Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive220

Ashley Judd

Ashley Judd

The following statement "On March 17, 2015, Judd filed mutiple police reports against those who tweeted her, threatening with sexual assault, violence and rape." does not take a neutral point of view. Ms. Judd has yet to show evidence of anyone threatening her. All that has currently been proven is that Ms. Judd received vulgar and classless comments from Twitter followers (Redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.64.22 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The source used doesn't mention "sexual assault, violence and rape" in the same way it is portrayed in the article so I have rewritten it to hopefully more accurately reflect the source. AIRcorn (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Rick Scott

Rick Scott has repeatedly had material asserting that someone in Florida "banned" the use of the term "climate change." No source asserts that he ordered any such ban, and there is some evidence that no such ban actually exists.

The "Florida Center for Investigative Reporting" is the source for the claim ... and makes no connection to Scott. The "Guardian" report states " In a complaint against the state, worker says he was accused of violating policy and instructed to get a mental health evaluation after mentioning climate change " where it does not aver Scott was the one who called for any such ban, and the worker did not make such a claim.

Is it proper to make the statement:

Though Scott denies banning the term climate change for use by Florida state officials, there is evidence that a ban exists, and there has been one recorded occurrence of a Florida state official having been reprimanded for use of the term climate change. A longtime employee of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection was reprimanded with suspension pending a metal health evaluation from his doctor to verify his “fitness for duty”. after having used the term climate change in the course of his duties.

The BLP already clearly notes that Scott is a skeptic of AGW - that is not an issue here. The issue is an implication that although Scott denied doing it, that Scott ordered such a ban. As I read it, the sources do not support Wikipedia making such a direct connection. Collect (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you haven't participated in the talk page discussion that I already started?- MrX 17:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that this is a valid topic for BLP/N? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just not sure why this can't be resolved at the article talk page. There's already a productive discussion underway. I'm guided by the instructions at the top of this page which say "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Of course, you're free to post here if you wish.- MrX 14:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am also a little surprised at the jump to BLP/N. I thought the talk page was working well. As a matter of fact, the above text was deleted through simple talk page consensus. As a matter of fact the editor who contributed the above text thanked me for deleting it. Hugh (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I object to the use of the word "skeptic" here, as that's very clearly a politicized euphemism for "denier", which is the correct term. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• You can be a skeptic without being a denier. Like an agnostic vs atheist. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I completely fail to see how that analogy could possibly be valid. This is climate change denial, not skepticism. And as our article on the subject makes very clear, the Koch brothers are behind it, as well as financing Scott's reelection. That the two are directly connected is not a coincidence. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you don't get to make the "oh it's the Koch Bros, so it must be denial" argument until you're doing it for a reliable third party source. In other words, your personal opinion of that connection is meaningless. If he says I am skeptical, but I'm not a scientist, that isn't a denial. That can be someone who hasn't decided where he's landing yet. I'm unclear why you are struggling with the difference between the word skeptic and the word denial. I'm pretty sure you're able to distinguish them, so that really leads me to believe you are trying to paint it a certain way, especially after your Koch comment. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't offered you a personal opinion, I've offered you solid facts that are already published by reliable sources. You don't get to create an alternative reality where "denial" means skepticism. That's simply not how the word is used. Scott was briefed by climate scientists and ignored their findings, research that is supported by the scientific community. Ignoring such research is called climate change denial, particularly when the person in question was financed and beholden to the Kochs, a leading source of climate change denial. Words have meaning and facts are facts. Scott has been advised of the current scientific consensus regarding AGW and denies it. Anything else you need me to clear up for you? Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• When you said that the Koch brothers are behind it, you're starting into personal opinion. They have no place in this conversation. Regardless, I'm not using a personal definition at all. If I am unsure of the truth of something, I am skeptical. "not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations". If I say something can possibly be true, I am denying. "the action of declaring something to be untrue". I can show where Scott has expressed doubt (skepticism). Can you show where he has said that climate change isn't possibly real (denial)? What you (and the climate change community) have done is tried to alter the word for your own point making. I'm using the dictionary to define the word, not making it be what I want it to sound like. The only thing you've cleared up here is to erase any notion that you don't have an agenda. Scott has said he's skeptical. That is amply supported in the article. Stop trying to make it say something factually incorrect just because it fits your cause. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you're simply mistaken and uninformed on all counts: 1) the Koch brothers helped fund and get Scott elected. This is not under dispute by anyone nor is it personal opinion. 2) the Koch brothers are directly relevant because they fund climate change denial. This is not in dispute by anyone nor is it a personal opinion. 3) "climate change skepticism" is demonstrably a politicized euphemism for climate change denial. This is not a personal opinion or in dispute. 4) Scott is not a climate scientist, he's a politician who has briefings and advisors to help him understand issues like climate change. He has been given these briefings by leading scientists and he refuses to recognize their validity. This is not "skepticism", this is denial. True skepticism is part of the scientific method, and directly supports the validity of AGW based on the evidence. 5) pointing out your errors is not promoting a cause of any kind. That Scott is directly connected to climate science denial is relevant to his biography. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Wow....

1) I never denied that the Koch Bros contributed to his reelection. That's not in dispute. What IS in dispute is the relevance to this discussion. Why? Because it's NOT. There are 4 sources in the article currently supporting this claim of a ban on the term. Not one of them mentions the Koch brothers, so why are you?

2) More about the Koch brothers.....which is to say more of your personal SYNTH. The sources aren't talking about them. Only you are. Your bias and agenda are just clouding the issue by wasting time talking about something that only you are talking about.

3) Oh that IS your personal opinion. I'll make this simple. Can you find me a quote where Rick Scott has said that climate change isn't possible? Can you show me a quote where he has said that man made factors have no influence at all? I bet you can't. I can, however, show you where he's expressed SKEPTICISM. Call it a euphemism if you want, but know that is your opinion and it is in dispute.

4) There is no way to respond to your personal definition. I have a dictionary that tells me the difference between the words. You have an opinion that differs. I can cite my dictionary on Wikipedia. You can't cite your personal definitions.

5) You're correct, pointing out errors is not having a cause. If that was what you were doing, I wouldn't have talked about your cause. Where this becomes about your cause is when you start introducing irrelevant SYNTH (1 and 2), then using a definition that conflicts with the reliable sources (dictionaries) (3 and 4). In the end, half of your argument is about a connection to people that even the sources aren't talking about and the other half is based on your position that skeptic doesn't mean what the dictionary says, it really means denial. (Which sounds like a Bush "if you're not with us, you're against us" position). Niteshift36 (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Viriditas: Governor Scott's public position on climate change has pretty consistently been one of a skeptic, at least according to the Washington Post. I don't think we can employ original research to assert that he is a denier, although you may well be right about that.- MrX 14:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I too am dismayed that it seems like "denier" is a banned term on WP. Sort of like "climate change" and "global warming" in Florida. But I guess I trust our readers on this and I lack the will to fight for the one word and I instead try to put my energies into getting in facts that speak. Hugh (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nobody has banned it. There's simply a difference between the words. I haven't seen Dumb and Dumber To. It may be hilarious, I don't know. But I saw the previews and I'm skeptical that I'd like it, so I'm not renting it from Redbox. I'm not denying that it is funny because I don't have enough info to say if it is or not. You can call me a "comedy denier", but I've denied nothing, just expressed skepticism. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, it's not banned, it's just that in practice it cannot be used, all deniers are changed to skeptics in a nanosecond. And I think you should open your heart to Dumb and Dumber To. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

According to WP there are no climate change deniers. Even Jim Inhofe is a climate change skeptic. Hugh (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Usage in the MSM is gradually shifting from the inaccurate "skeptic" to more appropriate terms. By design, WP follows rather than leads. So usage in WP eventually will change accordingly. But not yet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

← WP:BLP 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. The allegation that Rick Scott's office banned state scientists from talking about climate change is well-documented by multiple reliable sources, including:

... and so on. This allegation is extremely well-documented in multiple reliable sources and thus meets BLP criteria. In fact, this seems so clear-cut that I'm unclear on the rationale for claiming a BLP violation here. Collect (talk · contribs), could you elaborate on why you believe this material does not meet the bar set in BLP policy? MastCell ^Talk 06:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Your sources support that employees claim there was an unwritten policy in the DEP, and only in the DEP. No source makes any explicit claim that Scott ordered it (other than a headline writer - making a claim not in the body of the article for which he wrote the headline) and the USA Today ascribing a claim to the Miami Herald not found in the MH text (which was written by FCIR - so if the original author does not make a claim - those citing him make any extended claim without a ladder underneath them). Headlines which are not supported by the body of any article are weak sources at best.

The "reprimand" was stated to be for addressing issues not on an agenda, and not for using the verboten phrase.

In short - certainly enough to place in a Florida DEP article, stating "unwritten policy of the Florida DEP" but insufficient to place in a BLP making allegations not actually found in the FCIR source. Once a specific living person is named, then WP:BLP must apply. As the allegation, sources carefully do not say "Scott initiated the policy" (at most - they say the "unwritten policy" was made after a new DEP chief was named in 2011 - which seems to indicate that the new DEP chief might conceivably be the actual person making any "unwritten policy" - Bibler's reprimand for making comments about Keystone at a meeting where the pipeline was not on the agenda was made on 9 March. after Scott appointed a replacement for Herschel Vinyard Jr as DEP director.)

I trust this explains why I feel claims asserting a link to Scott are weak in any specifics, but strong for the Florida DEP as related to that agency. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW regarding strange claims above - FCIR has made absolutely zero assertions abut the Kochs secretly running Florida government - and such claims would fail WP:BLP in a heartbeat. We already have more than enough conspiracies involving living persons already. Collect (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"Your sources support that employees claim there was an unwritten policy in the DEP, and only in the DEP". The Washington Post article (in the above list of sources) also mentions the Florida Department of Health. The Miami Herald article (same list of sources; above) specifically lists South Florida Water Management District, Florida Department of Health and Florida Department of Transportation. In fact, the title of the article is Gov. Rick Scott’s ban on climate change term extended to other state agencies The article also states: "The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting first reported Sunday that Gov. Rick Scott’s administration ordered DEP employees, contractors and volunteers not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in official communications."- MrX 13:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

ETA: Governor Scott denied that his administration/office has a policy, but of course that doesn't negate the possibility that he used his executive influence to unofficially suppress any mention of 'global warming' and 'climate change'. It also doesn't negate the possibility that he is being untruthful.- MrX 13:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Seems fair enough to include it in its current form. Plenty of reliable sources (shown just above) link him to banning scientists using climate change so no WP:Synth is invoved. FWIW he sees well into the denier camp from a quick read of those sources. Some even directly call him that. AIRcorn (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Re. Sam Herman glassblower

Sam Herman came to England in 1966 from Wisconsin where he had set up a glass studio at the university similar to "studio pottery" art work. He taught at Stourbridge College of Art where the first innovative practical glass design and blowing course in the country had just been started (before the RCA).Stourbridge was the centre for England's lead crystal glass industry at the time.He taught the first ever studio glass makers in Britain such as Karlin Rushbrooke who went on to have his own studio.Sam Herman persuaded David Queensberry the then professor of ceramics at the RCA and external assessor to the Glass course at Stourbridge to begin a similar course in the RCA ceramics studios at Kensington Gore in 1968/9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.37.249 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there some particular problem with the Sam Herman article-- or some other reason why you came here ? DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders SENATOR from Vermont

Bernie Sanders is NOT the JUNIOR Senator from Vermont, he is just the SENATOR of Vermont. To call him a Junior Senator is libelous; the person that keeps changing his standing on Wikipedia is only doing so in hopes to discredit him. As Bernie Sanders seriously considers running for U.S. president in 2016, anyone that does any preliminary research on him will be put off or met with false information that will make him seem less legitimate, when he is one of the longest-standing congressman currently serving. Bernie Sanders is the Senator from Vermont. See http://www.sanders.senate.gov/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellthatsdope (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sanders is the junior Vermont senator, Patrick Leahy is the senior senator from Vermont. That's simply the order of seniority, not libel. All sitting U.S. senators are thus characterized. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Someone clearly doesn't know what libel means. No libel here.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Pat Leahy is also the most senior senator, period. I would give Seniority in the United States Senate a read, Wellthatsdope. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Nisan 5775 19:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Kay Ryan

Vandalised biography in a number of places - offensive in places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.36.2 (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Puerile vandalism, now reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Finn

Posted at ANI

Pmesiti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only made edits to the BLP page of politician Bernie Finn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), only ever blanking sections, after being cautioned not to do so by four different editors, and has breached 3RR twice on 1 September 2014 and on 16 June 2014. The user is not here to build an encyclopaedia and has made no productive contributions. Vandalism tools help to rollback section blanking - but I would recommend at least banning that user from editing that page. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed that nobody has started a discussion on the talk page. Anyway, at a brief look at the sources, I believe The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald are generally considered acceptable broadsheet newspaper sources, as is the Australian Parliamentary Hansard. The Herald Sun, however, is considered tabloid journalism and should not be used. Finn seems to have a reputation for controversial right wing views that sit uncomfortably with his party, and these have been documented in the broadsheets acceptably. Therefore his anti-abortion views, and criticism to them by other politicians, should stand. I've toned down the anti-abortion remarks, sticking close to exactly what The Age says, and I think that should set the tone for how we proceed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, Pmesiti stated on User talk:Dsprc "Please leave my editing of Bernie Finn's page along. As his media adviser, it is my job. I will continue to delete your views and if I am banned I will take it further"

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Pmesiti using SPA declares he is paid media advisor of politician whose page he keeps blanking.

-- Aronzak (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

List of state and local political scandals in the United States

Earlier today, List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States was deleted through an AfD process, subsequent to discussion here at BLPN. Likewise, I nominated List of international political sex scandals for speedy deletion today. Here in this BLPN section, I would like to suggest deletion of a very similar list: List of state and local political scandals in the United States, and I expect to go through AfD on this one unless someone would like to talk me out of it here.

Following are some parts of WP:BLP that seem relevant: (1) "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source. (2) "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Many of these entries characterize scandalous behavior as fact rather than allegation. (3) "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Many of these entries involve accusations of criminal behavior for which there has been no conviction, and yet they are characterized as scandals and mixed in with incidents that have resulted in convictions. (4) "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content." There is inherent guilt by association here, because acquitted people, and people who have merely been accused, are listed together with convicted people. (5) "[B]iographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." It is not fair to list people here who have merely been accused, together with people who have been convicted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless there are available sources for 'state and local political scandals in the United State' as a group, the list should be deleted per WP:LISTN. Unfortunately, this argument frequently looses over ILIKEIT at AfD.- MrX 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think political scandals is something that exist and there are plenty of reliable sources for it being a phenomenon but a list of all of them thru history would be huge so the idea is to break it into smaller lists such as state and local ones, federal ones, but then someone unnecessarily further split them into sex scandals as well. That doesn't mean get rid of all the lists tho does it? WP:LISTN says it's ok to list things. If something doesn't have a reliable source, take it off the list. Popish Plot (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger)

Two edits by jps on March 19 2015 [1] and [2] add the words "denialism website" about Anthony Watts (blogger)'s blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT), in the lead. I claim this could damage Mr Watts's reputation as a blogger, and is poorly sourced.

• The sole source is Michael E. Mann, well known as an expert on climate but not known for qualification to judge whether WUWT is a "denial" site. ("Denial" is the word Mr Mann actually used.) Mr Mann is known for labelling others, for example calling Roy Spencer an "evolution denier" , calling Judith Curry a "disinformer", calling Steve McIntyre a source of "denialist drivel" -- which should suggest not that they all are guilty, but that he likes to accuse.
• jps has said several times that there are many other sources, even "dozens", that "the most reliable sources call Watts a denier", etc. But when I asked twice what those sources are, I was brushed off -- see here and here
• I noted six passing mentions in reputable-looking sources which call WUWT a "skeptic" site (a mild word that Mr Watts himself uses): scientific american washington post a book Times Online another book Orange County Register. I claim it is wrong to name-call if the majority of sources are against you, and cited an administrator's statement concluding a denier-versus-skeptic argument last year on WP:ANI: "... We use what the majority of sources use. ...". I claim the administrator's statements were general and apply to cases like this.
• I twice suggested we could use a more bland term such as "climate-related", but was ignored.
• The article already contains 3 critical quotes about WUWT (and zero praise quotes), so even if Mann's opinion was attributed and was outside the lead and had been reasoned, it would be excessive unbalance.
• Discussion of the edits is in the latter part of this talk thread. In that thread are references to jps labelling someone -- presumably me -- a "POV-pusher", to jps threatening to take me to WP:AE for unspecified reasons, to jps suggesting I was into edit-war. Thus I am deterred from reverting, and take the matter here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Although WUWT is by any reasonable measure a denialist site, they are not generally described as such in the mainstream press other than a few British papers. Thus WUWT should be described as "skeptical" following the majority of sources. Common usage is gradually shifting away from the inaccurate "skeptical," but by design Wikipedia lags trends in usage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you should check the sources we have that are not press sources but rather academic sources. They are pretty clear in their evaluation of the site as being part of the "denial machine". jps (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the majority of sources say that, but even so, in cases where sources conflict Wikipedia should defer to what the highest quality expert sources say, a strategy that has been used in the past. Wikipedia should prefer quality over quantity. I have noticed that Nature (certainly one of the best expert sources) has used contrarian and contrarianism lately, e.g. [3]. I would be fine with that. Manul ~ talk 05:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the Mann book is, of course, a high quality expert source as well. However there's no need to quest for a perfect word, as if we are trying to save bandwidth. I would also be satisfied with something like "opposes the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change". Manul ~ talk 06:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I would point out that before Peter decided to cut short the discussion and come here, we were having a little chat about WP:SOURCECOUNTING which is the dubious practice in which Peter is engaged. Note that the best way to write articles is not to simply provide laundry lists of sources backing you up, but to find the best sources which most reliably explain (or refute) the point being made. I tend to think that one good academic source is better than four media sources, one denialist book, and a book which uses the terms "skeptic" and "denialist" interchangeably, but I now see the number of sources, absurdly, is the only metric Peter seems capable of understanding. It is not difficult to find a source-for-source oneupmanship of Peter's list, but I would prefer not to stoop to such petty gameplaying. What I did do is refute the claim that there is only one source that describes the denial nature of the site. I added two additional academic sources that explain the point about the blogsite and I think we can rest assured that the claim is very well sourced to independent, expert reviews of this website. jps (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

jps cites wp:sourcecount which in fact is just an essay written by none other than jps, and jps cites this "academic source" which in fact doesn't say WUWT is a denier blog but says that Watts and McIntyre are "global warming skeptics" and "Muller [i.e. Richard A. Muller] agrees that they are skeptics not deniers". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with WP:SOURCECOUNTING, you are welcome to try to get it deleted. Otherwise, you should note that cherrypicking quotes from the text of the paper does you no good when any person can see in the quote provided that Watts' blog is explicitly called out as falling into denialism. jps (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• A quick look at the blog site and I don't see how it could be described as anything else except a denialist site. Disagree with following the majority of sources, we should follow the best sources and it is hard to go past the nature one. AIRcorn (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• wp:label applies. Defining a living person in negative terms by those openly hostile to them is both a violation of npov and blp. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, first the label is being applied to the blog, not the person. But, secondly, if, say, a living AIDS denier objects to being called an AIDS denier, that does not mean they get a veto option over the label solely on the basis of their objection. If the reliable, independent sources about the person indicate that the label is appropriate, then it is actually a violation of NPOV to remove the label or water it down. jps (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Neither the blog or the person (which are linked) should be labeled using an obviously pejorative term. We would not describe Mann by what Watt's said and the same applies to Watt's. Remove any pejorative labels and use labels provided by Watts. --DHeyward (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Watts is an amateur who did not publish his evaluation of Mann's work in a book published by an academic press. Mann, on the other hand, has published his evaluation of Watts' blog in a book that was published by Columbia University Press. WP:PARITY should be considered here. The fringe viewpoint is Watts', and until he is successful in extracting himself from his marginalization, it is not okay for Wikipedia to simply split the difference between poor sources and good sources. jps (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Watts is among those promoting a misinformation campaign about climate science, framing this as "skeptical" misleads the public and contravenes policy on giving "equal validity" to these fringe views of science. Scientific skepticism denotes standards of open investigation which Watts and others don't meet, so "skeptic" is misleading and pseudoskepticism is the proper term. . . dave souza, talk 19:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• The edit in question does not "label" Watts -- it labels the blog, and it does so on the basis of a high-quality source. I have therefore reinstated the description. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• The question we should be asking ourselves is how do the majority of reliable sources refer to this topic. Assuming good faith, we have 3 sources which use the term "denialist". What about all the others? Surely, there are more than 3 reliable sources about this topic else the article would be deleted for lack of notability. What do the majority of reliable sources say about this topic? Do they refer to it as "denialist", "skeptic", "contrarian", some other term, or no term at all? If, for example, only 20% of sources use the term "denialist", then it's clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP to use that same term in Wikipedia's voice. OTOH, if 80% use this term, then it's perfectly fine. Has anyone done such an analysis to see what the majority of reliable sources actually say about this topic? In any case, WP:BLP requires that we be cautious about contentious BLP matters so I have temporarily removed it from the article while this discussion is pending. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that's a fine way to put it, but we have to look for sources which talk explicitly about the blog and look at which ones are best. The best sources I have found characterize the POV of the blog as "denial". The marginally worse ones may use the term "skeptic". jps (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's too simplistic in my opinion to just count sources that meet a certain threshold of reliability and use an arbitary percentage to determine whether to use a term or not. Reliability is more a spectrum, some sources are more reliable than others. Quality journals should be given much more weight than magaizine or newspaper articles. How much weight to give each is debatable, but my preference would be to give scholarily pieces a lot lot more, especially in the lead. Almost to the point where they are all that are used. In the body context can be provided between different sources, but in the lead the best current source should always prevail. AIRcorn (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge: That is the question that we have asked ourselves, and we at this time have 6 sources which call WUWT a skeptic blog (listed above), and 2 which call it a denialist / denier blog (jps listed 3 but see the refutation above), and "a few dozen" which jps announced but has not shown. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your "refutation" of one of my chosen sources is refuted in the quote provided in the citation itself. As for other sources, I'm not of a mind to go digging for comparisons in the media because I don't think the media is the best source for this kind of question. I have given you a peer-reviewed paper and two books published by university presses. When you provide me comparable sources, I think we can discuss whether you have met your burden. jps (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that "denial" reeks of Holocaust denial and it is a pejorative term. Connolley used to use the word "septic" instead of "sceptic" and can no longer edit BLPs out of the ArbCom ruling. This is no different. No matter how many of Watt's detractors use the term "denial", it's pejorative in nature and offers no further insight than "sceptic" (or "skeptic"). I question why anyone would vociferously argue for a term that minimalises the Holocaust when a perfectly acceptable alternative is available. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There really is no term that is entirely suitable. "Skeptic" implies scientific skepticism; "denial" is taken by some (primarily those toward whom the term is applied, and those who sympathize with them) as invoking Holocaust denial; other terms have their own problems. Academic literature uses both terms. There's no obviously correct answer here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Then we should not qualify it at all. "climate change blog" is adequate if it cannot be bucketed. If "denial" was not a pejorative, I have trouble believing that it's innocently being applied when the subjects object so strongly. It's very hard to say he denies global warming. He's sceptical of the cause of attribution. That's apparent from the article. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous. We need to let the reader know that the blog hosts only climate change denial pieces. I don't really care how we do it (calling it "climate change skepticism" is not an acceptable "compromise" as has been outlined elsewhere), but to pretend it is simply a "climate change blog" would be very misleading. jps (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• We can use some more watchful eyes on this article. We have an editor who continues to edit-war contentious WP:BLP content into the article[4][5] without participating in this discussion which remains outstanding. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the article should be protected until this is worked out, and will ask an admin.

By the way, if you make an allegation of misconduct against someone (namely, edit warring) Wikipedia convention is that you must notify that individual. Have you done so? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Could we please avoid Godwin's Law here? This kind of argument is not reasonable or convincing. If meant as a joke, it's not an appropriate one. Manul ~ talk 02:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• In the article I tried the compromise "a website that opposes the scientific consensus on climate change", though upon reflection it still falls short of accurately describing how the website is received by mainstream science. Considering that we have a climate change denial article, and considering that high quality academic sources describe the site as denialism, we need to set aside this argument that there is a BLP violation resulting from an accurate description of a website. Manul ~ talk 03:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The view that "denial" is a slur is, I think, sincerely held, but much more importantly it is false -- the phrase is both accurate and widely employed to describe Watts's blog. --JBL (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is either one or the other. Personally, I would say that words intended to denigrate / dismiss / ridicule others would count as "slurs" even if widely used and accurate. For example, calling someone a "racist" or a "bigot" is often used to ridicule or be dismissive of someone, but nonetheless the usage is widely accepted when discussing certain people whose racism has been established in detail. In my experience, calling someone a "climate change denier" (or "denialist") is often also used as a form of socially-acceptable ridicule. Personally, I would generally discourage using language like that because it is inflammatory and a contentious label, and only consider using it in the most extreme and well-documented of cases. Dragons flight (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware: denial of issues due to climate change is causing unspeakable problems. . . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Why not just say that Watts "does not accept the current scientific understanding of climate change"? This wording is obviously correct, makes clear his position and its relationship to the scientific consensus on the topic, and avoids charged terms like "denialist", "skeptic", etc. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  That's the correct position to take. As far as I am concerned, the entire term "denial" is a ploy to establish camps of believers and nonbelievers and there are many reputable scientists that believe in climate change but disagree as to the severity or short and long term trends.--MONGO 20:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Got any sources for your assertions, MONGO? jps (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud -- yes, the scientific community contains people with a variety of views on a variety of issues. To think that this natural variation has anything to do with organized climate change denial is utterly deluded. In particular, it has nothing to do with Watts or his blog, which does not host posts by climatologists debating the finer points of attribution or trend analysis. --JBL (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This page is maintained by Leif Svalgaard of Stanford. Svalgaard is a solar physicist. Judith Curry is a climatologist and I don't think she would describe his blog or his views as "denialism." There are plenty of non-political scientists that don't consider "denialism" as a part of his views or blog and that's reflected in the press. --DHeyward (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a peer-reviewed paper or a book published by a university press that makes this point about WUWT? Or is this just your own original research? jps (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• I support this above phrasing as a description of his personal views... we might note, if this can be sourced, that his website has been described as promoting "climate change denialism, but as to his personal views, we can afford to be somewhat more tactful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This thread is not about labeling Watts; it's about describing his website accurately. The first paragraph of the Gavin Menzies article calls Menzies' work pseudohistory, a word which is at least as charged as "denialism", yet that is the most accurate characterization. That Menzies or his followers don't like the reception of mainstream experts is not a reason to remove it. Like pseudohistory and pseudoscience, climate change denialism is a categorization that conveys useful information, and if experts have characterized something as climate change denialism (or pseudohistory, or pseudoscience), then the reader deserves to know. Wikipedia articles prominently include such information because the WP:NPOV policy (specifically WP:PSCI) dictates it. Manul ~ talk 22:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, what do the majority of reliable sources say about the blog? The only editor who appears to have attempted to answer this question was Peter Gulutzan, and assuming good faith that his analysis is accurate, that this website is a "denialist" website is a minority POV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I answered the question above and showed how he was wrong. jps (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the only sources you view as valid are ones that agree with your POV. Your basic assumption is that anyone that does not agree with that POV is a Climate Change Denier and thus to be disregarded. On top of that your basic argument appears to be that there are no skeptics. Either you believe or you are a denier. I does not appear that you are capable of viewing this objectively. Arzel (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith but you can verify too -- the sources mentioned so far are easy to check online. The "put-denialism-in" side named only three sources that say something like denier. The first is Mann who's a poor source because he's not known as an expert on Watts's blog and is known for name-calling; the second is Dunlap + McCright two non-notable sociologists; the third supposedly is Liu but Liu does not say WUWT is a denialism blog. I named six sources that say something like skeptic. Two of those sources are books published by Palgrave Macmillan and [transcript Verlag] (both notable and both called "academic") (by the way transcript Verlag books are distributed in the USA by Columbia University Press), and the authors are just as non-notable as the sociologists but have just as many doctorates. So much for the pretence that more "academic" sources call the blog denialist, but the four non-academic sources (Scientific American, Washington Post, The Times Online, Orange County Register) are equally or more important -- it matters that the mainstream press calls the blog skeptic. If there's a "fringe" view here, it's the name-calling minority. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The claim that Michael Mann is not an expert in this subject is absurd. Dismissing sociologists as sources is even more ridiculous. And denying the quote that is included in the Liu source is simply WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is no way to have a discussion when a person cannot recognize the best sources and instead insists that experts in the field are "poor sources" or that somehow the newsmedia is better equipped to explain what camp an opinion belongs in than a sociologist. This is where WP:CHEESE must be referenced. jps (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's false that I said Mann is not an expert on Watts's blog, I carefully said he's not known as one, there's been no evidence shown. It's false that I dismissed Dunlap + McCright, I pointed to other academic sources which say differently. It's false that Liu said WUWT is a denialism blog, anyone can read the passage where Liu says Watts and McIntyre are skeptics, then adds that Muller agrees they're skeptics not deniers, then adds "the tone of some of their blog posts sound denialistic", for example one by David Middleton, and that's all. It's false that I compared any news media to a sociologist, I separated the academic comparisons from the observations about the mainstream press. After discarding the false statements and the uncivil statements, I saw nothing that counters what I said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mann is "not known" as an expert on Watts' blog? Who is "known" as such an expert? "The tone of some of their blog posts sound denialistic" is not identifying the blog as a "denialism blog"? I'm sorry, your hairsplitting is transparent. People can read what my sources say and compare the credentials and independence to your favorite sources. It's pretty easy. jps (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Earlier, I asked the question, what do the majority of reliable sources say about this topic? I decided to attempt to answer this question by examining the first 10 reliable sources, randomly selected by Google. Here are the results:

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics" in general. In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"

Again, these were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. One could reasonably argue whether 10 sources is an adequate sample size (if so, just ask, and I can expand the sample size). In any case, here are the totals:

1. "Skeptic" (or some variation thereof) - 8 sources
2. "Meteorologist" - 1 source
3. "Science" - 1 source
4. "Denier" - 0 sources

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not use Google Scholar and only choose peer-reviewed papers and books published by academic presses? jps (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My $0.02 is that folks are making way too big a deal out of this. The public knows how to decode "skeptic," much as they know "lady of the evening" is not a titled woman who goes outdoors only from late afternoon to sunset. Flip a coin and get on with it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources say someone is a denier (about whatever topic) that's what wikipedia should say. Can't push a POV. Popish Plot (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• First, those that argue that it's about a blog to avoid BLP issues and then cite Mann, don't seem to realize that Mann talks about Watts, not his blog. Second, "denier" is not a word that just fell from the sky as an innocent term to describe a view, third reliable, uninvolved, sources like NPR (hardly a right-wing news outlet) doesn't describe either the person or the blog as anything but "sceptic." Any book that starts off the title as "Climate Wars" is not about science. It's politics by other means. --DHeyward (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• • First, the quote from Mann that is relevant is "Watts Up With That?... has overtaken climateaudit as the leading climate change denial blog." Second, do you have any sources for where the word "denier" came from and who chose it if it is a nefarious as you are insinuating? And third why should a journalist writing for NPR be more reliable that a sociologist describing the social context of blogs or an academic who studies the subject? jps (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin and libelous descriptors

G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have returned this from the archive since no action was taken. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

*Can we say at G. Edward Griffin that he and his book "promotes conspiracy theories"? Consensus on the talk page says we can, but as an outsider to the article before a few days ago, it concerned me as pejorative to appear in a living person's biography, since he describes his book as factual as do several sources including Forbes and Fox News. Media Matters uses "promoting wild conspiracy theories" to describe his other works. The subject himself has stated the the term is a pejorative: "There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase 'conspiracy theory' with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. Using emotionally loaded words and phrases to discredit the work of others is to be rejected." Wikipedia BLP rules demand that we reject it too. The pros and cons of his book on the Federal Reserve are discussed in an appropriate section, this debate is about the lede.

• The word "quackery" has been restored to the BLP which I find libelous. There already was a qualifying statement the the FDA found the drug ineffective which is neutrally worded. I was listening to an interview with Penn Jillette a few days ago and he told about how they could not use the word "quack" on their show Bullshit! because it was libelous, so they so they had a sord of ducks roaming the set making the duck noise, without themselves using the word. BLP rules demand it be removed, but a not previously-involved editor needs to get involved. Consensus should not be allowed to override using such a strong and libelous word, when neutral wording already exists that does not libel. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "if one calls people liars and quacks one can be sued ... but 'assholes' is pretty safe. If we said it was all scams we could also be in trouble, but 'bullshit,' oddly, is safe." - Penn Jillette. Note that in an EU court case the word was found to be libelous.

Possibly no action was taken because other editors did not agree that any action should be taken. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

soooo, you are suggesting that we just call his claims bullshit then? It would seem better to follow the reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Then it would have been administratively closed as "no action taken". This was never closed, it was archived while open. I can find reliable sources using the n-word, that doesn't make it any less objectionable or less libelous as a descriptor for a living person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't even suggest this is remotely close to similar to that word. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This is troubling. Why does this Griffen article bring out the worst in people?Popish Plot (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What is troubling is that some editors refuse to accept the fact that none of his (so far identified) theories has any mainstream acceptance. We may not be able to say that he is a conspiracy theorist and a quack; but we can and must (per WP:NPOV) say that his theories are conspiracy theories, and his Laetrile theory is quackery. In spite of the claim above that there as a Belgian case in which it was ruled that "quack" was libelous, there are US, UK, Scottish, and Dutch cases where it was found not to be libelous. In any case, if it were libelous and in a source (reliable or not) we could "reprint" it and be immune from US libel laws under Section 230. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• You are confusing tort law with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy says "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." There is no reason to call it quackery when you can use the encyclopedic phrase "not clinically efficacious". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No reason to hide the meaning behind sesquipedalians and erudite vernacular that the average reader will not understand. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Not clinically efficacious" is inadequate. "Having no evidence of effectiveness and strong evidence of harm" approaches adequate strength. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• BLPN discussions do not require administrative closure. I have no objection to re-discussing it now -- but it is likely to be archived again without administrative closure, and I'd recommend that this not turn into a justification for re-opening the same discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Frances Barber

Frances BarberTrolls have added abusive content with a section called Scottish Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markludmon (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Scott Walker (politician)

Issue: whether information added to Scott Walker (politician) article about his "Divide and Conquer" comment is "undue speculation and redundancy" or useful context. (Previous argument on the issue here: Talk:Scott_Walker_(politician)#.22Divide_and_conquer.22_watered_down.3F_soliciting_opinions )

(Currently the article is NOT alleged to violate BLP, but (IMHO) is excluding useful context in the name of excluding "undue speculation and redundancy."

In a January 18 conversation with Beloit businesswoman and supporter Diane Hendricks shortly before the "budget-repair" bill was introduced, Walker was asked if he would make Wisconsin a "a right-to-work" state. Walker replied, "Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer. So for us the base we've got for that is the fact that we've got - budgetarily we can't afford not to. If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there's no way not only the state but local governments can balance things out. So you think city of Beloit, city of Janesville, any of the school districts, that opens the door once we do that. That's your bigger problem right there."

Change suggested by me, opposed by editor CFredkin:

In a January 18 conversation with Beloit businesswoman and supporter Diane Hendricks shortly before the "budget-repair" bill was introduced, Walker was asked if he would make Wisconsin a "a right-to-work" state (i.e. would prohibit private-sector unions from compelling workers to pay dues to the union that negotiates their contract). Walker replied, "Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer. So for us the base we've got for that is the fact that we've got - budgetarily we can't afford not to. If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there's no way not only the state but local governments can balance things out. So you think city of Beloit, city of Janesville, any of the school districts, that opens the door once we do that. That's your bigger problem right there." Walker later explained that "divide and conquer" referred to "protecting the taxpayers" from unions that "stood in the way of helping the state deal with a budget shortfall." (On March 9, 2015, Walker signed legislation making Wisconsin a right to work state, see below.)

Some relevent info:

• transcript from video of conversation from which the comment "divide and conquer" comes

Q (Billionaire supporter Diane Hendricks): Any chance we'll ever get to be a completely red state and work on these unions -

A (Walker): Oh, yeah.

Q: - and become a right-to-work (state)? What can we do to help you?

A (Walker): Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer. So for us the base we've got for that is the fact that we've got - budgetarily we can't afford not to. If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there's no way not only the state but local governments can balance things out. So you think city of Beloit, city of Janesville, any of the school districts, that opens the door once we do that. That's your bigger problem right there.

• There is a Right to work section later in the article (that the "see below" refers to).

• The 2011 budget repair bill and protests section that the contested paragraph belongs to is already quite long. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

References

At this point, I can't see why this is an issue for this noticeboard, if the article is currently "NOT alleged to violate BLP". It is a content dispute, and we have methods of dispute resolution for that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it was (if you consider "undue speculation and redundancy" part of BLP policy which I'm assuming is the case) until CFredkin deleted it. I would rvt CFredkin but I though it would be better to come here. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger

Consistent insertion of contentious and libelous material accusing Kissinger of "infamous" complicity in "genocide" among other things. If these things are to be inserted at all they need to be worded more intelligently with a little less POV and linked to reliable and objective sources. This has not been the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.105.47 (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Steve Forbes

This seems suspect. ResMar 05:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resident Mario: I edited that out. Will start talk page discussion. Certainly does not belong in lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Charles Vacca shooting

In this AFD, people have suggested raising the matter at this noticeboard. Issues include the notability of the topic and the identity of the minor and her family. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thomas L Thompson

Thomas L. Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Incorrect link to Thompson's CV at the bottom. On my computer, the link leads to a page of "Water Damage Studies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.178.215.215 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed with wayback link. Looks like the domain expired and was picked up by someone else. — Strongjam (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Lizzie Woods

Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Woods, I think this BLP is unsourced and unsourceable. As per WP:BLP, I removed all the unsourced statements, but someone else immediately restored them all. I didn't see the point in fighting the reversion while the AFD was open, but now the AFD has somehow been closed as "no consensus" despite nobody voting to keep the article. I don't really want to re-stubbify this if I'm somehow misreading policy and this kind of autobiography is acceptable - can someone else take a look at this? I've made as thorough a search as I can for sources, as documented on the AFD, and I can find literally nothing to indicate she's anything more than an at-most mid-ranking functionary in a trade union. Mogism (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a flawed no con closing to be frank.--ukexpat (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Emma Chambers

Doncaster isn't in the West Riding of Yorkshire. It's in South Yorkshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.114.102 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you are correct, but when Ms Chambers was born, Donny was in the West Riding. To be clear, Donny hasn't actually moved to a new situation, but boundary changes have occurred, and area names have changed since then. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As Bill might say, it depends on what the definition of in is. Older Yorkshiremen and Russell Grant are proud of the three Ridings and hate Humberside. This is a silly thing to argue over. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Matthew VanDyke

Matthew VanDyke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been previously discussed at:

• Archive 165, 22-28 Nov 2012
• Archive 167, 25 Dec 2012

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

An article that's suffered extensive personal attacks in the past. This time it's someone posting psychiatric diagnoses (narcissism, egomania) using newspapers and blogs as references. Talk page discussion here, contentious edits in history. I think it's completely wrong, User:Slugfilm is citing policy as reasons to put diagnoses into a BLP, I seek outside opinions on the matter - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have set out a full summary of this disagreement in the talk page discussion. I am not seeking to include psychiatric diagnoses - I am seeking to include descriptions of character traits repeatedly observed by media commentators. I'd also welcome the opinions of other Users. - Slugfilm (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• In my opininon narcissism should not be used, but egocentric can. Also the criticism of VanDyke in relation to point and shoot should be added under point and shoot not in its own section. Naturally any criticism should be attributed correctly. The problem I have with narcissism, is that even if it is meant as a personality trait to be correct it is assuming he is receiving gratification from the attention. That is original research from the sources presented and we should not be presenting others original research in a blp. I feel this can't be used even with attribution since and narcissism has negative medical connotation. A decent criticism can be written summerising the sources without going into grey territory. AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your constructive comment AIRcorn. I therefore suggest the following language is included in the "Point and Shoot" section: "Media commentators have described VanDyke as egocentric and have questioned whether his experiences in the Middle East were driven by desire for fame and adrenaline, rather than geopolitical conviction." - Slugfilm (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In addition to the narcissism/egocentricity issue, I would like to make two additional changes as detailed in the talk page discussion: deletion of an unsupported comparison to Che Guevara and acknowledgement of the dispute between VanDyke and the Committee to Protect Journalists. I welcome opinions on these two further changes. - Slugfilm (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The description of this article as one that has suffered extensive personal attacks seems somewhat unbalanced. Another perspective is that this article is extensively curated to maintain a positive perspective on a controversial public figure by removing properly sourced criticisms.

@David Gerard, who raised this comment, has been active in this regard. I note from the article's Revision History Statistics that he is listed as one of the more active contributors to the article yet his net additions are given as zero. Looking at his edits to the article, they are all reversions of material except for one instance of setting copy protection for the article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts @SteveMcCluskey. Another user (User:Instruisto) is deleting all sourced criticism en masse without prior discussion. I would welcome third party comments and opinions on the talk page. - Slugfilm (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

On reading the archives (see above) it seems that this long-running controversy was initiated by the subject of this article, who was the first to dismiss criticism by the Executive Director of the Committee to Protect Journalists as a "ridiculous, self-serving blog post" on his Facebook page. It would help if a disinterested party looked at the controversy over this article in the light of BLP policy. From my perspective, there seems to be a concerted movement to suppress criticism of VanDyke. Others may differ. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

David Southall

David Southall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Help please.

I am not the subject of this BLP but am a longstanding professional colleague of the subject. I consider the article unbalanced and not conforming to the Neutral Point of View as it is largely focused on one aspect of the subject's activities, namely his appearances before the UK General Medical Council in regard to both his child protection work and his research work. The information and therefore the citations are largely from media reports.

Below, I enclose a fuller biography which includes material from the original one but also adds much more about the subject's work. Please could other more experienced volunteers help with correcting this BLP as I have no experience previously! The new text is well referenced from several sources including peer reviewed scientific papers. Thank you. Jerry O'Diner (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the full article that you posted here. Please consider posting it in a sandbox or draft space and linking to it instead.- MrX 17:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read our policies and guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest (which you do have), verifiability, neutrality, and identifying and citing reliable sources.

You need to propose specific changes on the article's talk page, instead of posting a mess on this page. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You can edit the article and make changes that you think will improve it. You can also discuss your proposed changes at the article talk page. You may want to just make a few changes at a time to see if other editors object.- MrX 17:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Mr X and Mr Thomson. Please would you explain to me about a sandbox and a draft space and where I would find them. I have read the conflict of interest pages and agree that I have an apparent COI through knowing the subject. I intend only to add facts to the BLP and not opinion and I am in the position of having verifiable facts having worked with the subject. Please, editors and contributors, bear with my inexperience and don't bite this newbie! Jerry O'Diner (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, verifiable information comes from newspapers or magazines. The point is that it has to be stuff that we can verify as well. Your position really would provide you with personal information, which we can't verify. There should be a link to your sandbox at the top right-hand side of the page, somewhere between the link to your talk page and the log out button. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert J. H. Morrison

Robert J. H. Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page, as is typical in the case of many lesser-known Canadian academics at smaller institutions, suffers from shameless self-promotion. A former de Quincey scholar myself, I have not heard of this person before. There are no third-party references given to the claims of "renown" or "acclaim". I should hope the editors excise from this article its baseless advertising. I will be commenting on similar pages in the next few weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJYale (talk • contribs) 01:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, if you look at the page history, the reason is because it was created as an autobiography. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Moore

Patrick Moore (environmentalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It says that he is a lobbyist for Monsanto. That needs to be verified. His article is being edited a lot recently. The first place I saw that listed with him was in Infowars. Please check his article for other recent edits.

Thanks

68.94.207.29 (talk) Cairenn — Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist) Govindaharihari (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Infowars is not neutral. Spumuq (talq) 10:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

King Abdullah II

Instead of "Alternative style: Sir", it is OUR MAJESTY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.34.12.126 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

paul edge

Hi,

This page is about me and repeatedly is updated to contain inaccurate information such as my date of birth which I have again just corrected.

I am requesting that page be deleted immediately.

Thank you

Paul Edge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpauledge (talk • contribs) 00:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paul,

I've nominated the page for deletion using articles for deletion process, the discussion is here. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

anna gunn

Anna Gunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just found out that under her Personal Life section, someone added this: Gunn and her ex-husband,[2][14] actor and real estate broker Alastair Duncan, have two daughters, Eila Rose and Emma. '(Redacted)

Guess you'll want to take that down... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.163.252 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed from both here and there. — Strongjam (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

PERFECT MASIYA

Perfect Masiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I posted an unfinished biograph of myself. all i want is a second chance to work on it, i realy want this to go public please help. i am a university student at Bindura University in Zimbabwe Africa and its part of my project. i hope you will find this relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pafact (talk • contribs) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to edit your user page to tell us a bit about yourself, but it should be relevant to your editing activities on Wikipedia - see WP:UP. If your university prof has asked you to do something different, then I am afraid they have sorely misunderstood what Wikipedia is all about.--ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

hillary rodham clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton has several glaring omissions. There is no mention of the refusal of the Obama Administration to support the protesters in Iran in 2009. The discussion of U.S. involvement in the Libyan civil war in 2010 seems to understate Clinton's involvement in the decision to get involved, the lack of Congressional approval and the dismal outcome. The discussion of the Congressional investigation of the Benghazi debacle seems to understate the controversy about it's origins ( terrorist attack v/s spontaneous demonstration about a controversial video ).Toledotom (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

These are issues for the article's talk page, not this noticeboard. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

As you might expect, Clinton is a very popular topic on Wikipedia and will remain so for some time. The article is nearly 80K of prose, covering a lot of ground, so some things just can't fit in, and as this is a featured article, I assume a strong consensus has been made on content. The talk page has an extensive FAQ detailing more points. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ernesto de Lucas Hopkins

Ernesto de Lucas Hopkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page does not meet many requirements related to Biographies of living persons

Please be specific. What parts do you believe violate WP:BLP? Has anyone objected when you tried to correct the problems?- MrX 14:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is not the easiest to review due to my ignorance with languages other than English. However, there is a section that talks up his achievements that is mostly sourced to https://www.ehui.com. I can't open it so not sure what it is exactly. AIRcorn (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be opened, but not as an https: site, needs to be http://www.ehui.com. Since my spanish is sparse, I can't really tell what that site is. It appears to be a Spanish-News site, but I'm not sure. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything that immediately appears contentious/negative/poorly-sourced. It would be helpful if you'd describe more fully your issues with the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, perhaps it would beneficial to go to the Wikipedia: Translators available page and ask for help to verify some of the sources in this BLP. That way, it can be determined whether or not this https://www.ehui.com site supports the material in the article. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 23:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup on the page. About half the references are dead. --Auric talk 13:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Richard K. Diran

Richard K. Diran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are some serious BLP violations here. I'm about to investigate the history and maybe throw some blocks around, but in the meantime the article and its sources need a good reading and possibly scrubbing by experienced editors. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the article says he plead guilty to a serious crime. Normally if it could be poorly sources and possibly libel it should be deleted out of a BLP page quickly. But it seems it has a reliable source, sanfrancisco chronicle. Popish Plot (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Another fundamental question is whether Diran is notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, or the specific notability guideline for authors per WP:NAUTHOR. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I will place in AFD. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Drmies had started this saying "article and its sources need a good reading and possibly scrubbing by expereinced editors". It seems AFD does just that! I assumed he meant only the part about a guilty plea but I shouldn't assume, let's let the entire article get reviewed, maybe it should be changed, kept same, or deleted entirely. Popish Plot (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard K. Diran - Cwobeel (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

HR 2314, "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009

This article has been titled Akaka Bill for some time against BLP policy. It is not the title of the bill. The title and number appears as the section header above and is:HR 2314, "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009HR2314. Daniel Akaka is a living person and one of several people that introduced the bill. I moved this title to the official name and it was reverted. A few weeks later (last night) I noticed it and moved it again as a BLP exemption from edit warring but it was reverted again. The nick naming of this bill as Akaka is from opponents of the bill. I believe Wikipedia is clear about this. If the article name is using an unofficial nickname, whether used by opponents or supporters and that name uses a living persons actual name, we cannot title the article with that nick name. This needs attention please as a BLP violation not a move request. The name Akaka Bill should also be salted.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Akaka Bill appears to be a WP:COMMONNAME, or at least a common nickname, though I could see an argument for redirecting it to the official name like is done with Obamacare. But how, exactly, is this an BLP violation? I see nothing defamatory about it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It need not be "defamatory" to be a BLP violation. Similar to the term Obamacare that can be viewed negatively or positively, depending on your point of view, but thank you for replying and yes, that is exactly what I think should be done. A redirect (even if we do not go the length of salting the title) to the official title of the bill like is done with Obamacare. The BLP violations seem to include:

• WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves"

It is an overstatement to title the article of a bill with the nickname of a living person just because it is now common. It is not responsible, cautious or dispassionate. It attempts to use the man's name to permanently link him to this bill regardless of others participation.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPREMOVE: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article." - "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial."

The sources are clear. This is not the name of the bill. Only what it is commonly referred to as, like what is done with "Obamacare". It was challenged and removed but returned. The content (the title of the article) is false and refers to a living person, Daniel Akaka. Whether it is meant to be negative, positive or just neutral, it should be removed and the actual title of the bill used. The body of the article can explain the use of the common phrase but should not be used to describe the bill on Wikipedia as it is not accurate unless referring to the nickname itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Applicability of the policy: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts."
• WP:BLPTALK: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."
• WP:BLPCOI: "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself."

Basically this fails the above in that we are allowing a politically motivated nickname of a bill to be used as the Wikipedia Article title against all of these policies. We should not try to figure out if the motivations of the editors that added the name were such, they may be completely unaware, but the fact is, this is exactly like the Obamacare situation and we should not be using nicknames of any kind let alone a name of a living person. It is certainly relevant to mention and summarize in the article with proper sources, but as an encyclopedia we should be referring to the bill by its actual name.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mark Miller on the core issue. Just as we do not have an article called "Obamacare" but rather a redirct to an article properly titled Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, so too should our article be properly titled "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009", and a redirect created from "Akaka Bill" or other plausible nicknames. Caution and careful study are in order, though, since a Senator with a career as long and distinguished as Daniel Akaka may well have had several different bills nicknamed after him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion at least. Seems like the page move was undone because it was not a routine move. I'll start a request for page move. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have started a request for page move here: Talk:Akaka_Bill#Requested_move_29_March_2015. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A move request is not needed. There is consensus that this is a BLP violation and the tile should be moved without a request or discussion. I could have made a request to begin with if I didn't feel this was violating some pretty important policies.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone else wish to weigh in? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see the reason not to have Akaka Bill as the main title. But I do think a redirect is necessary. Akaka Bill is the term many people would use to search for this article. So the original proposal to salt the term is inappropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

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.

---

Paul Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Capitalismojo is insisting to add Profession: "Economist" and "Speechwriter" to the infobox of Paul Ryan, based on a source describing Ryan having had a "position as a staff economist attached to Senator Kasten's office, which he did after graduating in 1992."

References

While Ryan may have taken a job after graduation at Kasten's office, that does not make Ryan's profession to be "economist". Asking for other editors to weigh in on this. Both sources he provides are dead links. The source for "speechwriter" is a post at the Center for Individual Freedom website, which states that "The notion that a rising tide lifts all boats is something Kemp’s former speechwriter Paul Ryan would be happy to share, if only liberals would listen" [6]. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I provided a source for "Speechwriter".--Polmandc (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

References

I think the source is not reporting Ryan's title correctly. I don't believe that senators have "staff economists". I think it's much more likely that his title was "legislative assistant" with a specialization in economic issues. See Congressional staff for a list of job titles. If the consensus is to list this in the infobox (and I'm not sure that it's appropriate to list jobs that a person had early in their career) then "congressional staffer" is a safer bet than "economist". GabrielF (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

And, to provide a source for that, CNN describes him as a "legislative aide" to Kasten.[7]. GabrielF (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The source for "speechwriter" says "former speechwriter" - I think that both these are a lame attempt to enhance that mans bio. Ryan is an accomplished congressman, and former VP candidate, and does not really need the fluff. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Part of it may be because Paul Ryan came up with the republicans budget which actualy economists criticized. Popish Plot (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a hoot either way. Someone added "speechwriter" to the profession line in the infobox. He's just as much an economist as a speechwriter and it sourced to the same section of the article. I, for one, would agree that "politician" is a fine and well sourced description fot that line. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A quick read of the article doesn't support the notion that he was ever an economist; happy to hear I'm wrong if I've overlooked it. (Majoring in economics as an undergraduate doesn't make someone an economist.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I can shed a little light here. I hold bachelor's and master's degrees in economics, so I'm familiar with the conventions of what typically qualifies one as an "economist." I'd say it boils down to two resume lines, either having (a) earned a Ph.D./D.Phil in research economics, or (b) worked as an economist and performed statistical economic analysis as one's principal job function. One does not have to receive a doctorate in economics to be a legitimate economist, but simply earning a bachelor's degree in economics doesn't cut it, either. People earn bachelor's degrees in accounting, chemistry, history, journalism, and sociology every day, but that does not make them an accountant, chemist, historian, journalist or sociologist. The title is assumed to mean that one has actually worked as an economist. I don't see anything on Paul Ryan's resume that implies that he ever worked full-time as an economist, and working as a Capitol Hill legislative aide handling budget, economics, public finance and tax issues is not the same thing as being a research economist or even an economic analyst. On Capitol Hill, most of the economist-level staff work for one of the major committee staffs, not an individual U.S. representative's or senator's staff. That said, Ryan clearly had the best command of economic issues among the four candidates for president and vice-president in the 2012 elections. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 30 March 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.

Chenab Group

Chenab Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Mian Muhammad Latif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Sir/Madam

I represent a business corporation based in Pakistan named Chenab Group. Someone has made changes to three of Wikipedia pages that refer to my client. The changes are highly biased and can prove damageable to the image of my client, its business activity and people associated with the business. My client is a prominent business entity in its country, Pakistan. The editor has added information that is unrelated and false which can cause serious loss in terms of sales and reputation to my client. I therefore request you to remove the edits made in recent days and restore page.

The pages are following Chenab Group, ChenOne, Mian Muhammad Latif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.170.173.251 (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is currently an on-going edit war at Chenab Group, involving 194.170.173.251. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Could you please tell us exactly which information you consider to be "unrelated and false"? A casual peruse suggests that most of the information is credited to reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The OP was blocked for edit-warring. The OP also posted this complaint at the WP: Help Desk, which was forum shopping. (However, this noticeboard is the proper place to consider any false information about the subject, except that the claims do appear to be properly sourced.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Brendan Fraser

Brendan Fraser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor has twice changed the portrait in the infobox on Brendan Fraser to a rather unflattering picture [8]. It says there .. "PHOTOGRAPH AND EDITED BY MYSELF". Could this be a BLP vio? 220 of ^Borg 16:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be a BLP violation. Have you tried discussing it with the new editor? Changes to images are subject to consensus just like any other content.- MrX 17:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks flaterring to me, he's a good looking guy, I suppose that depends on point of view, but what if the photo is copyrighted? Photo by "myself"? Not sure what to do in that case, probably revert back to prior picture? Popish Plot (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

First photo is clearly more flattering, but I don't think this presents a serious BLP issue. Mr. X is right; this is a standard content dispute, and the primary photo should be determined by talk page consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I did ask the editor why they were changing it, no answer. They just switched it in, twice without comment. Per the "edited by myself" I suspect the picture may have been altered to be more 'ugly'? The first photo is certainly to be preferred per WP:MUG. 220 of ^Borg 18:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes that is unflattering, looks like they photoshopped him to have red eyes. I was looking at the picture in the article right now which looks flattering by mistake. Well this should be obvious, there should be consensus to use the original picture which there was no problem with. The editor was asked and didn't give an answer too? Change it back. Popish Plot (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Been done already by another editor. I have also asked an editor on Commons if it is acceptable to them. Quite a bit of vandalism to that page, not sure what it's about. Has Fraser been in the news for any reason? 220 of ^Borg 14:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not that I know of. No more so than any typical celebrity. Oh well. Popish Plot (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Eastman

Kevin Eastman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not good with BLP's, but an editor has made significant changes today, which don't look well sourced to me, but as I'm unsure of myself in the area of BLP's I'd love it if somebody would look. I suspect, entirely without evidence, that the ed is the subject of the BLP. Thanks -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't profess to be an expert on the subject, but the recent edits by User:KESI116 seem to have removed a lot of derogatory and snidely worded information from the page. The "KE" might stand for "Kevin Eastman", but I don't see anything particularly problematic about the edits themselves. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

While the previous text was rather imperfect, the edits smack of an effort to impose the subject's official bio in place of an independently written one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It could no doubt be improved (and I'll be pruning a bit in a moment), but the previous version was quite poor containing a lot of irrelevant information about his ex-wife. Most of the article wording that was on topic has been left intact. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC).

Jordis Unga

Jordis Unga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The IP 98.193.95.34 has been repeatedly adding unsourced, contentious info on Jordis Unga regarding a failed Kickstarter campaign. It was formerly just sourced using the Kickstarter comments, and this went on for several revisions before it was semi-protected by CambridgeBayWeather, a protection which just recently ended and low and behold the information was just added again. This time it also included an "article" from BuzzFeed here, but that page was "created by a user and has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff." The editor received a 4im warning early this month for this same behavior, but blanked their talk page. Kharkiv07^Talk 23:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Correction: the page was given pending changes protection. Kharkiv07^Talk 23:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This was handled via the boomerang effect at the edit warring noticeboard. Kharkiv07^Talk 00:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

claire robinson

Claire Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Birth name and date are incorrect!!!! Multiple false statements. REMOVE DEATH OF BROTHER IMMEDIATELY!!!! Thank You,

Claire Robinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leavethispagealone (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this the article you are referring to? Claire Robinson ? I think you did make good edits just now cuz those sources didn't seem to mention the birthname, date or brother dying so I'm not sure why it was in the article at first. You should put this message at the articles talk page tho. Popish Plot (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Popish Plot: The edits to Claire Robinson that were complained about were by an 'anonymous' IP editor 24.189.164.90 (talk · contribs) on 22 March. here. Actually, in the circumstance this probably was the right place to come. Unless the BLP talkpage is unusually busy, any message there may not have been read for some time. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (wp:AN/I) would have been another possible venue, but here is the specailised board for BLP issues. 220 of ^Borg 16:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Borg. I was just thinking that removing that non sourced material would be considered a good edit, nothing controversial, if it was made with no discussion on this or talk page or anywhere I didn't think anyone would have a problem. Popish Plot (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Charles Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton

Charles Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Under the Cabinet Minister heading for this entry, an extraneous line of personal abuse has been added that may well be defamatory or libelous to Lord Falconer, as well as to HM The Queen. It is entirely inappropriate, offensive and unrelated to the rest of the text in that paragraph; it seems to have been inserted in such a way as to "hide" it to any casual observer of the page.

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by 89.238.143.69 (talk) at 10:20, 31 March 2015 (→‎Cabinet Minister, 2003-2007). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Falconer,_Baron_Falconer_of_Thoroton&direction=next&oldid=653636620 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.32.13 (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there some reason you didn't just undo the edit that added it? That seems to me like the obvious course of action. I've now done it. --JBL (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Scott DesJarlais

Scott DesJarlais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article was apparently discussed here before, with some resolution in 2012. Recent edits have again expanded the personal life section, in all its gaudy detail. Some overview may be welcome. 2602:302:D88:CFA9:7D2B:B1F6:B81C:DF33 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting article... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• To put it charitably. Well sourced, but probably WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The red flag for me was the over-capitalization of headings, the sort of MOS misdemeanor committed when editors want to draw attention to the importance of their content. It's also using transcripts from a divorce hearing--derived from 'the cloud'--a lot as a source. 2602:302:D88:CFA9:7D2B:B1F6:B81C:DF33 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There are some serious, significant issues with this article, starting with the misuse of "DocumentCloud.org" primary-source transcripts, etc. for negative claims, which is absolutely unacceptable. I note that all of the information was added by a single anonymous IP user, who appears to have an ax to grind against the biographical subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, NBSB. 2602:302:D88:CFA9:7D2B:B1F6:B81C:DF33 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Junior Sanchez

Junior Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article has been commandeered by account(s) purporting to be the subject's management team. I've twice reverted to a previous revision; most of what's there now is the inevitable press release, much of which is sourced to a video interview. Have tried to explain the issues to the COI account... 2602:302:D88:CFA9:7D2B:B1F6:B81C:DF33 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Carl Freer

Carl Freer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Minor confusion persists over whether or not Carl Freer was on the Forbes list for 2005. I have a paper copy of the Forbes list of the list I could scan and send. Please advise. Thanks DavidWestT (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't just minor confusion. DavidWestT is persistently reverting large amounts of good faith referenced editing on this page, with edit comments implying that he is making minor cleanups of the wording. And every time this bogus Forbes reference is added back in with claims to have a paper copy, when the Forbes website itself disagrees with what he is claiming. Fugu Alienking 01:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I just emailed you the scanned copy of the list page from Forbes. He's on the list at #698. I'm a volunteer and I didn't have access to a scanner.DavidWestT (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You haven't emailed me anything. And your last edit to the page adding this claim back also removed several other contributions to the page which had been made in the interim, so I reverted it even though you were sensible enough to retain the dubious tag this time. Please use the talk page to discuss this claim before adding it again, though from the discussion so far, I really don't think there is much chance of consensus being swayed in the direction you are hoping for. Forged documents exist in Carl Freer's history, perhaps the Wikipedia article is lacking somewhat in its coverage in this area, but it plays a part in whether we can consider a scanned list sent by email from a non-neutral party to be more authoritative than the website of the purported source publication itself. —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 03:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Infamous members in a list

• List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The above article has an Infamous section with four non-notable entries (that is, no article), including one with details of sexual misconduct. My guess is that the two blue-linked entries should be moved to the "Other" section just above, and the others deleted. Today's not the day to start an edit war so I thought I'd start by asking if anyone knows of similar cases. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed the section without seeing this discussion while alphebetising. It didn't look right to me. I didn't remove any of the sourced entries though and I didn't check to see that the sources talk about school attendance, I'm doing that today and removing ones that don't so it may resolve itself. SPACKlick (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Salvatore J. Cordileone

Salvatore J. Cordileone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could editors knowledgeable regarding BLP please take a look at Salvatore J. Cordileone. I recently removed an unsourced addition of a section titled “Water-soaking of homeless”, which seemed contentious. Today, it has been re-added, but this time referenced by one source that makes no mention at all of Salvatore J. Cordileone.[9] This has been a contentious article (I think it’s one involved in the recent religion/sexuality ArbCom case) with past history of edit wars. I don't have the time today to watch this article closely and it really seems to need more eyes on it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the section titled "water-soaking of homeless." Has it been deleted again? Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

List of state and local political scandals in the United States

FYI, multiple violations of WP:BLP are alleged (by me) at this new AfD page: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state and local political scandals in the United States.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Rajat Sharma

Rajat Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Sir, The article on wikipedia lacks information and provides a biased view of the person in a negative light focusing on negative aspects rather than the achievements.I tried to edit the article several time from a sourced reference -'The Economic Times' - a widely read newspaper in India, yet someone constantly removes that information. The information is libelous since the controversy regarding Tanu Sharma has been cleared in court and I know so because I am his daughter. Will be grateful if you look into it. Yours sincerely, Astha Sharma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astha89 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There has been a discussion started about this at WP:COIN#Rajat Sharma. The above user is replacing sourced content with unsourced content, against WP:BURDEN. It's clear the article does need work however. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, the change in question here cites no source, and is a direct copy of this, against WP:COPYVIO. I'm readding some content in my own words. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Astha89 thanks for coming somewhere and talking. Talking is so much better than edit warring. The way Wikipedia works, we are supposed to talk through disagreements on the article talk page, and only if we cannot reach agreement, do we come here. but this, is better than nothing. Joseph and I will have a look at the article and the changes you tried to make. Please come to the article Talk page and talk there. Please don't directly edit the article going forward, per WP:COI. But we will be happy to talk with you, on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked at this more, and there is something I would like to get community feedback on. I think the following content, is the key objection by the conflicted editor (who claims here to be the subject's daughter). I have taken it out of the article for now. BLPN-watchers: should the following content/sourcing stay in the article (which is pretty short) or come out?

In mid-2014, his name appeared in the attempted suicide case of one of his female employees Tanu Sharma, leading to a small protest in Noida Film City. On 2 July 2014 Rajat Sharma sent legal notice to victim stating that allegations were false and reserving the right to seek damages.

References

I searched for news about these events, and found no mention of it major India sources like the Times of India - the sources provided are the best ones out there, as far as I have seen. Source #2 above notes that there was little coverage, as well. I am not sure this is noteworthy enough to include in a BLP of Rajat Sharma. Am posting here for community feedback on whether to keep or remove. Issues about women in India have been sensitive, and it would be best if we had community input.Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

the wind whistles through abandoned streets.. whhhhhhhhhh Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Dan Cameron

Dan Cameron

... (Redacted) I'm a new wiki editor and would like to have this information added in a proper way so his Wiki page doesn't look like a press release.

Can anyone help me?

Underthestones (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for you or anyone else to grind an axe against a person, as you obviously have intent of doing, based on the above statements which I have redacted, as not all of them are supported by the sources you cite. Your apparent desire to negatively slant Dan Cameron's biography clearly smacks of extending a personal dispute onto the encyclopedia, which is strictly prohibited. Discuss on the article talk page what may be appropriate or inappropriate for his biography, but this is not the place to make hay against the man. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Quint Studer

Quint Studer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there. I'm working on behalf of Quint Studer's company, The Studer Group to seek some improvements to make the article about him more accurate and neutral. (Due to my financial COI here, I will not be making any edits to the article, instead focusing on discussion on the Talk page.) I've left a note on the Talk page suggesting that details that are solely about The Studer Group be removed from the introduction. My thoughts are that this section should only focus on Studer himself. Another editor believes that Studer and his company are interchangeable and that the information should be included, even where some of it focuses on some (potentially controversial) criticism of the company. I'm hoping someone here might be able weigh in with their thoughts about what's appropriate from a BLP guidelines perspective.

I'm also looking for input on how this article could be improved in general. I do think that overall the article suffers from a negative, rather than neutral, point of view. For instance, a paragraph discussing Studer's books notes that seven of his books were self-published and only one was published by an "established" publisher. Rather than highlighting these details, it would seem to make more sense to list all the books in a Bibliography section that states all of the books' factual information, including publishers, neutrally. There are also sentences claiming that the Studer Group calls the books bestsellers (cited to the Group's website), but his highest ranking book on Amazon is at 2,963 (cited to Amazon.com), also seem unnecessary and could be reworded. This is just one example and I'm hoping editors here might be interested in taking a look at the article and discussing how it might be improved. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd first like to thank you for coming to Wikipedia in honest disclosure of your conflict, rather than simply editing the article to suit your wishes. I've read the article and talk page. I disagree with you that his self-publishing should not be mentioned within the text. If authorship is relevant, so is the role as publisher. I need to hear more as to why he needs to be distinguished from the acts of his company, unless sources recognize him as uninvolved in those actions. Wikipedia wants sourced factual statements, from sources that are independent from the subject. One thing you can do is identify such sources on the article talk page, and invite editors to use them to improve the article. Your client is far from my usual zone of interest in Wikipedia, but I will make an effort to look at sources indicated and see that the article is fair. The operators of this noticeboard may want this to continue on the article talk page. David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David, appreciate you taking a look at this. While I see your point about the role of publisher being as relevant as the authorship, I think that there's a more straightforward and neutral way to write this than it currently appears in the article. Likewise, with regards to the claims about the book being bestselling, considering that the sourcing here isn't to secondary sources. In terms of information that's just about his company that's in the article, it seems reasonable to include details that give background on the company and what it does, along with any major criticism, but I'd argue that controversial information about the company shouldn't appear in the lead, especially if the sourcing isn't that strong. For instance, there's currently a long sentence in the first paragraph of the introduction that says that National Nurses United made allegations about the company. Looking at that source, there's just one single mention of Studer Group. The article reads more as general criticism of a particular form of operating focusing on patient satisfaction that has become standard in hospitals, it definitely isn't a criticism focused on Studer Group. At most, it seems like this source could be used to say something like "NNU has criticized standards that are promoted by companies including Studer Group". There are other details about the company in the article that just seem too detailed for Mr. Studer's article, and should really be summarized. There's not really a way to show sources that "recognize him as uninvolved in those actions", since the sources just don't mention Mr. Studer at all, it basically would be trying to prove a negative. Do you see what I mean? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

David_Coburn_(politician)

Resolved

 – edit warring conflicted editor was banned; article has been reviewed for BLP and is OK> Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

David_Coburn_(politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor who is apparently the subject of this biography has been editing the page using an IP and the username User:David Coburn MEP. Because the edits have been disruptive to a certain extent, they have been reported to WP:AIV and WP:SPI. Could someone with experience handling these types of matters please have a look and see if the editor has valid concerns about the article's content? Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going simply to link the two investigations on which I commented. It would be great if we could get this cleared up ASAP what with the UK General Election in full flow. Cheers. [10] & [11] --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There is also now this discussion open: [12]. Let's get this cleaned up. --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Perks

Sarah Perks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to have been written by the subject herself, or by somebody very close to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.95.235 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Tagged with {{blp sources}}. There are a number of sources from mainstream media that could be used to improve the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, if you could point to some of those sources, it would be helpful. I'm not finding much, and notwithstanding the fact that most of the statements in this BLP are unsourced, I think there's a notability question as well. TheBlueCanoe 23:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Is mentioning indictments for genocide a form of victimization?

The purpose of this post is to seek the opinion of people uninvolved in this content area, who are familiar with and regularly deal with wp:blp issues. the dispute surrounds whether this sentence, or one substantially like this, be placed on the articles of the corresponding Chinese communist party officials, or whether it violates the blp policy. we'll get to that in a minute:

"In 2009, a Spanish court indicted [insert name here] and four other officials of genocide against Falun Gong."

I would actually suggest that there be more information than just this one line, but anyway. the point is whether this information belongs in these articles. from what i can tell reading, there were actually two legal cases that led to indictments of some kind or other - one in spain, the other in argentina. the officials involved were:

- Jiang Zemin, former communist party leader

- Luo Gan, former leader of the 610 Office, the secret police agency that leads the anti-falun gong campaign

- Bo Xilai, a former politburo member

- Jia Qinglin, former high ranking party official

- Wu Guanzheng, former head of the internal Party disciplinary agency

Here are references to either the spanish or argentine indictments:

• http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/11/14/espana/1258230601.html "La Audiencia pide interrogar al ex presidente chino Jiang por genocidio"], El Mundo, 14 Nov 2009
• a report by the center for investigative reporting about lawsuits against bo xilai http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080423_cir_china_bush_investigation
• mentioned in this chatham house report about universal jurisdiction: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/International%20Law/bp0410arimatsu.pdf
• http://www.genocidepreventionnow.org/Home/GPNISSUES/Issue3Summer2010/tabid/70/ctl/DisplayArticle/mid/460/aid/151/Default.aspx
• http://www.trial-ch.org/en/resources/trial-watch/trial-watch/profiles/profile/954/action/show/controller/Profile/tab/legal-procedure.html
• http://world.time.com/2014/02/11/spain-arrest-jiang-zemin-tibet/
• http://www.cja.org/downloads/Guatemala_Nation_9.21.06.pdf
• http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/23/us-argentina-china-falungong-idUSTRE5BM02B20091223
• http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/23/us-spain-china-idUSKBN0EY2IU20140623

Note, that in 2014, spain adopted a law which "diminishes the power of courts to try cases of genocide and crimes against humanity committed abroad" (according to TRIAL).

Here is the explanation, from user:simonm223, explaining why he thinks the material does not belong:

"In this case we have a religious organization that deliberately pursued pernicious lawsuits against perceived foes specifically to smear their name with indictment for trials which everybody knows will never happen - to use that as part of the person's bio is specifically playing into the pattern of victimization the religious organization is trying to perpetuate."

it seems there are two issues, though only the first pertains to the BLP issue: 1) does this material, qua its claims, violate blp?

separately....

2) does the fact that no action will be taken, partly because of the nature of the litigation, and certainly because of subsequent laws passed to prevent the courts from engaging in this kind of action (judging by the center for investigative reporting article, these cases are diplomatically embarrassing for china, and the chinese government goes to great lengths to prevent them from gaining traction or publicity), make the information irrelevant?

my own understanding is that this material does not violate blp, and the specific legal questions do not change the relation of the news to blp policy. i.e. — whether the legislatures of those countries passed laws later or not, the blp policy stands in the same relation to the news as it would otherwise have. i think simonm223's personal views of the alleged perniciousness of the lawsuits, and his legal analysis, are not germane to the question at hand.

there is still the question of notability and relevance in light of subsequent laws, but that is not the question i bring. i suspect that the best way to handle that is on a case-by-case basis - ie mention it very briefly and note that litigation is extremely unlikely, or something.

the main argument by simonm223 for the violation of blp policy is that it victimizes the individuals in question.

i do not think that reporting that so-and-so was indicted for genocide by a sovereign court is a form of victimization of that person. that is the question before blp editors: are we victimizing these chinese officials by repeating this information? Happy monsoon day 19:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issue in using "In 2009, a Spanish court indicted [insert name here] and four other officials of genocide against Falun Gong," if you provide the name of the court and some context about that court's legal standing. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you are not citing the proper part of BLP, which is Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Persons_accused_of_crime. Indicting is one thing, convicting is another. In my view, in general, it rarely makes sense to have content about indictments or people filing civil suits in Wikipedia articles. Those events are not noteworthy. What are noteworthy, are convictions or pleas (in criminal cases), or settlements/decisions (in civil suits). So I would not include content about the indictments per the section of BLP cited above. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: a good point. Let's examine that paragraph:

A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.

in our case, we are not talking about relatively unknown people, but prominent politicians of a major country. in this case, given that the judicial proceedings are a little obscure — do the rulings even still have standing in the countries they were made?? — and they have attracted a deal of media attention, it's not clear how mentioning them with appropriate context would fall foul of the above, which urges caution ("editors must seriously consider not including...) about including information about alleged crimes in the cases of relatively unknown people.

the reason for this injunction is clear: should a private individual, sued for something or other, have those claims dashed across the encyclopedia of record? i suspect that it was not intended to prevent the mention of indictments of major political figures - though if there is precedence for the above being understood so strictly, then it would be interesting to see that. Happy monsoon day 22:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The mistake was mine for not citing the appropriate part of BLP in my original comments - however I'd contend that, while the section Jytdog cited is more appropriate, this is still a matter of an organization using courts to pursue a smear campaign, and so victimization also still applies. This just reinforces that these are not appropriate references. On the other hand, if there were reliable sources for any of these people actually even standing trial that would be a different matter. As that is not the case, it's inappropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Happy Monsoon Day. As I wrote, I generally don't include content about the start to suits or indictments in WP. It is easy to start something, and hard to actually get a conviction or win a suit, and it is the resolution that matters. I completely understand that filing of suits and indictments are attractive for people interested in using WP as a WP:SOAPBOX or trying to turn it into a newspaper (but it is WP:NOTNEWS)... neither thing is what we are about here. If you want content about the Chinese government abusing Falun Gong, this is not your content. I am sure there are lots of other content you can bring. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks jytdog. i think we need to be a bit wary of overdoing this material, but i disagree with your assessment. i think short sentence, such as above, with an added qualification that the suits are unlikely to go anywhere or were annulled, is appropriate - basically for notability reasons.

in at least one case the issue of the suit became a significant diplomatic problem between the united states and china. i would be against any more than a slim sentence for the other officials, and maybe a little more for bo xilai, given he was at the center of the tempest. just my view.

i agree that this material is going to be attract for soapboxers. it's also true that a lot of material that is otherwise notable and relevant also falls into that category. that something serves as a soapbox for a group doesn't remove its notability. the tibetan lawsuits also attracted much attention, and were annulled, i believe - but it's the notability (i.e. the significance and meaning attached to the suits - they caused laws to be passed to prevent the diplomatic fallout from them) that i believe is significant. but i'd be opposed to any more than a sentence in most cases.

as for the criminal accusations/victimization part of blp policy, i think is more relevant for private individuals rather than public political figures. just my opinion. thank you for responding to this request for comment.Happy monsoon day 21:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If an indictment has been reported in the press, I think it generally merits inclusion. I don't recall ever seeing an indictment deliberately omitted from an article. Genocide is also about as serious as accusations can get. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The proposed sentence does not seem to present a BLP problem. It's worth noting that the courts would have only issued an indictment if they found there was sufficient grounds to do so - in this case, if there was some compelling evidence of a genocide or crimes against humanity having occurred. And since there does seem to be other reporting in reliable sources that the accused individuals ordered or orchestrated serious human rights abuses, it's not as though the charge is frivolous. A simple, factual statement about the indictments should be fine, particularly if they had other diplomatic or political significance that's worth noting. But put it into context, and note (if applicable and supported by RS) that these cases are unlikely to go to trial.

On the soapbox question, I think HMD has a point - the value and notability of a given piece of information is not negated by the fact that activists editors might like or dislike it it.TheBlueCanoe 23:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sir Manas Sen Gupta

Sir Manas is an editor at Techmonkey. Aage ka unhi se puchh lo.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.170.141 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a question here? TheBlueCanoe 23:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Biographies

Raven_Riley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oahmed11 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What about it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

tawny kitean

reads badly written as a first person dialogue, no sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.196.49 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, this has now been substantially cleared up. It appears a couple of users added in a hoard of unsourced content a while back that was never picked up on. Almost all the content is now sourced. Feel free to make any additions if covered by more reliable sources. Thanks for the heads-up! --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 04:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

BobLipton, Lipton Associates

The contribution we made entitled Bob Lipton, Lipton Associates is similar in nature to the article published in Wickipedia as the one titled Wendeen Eolis. Therefore we are requesting that we be treated in the same manner as they have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobLipton (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@BobLipton: Bob, you've come to the wrong notice board. This notice board is for instances when Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy has been violated or possibly violated. Your complaint appears to be that your autobiography keeps getting deleted. You want to take your case to requests for undeletion, although I doubt you'll find much sympathy. You have written an article about yourself and your own firm, which is discouraged by Wikipedia's autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines. The articles were deleted before I could look at them, but in both instances, your article was deleted for being blatantly promotional (and, in once instance, lacking any assertion of notability). The difference with the Wendeen H. Eolis article is that it is not promotional, and it does assert Eolis' notability, both as a legal professional and as a professional poker player. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

BobLipton, Lipton Associates

The contribution we made entitled Bob Lipton, Lipton Associates is similar in nature to the article published in Wickipedia as the one titled Wendeen Eolis. Therefore we are requesting that we be treated in the same manner as they have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobLipton (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@BobLipton: Bob, you've come to the wrong notice board. This notice board is for instances when Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy has been violated or possibly violated. Your complaint appears to be that your autobiography keeps getting deleted. You want to take your case to requests for undeletion, although I doubt you'll find much sympathy. You have written an article about yourself and your own firm, which is discouraged by Wikipedia's autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines. The articles were deleted before I could look at them, but in both instances, your article was deleted for being blatantly promotional (and, in once instance, lacking any assertion of notability). The difference with the Wendeen H. Eolis article is that it is not promotional, and it does assert Eolis' notability, both as a legal professional and as a professional poker player. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Mikael Ljungman

Mikael Ljungman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article appears to be a long term venue for interested parties to add trivial and poorly sourced content, including Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin as sources, for puffery. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed a bit of puffery and unreliable sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ross Honsberger

The photo connected to this bio is incorrect. It is Nancy Ross Honsberger rather than my father, Ross Honsberger. The other info is correct to my knowledge. Nana sandy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanasandy (talk • contribs) 17:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no photo in the Wikipedia article on Ross Honsberger. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably a WP:FIXGOOGLE problem. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Erik Wemple

This article received some news coverage today, and the "anecdote" about his wife has been removed. But the whole thing strikes me as a bit of a hatchet job and so I request that fresh eyes take a look at the overall tone of the article. I am irritated about it at the moment and hope for a more objective view. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

user from Saudi arabia Bright beems page spoil health Like left eye,left brain and heart

Dear Sir,

Whenever I log Time of india news paper to read some islam related topic there is briht beems from screen insert to lest eye and start spoiling the health. I noticed one thing even though live cric sites get opens and after that it spreads beems .Like me thousand of users are affected .please check this block this currupt sites from linking through your site. specialy explorer browser using .please try to investigate & block such sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.88.112.175 (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

We have no control over what the Times of India does on its website, and we certainly can't block it. Though given what you describe is physically impossible, we wouldn't block it even if we could. I suggest you consult an optician. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Turn down the brightness on your monitor to avoid glare from you computer monitor, especially at night. This will help to reduce Asthenopia. Rhumidian (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Bonnie Bishop

Bonnie Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello I am Bonnie Bishop - the WIKI page that exists for me was not created by my team and it is terribly out of date. I tried to make changes to the page but was denied. I would either like to get an updated picture and an updated biography on here OR delete this page and begin again. I have attached some links to pictures that I wouldn't mind being public domain. Please help me with this matter - I am mortified by this page!! https://instagram.com/p/x_BTfZsNOv/ http://www.bonniebishop.com/photography Thank you! 76.22.143.181 (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bonnie. Thanks for getting in touch! We do have a strict policy in place on biographies of living people whereby any statements in articles must be backed up by reliable, secondary, independent sources. Moreover, articles need to conform to a neutral point of view. As a result, we do strongly discourage people from writing their own biographies. However, if you would like to direct us to some independent sources where we can find more information about you, then we would be happy to help by editing the biography ourselves. Thanks! --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 00:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Mahinda_Pathegama

Mahinda Pathegama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Barnes and Noble, 2010, "Sri Lankan Scientists", General Books LLC, ISBN 9781157343691 : There is no book by this ISBN:

• Most of the references are from local news paper articles and has no "scientific" validity.

• Google scholar site for the : https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mxuxRAcAAAAJ&hl=en has many articles not authored/co-authored by the person. And counts only 35+ citations, clearly indicating that it fails the notability criteria. You may consider the previous 3 deletions of the same article.

• There is no scientific articles cited in the wiki: listed below >

=Use of thermal imaging techniques in identifying target object characteristics =Remote system for microscopic cell analysis =Quantitative recognition of feature morphogenesis of SARS-CoV in diagnostic electron microscopy =Remote analysis of morphological features in diagnostic electron microscopy of SARS-CoV =Remote System for microscopic cell analysis =Biological cell interaction process due to electromagnetic radiation =Given the scale of population demographic shift, what are the practicalities of applying knowledge in a meaningful way for an ageing population? =Automated Sports-Talents Identification System and the establishment of National Sports Surveillance

• this citation ( Division of IT, engineering and the environment, BEng Electrical & Mechatronics Engineering Graduates, University of South Australia, [16] Retrieved 22.04.2001) just links the university website.

• This citation (University of Moratuwa, Alumni, [17] Retrieved 19.12.2001) just links the university website.
• duplicate citations: 1,22,36,92: 9,60: 21,84:
• many of the citations has no links to back up, just text.
• The breakthrough said to have been made by the wiki "Frequency-forced Digital Processing" is nowhere to be found online or in scientific articles. Clearly a topic without scientific basis.
• Citation "Creating Future Scientists Program, 'Profile of Scientist Mahinda Pathegama', 2015. [40] Retrieved 28.02.2015" refers to his own website. COI
• CItation "http://www.yatedo.fr/p/Mahinda+pathegama/famous/6ca706f6a16ccaa786ca3e202b366fdf" is an article appeared everywhere online shows some similarity to the wiki indicating some COI.
• The official website has nothing scientific but reiterating and re-directing to NASA website to which the person in wiki has no connection to.Surani Alwis (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This would be better posted in the articles AFD page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahinda Pathegama (2nd nomination).--Auric talk 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Larry Tanenbaum

Larry Tanenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like the subject's bio is cribbed pretty liberally from

• http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=1097101&privcapId=1446644&previousCapId=883129&previousTitle=ALTAGAS%20LTD
• http://mapleleafs.nhl.com/club/pageprint.htm?id=42325

There are some verbatim passages that would lead one to believe that most of it has been copied from official bios. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 05:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Juliana Jendo

There is an ongoing tussle between various factions over the identity and nomenclature of an ethnic group who are variously (or in a compound form) described by the names Assyrian, Aramean, Syriac, and Chaldean. It is common for members of one group to go on Wikipedia and edit the page of a certain individual to alter their identity. Sometimes this is accurate -- in other words, the person really does call her/himself 'Syriac' or 'Assyrian', and the change reflects this. Other times, it is a normative attempt to force a name on someone who does not accept it because the user believes that it is their true historical identity.

The songstress Juliana Jendo is one such case. Juliana Jendo self-identifies as Assyrian, yet an Aramean has edited her profile and replaced all references to Assyrian with 'Aramean'.

Evidence that Juliana Jendo is Assyrian:

https://www.facebook.com/juliana.jendo.75/about?section=contact-info

On her official Facebook page, which is public, she is listed as speaking 'Assyrian'.

In this video, she describes herself as belonging to the 'Assyrian nation'. Any speaker of Assyrian (also known as 'Eastern neo-Aramaic') would be able to corroborate this: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1649902768574582&set=t.100005643335728&type=2&theater

In this video, she is singing in front of an Assyrian flag for 'Assyrian New Year': https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=803328796388111&set=t.100005643335728&type=2&theater

Here she is singing in front of an Assyrian flag: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=655680244494696&set=t.100005643335728&type=2&theater

And once more: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=813945841974681&set=t.100005643335728&type=2&theater

Here she is wearing a cap with an Assyrian flag on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcs4T667BIQ / and here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=134900423374735&set=a.103132526551525.1073741825.100005643335728&type=3&theater

Here is she, again, singing and waving an Assyrian flag: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baiN2muOGXU

A picture of her on a helicopter with an Assyrian flag on it: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=112606432270801&set=a.105035376361240.1073741828.100005643335728&type=3&theater

This sort of editing is done with a view to re-writing history according to a certain understanding of it, and including personages within that attempt. It is a violation of the principles of a page which seeks to accurately record information about an individual's biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.155.108.250 (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

These are all Facebook pages and cannot be used for anything. The BLP policy requires that every fact about a living person, absolutely must have a reliable source. A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact-checking, and is typically a credible, independent, secondary source, such as a book, press article or scholarly work. I have removed almost the entire article, as it was all unsourced original research. I hope the article will improve by gathering credible, independent sources and adding their information to the page. CorporateM (Talk) 23:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Labels "climate skeptic" and "climate denier"

Self deleted.

May consider reposting under thread at fringe noticeboard that I only just learned about, or at least paid attention to. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP issues in corporation article?

Note this RfC in Talk:MyWikiBiz at [13]. Coretheapple (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Banks

Matthew Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have been trying to keep Matthew Banks neutral and balanced following a post on the help page. The subject and somebody who clearly doesnt like him are both trying to influence the article. User User:Flat Out had now bodly chopped been WP:BOLD and removed the problem section most of the content away, can anybody with a knowledge of BLP issues have a look please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't "chopped most of the content away." I removed a section "Allegations of Fraud' due to concerns that it was a BLP violation and opened a discussion immediately. There are two issues that I am seeking consensus on, firstly the section confused allegations of fraud against Banks and allegations where Banks was the victim of fraud. Secondly, I am not certain that the subject is inherently notable enough for allegations which never resulted in a charge or a conviction to be included, per WP:BLPCRIME. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have responded there. Many of these sources appear credible at-a-glance, but are questionable upon closer inspection. The BLP is a politician and subject to the kinds of attacks that are routine in that arena. Needs close watchlisting. CorporateM (Talk) 02:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Walter O'Brien

My apologies for this being a long entry, but there is considerable backstory to it.

I'm coming here after being vetoed by two editors who have, in the past as well as now, expressed a strong disdain for any content on the article subject being anything but negative and uncomplimentary. Rather than continue to argue with these two editors opposing my recent edits and denying there is a problem with the content and its attached references, I'm coming here based on the instruction at the top of the talk page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard."

Currently, there is a discussion on the following content:

'In September 2014, Mike Masnick of Techdirt wrote an article challenging the accuracy of O'Brien's biography. The Irish Times next interviewed O'Brien with the subsequent article stating that "it is impossible to substantiate some claims." In October 2014, Susan Karlin of Fast Company magazine wrote an article that addressed some of the skepticism over O’Brien’s biography. During the interview, O'Brien answered some of Karlin's questions, did not respond to others, and declined to answer questions raised by people in the computer security industry stating that he was bound by non-disclosure agreements. Thomas Januam, writing in the French paper Téléstar, said that O'Brien's story is a "huge hoax".'

The last sentence "Thomas Januam...(etc.)" was added by User:Jmccormac since the discussion started. The content I removed earlier today (and reverted back in) was:

'In September 2014, Mike Masnick of Techdirt wrote an article challenging the accuracy of O'Brien's biography. The Irish Times next interviewed O'Brien with the subsequent article stating that "it is impossible to substantiate some claims".' It was removed because the reference accompanying the first sentence (a) Iis not an article, but an opinion piece that is laden with nothing but criticism of the article subject, ergo, it is quite biased and POV; (b) The source where the opinion piece originates is Techdirt, an online blog that is, by and large, a technology version of the National Enquirer or TMZ. For instance, the opinion piece used as a reference in the O'Brien article is by-lined as "Overhype" and the headline reads "Another Story Of A 'Fake' Brilliant Inventor? Is 'Scorpion Walter O'Brien' A Real Computer Security Genius? (from the more-of-this-crap? dept)" The bias of the opinion piece blog-writer is obvious even before you read the blog entry. And, last I looked, blogs are not considered reliable sources, even if packaged in a hip,slick manner. The article link is here:[14]

The next sentence that is troublesome reads 'The Irish Times next interviewed O'Brien with the subsequent article stating that "it is impossible to substantiate some claims".' This is troublesome, because the article this is taken from was not making a judgement on O'Brien, nor were there any accusations. Reading the cherry-picked sentence, however, one would think The Irish Times was writing an expose on O'Brien. Taken in context with the article's content prior to that one sentence, the sentence doesn't read at all like it is portrayed in this Wikipedia article. The sentence in context reads as follows:

"When CBS, the network behind Scorpion, unveiled O’Brien to the press, one journalist asked the show’s producer why the network was investing so much money in the story of an Irish “supergeek”. Walter O’Brien has saved the world several times over – things he can’t even tell us about,” the producer said. “Walter personally caught the Boston Marathon bombers. This makes for compelling television. It’s impossible to substantiate such claims. It’s even hard to pin down what having a high IQ means. O’Brien’s was measured when he was a child; IQ tests usually takes age into account: a 10-year-old with the intelligence of a 15-year-old is certainly bright but isn’t necessarily as clever as a normal 20-year-old."

Presented as is in the Wikipedia article, it looks like Irish Times is dissing O'Brien. When taken in context, that's not what's happening. The editor (or editors) who added that content are using WP:SYNTH by taking that one sentence out of context and are leading the reader of the Wikipedia article on O'Brien to come to a conclusion: O'Brien is a liar. The link to the article referenced is here: [15]

Because I realize there is criticism of O'Brien of his claims and I know he has detractors, I left the content about the magazine interview of O'Brien -- mostly because it was a magazine interview and it gives a NPOV version of the story regarding O'Brien's contested claims. I was almost immediately reverted and the other content added back in. Now, there is an addition bit of POV added: "O'Brien's story is a "huge hoax".'

Take a look at the article talk page from here [16] on down. You will see comment after comment by the two editors (Jmccormac as well as User:Green Cardamom) who are fighting tooth and nail to keep this kind of negatively biased content in the article. Just like all the other times they seemed to be on a mission to "expose" O'Brien, they are doing so again with this latest issue, in my opinion. I'm not the only editor who has noticed it and commented on it at the article talk page. I believe strongly that the content I removed (as well as what was newly added today) is inappropriate for a BLP based on it being contentious and very possibly libelous as well as referenced inadequately and against NPOV.

Thanks in advance for any help, advice, clarity, or a solution that can be offered in regard to this issue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have responded there. There appears to be reliable sources on the subject, but some tweaking is probably necessary. I also trimmed a lot of poorly-sourced promotion. CorporateM (Talk) 01:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, at the article talk page you stated, "TechDirt is borderline Yellow journalism, because it is written by professionals, but angled towards exaggerated and over-sensationalized gossip." Since the content using TechDirt as a source remains, how is it that there are, in your words, "reliable sources on the subject"? I'm confused with the apparent contradiction. You also stated at the article talk page, "This seems to suggest blanket deletion was un-warranted. Such debates should always include the article-subject's point-of-view somewhere." There was no blanket deletion. As I stated in this report, only two parts of the (then) three part content were deleted. They've since been restored and one more added. What's also troubling is the fact that with four parts in the contested section and nothing to counterbalance all of that criticism, WP:UNDUE is a factor. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Belle Gibson

Not an expert on subject, but there was lots of obvious bad editing and BLP liberties going on. Lots of stuff about her being a scam artist that isn't properly sourced. It looks like there are RS's out there that do say she is a scam artist, but I doubt page is BLP-compliant, and can't fix it all myself. Dingsuntil (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthias Mende

Matthias Mende is a fake article about a business "magnate." I'm not contesting whether the person is real or not, but whether this should be a wikipedia article about someone that includes unsubstantiated claims and likely fake businesses (for example: CometCore). Here is an except from this "magnates'" early life: "By the age of 21 he discovered Dubai from a video his uncle shot during his holiday trip in the emirate." It continues about ownership of expensive cars, which is also not verifiable. Most of the material in this section refers to the ownership of products.

I can't tell if this article is an elaborate joke, or a scam. Either way, most of this article violates, "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" of People who are relatively unknown [[17]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.192.38 (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed it back to what I could fine in secondary sources. I'll probably nominate it for deletion as well. — Strongjam (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the same user just reinstates the page after your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.192.38 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Randall Miller

Randall Miller was the director of the Gregg Allman biopic Midnight Rider, which was aborted after the film crew's unauthorized filming on a railroad trestle led to the death of a crew member. Miller (and several others) were charged, and ultimately Miller pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter. He is now serving a ten year sentence. These are terrible facts. Nevertheless these articles remain subject to the requirements of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. There's been a pattern of edits such as these (removing all discussion of the rest of Miller's career and adding opinion beyond what is reported in reliable sources) and these (on the Talk page, describing Miller and his wife--against whom the charges were dropped) as "colc blooded murderers" [sic]. The attention of others familiar with Wikipedia policy would be appreciated to consider whether such edits conform with policy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Such accusations are clearly not in keeping with encyclopedic policy, and it's also pretty apparent that the related article Midnight Rider (film) has been massively-undue-weighted with trivial minute details of lawsuits and counterclaims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this one does have BLP issues and needs more participants to decide what to do with it. CorporateM (Talk) 04:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Right now I see the Randall Miller page is scrubbed of any mention . . . BLP is one thing but it is a fact that he was charged and convicted and is in jail, reliable sources abound. At least have one little mention. Now on the other page for the movie itself, I think a major part of that article should be about the reason that movie is not going to be made . . . even if it is a horrible fact. Popish Plot (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

mark gluck

• Mark A. Gluck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is the evidence that Mark Gluck is dead? This appears to be a smear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.183.1 (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Some rather nasty vandalism that's been reverted (thank you) and the text removed from the article history. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter Hofschröer

The above individual is a historian of the Napoleonic Wars.

[Material redacted per WP:BLPREMOVE — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)]

None of any of this, ludicrously, is mentioned in the article. I have previously (2012) posted edits covering the first two matters above, which another editor spuriously reverted. [Material redacted per WP:BLPREMOVE — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)] I propose that some mention of the above now be included in the article. Mr. Hofschröer has built his reputation largely around impugning the motives and reputation of the Duke of Wellington (in his Waterloo series and in Wellington's Smallest Victory). I do not think we can credibly have an article about a revisionist historian whose own conduct and reputation are under such serious doubt. It would be like having an article about Lee Harvey Oswald that failed to mention John F. Kennedy. Tirailleur (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We would exclude the information about JFK unless a reliable source could be found for it which satisfies the biographies of living persons policy and would, nonetheless, have an article about Oswald if he was otherwise notable. We're not here as a soapbox or to right great wrongs.

As for your specific allegations, BLPPRIMARY says that court documents and other public documents cannot be used as reliable sources in reference to living persons, so the first two documents you linked to, above, cannot be used. BLPCRIME says that accusations of criminal activity cannot be used until there is a conviction if the person is a relatively unknown person (and people can be relatively unknown even if they are notable enough for their own article); even if the person is a public figure WELLKNOWN says you need multiple reliable sources to include negative information. Remember that "reliable source" means a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, not just what you might think those words mean by their common English meanings, and that the burden of including reliable sources is on the person who adds the material. Feel free to restore the material if these standards can be satisfied, but also remember that the undue weight policy may also play a part.

Finally, BLPTALK makes the policies I have just cited also apply to allegations made on this page, so I have removed the allegations per BLPREMOVE. Anyone else wishing to opine on this matter can find them in the page history. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Quint Studer

Hi all, I posted here last week with an initial request for editors to take a look at the article for Quint Studer, which I believe is, as written, highly POV. Since then, the editor who originally created the article and seems to be asserting ownership of it has created a fairly long Controversies section (see this edit), quite a large part of which focuses on detailed criticisms of his company (not all fully supported by the sources cited).

Beyond the Controversies section, my major concerns are:

• That there are multiple instances of negative personal facts being included without proper context and written in such a way as to be clearly derogatory towards Mr. Studer. For instance, much of the Early life and family section focuses on details such as his low high school GPA and his later alcohol addiction, without providing the context for these that is explained in sourcing (the source for this information is essentially a glowing "rags to riches" profile, but you'd never know it from the way the details are written up in the article)
• That the article introduction includes lengthy mentions of criticism of his company, and litigation against him (the latter of which is described primarily from the perspective of the claimant and doesn't reflect the outcome in favor of Mr. Studer)

Although an editor replied here last week and said they'd take a look, so far only one editor has passed by to comment: Jytdog, who stated his opinion that the page is an "attack page".

As I am here on behalf of Mr. Studer as a paid consultant, I'm looking for impartial editors to offer their thoughts and help to bring this article more in line with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. While I don't make edits where I have a COI, due to the issues with this article I have made an exception and added a {{POV}} template to the page. Please note that I will not make any content edits to the article, and will limit my involvement to discussion and proposing changes here and on the article Talk page. Hoping that editors can help, since this page really needs it! Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I made the edits that Rhiannon questions. Prior to my edits, Studer's article was not POV as it primarily included what he or his company promoted about himself, including his addiction and low GPA that he has repeatedly disclosed. I do not have COI. I appreciate that Rhiannon has disclosed his COI and I will return to the article to address some of his concerns. (Unsigned edit posted by User:Wpwatchdog, 14:11 9 April UTC. Where's SineBot when you need it? Bishonen | talk 18:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC).)

The depiction of this person appears to be significantly unbalanced. Nobody cares what someone's high school GPA was, for starters, and the lede of a biography should not contain minor details of every random claim some organization has made about them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed a number of claims and arguments made via non-reliable sources, as well as a significant amount of content that isn't about Quint Studer, but rather is about the company he formerly owned. Studer's biography is not a coatrack for arguments about his company — if the company is notable enough for us to care about what the company did or does, those actions should be discussed in a separate article about the company. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Good removals, NorthBySouthBaranof, thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for taking a look at the article and editing those problematic areas NorthBySouthBaranof, I think this is a big improvement and really appreciate your objective view on it. Would editors here mind keeping an eye on the article for a while to make sure that this doesn't creep back in? In the meantime, I'm going to work on some research to see if I can fill in some of the citations needed and perhaps offer a few suggestions for new text.

Also, I'd like to apologize to Wpwatchdog, who I incorrectly stated above was the original creator of the article. I was writing my above note rather more quickly than I should have and got mixed up that he had written the majority of the current article vs. having originally written the article. I'm sorry about that and did not mean to misrepresent your involvement with the page. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Some the material removed from the article about Studer's life has been repeatedly used by him in his motivational speaking and writing. I will return that information to the article with multiple references. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That may be so, but it is either out of context or not relevant to a brief encyclopedic biographical capsule. I would challenge you as to the relevance of listing his high school grade point average or the minute details of his university admission. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

They are not inappropriate details. They are details that were major influences in Studer's life as he has explained. Please read up on his remarkable life.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss on the article talk page your proposed inclusion of trivial details which are not normally found in encyclopedic biographies on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

These are not trivial details. They are major factors that contributed to Quint Studer's life that he has written and talked about throughout his career as a healthcare consultant. As I added some of the original details about his life, it seems you should have first gone to the talk page to justify your deletion. Please explain how you judge the details as trivial when they were life changing for Studer as he has explained. I added this reply to the talk page as you requested.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthew VanDyke (again)

Legitimate edits to the article on Matthew VanDyke are being consistently reverted without reasonable justification or consensus on the relevant Talk Page. The issues have previously been discussed on the BLPN. The reverting editors have not responded positively to attempts to discuss the issues (see User talk:Instruisto and User talk:David Gerard). The article as it stands is unbalanced and omits material which I suggest is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented in line with WP policy. I have spuriously been accused of bias by an editor who is confusing WP Policy with "journalistic standards". Intervention desperately required from experienced editors not previously involved with these discussions. Thanks. - Slugfilm (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This article has been previously discussed at BLP/N with no formal resolution:

• Archive 165, 22-28 Nov 2012
• Archive 167, 25 Dec 2012
• Archive 220, 19-27 March 2015

As an occasional editor to this article, I would note that the two editors mentioned above, David Gerard and Instruisto, have been repeatedly deleting edits that provide criticism of VanDyke that seem to be properly sourced. I have formerly noted that Gerard's first edits to this article were in response to the subject's expressions of discontent with the article and his subsequent edits to this article have almost entirely consisted of deletions. The recent contributions by User:Instruisto (since July 2014), in like manner, have been exclusively focused on this article or articles related to Matthew VanDyke, providing what seems to be a clear case of edits by a Single Purpose Account. Given both editors' heavy concentration on deleting criticism of VanDyke and Gerard's declaration of being drawn to edit the article by the subjects' criticism, it raises suspicions of a possible Conflict of Interest.

Few editors are involved in this article and repeated appeals to this noticeboard have gone unanswered. I request that editors with expertise in WP:BLP and/or WP:COI would address the controversy here (or on the article's talk page). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The edits have been discussed and Slugfilm's sources and edits have been largely refuted and disagreed with by other participants. But I could be wrong - more eyes would be most welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Only two Users have disagreed with my proposed edits (David Gerard and Instruisto) who - as suggested by SteveMcCluskey above - appear to have a deletionist agenda. The position of Users who have expressed support for or objection to the 3 debated issues (at least in principle, subject to review of final wording) can be summarised as follows:

Issue	For	Against	Consensus?
1. Removal of reference to Che Guevara	Slugfilm, SteveMcCluskey, Aronzak	Instruisto, David Gerard	Consensus for deletion
2. Inclusion of criticism from Director of CPJ	Slugfilm, SteveMcCluskey, Aronzak, JFHJr, Amadscientist	Instruisto, David Gerard	Consensus for inclusion
3. Inclusion of critical media reviews	Slugfilm, SteveMcCluskey, Aircorn	Instruisto, David Gerard	Consensus for inclusion

This summary is based on a review of discussions on this Talk Page and the archived BLPN discussions. For good measure, I have contacted each of the Users cited above to ask them to confirm if this summary correctly reflects their positions. - Slugfilm (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)