines.

The current sources include a blog, an anti-Hillary Clinton website, and conservative web publication The Daily Caller, which has previously published pieces critical of Mr. Wyss. If someone can review, please see the current Talk page discussion about the information and whether it should be included.

Please note that I have a financial conflict of interest as I have been working on the article on behalf of The Wyss Foundation, as part of my work for my employer, Beutler Ink. My colleague, User:16912 Rhiannon made a request here last week (and disclosed her conflict of interest) as I was unavailable. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let others know that the section in question has been removed by another editor and I feel that this matter is resolved. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Manitonquat DRV: disgruntled editors institute edit war

FYI: Despite notability has been established (See DRV just concluded)

https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_29

One apparently disgruntled contributor thereto User:CorbieV seems to be instituting redundant deletion attempt. Otherwise I'm not seeing any indication that nominators for deletion are at all familiar with the contents of this DRV.

It's pertinent at this juncture to point out previous concerns raised regarding Subtle Vandalism of this page; including the question of possible cultural / racial prejudice as a factor.

I copy you notice of deletion Nomination from User:Montanabw Talk page: Nomination of Manitonquat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manitonquat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manitonquat (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Horse Dancing (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ryan Kalil

Ryan Kalil This article has the statement "He is one of the best centers in the NFL"- just curious how this conclusion was reached since there are no references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumithar (talk • contribs)

I removed it as commentary. --Malerooster (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Nevil Schoenmakers

This article is an advertisement full with opinions and very contentious, very little factual info, and should be removed from Wikipedia.

Nevil is not seen as the King of Cannabis by anyone except himself and a few fans.

Nevil is not considered the "original father of cannabis" by anyone except himself and a handful of fans. The claim is insulting to the plant species and history and the people who's strains Nevil crossed, reproduced and sold..

He did not create and is not credited with creating super skunk, super silver haze, or Northern Light. Even Neville's Haze is not created by Nevil. It's a tribute bred by Shantibaba ar Mr Nice seeds.

Bird breeding has little in common with plant breeding. This article is like much information in the cannabis industry, promotional nonsense, and does not belong at Wikipedia.

Chris Pitman

The article Chris Pitman has been edited recently by the user Backwaters (talk · contribs). Backwaters, either is Pitman himself (1), or knows him ([5]). Either case I had already notified him for WP:COI. In the article, Backwaters is changing BLP sourced information for unsourced one. Backwaters has not given sources and from time to time this behavior repeats. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Does [6] violate WP:BLP with regard to the living person Jimbo Wales? Collect (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I knew this was coming. Sadly most of that is factually accurate, if overly POV-laden. However certain parts would fail BLP. Suggesting Jimbo accepted money in a "PR exercise designed to whitewash its public" certainly does, as does "Conspired in co-opting WMF servers as tools of the regimes propaganda". Both are unsourced negative opinions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually it is in the main factually inaccurate, starting with the first sentence.

When I awarded the Wikipedian of the Year award, Rauan was not a government employee. So saying that I awarded a "government operative" is false.

In all these occasions - all of them - I publicly and privately condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes.

Writegeist is spreading lies about me, and should be permanently blocked.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

In May 2011 Rauan became president of Wikibilim, in August 2011 he was given the Wikipedian of the Year award. So he was a government operative, as WG says, though not a paid employee. I will check the other statements Peter Damian (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the truth have any place here? Eric Corbett 21:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement needs to be removed due to WP:NPA. That is what we do with blatant personal attacks on other users. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

So why weren't the various accusations of X or Y being a "toxic personality" etc removed? I've no idea whether the linked item is accurate or not but I sense a bit of pot and kettle going on. - Sitush (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that was unsourced statement had to removed as per WP:NPA more so as it in a userpage and this would have been the case with any editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wales says that in "all these occasions - all of them" that he publicly condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes. He's talking primarily about Kazakhstan. In an address at the 2012 Wikimania, this is what Wales said about Kazakhstan: "So, now it's time for Jimbo's Awards. Yay! <applause> Um, so I started this, uh, last year, and I hope to make it an ongoing, uh, tradition. Uh, and, uh, last year, uh, for the first time I gave, uh, the Wikipedian of the Award -- of the Year Award, uh, to, uh, Rauan, who is here somewhere. Can he stand up? Here? <applause> From Kazakh Wikipedia. Uh, and um, I also, uh, a donation to the Kazakh Wikipedia community, and to visit, uh, Kazakhstan. Neither of those things have actually happened yet. <mild laughter> Um, but the offer still stands, and actually I met with the, uh, ambassador from Kazakhstan this morning. And, uh, we're planning a trip there as soon as possible so that I can, uh, give him an award in the presence of the President or Prime Minister, whoever we can wrangle to come to that. Um, and so now, uh, for this year, uh, I'm gonna do again, uh..." There is no sign of any public condemnation there, is there? - 2001:558:1400:10:45C7:22D3:7A26:A52 (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Certainly cant see any, but Jimbo Wales says all sorts of things thst either make no sense or he doesn't follow through on. Eric Corbett 22:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wales is the one, how shall I put it, that is truthfully challenged here. The guy Wales gave the "Wikipedian of the year award" to is a career Kazakh government propagandist/official and was in the pay of the Kazakh government at the time of the award (and prior to the award, and since). Wikibilim was at the time and still is funded by the Kazakh government to run and monitor the Kazakh Wikipedia. These are those stubborn things called "facts." Mr. Wales has untruthfully called "Writegeist" a liar here, in a matter where the truth is not flattering to him, and is seeking to use his highly privileged position to have him blocked and silenced. So much for "NPA" and a "community" that is "built on love and respect."Dan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the video recording of the previous year's Wikimania (2011): [7] Please, watch it for yourselves.

There is certainly a mention of "something amazing" happening in Kazakhstan, of the Kazakh government and the Kazakh Prime Minister there, who Wales said he'd been talking to. There is no condemnation whatsoever, only the announcement of an award and a $5,000 donation, an undertaking to give that award in the presence of that Prime Minister, and a mention of "happy puppies and kittens" (!). Andreas JN 466 19:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Andreas, you are being completely unfair to Mr. Wales, as he also clearly mentioned a certain set of "sad puppies and sad kittens" which I think was, to date, his firmest condemnation of the ruthless aspects of the autocratic regime in Kazakhstan, even if it was only allegorical. Please try to understand that for the warm, gentle, and loving audiences assembled at Wikimania conferences, anything more blunt and direct to chastise the Kazakh government and its "amazing" takeover of the Kazakh-language Wikipedia would have thrown most audience members into a fit of the vapors. - 2001:558:1400:10:3087:E3EF:39CE:BEB5 (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The audio recording of the equally condemnation-free 2012 speech transcribed above, about the Kazakh award, ambassador, president and prime minister, is here on Wikinews: [8]. Time code 23:45 onward. Andreas JN 466 19:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: "In all these occasions - all of them - I publicly . . . condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes." Then please back up the assertion with links to the text, audio or video or your public condemnations in all these occasions, starting with a public condemnation in your Wikimania announcement of the Wikipedian of the Year award, and I'll happily (very happily, in fact) refactor and apologize. Writegeist (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And Incidentally, re. the OP here: might this be the same Collect who displayed a notice at the top of his own talk page that included the observations that “Mr. Wales, who assured us that he took his role in the appeals process seriously, does not do so” and “Mr. Wales does not even believe in common courtesy, much less in following process”? [9] Writegeist (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Could be. Collect doesn't play favorites or care what side ones on. If he sees a BLP violation, he'll call it. --Malerooster (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, totally. So he reported his BLP violations here? Writegeist (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh? There is a difference between discussion about one person's "courtesy" , and alleging that a person is complicit in "whitewashing" war crimes or the like. I think you had gotten so used to posing snide comments abut me that the distinction eluded you. (Also a big shout out to the creepy, deceitful stalker who so regularly rummages around in here, and in my talk page, while I'm out that I have to lock up the silver. Visitors please note: I have an aversion to bloviating, lying, and self-righteous denial when called out; deliberate misrepresentation of policies and other users' comments; hypocrisy (e.g. acting as a self-appointed BLP enforcer yet also flouting the policy when it suits a personal agenda); tendentious arguing long after the argument has been lost; and to the tedious, repeated, and irrelevant trumpeting of claimed personal credentials in a pathetic, narcissistic effort to impress, From Collect 24 (the Book of Common Prayer), for vocation in daily work: Deliver us . . . in our various occupations from the service of self alone, that we may do the work . . . in truth and beauty and for the common good. , and many many more - including posts on noticeboards etc. Simple snark. Accusing a person of complicity or agreement with being at a ceremony where he relieved the regime of half a million dollars in a PR exercise designed to whitewash its public image. (the most mild-mannered claim in the post at issue) is a league away from routinely simply attacking another editor over, and over, and over ... Collect (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"Mr. Wales, who assured us that he took his role in the appeals process seriously, does not do so” calls Jimmy “Jimbo” a liar. “Mr. Wales does not even believe in common courtesy, much less in following process” attacks Jimmy “Jimbo’s” character. Both are also BLP violations. As apparently you’ve noticed, I have an aversion to bloviating, lying, and self-righteous denial when called out; also to the hypocrisy of acting as a self-appointed BLP enforcer yet flouting the policy when it suits a personal agenda—which, in this instance, couldn't be more obviously the case. Writegeist (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Enough. You've made your point. Now take it to your blog or somewhere, because here, it is an inappropriate attack on another editor and a problem per WP:BLP as well. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The point should be accepted (not just made). What we've had instead is the opposite. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Or rebutted. Oh, wait, it has been. As you were then. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Rebutted, yes. Very forcefully, and entirely unpersuasively. Andreas JN 466 00:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Or to put it differently, there's an important difference between rebutted and refuted. Guy did choose the right word -- no criticism there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Gee, you can read much the same in the media: [10][11][12] Are we now in Kazakhstan here, where repeating in public what the (exiled) opposition press says lands you in jail? Andreas JN 466 19:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

So it seems. Of course by March 2015 Wales's opinion of the Kazakh regime was sufficiently low for him to berate Tony Blair for taking money from them [13], yet on the other hand, in the UAE, Wales took money from another regime that's also notorious for abusing human rights. [14] [15]. It's all very confusing. Writegeist (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

He is due to return to the UAE to deliver a keynote speech in Dubai in a few days' time. The event is held under the patronage of another member of the Al Maktoum family. I would be interested to know if, as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he is charging a speaking fee at the upcoming event, and whether he will loudly and publicly condemn its human rights abuses on this occasion. A year ago, he told a journalist he took the UAE rulers' $500,000 cash award to – quote – "f*** with them":

Wales explanation to me of why he accepted money from the UAE beggars belief. "I showed up there for a speech at an education conference," Wales narrated, "and they informed me that I would be given a prize the next day. I was caught completely off-guard and made a quick decision that I think was completely genius." Consulting with Israeli human rights lawyer Orit Kopel, with whom Wales had collaborated in the past, he asked her "If she would help me use the money to f*** with them." "Yes, I could have declined the money," Wales explained, "but why give money back to horrible people? So they can use it to pay for more jails?" Andreas JN 466 00:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to get back to the topic posted by Collect. Is the message at the top of @Writegeist:'s user page a violation of WP:BLP? Related questions are: has he done this at other places? Is he continuing to do so? I personally have looked at Writegeist's posts as trolling, personal attacks, and harassment, but his comments about Jimbo are also clearly violations of BLP.

This is *not* about Writegeist's freedom of speech. The WMF and the en Wikipedia community are not required to host Writegeist's personal attacks. Writegeist's attacks are his own personal opinions. Start with the first sentence "Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales bestowed a personal honor on a Kazakh government operative whose job is to oversee the use of WMF servers as tools of the regime’s propaganda." Opinion, assuming bad faith, putting Jimbo in the worst possible light, no references => BLP violation. That goes for every sentence in the passage given by Collect.

Of course these matters have been brought up before - perhaps a couple of dozen times on Wikipedia. People do have the right to ask Jimbo questions, but when you get the answers, call him a liar, and just won't stop, then it is harassment. See the first 6,000 words at [16]. At that point that Writegeist was just yelling that Jimbo was a liar, I warned Writegeist and the next week moderated him right off the page.

I don't see what Writegeist expected to achieve on Jimbo's talk page. He could have said that he would agree to disagree with Jimbo. He could take any evidence he's gathered to the police (but of course he doesn't have any evidence that would let the police take this seriously). He could try to convince public opinion makers, e.g. the New York Times, or similar papers, that Jimbo is an evil man who needs to be publicly shamed (but of course they'd just laugh at Writegeist). So instead he goes on a long troll on Jimbo's talk page, in effect just trying to yell down Jimbo's answers. Sorry but that's not what talk pages are for, it has nothing to do with the goals of Wikipedia. It is a violation of WP:BLP.

Is he still doing it? Sure, see User talk:Writegeist#Jim Beau's talk, where he posted this picture;

If that isn't harassment I don't know what is.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you clearly have no clue what harassment is. Wales was proven to be telling lies - or at best being mistaken. His response? Certainly not to put his hand up. Instead he doubled down and called the person telling the truth a liar. Wales' false claim there is the real personal attack. Then he seeks to use his "Godking" position to get some anonymous minion to permanently silence the truth teller ("Writegeist is spreading lies about me, and should be permanently blocked.") This is a real problem of governance at Wikipedia - and of course comes at a time when the lack of transparency and accountability at board level is under enhanced scrutiny. You frankly have the whole situation completely upside down. At any rate, there is no "harassment" (you really don't understand the meaning of this word "Smallbones"), or "personal attacks" (aside from the ones on this page and elsewhere by Wales), or "BLP vios" going on.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding - ah, what a sleazy insinuation that "Writegeist" is threatening violence from you, Smallbones. The picture is in reference to the ongoing effort by you and others to railroad Writegeist so the likes of you can get your bannination fix. You're trying to get rid of him (a sort of wiki execution) double quick - "number one with a bullet" (a reference I suspect, ballistically at least, will soar right over your head.)Dan Murphy (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the answers have been contradictory. Jimbo ends up having to say he "mis-spoke" etc, or he simply doesn't respond (generally, a common tactic used by him along with asking that the discussion be conducted via email). When acolytes such as yourself then start acting as policemen (oops, policewomen, policepeople ... erm, let's say policers), removing stuff seemingly to protect him from further questions, it tends to reinforce whatever the conspiracy theory of the day might be. Jimbo sets himself up to the public, media etc as the founder of WP and he trades on that image and on being able to make public pronouncements etc because of it. He should not be able to have his cake and eat it. If he is a public figure and has chosen to be such then he has to expect uncomfortable questions and, alas, he has failed to answer them in a consistent manner or indeed in a manner that accords with the known facts. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Smallbones, are you truly unable to see any contradictions in the things Wales says? Have you watched the video, listened to the audio (linked above), and compared the recorded facts of Wales' actual conduct to the claims about his conduct he made above in this thread ("In all these occasions - all of them - I publicly and privately condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes")? If you haven't, then please kindly do so now. Andreas JN 466 02:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to keep on attacking Jimmy Wales. You've put together a series of "interpreted facts", and it's a very complicated story that few if any people can follow. You and others have tried to push this story all over the internet. As far as I can tell, almost nobody is buying it. I think a better interpretation of the facts is that Jimmy has, in good faith, made great efforts to spread free knowledge all over the world, and has not been successful in all cases. Nobody is always successful in all their endeavors. Yet folks like Writegeist insist on saying that he is acting in bad faith, that he is lying, etc. He's given his answers, repeated questioning without taking his answers seriously amounts to harassment. The 6,000+ word inquisition on his talk page was 90% harassment and trolling. The post that Writegeist put at the top of his user page was a clear violation of WP:BLP. Posting the photo of a shooting gun on his talk page only confirms the obvious. Everybody who has used *this page* to attack Jimmy should be ashamed of themselves. If you have any actual evidence of misbehavior on Jimmy's part, I suggest you take it to the FBI, or to the NY Times, or perhaps some international criminal tribunal. But of course you've got nothing of the sort, people will just laugh at you if you try that. So multiple postings of this questionable material on Wikipedia, inquisitions on his talk page, and accusations of lying, just are not acceptable at this point. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I get that you like and respect Jimmy Wales, and would like him to like you, but these are not "interpreted facts". Statements like "I've spoken to the Prime Minister there"/"I never spoke to the Prime Minister", "I've never spoken to anyone at the Kazakh embassy"/"I met with the Kazakh ambassador this morning", "In all these occasions - all of them - I publicly and privately condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes" etc. are absolute statements not open to interpretation. They are mutually exclusive, and/or objectively falsifiable. Moreover, no one has insinuated that any crime has been committed here. Andreas JN 466 04:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"I get that you like and respect Jimmy Wales, and would like him to like you" - the purpose of WP:BLPN is not to insult me, or to insult Jimmy Wales. If you don't understand why your statement is insulting, consider if I said the following to you "I get that you like and respect User:Kohser, and would like him to like you" Your opinion of my motivations has nothing to do with this page. "no one has insinuated that any crime has been committed here." what are you saying then and what is the reason for the gang-trolling on Jimbo's talk page? What do you intend to do with the "facts" that you've gathered - posting 6,000 word sections on Jimbo's talk page while accusing him of being a liar - is not something our rules allow (e.g. NPA, Trolling, WP:Harass). You've used thousands of words to put forward your case - as far as I can tell you haven't convinced anybody other than a few trolls, and you don't know what you want to do with your case. A suggestion - if you don't think there are any criminal actions, but only unethical ones then take it to the NY Times (but you have nothing to take to them), if you think that Jimbo has brought Wikipedia into disrepute, take it to the WMF (but you have nothing to take to them), if you think Jimbo or the WMF are abusing the foundation's non-profit status, take it to the IRS (but you have nothing to take to them). What is not allowable on Wikipedia is multiple repetitions of smears against living people.

So back to the purpose of this page: did Writegeist violate WP:BLP by posting smears against Jimbo on his user page? Yes, it is obvious that he did. He should be banned. Your opinions of me or of Jimbo are not relevant. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with you. There are inconsistencies in Wales' statements about what happened, and Writegeist pointed them out. When Wales described his contacts with the Kazakh government, he verifiably – see the video and audio recordings linked above – did not voice any criticism of them, but on the contrary announced his intention to participate in an awards ceremony with the Prime Minister or President of one of the most abusive regimes on earth.

This is not illegal – lots of Western PR companies work for the Kazakh regime, because they pay well, and lots of Western politicians associate with the Kazakh government, because they have been supportive of US military efforts in the region, or because of their stance on nuclear disarmament, or because of their vast oil wealth. However, these people are rightly criticised, as Tony Blair has been for example, when they help the regime polish its media image.

Jimmy Wales' actions – the creation and announcement of a special award, the announcement of his intention to attend an award ceremony with the regime's leaders in Kazakhstan – had the unfortunate effect of bolstering the PR efforts of that regime. His award is, for example, mentioned on the Kazakh Prime Minister's website, as well as various Kazakh embassy websites and news outlets reporting that Wales lauded a project run with government money (a fact that was well known before the award was given) under the auspices of Karim Massimov, the country's prime minister (and for a while president's chief of staff). ([17][18][19][20][21] and many others.) Moreover, the Wikipedia effort that Wales praised had the effect of turning large parts of the Kazakh Wikipedia into a mirror of the government-censored, state-published Kazakh National Encyclopedia, a matter that has not just concerned "trolls" [22][23]. You can view Wales' actions as you like, but you should respect the right of your fellow Wikipedians to feel uncomfortable with them, given that the Kazakh regime's values are diametrically opposed to those of the Wikipedia movement. Andreas JN 466 20:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Now "smears" is an "interpreted fact," smart guy. You're doing it deliberately to try to railroad the guy. "He violated BLP!!! and should be BANNINATED!" you write. No he didn't. He simply wrote the truth and has been lied about and insulted, first by Wales and now by you (whoever "you" are). Pointing out the fact of Wales' mutually exclusive statements and flimflam about it is the furthest thing I could imagine from a "smear." As for "BLP?" What bleeding nonsense. Your attempt to rally a little mob isn't working, however. I'm sure this must be frustrating for you. So why not drop the stick before you embarrass yourself further?Dan Murphy (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Proportional Response Good grief, it's one thing to kick a nuisance off of Mr. Wales talk page so he won't be repeatedly bothered, quite another to ban someone for something a little prickly on their own talk page. The video doesn't match Mr. Wales claim above about bringing up human rights on "all these occasions". I don't interpret that as a lie or deception because Mr. Wales must speak at a ton of different events and the memory can be faulty. (There's a saying here that goes "Always remember, never say 'always' or 'never'!") Being able to show a statement is provably wrong is not WP:BLP violation; at most what's going on here is WP:OR. I'll defer to admins on whether some sanction is appropriate here, but it is certainly less than a lifetime ban. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's perhaps worth stating though that the two talks captured on video and audio that were mentioned above took place at Wikimania 2011 and Wikimania 2012. They easily represent the most high-profile events at which Jimmy Wales addressed the community about Kazakhstan, and are not occasions that are all that easy to forget. Andreas JN 466 17:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Carl Raschke

Carl Raschke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Carlraschke (talk · contribs)
70.212.5.251 (talk · contribs)

An account purporting to be the article's subject has deleted a criticism section, claiming libel. Also deleted are all associated references from critical scholars. Some attention and objective assistance would be welcome. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I restored the material, which was properly sourced, and placed a note at Carlraschke (talk · contribs)'s talk page. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I can understand if WP:UNDUE is a concern--if the majority of an article is criticism, then a red flag is justifiably raised. But it usually doesn't work when a COI account registers just to delete material they don't like. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Just doing a quick Google search, I suspect WP:UNDUE is the right guideline to cite here; all the reception appears to deal with a rather narrow topic of Raschke's writing, Satanism; elsewhere he's described as a postmodern evangelical, who has written on more extensive themes. It isn't libel, but it does seem a bit unbalanced. If anyone is more familiar with his publications and can flesh the bio out, it would probably make a difference. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A new, apparently affiliated IP has been added. If not resolved here, this may be a persistent enough problem to bring to ANI. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is still going on, now with a new user, LH Chicago (talk · contribs). This user also popped up put of nowhere. There may be some WP:SOCK going on.

For the record, Raschke is primarily notable because of the material he published in the early 90s, as well as his apparent appearance as an "expert witness" during that period in cases involving Satanic ritual abuse. He also appeared on, for example, the Geraldo show during this time making similar claims. His work was used for the notorious conviction of the West Memphis Three as well. Raschke's work in this area has been pretty strongly damned by fellow scholars (in some of the strongest language in scholarship I've seen in a long time, actually). There's a lot to say about this on his article. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Levan Songulashvili

The Levan Songulashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article has one WSJ link but the article where it leads doesn't discuss the artist only the event. The other resources look like they came from press releases. The article is an orphan. I'm sorry but I do not know the special tags to put on these pages and come instead to request assistance here. While the artist may be notable (I do not feel qualified to judge that), the page has multiple issues and reads like a promotional attempt. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I will nominate for deletion.--Jahaza (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have prodded it for failing WP:ARTIST--Jahaza (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Levan Songulashvili is one of the most important and significant artists of Georgia. Even several days ago he was nominated for the Georgian Public Broadcaster's grand award The Best Artist of The Year. The article's links are from various Georgian and Russian magazines and newspapers, some of them are in English, Georgian and Russian languages, some Georgian language sources are translated into English. He deserves and it is important to be an English article about the artist on Wikipedia. It should not be deleted. I improved the article and please, check it out and let me know if there is anything else to do or modify itself. Sincerely, -- GeorgianArtCenter (talk)

I have removed the proposed deletion as you attempted to do it yourself, but apparently incompletely and another user restored it. I have instead nominated the article for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levan Songulashvili‎ instead.--Jahaza (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is the user who restored it? I have seen a lots of articles on Wikipedia with no much sources but they are still exists and the article about Levan has many sources from online magazines, press releases, newspapers. He is one of the most well-known artist in Georgia, he got prize by President of Georgia, had received several major awards... On December 31, 2015, he was nominated for The Best Artist of The Year next to Niko Pirosmani, which was great XX century artist. He has exhibitions in and out of Georgia... Levan is a member of Artists Union of Georgia, there are many interviews with the artist in a lots of broadcasting companies and you can find various articles about him in popular magazines and newspapers nationwide. In 2010, there was an article about him in Georgia's Public Encyclopedia...There are lots of papers in Georgian and Russian languages, as well as in English. It is important for Georgian society to have an article about the Georgian artist on Wikipedia and it is already a strange fact that we are doubting on it. You can delete it but remember, it will be a big mistake. I expect more from you before you make a final decision. -- GeorgianArtCenter (talk)

GeorgianArtCenter, you need to make your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levan Songulashvili‎ now, if you want to prevent the deletion.--Jahaza (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Jahaza, Thanks for telling but how, can you give me an instructions for it? GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)(talk)

GeorgianArtCenter, the instructions for participating in Articles for Deletion are here WP:AFDEQ and here WP:AFDFORMAT

Jahaza I Guess I did it already, didn't I? GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)(talk)

Jahaza, * Do not delete Theroadislong did a good job in improving the article. GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)GeorgianArtCenter

I don't think I have done enough to save it. The article still doesn't appear to pass WP:ARTIST I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope The article will appear to pass WP:ARTIST as soon as Jahaza will see your corrections. I really do not understand the problem anymore. There should be a notable artist in Wikipedia, right? So, he is one of the most notable artists from Georgia. If you need notarized statements and translated articles from Georgian into English I can provide. I can send all the papers by E-Mail. I have seen lots of articles with a very few sources but they still exist without any problems. It is really strange that you bring it into the question. If you once go to Georgia you can ask them about the artist. Anyway, I did not expected such problems from the Wikipedia community. If the article needed improvement you already shortened it, if you are not sure in something I can provide notarized documents, too. Have a happy new year! GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)GeorgianArtCenter

I would suggest adding sources from Georgian media. Many wikipedia editors think notability is established only through English language sources, but that is incorrect. If you can produce georgian language sources for the articles claims, and for Songulashvilis notability that supports notability as well. Unfortunately most other editors will be unlikely to help you with this task.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

·maunusThanks for the information! There are lots of sources in Georgian language, also in Russian. Sure I can add many of those sources. GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)GeorgianArtCenter

Jahaza, ·maunus, I did some changes, the article is improved and I am sure it is ready without doubts! Besides of other sources of articles in press (magazines,newspapers, online press releases in Georgian, English and Russian languages), I used the article of Georgian Encyclopedia, 9th edition, volume I, Publication - 2010. GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)GeorgianArtCenter

Category:Deep Throat

Category:Deep Throat, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion based partially on BLP concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Manasvi Mamgai is not a contestant on Bigg Boss 9 as mentioned in this article.

Manasvi Mamgai is not a contestant on Bigg Boss 9 as mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18c:c501:3d5:f8af:be1e:dc3f:57bf (talk • contribs)

David Lindley

Add to his discography with other persons:m 1990 Under The Red Sky, on which he contributed slide guitar for a Bob Dylan album...

Jeremy C... Hunt

Jeremy Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) does not contain any mention of the fact that he has been accidentally referred to as Jeremy Cunt on air by James Naughtie, Evan Davies, Jon Craig, Mark Longhurst and others, with deliberate "mistakes" from Ricky Gervaise and even Roger Mellie. I'd like some advice on how to cover this properly. It's clearly notable, it keeps happening and is a recurring theme in British political satire, but as a WP:BLP we need to be careful. Some have said it's a Freudian slip rather than a Spoonerism. I don't know so much. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a good analogy, but does this compare to the whole Santorum neologism thingy. If "material" is widely covered and related to a BLP, then it may be included if its done in a NPOV and weighted fashion. Iam not saying this is the case here since I have ZERO knowledge about this matter. I mostly stick to MOS type editing cause I suck at "tricky" content matters like this :) --Malerooster (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Most of the "cunt" articles are relevant to the speaker, not Jeremy Hunt. For example, The view from a broad is about James Naughtie not Jeremy Hunt. However, Jim Naughtie wasn't the first presenter ... is about the Jeremy Hunt subtopic of "the hunt/cunt trap" faced by broadcasters over the years. It takes it out of BLP. In this case, something outside Hunt's control causing his name to be altered seems a very minor life event relative to Jeremy Hunt's life so it may not make it into the Jeremy Hunt article itself. If you really are intent on getting "cunt" into the Jeremy Hunt article, one way might be through the See Also subsection. I recall a case of politician Anthony Weiner sending pictures of his weiner as part of sexting scandals. There's probably enough source material for an article on something like 'List of journalists deliberate play on words in politician names,' which could be added to an article such as Jeremy Hunt in the 'See also' subsection where the word "cunt" could be place to describe the see also link. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I was actually thinking that I would prefer it included, if it HAD to be, in the other folks bios. For gods sake, do NOT put it in a See also section, that is bad (see my contribution history :) ). --Malerooster (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

But when people keep doing it, it becomes attached to the person, not the other people. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Joe DiRosa

-It looks like he wrote it himself

-Self-promotion everywhere

-Dead links

-"citations" from his own sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.132.5 (talk • contribs)

Assuming this request is about Joe DiRosa, I mostly agree with the IP and have removed some of the invalid references. But this isn't really a WP:BLP-problem. If the article's topic isn't notable, you can nominate it for deletion (WP:AFD), or remove/rephrase some of the more promotional or unsourced sections (done partially). GermanJoe (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

He did write it himself. I userfied it. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Carwyn Jones

Hi All,

I wanted to flag the section Relationship with Westminster in the Carwyn Jones article. I have made a minor edit to the section heading which was originally titled "Blame London for everything".

As the oriinal title suggests, I found the entirety of this section to be overtly political, it seems to me a relatively minor aspect of Mr Jones tenure as First Minister, yet it is the first of only two subheadings for his entire premiership. As the original title suggests, I think this only exists to make a political point and, as such, should be removed.

As with any living politicians biography this is open to interpretation or outright bias. As such, I would like to flag this for deletion rather than delete it myself and start a editing war with some politico. It is not overtly attacking, just adds nothing to a biographical entry to any encyclopaedia and as such I would like to see it removed.

[[24]]

Ariel Fernandez

From the Talk page on the article Ariel Fernandez of which I am the subject, I became aware of continuous efforts by editor Molevol1234 to include mentioning of questioned papers that I have authored. The questioned papers have not been retracted and no wrongdoing on my behalf has been determined. As I learned from the Talk page, in such a case, according to Wikipedia policy, reputable secondary sources justifying notability for inclusion would need to be included. The blog Retraction Watch does not constitute such a reputable secondary source because it is a self-published blog, as several editors have noted in the archived discussions (BLP:SPS). As I understand, Wikipedia policy forbids SPS for BLPs. Thank you for your attention.Ariel Fernandez Ph D (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Of obvious relevance: long SPI archive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- And, of course, WP:BLP then no longer applies to living persons who annoyed an editor? sorry -- that sort of claim is totally uncalled for. Collect (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  - Oh dear -- yes, indeed, that sort of claim is totally uncalled for!!!!!!!!! Who made that claim?? They should be reported!! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: who said it??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: this is surely a serious matter and I'm puzzled that you haven't pursued it. Who made that claim? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: is it possible that in fact no one made the claim you identified? If so, perhaps you could clarify so that this topic can be archived properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think we'll have to conclude that Collect made some sort of error here -- was perhaps confused about something or other. Or perhaps ping wasn't working... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not a sock. I have a social security number, a driver license and a passport. I have not reported invalid data in any of my 350 papers. There is no notability in mentioning the papers questioned by (Redacted). The papers have not been retracted. Thanks for your kind attention.Ariel Fernandez Ph D (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Collect is of course, correct, you are allowed to protest the content of your article. WP:BLPSPS says: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. You focus on the use of Retraction Watch, a self-published blog. You may notice that RW is never used in the article as the single source for any single fact, there is always another reference. RW is not being used as a 'as source[s] of material about a living person' but as an additional reference with supporting contextual material. Is there a particular statement in the article that you contend is untrue? Are there secondary sources with in depth coverage which we are overlooking? (Non english-language sources are welcome but will take longer for us to deal with). Do you contend that the overall balance of coverage in the article is drastically unrepresentative of the coverage of you in secondary sources? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- As I understand, a secondary source needs to be cited to justify that the mention of papers merely questioned by a third party has enough notability to be included in the Wikipedia article of a living person. I doubt that there is any reputable secondary source that would justify such a thing. May I remind you these are not papers retracted or papers proven to contain invalid data. The papers have been merely questioned by (Redacted). Also, WP:BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person". Thus, as far as I can tell, it is immaterial whether RW is the only source used or not, RW is a source used, and that is strictly forbidden. Ariel Fernandez Ph D (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed WP:OUTING and indef'ed this latest sock. He's been indef'ed multiple times over the years, has brought nothing new to this discussion here, and has even been warned for outing before. DMacks (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Retraction Watch is self pusblished indiscriminate source, not allowed in BLP as per BLP SPS. There are millions of challenged papers, different from retracted or invalid. That is not important stuff.190.176.243.185 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Poppy Drayton

Hi. I'd appreciate some more eyes on Poppy Drayton – various IP's keep adding her birthdate based on a Twitter post which to my mind verifies no such thing. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I would appreciate it if some people knowledgeable about BLP's and BLP policies would take a look at Talk:Poppy Drayton#Poppy Drayton Birthday – I suspect we're almost to a resolution here, but I'd like some knowledgeable "third opinions" before proceeding... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[FOOTNOTEAyesha_Jalal2014366-1] Ayesha Jalal 2014, p. 366.

[FOOTNOTEImtiaz_Gul2012Chapter_2_(pp.&nbsp;43-46)-2] Imtiaz Gul 2012, Chapter 2 (pp. 43-46).

[3] Mira Sethi (21 January 2012). "The Weekend Interview with Husain Haqqani: A Hostage in Pakistan - WSJ". Wall Street Journal.

[1]

[2]

[3]