Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

---

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Nationality cited to source that is probably not talking about nationality?

Florence Faivre's lead describes her as "a French-Thai actress and model", and this is attributed to this review of a film she was in. The problem is, Thailand only apparently recognizes dual citizenship for those under 18 and in some cases divorcées and widows, so I suspect they were just referring to her as "ethnically Thai" (because it's relevant to the character she played?) or even just to her place of birth, even though she is actually just French. Maybe she had dual citizenship until she turned 18 and the source describes her by her former status for whatever reason. (Note that I don't actually know: she may reside in France but have Thai citizenship, and the source is just sloppy.)

I guess in this particular case a better source than some random film review could probably be located that just describes her as one or the other and it could be subbed out. My normal strategy for non-BLPs would just be to tag it and give the above problem in the reason parameter and just walk away since it's not a big issue for non-BLPs. But what's the "optimal" way to deal with situations like this?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing much reliable on the WWW, a couple of varying reports as well. You could ask her on twitter, she has a verified account. https://twitter.com/Florence_Faivre I can't find a reliable source that confirms she is either French or Thai. I'd say without confirmation of either you should take both out for now. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the material for now. --Malerooster (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just to update, the content and the village voice supporting it has been replaced [link] by Sandstein. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Well, yes, we're just echoing Village Voice by saying that she's "French-Thai". We don't know whether this refers to nationality or her heritage, and we don't say either. As long as we don't have a specific reason to doubt that Village Voice is a reliable source, I don't see a need to omit what they write, particularly not based on our own original research about Thai nationality law. Sandstein 06:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Looking over the article, in the Infobox we do state both French and Thai for nationality. The Village Voice may be reliable, but given the strong likelihood that they're discussing parentage, not nationality, this isn't particularly strong sourcing. The birthplace also looks unsourced, and is contradicted by the entries on fr.Wiki & de.Wiki. I've done some searching for sources for either nationality or birthplace, but sources on the article subject are remarkably thin on the ground; to the point where we probably don't have enough to establish notability. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Ben Swann

Ben Swann

The following statement in the opening paragraph of Ben Swann's wiki seems to violate the Neutral Point of View policy and needs to be revised.

"he began producing a fact-checking series entitled Reality Check that has garnered media attention for presenting conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and scientifically-discredited claims of a link between vaccines and autism."

Specifically the use of "presenting conspiracy theories." The very use of the word "conspiracy theory" implies a clear bias on whatever subject it's applied to, which violates wikipedia policy. The term is only used to discredit certain viewpoints. And the "presenting" part isn't accurate. He covers some of these things, but does not endorse the theories. For example, in his Pizzagate piece he repeated that there was no evidence of child sex trafficking throughout the segment.

It also just seems like an unnecessary dig on Ben Swann, especially being placed in the opening paragraph. Seems like it belongs in a "Criticism" section if anywhere.

People go to Wikipedia to get raw information on something or someone, not to hear about the media's opinion of somebody. But not only is it unnecessary and shows bias, but it's factually incorrect as well. For example, the Sandy hook segment he did wasn't even a part of his Reality Check series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

“Presented” doesn’t mean “endorsed”. Actually, “presented” is mild as he has questioned why there wasn’t a police investigation of Pizzagate, and has questioned CDC actions and other statements by authorities. Presumably, the sentence is in the lede as this is what resulted in Ben Swann gaining national coverage. In any case, we just follow WP:RS, and they are the sources of the term “conspiracy theories”. BTW, you really should go to article talk first. Although this has been discussed there in the past. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Asking questions is not "promoting" conspiracy theories. Asking questions is exactly what we would expect a good journalist to be doing. Conspiracy theory, according to Wikipedia, means "an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy." The sources cited for the statement also do not support the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It could be worded a bit better, but I don't think its a gross violation. "Swann produces 'Reality Check', a series that covers the veracity of various fringe and conspiracy theories." --Masem (t) 18:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen Reality Check. He regularly leaves the listener with the impression that something suspicious is going on and there's a government cover up. O3000 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is appropriate criticism of Reality Check but not necessarily of Swann himself, unless outside the show he acts the same way. --Masem (t) 18:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, I see what is a point here that RC is pretty much his show being a news segment rather than a produced show. That ties what the segment presents closer to what he likely believes, etc. I still think that the way the lede is presented is a bit odd. Not wrong/against BLP, but odd. --Masem (t) 19:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it was his show. When cancelled, he moved it to his YouTube channel, which was eventually pulled down after a great deal of backlash. Most of the content came from Russia Today and InfoWars. O3000 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right but for the wrong reasons. "Presented" conspiracy theories is not the right wording (it's WP:WEASEL). The correct wording should be "promoted" conspiracy theories. And it should definitely be in the lede, because it's what Swann is most known for and what he's covered for in RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

He was careful to not say he believed in such. But, he used “When did you stop beating your wife” kind of wording. I agree he promoted. But, I think we have to settle with the compromise. Sometimes the weasel wins. O3000 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's a necessary component of conspiracy peddling. It's a common tactic in conspiracy theory promotion to "just ask questions" and uncritically repeat false and misleading information. When someone presents false, unsubstantiated and misleading fringe content without correcting it, they're promoting the conspiracy theories. For example, if someone uncritically repeats and gives a platform to falsehoods that others are pushing about Obama not being a US citizen, when readily available info debunks Obama birther conspiracies, then they are promoting the birther conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. But, we'd need lots of RS to avoid constant arguments. RS tend to say he "focused on conspiracy theories" or "veered into conspiracy theories" or "was conspiracy-minded". O3000 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Within the lede it is completely reasonable to be simple, "He produced Reality Check, a news segment and later YouTube show that often focused on conspiracy theories that drew media attention", and then in the body discuss how he approached them (with both a mix of skepticism for some and promotion for others). --Masem (t) 22:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he was skeptical of any of them and was fired for airing them. He also appeared on Russia Today and Infowars. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Was able to get the error addressed that mentioned his "Reality Check" segment on Sandy Hook that never existed, but it still reads like a hit piece to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.159.155 (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Prejudicial assignment of guilt at Never Again MSD

At Never Again MSD, I've tried to add "allegdly" to a claim that a living person killed seventeen people. This person is awaiting trial on seventeen murder charges and that's no coincidence. BLPCRIME is clear: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." Yet this was undone because encylopedia is not a court trial. So I tried omitting the name and that was undone because Wikipedia is not a courtroom. I finally tried explaining that I do not mean Wikipedia is a courtroom, a trial, a conviction or living person accused of a crime; these are just words in a rule about an encyclopedia (ours). This was undone by a third editor, because there is no question that he did it.

I get that this guy is unlikable and quite probably guilty as charged. But there's no exception in policy for people like that. As long as he lives, Wikipedia must (theoretically) be mindful about influencing decisions directly affecting his likely death. Especially as it adds little to understanding Never Again's gripe; it could've been any loony teenager with easy access to cheap and hyped guns and their story would stay the same. So there's no need to throw a living person under the bus, even if it wasn't against the rules.

I don't want anyone banned, blocked, warned or apologizing. I just want this noticeboard to notice (in principle, at least) there's a 3-1 consensus among rational and generally well-meaning editors for clearly and plainly violating BLPCRIME by outright stating Nikolas Cruz killed the 17 people prosecutors allege he murdered. There is a difference between killing someone and murdering someone, of course, but Wikipedia is strongly suggesting to potential jurors that the criteria needed for the state of Florida to lawfully execute a living person have been met 17 times over, when they have not, even once. The trial date hasn't been set yet, nevermind a verdict. This is shady business, and a slippy precedent for prejudice toward less-universally reviled defendants and genuinely bad living people alike. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, May 15, 2018 (UTC)

How about removing "later identified as Nikolas Cruz" from the lead since he's not mentioned anywhere in the rest of the article? Or add "self-confessed" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

He did indeed confess to the crime, if that makes a difference. However I agree that mentioning the name is probably not necessary in this article, as the alleged perpetrator is discussed more thoroughly at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Shritwod (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the lead of that article makes IH's point, it doesn't say "did it" the same way. Slightly of topic, I think the mention of AR-15 in the lead of Never Again MSD is a little off, but at least it is mentioned again below lead (and I know AR-15/WP is a hot topic on and off WP). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The gun's a bit more pertinent, I find. The general idea of Never Again is to keep these battle-oriented types of guns from these batshit-oriented types of kids, rather than ridding schools of those types of kids. They've repeatedly stressed it's not about taking the sort of moderately powerful guns America is promised to protect itself from deer, burglars and time-travelling Loyalists. That said, I'm not married to the idea of keeping the weapon, it simply remained when I took the person out. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, May 17, 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jessica Valenti

Talk:Jessica Valenti (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

There's some dispute over the inclusion of this claim on this talk page based on this tweet. Seems like a clear BLP vio to make this assertion. Any input here is welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Fumihito, Prince Akishino

Fumihito, Prince Akishino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

False information: Empress Michiko was not a follower of the Roman Catholic Religion (she attended Roman Catholic schools). Therefore, she cannot be a "convert to Shinto" since she never was Roman Catholic to begin with. This falsehood can be found under the heading "Early Life and Education", third sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.100.189.199 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the information mentioned, since it was unsourced. Anyone is encouraged to add information about Empress Michiko's religion, if the information can be cited to a reliable independent source. MPS1992 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy

Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy is facing a case of Disproportionate Assets but has been not convicted there are claims of political vendatta against him and a edit war is going on this section in the article on whether to have a section on the case.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Of course there should be a section, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. There are 100s of sources on it over years; he went to jail for 16 months over it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• There is no issue that it is mentioned in the article but over 60 % of the article including the lead deal with the case related allegations which is not proven and this has been reverted by numerous editors and raised in talk numerous times and ORTS have got over 40 tickets about the subject as per this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• I've dealt with tickets on this as well, and it does seem to be a whitewashing case - yes, the article needs improving and expanding, but I don't think this needs removing - maybe cutting down is appropriate, but as far as I can see there are no BLP issues here. The personal vendetta claims are by POV pushers (potential COI issues here as well from my past correspondence...) Mdann52 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

2009 Roman Polanski support petition - is mention appropriate?

Lee Brush (talk · contribs) has added actors' support of Roman Polanski in a 2009 petition to numerous articles today. As many people who are not actors have also spoken in Polanski's defense, is it appropriate to add this to the actors' articles?

The editor has also, more often than not, marked the article changes as minor; I have advised Lee that doing so is inappropriate. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Houseago

At Thomas Houseago an SPA keeps removing the name of his wife (or perhaps now ex-wife) Amy Bessone – info sourced to this article in the Los Angeles Times. Is there any good reason why we should not include this information in the page (not that it's particularly important to me or anything)? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Rick Scott

A "Mostly True" Article by Politifact isn't FACT. Rick Scott is being defamed by a source that is not accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott OSHAGUY (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• The situation at Columbia/HCA is well-sourced in the rest of the article, as far as I can see. At no point does it accuse Scott of fraud, only indicating that Scott was CEO whilst the fraud took place. There are actually a number of reliable sources out there that do link the two things, but our article is neutral. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@OSHAGUY: What part of this do you dispute as not verifiable? Have you actually looked for other sources, like this one or this one?- MrX 🖋 22:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Joe Carollo

Joe Carollo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Someone likely related to the biography of a living person, a politician - former Mayor of Miami - and rolled back a major update that contained significant information solely sourced from The Economist, the Miami Herald, the Miami Times, the Orlando Sentinel and the New York Times.

They didn't use the talk page.

This listing needs to be locked for at least 90 days to prevent an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spelunkingmerica (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Spelunkingmerica:, you have actually been violating multiple policies in regards to this article. You have been blatantly edit warring for quite some time to add information that clearly violates both the Neutral Point of View policy and the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Also, if you are also the person behind the various IP addresses who have been adding similar information since December, you are possibly violating the sock puppet policy. I have reverted it to a stub that predates these additions as the last version of the article that fully complies with the Core Content Policies. Do not re-add these allegations and poorly-sourced claims without gaining consensus on the talk page for them, or you may find yourself blocked. I hope this helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the editors involved, I do agree that as written the material is poorly presented for a BLP, and some of the details either need stronger sourcing to keep in or should be outright removed (eg the random claim of being racist from one person) Most of the other details are factual, but written seemingly favorably(?) towards Carollo, and needs a strong rewrite to keep to the facts. --Masem (t) 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Candace Owens

I reverted an edit on Candace Owens that I felt was poorly sourced as she was the CEO and apparent founder of an online website (although not the editor) that had some articles that were anti-Trump (the editor especially noted an article (not written by Owens) regarding Trump's penis size and the editor believes that this is somehow important to Owens page. The author of the article at Buzzfeed has even been criticized by Vox for not doing sufficient research before posting an article. I reverted and perhaps violated the 3RR so if you have to lock me out I accept that.Patapsco913 (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News[1] (a RS) reported that Owens (who is now a diehard Trump supporter) founded a website in 2015 that frequently posted anti-conservative and anti-Trump content. Owens herself undeniably authored anti-conservative content[2] and it's undeniable that anti-Trump content appeared on the website.[3] The Hill[4] (a RS) ran a story about Owens' website, citing Buzzfeed News. Patapsco claims that the reporter behind the Buzzfeed News is unreliable and can't be trusted to get his facts right because a Vox article supposedly criticized him for poor research - this is an absurd misreading of the Vox article[5]. Furthermore, it's irrelevant given that the facts of the Buzzfeed News source have been verified beyond doubt. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping that someone could take a look at this one for me.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Rosmah Mansor

This woman, the wife of the just-defeated Prime Minister of Malaysia, is the target of some deep hate and fury from her country’s people. A few days ago, before the page was protected and just after the election that defeated her husband, there were several vituperative comments and nicknames inserted into the article — in Malay, of course, so they fly under the radar of English-only vandal fighters. (Google Translate is your friend!) A very nasty picture was linked to as well. There have been a few revdels already.

To complicate matters, we have copyright violations as well as the vandalism. I have asked for revdels on a substantial number of edits. Until those can happen, and especially after page protection ends in a day and a half, I hope people here will help keep an eye on the article. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Souad Faress - False Rape Accusation removed from Wikipedia

Souad Faress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Souad Faress - False Rape Accusation edited out from Wikipedia

Her False rape accusation is well documented....Why was it REMOVED from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C2:470A:1D00:6CEE:B0E7:8A82:658C (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, on first glance, the "reliable" (?) source does not seem to back the very strong content claim within the article. One needs substantial, hardcore proof to write: "... she had in fact just made the whole thing up." This is not encyclopedic writing; but tabloid fodder. Maineartists (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Sznajder

Someone seems to be interested in posting not news articles (perhaps this is not even covered by any media), but primary source court warrants and the like against this person?! Despite other editors deleting the original source, non-media postings as inappropriate. Multiple times now. On the article of Andrew Sznajder.

Smells bad. Who would even have access to these documents? This doesn't look like media being used as a source. More like COI.

Can someone please address? Maybe block out the old posts? And keep the article Andrew Sznajder on a watch list? Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:E02F:5FEE:FB8B:1C75 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above concern -- not that I needed to view the Google drive documents to do so. Specifically, please could an administrator consider applying WP:REVDEL to edits like this one. MPS1992 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Mike Lester

Mike Lester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since at least 2010, various IPs and new editors have been trying to add/delete material regarding an alleged arrest, and a cartoon Mike Lester created about Barack Obama[6]. In the past I've removed them as BLP violations, but an experienced editor has now restored the edits, so I thought it would be better to bring the issue here. I know nothing of Lester or the veracity of claims being made, and would prefer to take the article off my watchlist if possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Campaign Against Antisemitism / Adrian Davies

My user page Alison Chabloz describes several previous BLP violations regards my person which were resolved after I and an administrator intervened.

Today, similar BLP violations were published on two separate pages. I submitted edit requests to both. Please see:

Talk:Adrian_Davies and Talk:Campaign_Against_Antisemitism

My trial is still ongoing. Today's edits are libellous and should be rectified immediately, irrespective of links to moronic mainstream press reports.

Replies to my request on Adrian Davies' Talk page are unnecessarily rude. I am the living person being discussed here. The edits made in my regards are clearly not neutral but are intended to make me look bad before the judge in my case has even reached a verdict!

As noted by the administrator DGG who removed content previously when the CAA page was nominated for deletion:

"BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. It applies not only to all articles, even those not primarily about a person, but all talk pages and WP space pages. The section on the individual mentioned above is a gross BLP violation, and has been deleted. According to policy, it may not be restored with discussion and consensus. I am amazed it was ever added; I am puzzled it was not noticed sooner. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)" [7] Alison Chabloz (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it does not. You dislike the fact that sources such as the BBC characterise you as an antisemitic blogger. You should take this up with them, not us.

Note to other Wikipedians: A verdict on the private prosecution of Ms. Chabloz is expected May 24. Her friend Jeremy Bedford-Turner was sentenced to prison two days ago. This is on the BBC, the Independent, Court News (which reports her characterisation of Auschwitz as "a theme park for fools") The Times and many other sources. Reliable sources tend to describe her as an antisemitic blogger (e.g. "Blogger Alison Chabloz sings along to antisemitic song (((Survivors))) in court, The Times).

Not our problem to solve. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I watched some of the material on YouTube (the whining about free speech on privately-owned platforms, about the Jewish media, and some of that singing) and I'm going to have a shower now. Anyway, "antisemitic blogger" seems well-verified. What's funny is that respondents on those talk pages are so polite, when they were dealing with someone who thinks the internet is there for her to spew antisemitic filth. And I see now that I have also dealt with this editor in what I hope was a polite and policy-guided edit, this one, following a comment here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign Against Antisemitism. Brrr. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

So much for WP:NPOV. Clearly, no such thing exists!Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Drmies removed content about you from Quenelle_(gesture). You need to learn to accept the consensus view that antisemitism and holocaust denial are shitty. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy Simply a case of you and Drmies expressing an opinion.Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, a "thank you" would be appreciated. Now don't you start throwing policies around that you clearly don't understand: the only reason you are here is to try and clean up your image a bit. I'm perfectly happy to protect the BLP and will do so even for Holocaust deniers, but if you start throwing any more accusations around you will outlive your welcome quickly, and a block per NOTHERE might follow. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus view of the most reliable media sources in the UK - the BBC, The Times and such - is that you're an antisemitic blogger, it's not really our job to fix that. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy, I was under oath in a court of law. I refer to you to (WP:BLPCRIME) which applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.

That's a very confusing statement. Are you saying that under oath you will admit to being an antisemite and a holocaust denier, but when trying to whitewash your reputation on the internet you'll deny it? That is how it reads, but I am sure you would not be so cynical. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I told the court under oath that I was professionally trained as a musician. I also disputed the cross-examination's claim regards both 'anti-Semitism' and 'Holocaust' 'denial. Again, this brings us back to BLP and unknown persons accused of committing a crime. If by this time next week I've been convicted, you will be able to gloat - at least until my appeal is heard. If not, then you're going to have some difficulty aguing that you were right whereas the court was wrong. (PS Why are you splitting up my edits - to make things more difficult for readers?) Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So am I WP:WELLKNOWN or not? Alison Chabloz (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The name was restored to the article, I have removed it, saying "you need explicit consensus to restore the name...� It might be easier to get this consensus after the verdict, which if I understand correctly is schedule for next week." DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. The same issue arises on the page dedicated to my barrister Adrian Davies where I have also posted an edit request. BLP guidelines are quite clear regards unknown persons accused of a crime. It is incoherent for editors on the one hand to demand independent reliable sources and to claim that I would not be sufficiently well-known to warrant a dedicated page whilst, on the other hand, disregarding WP:BLPCRIME. Alison Chabloz (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Rfc at Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism § Rfc since this is now spread across multiple pages. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not 100% convinced that Adrian Davies actually passes notability guidelines. Although the case David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is enormously significant when it comes to the Holocaust in UK law, Davies was only involved in the appeal which does not appear to be significant. His defence of a rag-tag group of far-right individuals may also not be enough to infer notability. The inclusion of Alison Chabloz in the article would perhaps be appropriate if Davies is deemed notable, although I suggest using the word "alleged" in reference to Ms Chabloz for the time being. Incidentally, Irving vs Penguin et al does establish ground for civil action if someone believes they are unjustly labelled a holocaust denier but it does also prove in a court of law that the Holocaust actually occurred, ergo for an individual to claim that it didn't would open them up to being labelled a holocaust denier. IANAL. Shritwod (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither am I, but I don't think there's a realistic chance of deletion, or I would nominate it. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should test that hypothesis? Shritwod (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel free. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that Irving v Penguin Books Ltd is a case in English law, and therefore has no legal impact on Wikipedia content. However, it is possible that some individuals within jurisdictions covered by the case might edit this Wikimedia project. MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Question in the context of this complaint, has the identity of Alison Chabloz been verified as the complainant? Shritwod (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably not. You may want to request a block pending identification via WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Actually my point was that this person is making a request claiming to be Alison Chabloz, but I don't believe that we have verified their identity yet. Shritwod (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Why the need to block before requesting my identity be verified? Would Guy or any other person not feel somewhat bullied by such a suggestion? Gosh, WP can be quite a nasty place! Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The irony of somebody who recorded a song accusing Holocaust survivors of lying calling anywhere a "nasty place" is staggering. By the by, you may be interested to know that Auschwitz was a much "nastier" place. Be glad you only have to deal with our level of nastiness. (Translation: You aren't going to shame anyone here into complying with your demands for "fairness"). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me guess: one of your relatives swallowed then defecated diamonds whilst prisoner at Auschwitz [8], or, on liberation of the camps, one of your relatives chose to leave with his/her Nazi persecutors rather than remaining to be saved from the evil Germans by the Red Army [9]? Eventually, your relatives were made into soap / lampshades / shrunken heads to be displayed at Nürnberg in order to show how evil the Nazis really were [10]. I'm finding this debate quite enjoyable [11]. How about you, dear Inquisitors? Alison Chabloz (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Lovely. And yet you claim you have some "right" to be treated courteously and deferentially by others. It would be hilarious if it wasn't evidence of a blinding lack of self-awareness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The things that this editor enjoys provide deep insight into her character. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: If you review her edit history, you may well conclude that she is best restricted to her user space, if only for her own good. Holocaust deniers are not a popular species on Wikipedia. I would block her but I am WP:INVOLVED. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Better still, why not make me wear a distinguishing badge and send me to the gulag? Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You display a quite stunning lack of insight. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, Guy, that's just your opinion. Alison Chabloz (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually in this case it's my opinion, but virtually none of the rest of what I have told you is opinion at all, it's documented fact. Equating the world's disdain for your incorrect beliefs with what was done to the Jews in Nazi Germany is ridiculous and frankly stupid. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

As a medical professional, I think I can safely diagnose a chronic and likely terminal case of retro-crainial inversion, how's that for factual information? I'll make an honest attempt at understanding the complaint here, however: This user argues that opinions and facts that she doesn't like get handwaved away with a "that's just your opinion" but everyone else is supposed to kowtow to her own opinions, especially her opinions about how she should be presented and referred to? No. That's not how it works here, she doesn't get to dictate how the articles here treat her or her claims. This monologue of hers is as tiresome as it is useless. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not even sure what the original request was, as it's buried in some sort of anti-Semitic stream of conciousness (anti-semantic?). Oh yes, being referred to in Campaign Against Antisemitism.. well, I think that's been addressed in the talk page as being a matter of fact. Being referred to in Adrian Davies (Ms Chabloz's lawyer), here is looks like the article doesn't meet WP:GNG although there's still an active AfD on it. Thank you for bringing your lawyer's questionable notability to our attention. Shritwod (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Augustus Sol Invictus

Augustus Sol Invictus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please remove the sections of him being a "Holocaust denier" and the quote about how the Unite the Right Rally had "resulted in three deaths", as its true purpose was to protest the removal of confederate statues. For people who first view the page, it's blatantly obvious that the author had meant for those things to appear first, as to slander this individuals reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.240.57 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the historical truth that millions of Jews were murdered by Hitler, he responded "I am still waiting to see those facts."

He is a Holocaust denier. Now, if you're not a Holocaust denier, why would you want to censor the fact that he denies it? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Clementine Ford sources

Clementine Ford (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding the article Clementine Ford (writer), I have posted on article's Talkpage five possible sources that appear to violate unreliable sources for biographies of living people.

Reason: Under BLP, none of these are sufficient quality sources. All suffer the same or similar objections to the sources apparently disqualified by Question over source validity, Killing men comment and Lifeline cancellation of clementine ford's speech under violations of WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPSPS and WP:GRAPEVINE. These links should all be removed as they are unsuitable sources.

Comment: As I have been accused of WP:Pointy here[12], I request that the action be engaged by another editor to avoid another possible WP:BLP violation or in being a POV-pusher. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Racism against Meghan Markle (resolved)

This appears to be a completely unnecessary article and possibly harassment. Recently created. If possible, could an admin evaluate the situation? --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It's much more than a "New page that will need work". In its present form it is basically an attack page directed at Jo Marney, who is WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE. StAnselm (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that Marney probably is a public figure, but regardless of that, she hasn't got an article and this article is just a coatrack. So I've deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yiannis Boutaris

The addition, taken from a misreported BBC article "On May 20, 2018 he has been treated in hospital after being beaten up by a group of Greek ultra-nationalists angry over his appearance at a remembrance event" is false and defamatory. The reaction came from a large group of everyday Greek citizens that were in no way "ultra-nationalists". It was NOT Golden Dawn as stated and cited, which is a legitimate ELECTED party in Greece, this is fake news/propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aazucaaar (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Vasundhara Raje

The section "Work as Minister of State in MEA" is written in a tone that is subjective and not neutral. The source cited in this section is not unbiased (being the website of the person whom the article is about). — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.raut58 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it on the basis that it's not properly sourced. Neiltonks (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Using 'Legacy' for still active living entertainers

I recently got into a dispute at Madonna (entertainer) over the use of the term 'Legacy' instead of 'Impact' as a section title in the BLP. I tried to quote consensus from a previous discussion at Talk:Rihanna#RfC about exactly the same issue. I argued there that dictionaries generally define 'legacy' as something inherited from the past. I was informed that consensus at Rihanna has nothing to do with the article on Madonna.[13]

Hence I'ld like to establish consensus here for BLPs in general. Please let me know if this is not the right forum.

RfC: Use of the term 'Legacy'

Should the term 'Legacy' be used for the contributions and impact of living entertainers, personalities, etc, who are still active in their field?

• A: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for anyone who has a significant impact.
• B: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for people who have not been active for some time.
• C: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for people who have passed away.

LK (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• C Per especially definition 2 on M-W. It implies something the dead have left us, their long term impact. I'm not sure why the word is preferable to impact though - legacy sounds more flowery and value-laden to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• B to A - provided WP:RS refer to the person's legacy - per m-w definition 2 - "something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past the legacy of the ancient philosophers The war left a legacy of pain and suffering." - past does not mean dead - it could mean a movie star no longer or active or perhaps in the wane of their career. However, I think the question we should be asking is whether RSes refer to a person's legacy - if there are strong RSes that do, then it is possible to refer to a legacy. For sporting figures - one often discusses the "legacy" (in sports) following retirement - e.g. Joe Montana's legacy - gNews "Joe Montana" legacy. Heck - we even have Montana discussing the legacy un-retired Brady - [14]. And Brady's legacy has been discussed for the past few years by others - [15][16]. I don't think this a BLP issue - more of a question of avoiding puffery (for dead or alive subjects) - this is a term that should be used only the most clear cases (supported by strong RS).Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• A because it's WP-practice and I don't see it changing (personally I think you've left a a legacy when you're dead). Like Bob Dylan (FA), Art Spiegelman (GA), Barack Obama (FA). For some reason Oscar Wilde (GA) doesn't have one, but that's WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• B or C depending on the time frame implicitly stated. "Legacy" implies "something from the past" so should not be used for recent persons or acts. Collect (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• A makes no sense. How can you assess the legacy of someone who has not yet died? And why are we using the euphemism "passed away"? Guy (Help!) 13:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Consider John Major. Twenty years after he left office and went into mostly-retirement, can we not assess his legacy?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think we can and it won't take long. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Very droll, Dr. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• C (or B if they are never going to be active in that area again). Yes, we can assess the legacy of an ex-Prime Minister (who will never be such again) as the legacy of what he did whilst in power. Madonna, however, is still an entertainer, thus "Legacy" is not correct. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• A given how much impact those active can have (often lots). Lawrencekhoo, please stop with your absurd and completely unnecessary campaign to remove that from section titles of those who haven't returned or died. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sue W Kelly

Sue W Kelly is NOT Susan W Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.89.14 (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm OK. But Sue W. Kelly = Sue W. Kelly = Susan "Sue" Weisenbarger Kelly, no? Drmies (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

After doing some research, I'm not seeing anyplace that refers to Rep. Kelly as "Susan". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sarek, you're getting sloppy - it took me literally 3 seconds to find this from her old University... ;) GiantSnowman 15:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics does. Not sure as to reliability though. Regards SoWhy 15:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Some sources referring to the COMMONNAME is not indicative that that is her full name, especially given that other sources do use a fuller name... GiantSnowman 15:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Fuller names, such as "Madelyn Sue Weisenbarger"? :-) http://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn2001062048/1960-06-30/ed-1/seq-2.pdf --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh great...maybe she's 'Madelyn Susan'? Have we considered contacting her office for clarification? GiantSnowman 15:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we can take it as a given that if they added the "Madelyn" for the wedding announcement, they wouldn't have abbreviated the "Susan". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

We can't assume anything... GiantSnowman 15:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The 1940 census lists her as "Sue", without the Madelyn. Grr. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

See? GiantSnowman 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

See what? It says "Sue". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

But it doesn't say 'Madelyn'... GiantSnowman 16:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

...which is fine, because we're not trying to put "Madelyn" in the article. Yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite two sources (including her former university) saying she is 'Susan'? GiantSnowman 16:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

They got it wrong that time, obviously. https://archive.org/stream/adytum1958adyt#page/156/mode/2up --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No need for the attitude. Perhaps you could email them/Mrs Kelly to confirm? GiantSnowman 16:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

What attitude? If you want to change the article off what the US House of Representatives website, her college yearbook, and her wedding announcement say is her name, you email her. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

And the Denison Alumni Office just confirmed for me that "In our Alumni database Rep. Kelly is referenced as Sue." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)