Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive249

A Voice for Men

A Voice for Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article about a controversial organisation in a politically controversial subject area. Note my declared CoI in respect of the subject organisation.

The BLP issue is that, as currently written, this article imputes income to Paul Elam based on un-dated, 3rd-hand information from a self-evidently biased (and therefore not "high quality" per WP:BLP) party that cannot be independently verified by anybody who doesn't have access to Dun & Bradstreet reports which, I imagine, would be most people. I elaborate on these assertions, particularly vis-à-vis RS, in my post to the article's talk page. Because of my role in the organisation, I am uniquely in a position to know for a fact that Elam does not receive income as described and has not since February 2015, if he ever did.

By suggesting that Elam benefits from income he does not in fact obtain, this article materially misrepresents his position politically and is therefore in violation of WP:NPOV and also WP:V by virtue of the inability of the public at large to confirm what the article claims in respect of Elam's income from this organisation.

Thus, I know the article to be inaccurate and incorrect concerning a period of nearly two years or more, and yet I am told by Administrator Bbb23 that a) I ought not edit the article (on grounds of CoI) and b) this BLP matter ought be brought here.

In accordance with Bbb23's directions, I posted to the article's talk page the changes I believe to be appropriate concerning this and other matters. Bbb23 was very quick (ie, in under 10 minutes) to revert my edits (whether they knew or not of my connection to the organisation) and yet nearly six hours later I have received not a single response from my post to the talk page. Given apparent lack of interest despite close monitoring of this controversial article, I therefore wish to flag the BLP issue here and request that I be authorised (or someone else) to edit the article in question to clear up the misattribution issue. Ideally, such edits would also include reference to the LLC set up by Elam because that, too, is materially relevant to Elam's personal and political disposition.

— Strix ^t 22:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23's edit was correct; you were making improper use of primary sources. Your approach here is appreciated -- bringing the issue to this noticeboard was the right thing to do. But the evaluation offered by other editors is unlikely to meet your hopes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about Bbb23's revert; I may not agree with it, but that's a completely separate matter. This is BLP/N, so I'm not here to appeal the question of primary sources.

Being BLP/N, the only relevant issue here is correction of factually inaccurate content about a living person pursuant to WP:BLP, and WP:V in particular. According to WP:BLP it would seem that I would be entitled to go in and fix the problem directly but, given the CoI, I felt it more respectful to the WP community to try to resolve the issue here than enter into a revert war which would almost certainly end only one way and end badly at that.

Pursuant to WP:BLP, the only thing that matters per policy — and, therefore, to other editors (in theory) — is what is demonstrably true. The claims in the article in question cannot be verified and therefore should be removed unless a more reliable source can be found. (If so, have at it. Like I said, all that matters is what is true regardless of my own interpretations of it.)

As it is, I know that the (implied) claims in question — namely that the organisation currently has annual revenues of $120k, and that Elam is the sole beneficiary of that revenue — to be false, therefore it should be fixed. Neither Elam nor the LLC should have to produce their 1040 and 1120 respectively to prove otherwise. The onus is on the Wikipedia community to maintain the integrity of its content by assiduously adhering to its own standards.

In this case, those standards call for the removal of some content, and yet I am actually calling for a more moderate approach of rephrasing the offending material in the past tense (thereby allowing for the possibility that it might once have been true, but that nobody can be sure of it), but is undoubtedly no longer true (if it ever were) and setting out the prevailing circumstances. At the very least, the D&B report containing the alleged income should be dated, and it is not. And so far as I can tell, nobody can discern when that unscrutinised report was dated. Do you see why there is currently a problem that needs fixing?

If you are prepared to entertain a claim which cannot be proved, then you should not have any reason not to take my word for what those circumstances are. — Strix ^t 00:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've had a look at your proposed change on the talk page. The issue of source date can perhaps be dealt with: "An article published in 2015 noted that...". But we're not going to put anything about more recent changes that can't be verified by a reliable secondary source. Have you had a look at WP:OR? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Just putting this out there for anyone who's never had access to it, Dun & Bradstreet is not a reliable source. This also goes for similar private databases like Accurint. Some of what's on D&B specifically is supposed to be evaluated by living breathing people. But as a default position, these databases should be treated with the same trust as a Google search. They are, for the most part, information dumps from algorithms. As an example, Accurint once told me that I was a pastor of a church in a city an hour and a half away. Spoiler: I'm not. TimothyJosephWood 15:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Dun & Bradstreet isn't being used as a source; our article cites a secondary source which itself makes reference to D&B. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If WP depends on BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed depends on D&B for the veracity of the claim in question, then WP ultimately depends on D&B so yes, D&B is the ultimate source of this claim in this instance. Even if D&B were reliable (and I take User:Timothyjosephwood's point that it may not be), it isn't verifiable. Either way, it violates one or both of WP:RS and WP:V. — Strix ^t 15:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It's up to Buzzfeed to determine whether it is satisfied with the truth of the claim, and it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that the claim is untrue. I know you're not going to like it, but that's what our policies amount to: go with what secondary sources say, and don't do your own research about what's in primary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In principle, WP editors don't need to evaluate the truth of a secondary source because readers can follow them up and make up their own minds. That model is broken in this case because the D&B report is not available to the general public. Suppose BF had completely fabricated the claim and attributed it to a source that is unverifiable, how is anyone to know? WP:BLP demands a higher standard when positive claims are being made about living individuals. That standard requires verifiability, and that is not possible in this case. It says so right there in WP:BLP. If you won't adhere to your own policies, what does that say about the integrity of the WP project? I'm sure I read something about the primacy of that somewhere.

If you can honestly tell me that you believe that the BF cited article is reliable and that WP:V doesn't apply (despite BLP policy to the contrary), and that the fact that I know the claim to be false is irrelevant because my knowledge isn't verifiable (even though the BF's verifiability doesn't seem to matter), then I guess there's nothing more I can usefully say.

I don't think WP's policies are fundamentally broken, but I think there is some reason to think that there is bias and partiality in the way that they are enforced. And there's nothing I can do about that if you aren't willing to be open to the possibility that things need to be fixed. — Strix ^t 16:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The claim is verifiable with reference to the source being used to support it: readers can look at the Buzzfeed article. No-one is proposing to ask readers to consult D&B (and indeed it would be a violation of our own policies if D&B were being used as a source here). The notion that V isn't satisfied because D&B isn't easily accessible is your own invention; it's not relevant here. (By the way, there's no requirement that a source be easily accessible, e.g. clickable/on-line -- see WP:SOURCEACCESS -- but again that's not meant to imply that D&B can be used even if most people don't have access to it, because we're not using D&B as a source.) As I see it, the recourse open to you, if you genuinely believe that Buzzfeed has erred in its reporting, is to approach Buzzfeed and ask them to retract the article and/or print a correction or update. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've brought this Buzzfeed article up before, and I'll state my opinion on it again. Financials on AVFM are too close to Paul Elam, and you can't separate the two. This means we have to have BLP compliant sourcing if we're going to put it into article. In turn, I would say that buzzfeed article is a good example of what BLP is out there to protect against, and we shouldn't be using it in the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• D&B here is a red-herring. They are a data/report/analyst etc being used by a secondary source. We would not cite D&B directly in a BLP. The question to answer from a BLP perspective is 'Is Buzzfeed a reliable source for a controversial claim on a BLP?' I would hesitate to say they are unreliable given they are an organisation with an editorial board, staff writers etc. But they are far from being what I would personally consider reliable to get financial news from. But as a BLP violation, the source is verifiable and satisfies the criteria to be used on a BLP. I personally would not however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. D&B is the actual source. That someone at Buzzfeed did a D&B search and decided it was good enough for them is less important. If they cited the National Enquirer instead of D&B, their decision to take the number from a tabloid wouldn't make the number itself any more reliable than if we sourced the tabloid directly. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No the reference/source is Buzzfeed. D&B are merely buzzfeed's source of information for their article. This is basic sourcing 101 here. Per WP:V we do not do original research on sources. That is their job. That is why we source articles to secondary sources. D&B would be a primary source for the claim. That a secondary source has chosen to use D&B is in fact the most important part of verifying a reliable source - do they exercise editorial judgement. You way would have us work on the basis of 'Do we believe the primary source is correct'. Which is not how WP:V works. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

And we regularly consider the primary sources that secondary sources use, such as discounting official press releases for the purposes of notability, regardless of whether they were reprinted in another publication. TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

And unless you are indicating Buzzfeed printed a D&B press release how is that relevant? We disregard press releases for most things because they are primary sources. Where a press release has been printed verbatim by a secondary source we treat it as a primary source. Do you actually have a genuine argument that Buzzfeed are either an unreliable source incapable of doing their own research? Or in some way violate WP:V or WP:BLP? Because at the moment your only argument has been 'D&B are wrong' which isnt relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What I am indicating is that a secondary source is not a magic wall that prevents critical thinking about the material that is reported and where it came from. And yes, if their journalistic judgement in this case is that a D&B search is good enough for them then it's not good enough for us and certainly not as it relates to BLP. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is not how wikipedia treats sources. Either in biographies or anywhere else. That you want to engage in original research to disqualify a secondary source based on your interpretation of *its* sources is actively prohibited by policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not original research to say it came from the source they say it came from. TimothyJosephWood 16:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed shouldn't be used at all on this site. If you can find the information in actual RS's, you should use them. Arkon (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News is reliable and has good editorial control. We even have an article on their EiC (Ben Smith (journalist)). Obviously, Buzzfeed listicles aren't reliable sources. Buzzfeed News is. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why having an article about their EiC is particularly relevant, but I obviously disagree. We would do well to rid ourselves of the Buzzfeed/Gawker nonsense. Arkon (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Editorial control and reputation for factchecking is literally one the most important criteria in identifying what a reliable source is. Having a credible EiC is obviously a big part of that. It's simply a fact that established journalists are moving to the newsrooms of non-traditional media outlets. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

And in this case, the two authors are both established journos. One is now a senior editor at The Atlantic [1], while the other has worked for Newsweek and the San Francisco Chronicle [2]. This isn't some random listicle, or social/general interest news story.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe that Buzzfeed has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy when it has been ranked as more distrusted than trusted in pew polls for both 2014, and 2015. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

JT Leroy

Hello, I am involved in a pending DRN with Msturm 8 that was created on 12/11/2016. The JT Leroy page is not exactly a biography of a living person, but it is integrally related to Laura Albert, who is a living person, and the Laura Albert page. Recent edits seem relevant and disputable.

Among the edits Msturm 8 made on 12/13/2016:

• Msturm 8 removed a paragraph, Reason: It was inappropriate because it quoted Laura Albert... However that is inaccurate, Laura Albert was not quoted in that paragraph.
• Msturm 8 removed a significant amount of content, Reason: "pseudonym was a lie." This doesn't make sense; author published with a pseudonym.. also removes content that was up for 3 weeks in an edit request without objection. Definitely welcome changes to this section, but would appreciate the oversight of a more experienced editor.
• Msturm 8 added a line about Albert on phone calls. Starts out fine but then seems to conflict with WP:BLPStyle. It's vague and out of context.

As you can see on the Talk:JT Leroy Msturm 8's position is adamant to use Wikipedia to bring attention to Laura Albert as a fraud all-round, in all her activities.

My position is that this unfairly vilifies Albert, and by extension all authors who use pseudonyms and performance artists who have a separate persona in public than in private life.

Some people were angry perhaps, others were not. To address Msturm_8's position, I think Huon articulated this perfectly (on the Talk:JT Leroy) "If we strip away the hyperbole, all this shows is that people were angry when they realized Albert had deceived them. I expect there are better sources out there that will allow us to make the same point without the obvious bias."

I would appreciate help resolving this issue, since I've tried to improve the page and my edits have been reverted by Msturm 8.. and our current discussion seems to be going nowhere. Thank you. PacificOcean (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

References

• Comment - I will be closing the threads at the dispute resolution noticeboard to allow resolution here. I will note that both parties have conflicts of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, YOU have reverted all of my work and citations from major newspapers. As it stands now, there are no mentions to the hurt, betrayal, and the public reaction that was negative because of YOUR work. Please do not turn this around (learning from Laura Albert herself). If you read the page, you can see that it all sounds like it was peachy and fine. All I'm trying to do is balance it. Until fairly recently, I never had a deleted a comment but you changed all the titles to "Pseudonyms" and that is factually incorrect, even if Laura Albert continues to lie and people continue to believe it. For this page to be representing JT LeRoy as just a pseudonym is completely of interest to Ms. Albert. This link is from a couple of days ago.There's obviously a controversy at hand and the page should represent it. https://lasvegasweekly.com/ae/2016/dec/14/pop-culture-hoax-films/ Msturm 8 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Matt Horth

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

Hi I am a high schooler at Cambridge, and I also play club soccer for Alpharetta Ambush. Matt Horth is currently retired and is coaching soccer in Georia he stopped playing this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C455:F230:55BC:41FA:30ED:A372 (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. WP welcomes updated content requests and discussions on their article talk pages relative to its subjects. Yours would be here: Matt Horth Talk Page Best. Maineartists (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Category: Armenian genocide denier in Guenter Lewy

A disagreement has arisen as to whether the category "Armenian genocide denier" should be included in the article. The relevant Talk page discussion is here:

• Talk:Guenter_Lewy#Category

I would appreciate more eyes on this debate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

New user warning for BLP per WP:NOT/WP:DUE

I've proposed a creation of a new user warning template at Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#WP:NOT_and_WP:BLP (as opposed to the {{uw-blp2}} which only deals with unsourced content or the other which is for serious defamatory content). It's just the two of us and we're almost nearing finishing it but we would appreciate someone experienced in BLP issues take a look at it first. ({{ping}} me if replying here) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Beau Davidson

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

The subject of this entry has attempted to edit his own entry multiple times, adding press release-style details about himself with either no source or a source that is actually a dead link. He is also edit-warring to remove noteworthy, accurate, and well-sourced information about himself that he considers unflattering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D081:5100:20D0:9D58:A732:D1B1 (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now the page is "semi-protected" and Beau Davidson himself has again erased the section he doesn't like and added a new one that contains libelous allegations about a private individual. Please revert his edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D081:5100:20D0:9D58:A732:D1B1 (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

the above content was written by fake journalist [ outing redacted ] who is too cowardly to identify himself. For the past two days he has attempted to edit my personal page in an attempt to defame and slander me all from the perspective of seeming anonymity. To back this claim, links to the blog and audio recording that he cited as source were removed from SoundCloud and Facebook for copyright and hate speech violations. As standard practice, these social media sites do not support hate speech, slender, or harassment. Thus, the edit warring that has taken place has been a result directly of [ outing redacted] attempting to malign me. I am now taking legal action against him for his blatant attempt at harassment and defamation as well as providing a threat to my personal security and livelihood. All of the original material Source in the Wikipedia page can be verified at BeauDavidson.com. not one bit of it is false, but [ outing redacted ] has attempted to edit the entire page down to nothing, and continue providing controversial statements that have been removed for the reasons above in an attempt to slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Beaudavidson (talk • contribs) 06:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've marked the help request as answered, since EdJohnston has protected the page. Katie^talk 12:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources discussing the issue, nothing about this belongs in a Wikipedia biography (or other article) at all whatsoever. Certainly we should not be linking to purported YouTube videos and self-published Medium articles, nor should we be including unsourced claims of "legal action" or "stalking" against someone. I endorse EdJohnston's protection of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

then all I ask is that you remove everything Beau wrote about himself as well as any information not sourced or which has a dead link as its source. Wikipedia should not be Beau Davidson's fan site. Frankly I don't think he merits an entry at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D081:5100:20D0:9D58:A732:D1B1 (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

and let me just add that he's calling it "my personal page" and saying "All of the original material Source in the Wikipedia page can be verified at BeauDavidson.com" which only shows that he doesn't understand what Wikipedia is for and is just using it as a promotional vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D081:5100:20D0:9D58:A732:D1B1 (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

If you believe the article fails our inclusion standards for biographies, you're welcome to nominate the article for deletion once the page protection has expired or been rescinded. Unfortunately, the edit-war you engaged in has resulted in full protection of the article to prevent disruption. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Beau engaged in it -- I was simply reverting his edits because he left no reason for them -- and now you are letting his page stay up as written by Beau himself. I'll be sure to create my own page about myself and then throw a temper tantrum when someone puts something on it I don't like until it gets "protected" and reverted back to the way I liked it. This is a very good system you guys have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D081:5100:20D0:9D58:A732:D1B1 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting an admin to step in and actually check the links that are "sources" on the page -- they are either not neutral or dead links and therefore cannot be used. Simply protecting the page from future edits does not solve the problems on the page and prevents well-meaning editors from fixing them. Wikipedia should not act as someone's publicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2604:2000:d081:5100:20d0:9d58:a732:d1b1 (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Administrators are not content arbiters. Katie^talk 19:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Silver Hill Hospital

Silver Hill Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I outlined a concern over at Talk:Silver Hill Hospital regarding the reliability of a source when mentioning "one of the hospital's famous patients." Please note I have a declared COI with the subject of the page, Silver Hill Hospital. Thanks in advance. NinaSpezz (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the statement that was a matter of concern. By the New Yorker saying "according to", they are avoiding making the claim themselves, so their reliability only goes to the fact that the claim has been made. A "tell-all memoire" by another party is not a sufficiently reliable source for a claim of this nature under our biographies of living persons policy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Salih Muslim Muhammad

There has been recent edit warring in which 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persistently tried to add content to the page Salih Muslim Muhammad which clearly violates WP:BLP.

Diff of added content: [3]

As explained on the talk page, it seems that user 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to smear Salih Muslim Muhammad, for example by relating him to certain terror attacks where in reality there is no connection except in Turkish propaganda.

User 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now been blocked for this edit warring, however, the content this user added is still on the page. I cannot remove it because the page is now protected and I don't have an account yet. Please remove this libelous material. 2003:77:4F31:7257:2850:8091:A77D:A3BF (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Amin derakhshan

biographical information about a talented young man from Esfahan

Born in Esfahan in 1990, DR Amin Derakhshan was educated in a Shahid Beheshtei school. His family hailed from Hanna, a Central Iranian city. They were in a poor financial situation. DR Derakhshan received religious instructions and studied Persian literature from his devoted and learned mother. He memorized the Holly Qoran by heart, developing a strong belief in it. He also read the great poetry of Hafez, Sa'adi , Ferdowsi, Molavi, etc. DR Derakhshan was able to see an elite international card schemes confidential electromagnetic machine and its conditions and benefits in Iran. He went to the Iranian College Esfahan, graduating with a bachelor's degree of Software of Computer Engineering at the age of twenty then he continued his studies in Hardware Computer Engineering. He also studied Medical Science, Astronomy. As a graduate of the Engineering School in Sanaati Esfahan, hews admitted to the "Electricite" and graduated in 2014. At the same time, he was employed by the Esfahan Art University. He was well acquainted with the traditional Iranian music as well as the classical Western music and played piano and violin skillfully. He was active in sports and as a youngster earned his living partly by acting as swimming instructor and a life guard at the Mediterranean State in Iran. During his life, DR Derakhshan don't held various important scientific and cultural positions. He have a good command , English and Arabic languages and he also knew Turkish . 25 research papers, articles and books have been put to print by DR Derakhshan. He has an engineering degree from MIT neuroscientist at Boston by a German company and in 2015 he emigrated to America scholarship. He is currently studying engineering there is Neurology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminlooove (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

We wish Amin all the best in his studies, but Wikipedia is not yet the place to convey information about him. MPS1992 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Opinions sought on Casey Affleck's early life section

The discussion on the Talk Page is here. I'd appreciate some opinions. Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

TMZ.com

Am I correct to assume that TMZ.com is unacceptable as a source for living persons? That appears to be the consensus on RS/N. However I note that the site, regardless, seems to be used quite a bit in articles on the entertainment industry. Coretheapple (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As reliability goes, I'd put TMZ on the same level as the National Enquirer or any other tabloid journalism. There is far too much opinion and editorializing to take them seriously. Zaereth (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I agree and those links need to go. Coretheapple (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. TMZ posts a couple of different kinds of reporting. Some of their reporting is gossip, however, a lot of their reporting is based on court documents, photographs, or video and is reliable. Washington Post had a good discussion about this after Prince's death. Not all entertainment news sources are equal. TMZ is not like the National Enquirer. This is a problem that comes up in celebrity articles. There are times where TMZ or People come up with original reporting that traditional news sources accept as accurate and reliable enough to reprint themselves citing TMZ. I don't think we should look at TMZ as always too gossipy for living sources, particularly when they publish evidence which demonstrates that their reporting is accurate. Knope7 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Frankly my very first impulse was precisely what you say. However I checked, and RS/N postings seem fairly uniform in not accepting TMZ as a source. We can always revisit the issue here, of course. Coretheapple (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

To what Knope7 said, I have seen cases of our RSes citing TMZ for things related to entertainment news (not gossip), like casting choices. If I needed to include that information in an article, I would always work through the RS as the main inline cite and possibly include the TMZ, and if there's some doubt (but not BLP-contentious info), include "TMZ reported that..." to provide claim attribution. But I would never allow a standalone TMZ cite in nearly all cases. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Neal D. Barnard

This page is being carefully monitored by an editor who lacks a neutral POV. I am trying to update the page to remove material derived from low-quality, outdated sources.

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

Two sentences provide negative statements that appear to be independent, but actually lead to the same citation—a citation that is more than 15 years old and out of date. Specifically, the final sentence in the first paragraph says “Quackwatch includes Barnard in its list of, "Promoters of Questionable Methods and/or Advice."[3]” This link leads to a review posted by William T. Jarvis on January 1, 2001. It is more than 15 years old and much of its information is out of date. For example, Jarvis’ review emphasizes that the AMA disagreed with PCRM’s stances in 1991 and 1992. The AMA, however, formally retracted its objections in 2004. I do not seek to cite this controversy, but I do wish to remove old, unhelpful, and out-of-date criticisms.

Later, the second paragraph under the heading “Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine” provides this sentence: “The National Council Against Health Fraud describes PCRM as, "a propaganda machine whose press conferences are charades for disguising its ideology as news events."[14]” This leads to the same Jarvis review and provides no new information.

Also, the citation to Dr. Lipson is inappropriate (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/medicine-is-hard-and-should-be-practiced-with-caution/). Dr. Lipson attempts to criticize Dr. Barnard for supposedly saying that diabetes can be “reversed,” but fails to define what “reversed” means and seriously misquotes Dr. Barnard’s stance. Dr. Lipson says, “What troubles me about this article is that it creates/perpetuates a myth that diabetes (meaning type II diabetes) is always preventable and reversible with a particular diet.” This is not at all what Dr. Barnard has written in his articles or books and is not even what was said in the article that Lipson cited (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/a-solution-for-diabetes-a_b_312219.html). The article he cited was an interview by Kathy Freston, in which Dr. Barnard answers the question this way, which clearly does not say that diabetes is always preventable or reversible:

Can diabetes be reversed? NB: Yes. When people begin a healthful diet, most see big improvements in weight, cholesterol, and their blood sugar. Their need for medications diminishes, and some may not need medications at all. In some cases, you would never know they had had diabetes. However, I caution people not to simply throw their medications away. They need to speak with their doctors so they can alter their medication regimens only when and if it is appropriate.

Dr. Barnard’s position on this precise question is clearly articulated in the introduction to Dr. Neal Barnard’s Program for Reversing Diabetes (https://www.amazon.com/Neal-Barnards-Program-Reversing-Diabetes/dp/1594868107/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481916787&sr=1-1&keywords=dr.+neal+barnard%27s+program+for+reversing+diabetes) ReinaPohl (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevant to this, since you are editing under your real name, is that you appear to have an undeclared conflict of interest. As regards sourcing, the PCRM seems to have some WP:FRINGE views and it is in line with our WP:PAGs to make the fringe nature of them clear. If there are better sources, bring them, but deleted "negative" material is not the way forward. Note there is also a thread at WP:FT/N#Neal P. Barnard. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Lord Myners

Hi there, I am trying to work with the community to provide sourced updates to Lord Myners' page. It's listed as mid-importance in Peerage and Baronetage but I'm finding it tricky engaging with the editing community. I have a COI in that Lord Myners is the Chairman of the company I work for but am keen to work with someone on building a more complete entry. What are my next steps to making that happen?

Paul Myners, Baron Myners

Jackedelman (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that you've been ignored, because it looks like you're trying very hard to do everything right. Unfortunately this is often a problem on a volunteer project like this; you may have to wait until an interested party comes along, and talk pages of articles are not often patrolled. I don't have the time to help you myself, plus this is a little beyond my fields. If no one here decides to help, you can also try the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, WP:Request for comments or maybe check out WP:Mentor. Zaereth (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

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.

---

Nikola Tesla was croatian scientist , he never lived in Serbia, so from that point he can only be croatian-american scientist...can you please correct this, also born in Croatia, educated there until he went to Austria and later to America

so please correct that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.23.182.19 (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

A) Tesla it not a living person, so it doesn't belong at this noticeboard; B) A person can be Serbian without being from the modern state of Serbia. C) The place to discuss this is at Talk:Nikola Tesla, but if you have no argument beyond a nationalist preference, you will be ignored. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

the argument is that you used Nikola Tesla to falsify facts calling Karlovac , GOspic and Smiljan Austrian monarchy while those are Croatian cities! for centuries! People should not learn about rich Croatian history through Nikola Tesla article, just becasue you insist to call him serbian inventor...you can not in the same article lable Karlovac and Gospic as Asutrian monarchy, using the same prinicple of origin this should be called croatian cities!!, and if someone wants to learn about austrian monarchy can go to that page or you could say born in Croatia (occupied by Austrian monarchy at that time)..... Why didnt you make it in the first statemnt for Albert Einstein that he is jewish physicist? Nikola Tesla did not spend 24 hours in Serbia. also its highly disputable that name Tesla is of serbian origin.....its very questionable. but that is not the essence of this topic, but the fact that you falsify FACTS! just to erradicate CROATIAN in your whole article!! MISERABLE to the point of dissbelief!

TO PUT IT VERY simple and logical for you: 1. what is criteria to lable Tesla serbian and american?; if that is his place of living and working then it can only be :Croatia and America; if that is his place of birth: then it can only be Croatian; if that is his origin: then he is Serbian; but if you call him Serbian and American you falsify brutally facts and origin! if you are followed by the origin principle then you cant use Asutrian monarchy more times in the text then Croatian word!

..this is shameful! and laughable for everyone who lives in Croatia...people who live in Argentina, China or wherever should not wonder how Gospic and Karlovac are austrian monarchy and ignoring to mention the country where these cities exist today! its miserable effort to make some nationality look as more contributing when they are not, Serbians have nothing to do with Nikola Tesla.....or they do....then croats have the same right to read that Karlovac and Gospic are croatian cities...and in that time under Austrian occupation!

there is no logic in your arguments and 0 criteria! and IGNORING FACTS! and this makes me believe its nationalisticly driven text! CORRECTED versions should be: Nikola tesla was croatian-american inventor of orthodox origin (Serbian)! everything else is falsification! and ignorance! or you can choose to call him only serbian, but in no way serbian and american only and BORN IN AUSTRIAN MONARCHY!! its so miserable!! he is born in CROATIA! the heart of CRoatia , in Smiljan! and i dont want to read that this is Asutrian monarchy! and Tesla Serbian guy. who am i then?? my mother is born next to his house

Ivana [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.23.182.19 (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. This is one of the lamest editwars on Wikipedia. I don't think anyone cares at this point. For more info see Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2016 (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.

nikola tesla and josip broz tito

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.

---

to add to Nikola Tesla discussion, you call him serbian-american inventor

and call Josip Broz Tito (Cyrillic: Јосип Броз Тито, pronounced [jǒsip brôːz tîto]; born Josip Broz; (7 May 1892 – 4 May 1980) was a Yugoslav revolutionary and statesman, serving in various roles from 1943 until his death in 1980.[1]

first of all Josip Broz Tito should not be written cyrillic becasue he is CROATIAN!!! only! if guided by the same principles as for Nikola Tesla....

he is born in Croatia! he cant be yugoslav, that nationality does not exist and if ever existed it is 45 years

see its ridiculous how you cant call croats with their name....but make up countries history just to avoid to mention croatia as origin!

this is my problem with your falsification of factual reality! Josip broz Tito is coratian, born near Zagreb , look it up which country is that today...and Yugoslavia existed for 45 years...

so Croatia , croatian territory, language existst since 7th century, we had our history....and if you want to present Nikola Tesla as serbian...then you cant write Josip Broz Tito is yugoslav...when he is croatian and he can feel like yugoslav or whatever, that is ideology not nationality! and ITs DEAD! if someone is born in germany but was NAzi..you would call him nazi nationaltiy or german??

just crazy how nationalistic your articles go! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.17.225 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Sorry but this is the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Since both Tesla and Tito are long dead, we cannot help you here. Please discuss your concerns on the talk pages for the respective articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This user is almost certainly a sock of Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).- MrX 18:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. This is one of the lamest editwars on Wikipedia. I don't think anyone cares at this point. For more info see Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity. Tito died in 1980, this is the BLP noticeboard. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2016 (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.

Disappearance of Sky Metalwala

While editing an article I noticed that an editor linked the disappearance of the youngster to another child disappearance, Disappearance of Ayla Reynolds. When asked, the editor said that there are similarities in that the parents "was also found suspect by the police without charges being filed".

Seeing as these are both BLP articles, and that no other reliable sources that note the similarities in these two matters (and believe me, because of the fact that I respect the other editor, I did look), I reverted it. The other editor reverted it back in (twice) citing that there is unfettered freedom to make these sorts of non-citable connections within a See Also section.I noted the statement at the top of BLP (any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source); they said it doesn't apply to See Also sections. We have discussed the matter at length, and the other editor isn't inclined to change their mind. They don't want an RfC.

While (full discolosure)I have a lot of trouble with See Also sections in general, I think they are particularly toxic to BLP articles. Allowing these sorts of connections in articles about missing persons fundamentally disregards the intent of BLP; the disappeared cannot speak to this alleged connection, and their families are often demonized for defending themselves, since - in the absence of any source supporting this connection, they'd have to take the time to come here themselves and ask via OTRS to remove a connection that doesn't really exist. Noting a "similarity" in the disappearances suggests an inference that the two are somehow connected something, much like the See Also section of Jack the Ripper includes a reference to the article Servant Girl Annihilator; in the latter article, suppositions are made that the former and latter are one and the same. That the casual reader could look at the disappearance of one child and follow the See Also to the other child and Sherlock a "clue" that its all part of some sinister plot is to be anticipated and - in the absence of any reliable references - to be avoided.
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Jack, I have thoughts. I think you're getting a little paranoid. More likely people, reading the explanation next to the link as strongly suggested by WP:SEEALSO, will understand that hey, this is an article about a case where something similar happened—hardly that they might have "somehow connected something" (whatever that was supposed to mean).

The example you gave actually reinforces my point about how "See Also" is supposed to be used. There is no explanatory text next to the link at the Jack the Ripper article—there should be. And if there is material at the Servant Girl Annihilator article that suggests a connection between those killings and the Ripper ones, it should be added to the latter, appropriately cited, and the link then removed from See Also, as suggested at SEEALSO.

But as it is now I don't see how anyone could infer that there was some mysterious connection between the two just because a link appears in a section you get to after reading pretty much the whole article.

The list provided here [List of People Who Disappeared Mysteriously] in the same section mentions Ayla Reynolds. It is undue weight to draw attention to the case/subject twice. Furthermore, where does one draw the line in such articles relating to: "Mysterious Disappearances" of children in such a manner, since WP has several articles with similar content. It does not belong, and promotes other editors from needlessly adding their own "See Also" links. The list link should suffice. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The list link wouldn't draw attention to the case twice ... you'd have to really scroll down through it to find it.

Where does one draw the line? I would say simply adding a link to any other, apparently randomly chosen case of a disappearance of a child or not would be too much, and indeed I've removed quite a few of those from articles, including ones about disappearances, over the years. "See also" is not a section people police as much as they should, I will give you that Jack, but abusus non tollit usum. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case seems to be involved in this incident. This is not the first time that there have been WP:BLP concerns about his editing. It seems that he resides in the same country as these events, and that he has spent a large part of his professional career working as a journalist in that country. I will inform him of this discussion. MPS1992 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; I have been informed. Would you please refresh my memory on what's in the BLP police files about me? Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think its important to keep in mind that we are here to present information to the readers, to allow them to make up their own minds. By presenting two disappearances that one editor personally believes are similar is to pre-chew the information for the reader. Furthermore, as I indicated earlier, there is the inference that they must somehow be related; why else would someone be presenting it as similar. Human beings are hard-wired to look for patterns and connections in disparate things (it kept us alive as in, able to spot the tigers in the tall grass, etc.) If we can keep from leading them by the nose, I think that only benefits the neutral nature of the encyclopedia.

If it was a source noting the similarities between these two very different disappearances, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. It is of great importance - imo - that not a single reliable source has ever noted any similarities between the two disappearances. A single editor is making this connection, and it has been challenged by another editor. As per BLP, it needs to be cited or removed. That they are both collected into an article about mysterious disappearances is fine - both disappearances meet the litmus for inclusion there, esp. since no other suggestion of similarity is made in that other article.

And Daniel, I don't really know Latin that well. But I do know how I'd feel if my child's disappearance was diluted by a comparison to another disappearance, especially if that comparison not only was unrelated to my loss, but also reinforced a suggestion that I had something to do with that disappearance. It turns Wikipedia into a blog forum, wherein people offer opinion as fact. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If you don't know Latin, you could click the link ... I mean, that's why I linked it. Not like we're editing an encyclopedia or anything. Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

What Jack has left out of his account above

Jack's account of How We Got Here, above, is spun toward self-serving just enough as to begin to be prejudicial to my good faith here.

I'm not disputing any of the facts ... although, as anyone looking at the article talk page could tell, I did not refuse an RfC, just said I didn't think we needed to have one at this time. Nor did I threaten to have him blocked ... I warned him that if he kept going like this he was going to violate 3RR, and proposed requesting page protection as a better solution to the potential edit-war than any block might be. But anyway ...

What strikes me most about his account, however, is that he completely leaves out what happened about a month ago:

• When I pointed out that WP:SEEALSO, a section of an MOS page, is worded in such a way as to allow editors to make connections between articles without sourcing doing so, Jack responded by ...

• ... unilaterally rewording that section to support his point of view on what it should say (absent any citation of BLP), without letting me know that he was. He labeled what could only be described objectively as a substantial change as a "clarification". As a result he ...

• ... got reverted. In response, he reverted the revert, saying (despite editing the actual policy page instead of talk) that it was a "proposed" change. Unsurprisingly ...

• ... he was reverted again (on a page subject to discretionary sanctions, no less) and told to go to the talk page.

• Which he did. To his credit, he opened a discussion that lasted about two weeks, in which six other editors besides me and him participated (including one who I have had some issues with in the past, although that didn't come up). All of them resoundingly rejected Jack's proposed change and the reasons he gave for it, even when he brought BLP into the picture.

• Yet he continued to keep it up. He took some of the (more harshly worded, I agree) responses as personal attacks. Two different editors both told him to put the stick down and back away from what was left of the horse. His last response there was defiant.

On the basis of that discussion, I felt free to conclude (as other participants did) that a consensus had been reached that the edit violated neither BLP nor OR and that no change was necessary to SEEALSO. But three weeks later, what to my wandering eye should appear on my watchlist 'but Jack's edit citing "discussion elsewhere" as a justification for a revert. Hmm. That was not the conclusion of any "discussion elsewhere" that I remembered reading or taking part in.

This led to more discussion on the talk page, basically between just us two, and eventually we got here. I still accept that Jack is doing this because he really believes he's doing the right thing, since he has done the right thing more often than not, but at the same time I could see the argument that he is also forum shopping being made by others.

This needs to be taken into consideration here. Daniel Case (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

...is worded in such a way as to allow editors to make connections between articles without sourcing

That's called "original research", which is pretty much foundational policy, whatever tea leaves you attempt to read. Strange how you missed that. I'm also curious how editors at a board discussing the Manual of Style and layouts are passing judgment on matters of sourcing, but I guess whatever is convenient to your crusade counts.

I warned him that if he kept going like this he was going to violate 3RR... Which, hey Presto, you've just done. Which means warnings for edit-warring are for OTHER people. --Calton | Talk 08:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I find it a little amusing (but only a little) that Daniel keeps saying that he thinks I am doing this with the best of intentions....while creating an entire section about how I am just spinning one disingenuous discussion into another one. This is the sort of tactic seen when someone chooses to make the discussion about the editor instead of the content. It's not what you'd expect from an admin, but there it is. he has forced a fuller disclosure of the lead-up to this discussion. I truly wish we could focus on content and not contributors, but Daniel has not made it impossible. I've seen this tactic employed by other editors to start making personal attacks when a discussion even hints at going south for them. They count on people tuning out of the ensuing uncivil no-mans land the article discussion becomes. The person initiating the character assassination then claims that no consensus has been arrived at for a change. I'd like to think that Daniel is above that sort of behavior, but pretty much everyone has seen the tactic described here before.

I'd like to nip this in the bud right here: this is Rumor Control; here are the facts:

1. This discussion does not address the validity of See Also sections. This discussion addresses a single instance wherein the current wording of SEEALSO - "editorial judgment and common sense" - should be utilized when discussing See also sections.

2. This discussion specifically addresses the careful use of See also sections within BLP articles. Where it is often appropriate to link (for example) a person who died in the 9/11 attacks with 9/11, we can do so in the sure knowledge that the connection of one to the other is obvious and well-sourced. In the very specific matter being addressed here,

3. Daniel Case connected two different articles about disappeared children by the most superficial of similarities - that their parents were suspects int he disappearance. Note that I didn't say ' charged' or even 'informally accused', but mere suspects (to my understanding, parents are always the first to be suspected int he disappearance of a child).

4. Furthermore, in linking one BLP of a tragedy to another BLP of a tragedy, there is the very real possibility of some readers thinking the two are connected on some deeper, more sinister level. If at least two editors can see the negative fallout from connecting these two tragedies, then others can as well. Pizzagate is a thing, now.

5. I fully admit trying to remove a Daniel's pet addition to the See also section - not the entire See also section mind you - but just this single comparison.

To reiterate, this discussion is about how we employ the "good judgment" and "common sense" called for by SEEALSO to the subject of BLPs, wherein any statements likely to be challenged have to be cited. In the instance of drawing a similarity that can imply to some a more sinister connection the (like Smiley face murder theory), and the dilution of one family's devastating tragedy by the most superficial of comparisons to another tragedy.
That is the only thing we are discussing here. As much as Daniel Case wants this to be about me, or about the validity of See Also sections, this is simply a matter of requiring good judgment and common sense to be applied to a BLP article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

But Jack ... you disregarded the results of a discussion you yourself initiated into a policy change that supported your edit; then waited three weeks (making it look like you were hoping no one would notice, but I'll just assume it was still sticking in your craw and only then did you finally decide to do something about it ... I've been there, so I'm not one to criticize or make accusations) to revert and suggest that the discussion had supported your edit (in fact, one of the other participants in that discussion at WT:MOSLAYOUT has agreed that you were wrong to suggest there was a consensus in favor of your proposed change) when it fact it had reached the opposite conclusion.

I knew this sort of thing happened; but Jack, in ten+ years that I've been editing Wikipedia and other Foundation projects, this is the very first time I've ever seen someone do it in an article I've been involved with. When I first looked at your edit summary from five days ago I was in shock. Especially since we had managed to work well together on List of people who disappeared mysteriously ... I was a little torqued at the drastic action you took, and when you took it, but you were in the right there and I went and added sources to the listings you had removed (or most of them, anyway) and you singled me out for praise later. I really thought you were not the sort of editor who'd do this sort of thing. And I really still don't want to. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, Daniel, you appear to be trying (yet again) to make the discussion about me, diverting from the topic. Allow me to make this crystal clear for you. If you have a problem with my edit history or anything else, I expect you to address the matter on my discussion page, not a noticeboard page where we are seeking to focus on content. I do not have to defend myself here. I may not have as much experience as you do, but I;ve been here long enough to know when someone is performing a little passive-aggressive drama for the crowd to make a point. If you (or anyone else) want to talk about this subject, we can do so on your page or my page, but not here. There will be no hijacking of the discussion. Now, if you are done trying to canvass and play games, please focus on the content discussion at hand. I don't expect to have to make this point again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what a see also section is for and how editorial discretion works best here. --Moxy (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you go into more detail on this? Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

And I just noticed that my request to focus on content and not the contributor was pretty much steamroll removed in Daniel's rush to make the problem all about me

I'm sorry; I began writing it before you made your addition and in the process of fine-tuning it I inadvertently removed what you had written because I wasn't aware of it.

If you'd like, if you're comfortable retaining it after rereading it, I will personally restore it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged, so I'll restate what I wrote on a previous related discussion: WP:BLP states that: ""See also" links ... should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must adhere to Wikipedia's policy of No original research." As with so many editing disputes involving WP:BLP, the best practice is to cite to a reliable source. CUA 27 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The question is, though, how do we define "contentious"? I believe it takes more than one editor believing something is contentious to justify it (perhaps a consensus); otherwise BLP could easily turn into a sort of heckler's veto ensuring nothing but sanitized, laudatory hagiographies through the work of article subjects or their proxies. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an easy question. According to WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." and "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." Therefore, contentious is defined broadly to mean: If it challenged, it merits a cite. There is a stricter set of rules that applies to BLPs than to other articles, which is why the above guidance appears in WP:BLP but not in MOS:LAYOUT. CUA 27 (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Precisely the point I've been making. As for any concerns about a 'heckler's veto', (despite the obvious civility issues it raises in trying to apply that term to this situation) that is easily solved by adding a reference. And to be quite blunt, the dystopic picture you paint of BLPs becoming happy, shiny puff pieces isn't really a possibility. Cases in point: Joseph McCarthy, O.J. Simpson or Josef Mengele. All of them are reviled, and yet, their articles aren't "sanitized, laudatory hagiographies". They tell it like it is, without passion or prejudice and with a keen eye on what's appropriate. While verifiability, not truth, is the standard litmus for inclusion, its nice when we can citably perform both. We don't add our opinions to BLP articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

But do you really think it's a rational argument that a see-also line merely noting the similarities in two cases of missing children implies, even with a "brief annotation [where the] link's relevance is not immediately apparent," so strongly implies a connection between the two cases as to make noting it verboten per BLP? I could understand if there were a whole bunch of other cases, without any annotation, but not like that.

I mean, consider that Ayla Reynolds, the case of the missing girl from Maine where I made the comparison to since the parent whose custody she disappeared from is publicly suspected by the police of a crime based on the evidence but has not been charged, was reported missing when she was allegedly not in her bed in the morning. Just like Lisa Irwin. Do you think a see-also noting just that in both articles would be "contentious" enough to bar it under BLP? Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, other editors do. Its a biography of a living person, who can easily be affected by opinions offered in their article. You keep avoiding the point that if one editor can note a negative connotation to an opinion that there are similarities, then others can as well. You are offering an opinion that no source, no law enforcement agency has posited. At best, your insistence it inclusion seems like a deep misapprehension of what See Also sections currently are; at worst, its armchair detective-ing - you actually think there are some connections that you think people are missing. In either case, it needs to stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

How many other editors besides yourself do? Until you raised this here, no one found it contentious besides you?

And is it entirely possible that, as Largoplazo suggested to you at that MOSLAYOUT discussion, to most people the implication isn't "these two are related even if no one else says they are", it's "hey, take a look at this too". Can you entertain the idea that more people might understand the phrase "see also" to mean just that, and nothing more? Especially when the similarity is explained. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course two of those articles wouldn't be hagiographies; Mengele and McCarthy both died quite some time ago, therefore those articles are not only exempt from BLP, they were never covered by it to begin with.. Once again, the evidence you marshal to support your point comes up a little short. Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Whatev. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Unless a reliable independant source can be provided linking the two, BLP is quite clear on this. It applies to *all* content on an article involving living people, including see also sections. Using the see also section to link one case to another absent a source doing so 'because they are similar' is original research and making an inference that may not be accurate. So again, unless someone can pony up a reliable source linking the two... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I would commend CRYBLP to your attention: "'Contentious' should be narrowly construed ... [C]ontentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject. There are plenty of facts or phrasings in editorial dispute that will not rise to the level of 'Person X is a child molester' or 'Person Y is addicted to controlled substances'. The more tenuous and disputed the actual harm should be, the less weight a BLP argument holds" And while that page is an essay, that section is clearly indicated as being drawn from the history of discussions of BLP. I am still waiting for someone to give a better explanation of why this is contentious other than one editor's, um, contention that it is. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just noticed this discussion. I agree with Only in death, lest we engage in original research. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Berlin attack

I'm going to go ahead and report myself. I've reverted based on BLP on 2016 Berlin attack, and it's probably for the best if there is outside input. Thanks in advance. TimothyJosephWood 02:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Original thread is here. Samsara 04:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Raymond Leo Burke

• Raymond Leo Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• May cooler heads prevail at this article, whose talk page has been the site of an edit-war and BLP violations. Your help is requested to contain the dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Kipnis

Hi, I found a page about myself, for which I am grateful and excited. However, I appear of Israeli nationality and under the categories of Israeli Neuroscientists. I would appreciate that "American" is added to my nationality to read "Israeli and American" and that a category of American Neuroscientists is also added. thank you,. Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.22.38 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Since neurosciences is one of my interests I would be happy to help. It's good that you didn't try to edit it yourself, because of the conflict of interest. One problem we have is that we can't take anything at face-value. Because of the anonymity of the internet, we need to rely on sources in order to verify that information is correct. This is really for your protection, because without these rules anyone could come here claiming to be you (often just school kids out for a laugh), and even non-contentious information needs to be correct. What I don't have is time to go through all of the sources. Since you are most likely familiar with things that have been written about you, do you have access to an online source that gives this information? Zaereth (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Brian Eley

Former British chess champion Brian Eley is wanted by British police on suspicion of sexual offences against underage boys, and has been a fugitive since 1991. This is of course a very serious allegation to make about someone who is probably still living, and the best source we had for it (a link to a 1996 Sunday Telegraph article on Highbeam) has gone stale and can't be retrieved from the Wayback machine. Should this remain in the article given that the primary source of the information is no longer accessible online? MaxBrowne (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it should be removed until a source can be found for verification. Meatsgains (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The Sunday Telegraph (the Sunday edition of the Daily Telegraph) has (or at least it did in 1996) a reputation for factual accuracy and editorial integrity and is certainly a WP:RS. So my answer to my own question is the material can be retained even though the reference is no longer accessible on line. After all WP:OFFLINE sources are just as valid as online sources. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Victorino Noval Foundation

I left a note about this a few weeks ago at the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victorino Noval Foundation, where I suggested we create Victorino Noval and redirect the article about his foundation to his BLP. I don't know much about Noval, but I've seen his name and picture in several issues of The Beverly Hills Courier for a couple of years, mostly in connection to The Vineyard. He appears to be a Cuban-born, LA-based film producer and real estate investor. Today I received this e-mail:

• "Hi I noticed you commented on the Victorino Novel Foundation page. The information this woman Mary Cummins is posting and reverting to is all false. The organization is an LLC. and if you look it up on the CA Board of Corporations site as an LLC, you will see that it is active, not suspended. Also, if you look at the "About Us" page of the foundation's official website, you will see that the Victorino Novel referenced in the article does NOT serve on the board, it is prohibited in the foundation's bylaws, and his personal information is not relevant to this article! Mary Cummins is a known cyber terrorist who is being sued for defamation of character and pursued for a $6 million judgement for same. See http://www.marycummins-exposed.com. Can you advise me how I can correct this article without her paying some wiki geek to keep posting libelous incorrect info? I asked the Novel Foundation and they said she is trying to extort them for $!!! Thanks so much for whatever you can tell me!!!! Happy Holidays!"

I didn't reply to the e-mail and I have no intention to do so.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I have just had to revert a note they left on my userpage. Could an administrator please take care of this?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please, remove that false and defamatory blog link you just posted about me. I most certainly am not trying to extort money from anyone. That is a total lie. I corrected the false information in the Foundation page. Victor Noval is a convicted felon who defrauded the US government for $60 million dollars. He was sent to prison. He made that "foundation" to try to help his image while he continues to defraud people in real estate deals such as the Vineyard. See http://la.curbed.com/2015/9/2/9924556/vineyard-beverly-hills-1-billion https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7654389/victor_noval_victor_jesus_noval/ https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7654347/victor_noval_victor_jesus_noval/ Wikipedia should not be supporting fraud. Mary Cummins (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Beau Davidson

This article has been "protected" because admins determined that references to a controversy were not acceptable to Wikipedia standards. However, there is now a new, third reference to this controversy in a reputable journalistic outlet so I request that it be added.

The third reference is here: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/313188/oh-no-the-musical-lineup-for-donald-trumps-inauguration-ball-is-here/

The relevant passage from that reference is: "Davidson pursued fellow Death and Taxes writer Chris Caesar, who subsequently catalogued his interactions with Davidson in a Medium post which must be read to be believed. The most telling indications of Davidson’s viewpoints were when Davidson applied terms like 'beta male' to writer Caesar and further insulted the journalist by referring to him as 'Christina' rather than 'Chris.'"

I would like a section called "Controversies" to be added to this performer's (self-written) wikipedia page that includes a mention of the above. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:E00D:6200:450B:6DFA:1A3B:5591 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure Death and Taxes is a reliable source of the type we would want -- on Wikipedia it redirects to SpinMedia, "an American digital publisher which owns a number of pop culture websites". Apart from that, the description you've given also indicates that Death and Taxes is not an independent source in this either. MPS1992 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I mean, the article is using a Cosmopolitan sexy bachelors article from 2009 and a dead link to a school for boys as a "reliable source" but sure, ok, Death and Taxes isn't good enough for you. Does Wikipedia have a list of approved sources somewhere? Or do you just make it up as you go along? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:E00D:6200:450B:6DFA:1A3B:5591 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Are we saying that it's not an independent source because it's written critically of Beau? That seems like a problematic standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4701:3B6D:C43:603D:E86A:8B10 (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I really am not an expert on Beau, nor on sexy bachelors and schools for boys. WP:RSN could give you more information about whether a particular source is acceptable for a particular statement on Wikipedia. Have you considered editing other articles instead? Does the existing article contain poorly sourced contentious claims about living people? MPS1992 (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who said you weren't sure if Death and Taxes was "a reliable source of the type we would want," but now you're begging off? Either you know enough about this to say you don't approve of certain sources or you don't say that at all. Yes, the existing article contains poorly sourced claims about a living person, many of which were written by that person, which Wikipedia weirdly seems to think is okay. Yet new information about this person that comes from three different sources is rejected? I'm confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:E00D:6200:450B:6DFA:1A3B:5591 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears that Beau Davidson is fully protected for a few more days due to BLP concerns. There is some discussion at Talk:Beau Davidson. MPS1992 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the admins don't really seem to respond much there. Also they want a "consensus" but, like, no one else cares enough to do that. I'll edit this as soon as the page opens again but Beau will just come in and revert everything and then it'll get protected again. Seems like he wins no matter what! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:E00D:6200:450B:6DFA:1A3B:5591 (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Biographies (and sources in general) have differing standards depending on the information they are supporting. A school would generally be reliable for the information of who attended it, its non-controversial information and has a high degree of accuracy (Schools generally keep track of their more famous alumni). A lifestyle magazine which is doing a feature on a celebrity is going to be reliable for basic information like career, past, current projects whatever. Where he information is more problematic - a 'controversy' that appears to not have been covered by mainstream media, or paints the subject in a negative light, the WP:BLP requires reliable sources. D&T is not independant of the alleged controversy, so by itself is not a reliable source for either the existance of any dispute, or the facts of it. It could be used (as a primary source) to give their version of events/response if other reliable sources could be found that demonstrated this 'controversy' is in fact a thing. Rather than just an email spat. Also see WP:DEADREF. Dead/not working links are not by themselves reason to remove uncontroversial material. Especially where there is no actual dispute over the validity of the information. (Beau Davidson performed in X - sourced to a deadlinked lifestyle magazine is not an issue. Beau David cured cancer - sourced to a deadlinked tabloid would be.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

fernando foechann

He is a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ye min kyaing (talk • contribs) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A what? We don't appear to have an article on this person.--Auric talk 23:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Carl Paladino

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

Given the recent controversy, I believe a temp page lock is required. We've already had some graffitti. 67.247.244.165 (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah has semi-protected the article until tomorrow. Editors should keep an eye on it. I've also revdelled quite a few edits. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The semi-protection expired yesterday. I've revdelled a few more changes and added another two weeks of semi-protection on it. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Lee Purcell

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

Hi Everyone. My name is James M. Tate. This is my interview with Lee Purcell for validation of what I'm bringing to this page (www.cultfilmfreak.com/leepurcell). From Lee Purcell, who is not happy with how this wiki page keeps getting changed to read more as unsourced opinion than to-the-point facts, she sent me all the changes she wants via email, and my email is sjdusk at msn dot com and if you want to help with this you can email me there. I know how to add and correct things and she sent me a list of corrections, etc. What's really important to Lee is a photograph. She is very unpleased with her photo. SHE SENT ME A PHOTO BUT that's one thing I need help on, or some kind of confirmation that I am unaware of to add a new picture, as I know this can be more complicated than correcting written stuff. Anyhow... I will click this box to WATCH THIS PAGE and if you need more proof I can send it through personal email but... Let's maybe let the horse's mouth have a thing or two for to add to her own bio. Mind you, she doesn't want to write a flower bio of herself. If Lee had her way she wouldn't be on here, maybe; then again she knows how important Wikipedia is, and that's why I was sent to help, but, I might need someone's help. Thanks. James. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefearmakers (talk • contribs) 05:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thefearmakers: just as a starting point, there is a Wikimedia OTRS release generator which is designed to help people who own the copyright of a photograph to generate a text to freely license that photograph such that it can be used on Wikipedia. (Doesn't mean it will be used on Wikipedia, just that it can be.) I've never used it so I have no idea if it works, but it might be useful for the concern you indicate is the first priority. Others here can probably offer you better advice than I. So, click on that link (this one), or encourage the person that you believe owns the copyright of the preferred photo to do so. MPS1992 (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Too much information about the minor child of a notable person

Resolved, inappropriate material suppressed. Thanks very much to all.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. I'm going to try to be as clear as I can here, without identifying the person involved and giving more prominence to to the material I think is inappropriate. We have a BLP about a retired porn actress. There's no question about her notability. A few weeks ago, a very experienced editor added content to the Wikipedia page based on an article in an online student newspaper. The Wikipedia page now gives some fairly detailed information about the subject's children, including where her almost-teenage daughter attends school. (The newspaper article does not identify the mother as a former porn performer, but the connection is unmistakeable; there's also a barely tenable OR argument here). The Wikipedia page also links to a version of the article which includes multiple pictures of both the mother and her minor daughter. The information has not entered general circulation; the Wikipedia page is far more prominent than the student newspaper it relies on. The mother has been quite indiscreet, some would say irresponsible, but that doesn't justify exposing her children in this way. I'm independently submitting a request for suppression (identifying the article), but I don't know if it will be acted on without discussion and consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Remove per BLPPRIVACY. Seems a straight-forward call. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC) I was going to respond earlier but opted to wait for others to weigh in. I agree. When it comes to minors: no contest regarding discussion or consensus - remove. Maineartists (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Agreed, remove from BLP, especially as it pertains to minors. Meatsgains (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Agree with above, clearly violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY and if it lists sensitive information like where they go to school, it should probably be revdel'ed/suppressed as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Michael Patterson (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- User THE BANNER The Banner (The Banner) constantly deletes my table layout, when I am basing it on other similar producers with no issues, i.e wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cobb could someone help explain why he would be doing this?

- THE BANNER The Banner (The Banner) has tagged me as having a personal connection to the subject, without any proof. I study at MI & was to choose a producer, curate their work & outlay t in a cosice and cohesive manner. Do you know how to remove that alert?

- THE BANNER The Banner (The Banner) has stated that the page needs additional citations & verifications. Could someone help me figure out where?

Thank you for your help :)

BellPop (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have answered and advised you at my talkpage. The Banner talk 21:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@BellPop: the "Partial discography" section is far too long and is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not the place to list every single thing that a person has ever been involved with. Patterson's significant work is already listed in the main section of the article, and cited there, so the simplest solution to the "additional citations" problem would be simply to delete the whole discography section unless there is some important reason not to do so.

Long discographies in list form are not "concise and cohesive". Well-sourced prose could be. I'm not sure that what you have been told to do by your school is actually possible or appropriate on Wikipedia ("curate their work"?)

You study at MI, but I do not know what MI is. It would be useful to know a little more. I think there are places to register school or university courses that are taking place on Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Nazanin Fara

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

Not notable, unsourced. Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Tagged for CSD:A7 - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Not any more. The author removes templates.Xx236 (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Deleted. The image is also a copyvio from her Twitter page. The fact she only has 16 Twitter followers probably tells a story. Black Kite (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• And deleted again, so salted this time. Commons copyvio image with a different name deleted too. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Julian Assange

A number of users have been repeatedly inserting the accusation into the Julian Assange article that he has a relationship with the "Putin regime": diff. They've written an entirely new into the Julian Assange article devoted to this theme, based on a single source - an article published by the Guardian (article). This edit has led to a lot of contention on the talk page, and an edit war has ensued.

In my view, this new subsection violates BLP in three ways:

1. First, it is UNDUE, since of the countless articles that have been written about Assange over the years, it picks out one, and builds up an entire subsection around it.
2. Second, the subsection seriously misquotes Assange (as does, unfortunately, the Guardian article as well). The response from the editors introducing this material is that the Guardian is a reliable source, but I don't think we should be so cavalier. In a case where a news article clearly misrepresents what the subject said in an interview, we should exercise some discretion. We're not required to include every piece of potentially libelous material ever published by any otherwise reliable source. The Guardian isn't above making mistakes, or publishing pieces that are inaccurate (and a reading of the original interview and the Guardian's subsequent piece on it shows the latter to be egregiously inaccurate).
3. Third, the subsection is full of unencyclopaedic and highly POV language: "Putin regime" and "Russian state propaganda."

The entire subsection is devoted to trying to insinuate a close relationship between Assange with a "regime," based on a single source (one which I strongly believe fails on basic journalistic levels). -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Are you seriously saying that Assange's relationship to Putin is "UNDUE"????
2. The subection does not misquote anything. The subection is based on a reliable source, The Guardian. Some editors just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT what the Guardian wrote. So they are trying to remove it under the pretext that the Guardian "misrepresented" Assange. It didn't, but regardless, that kind of practice is just original research.
3. This "unencyclopedic language" is straight from the source. There's nothing "unencyclopedic" about the term "Russian state propaganda". And wtf does that have to do with BLP? Is the Russian state a living person now? As for "Putin regime" that's also straight from the source, but I actually changed it to "Russian government" in the interest of compromise.
4. A ton of other sources cover Assange's relationship to Putin and these can be easily provided, so it's sort of misleading to pretend that this is "only one" source. Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not having looked at the article, I think such a connection (if established) would certainly be due, so I don't think that's a good objection. Likewise "Putin regime" hardly seems problematic (and is not a BLP issue). As to the Guardian yes it can be iffy, and of course has an axe to grind wrt Assange -- I'd expect to see corroborating sources or at the very least to have any Guardian reportage attributed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Numerous commentators have remarked on what has been called the "symbiotic" relationship between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence, so it would hardly be undue to mention it. And as Alex states, there's no problem with "Putin regime" -- after all, the Russian government is a regime, and it is under the control of Vladimir Putin -- nor with "Russian propaganda" since every competent state engages in propaganda. I would argue for slightly less contentious ways of expressing these ideas but the wording isn't POV. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Would you have a problem writing about Poroshenko that he has a relationship with the "Obama regime"? This is highly loaded language, and strikes me as highly unencylopedic. But more importantly, can you show that the insinuation that Assange is connected to the "Putin regime" is actually widely reported in reliable sources? Numerous commentators may have made such insinuations in opinion pieces, but we're talking about reliable sources here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources wrote about a "Obama regime" then yes, we would too. But they don't. Anyway, like I said, I've actually changed the "Putin regime" to "Putin's government" so this is beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not beside the point. "Regime" and "Russian propaganda" are still in the article. The larger point, however, is that you're edit warring to include contentious accusations against a living person. You and I know that the Guardian misquotes Assange very seriously, and the fact that the Guardian is usually a reliable source doesn't mean that we should follow them into what we know is potentially libel. I would say I'm surprised that that consideration doesn't give you pause, but I'm unfortunately not surprised. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian does not misquote Assange at all, they just (very slightly) paraphrase the man's own words. And it's not libel at all, don't be ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Tosh! Pish! And Codswallop! - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, then please explain how they "misquote" him (sic). I mean, it's a direct quote so that should be easy. Here, let me do it for you.

Here is the Guardian, quoting Assange's interview:

"“In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs and Kremlin critics, such as [Alexey] Navalny, are part of that spectrum,” he said. “There are also newspapers like Novaya Gazeta, in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn’t a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow. So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks.”"

Here is the original:

""In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like "Novaya Gazeta", in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn't a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow. So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks"''

The only thing that is different between these two versions is that The Guardian added in the stylistic "he said" to break up the quote.

Can we now drop this nonsense claim that Assange is being "misquoted"? I mean, it's staring you right there in the face. Using cute little words to assert disagreement doesn't make you any less wrong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not the issue. It is the line preceeding the quote in the Guardian article that is a problem, the one that goes "Assange, who briefly hosted his own talkshow on the state-owned television network Russia Today, has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime. In his interview with la Repubblica, he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there.". The construction of that paragraph, to any accostumed reader, would mean that "has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime" is sourced by the la Repubblica interview, which in no way whatsoever makes that claim. If any editor on WP did that to try to source a claim as a fact by using a source that doesn't say it at all, would be removed promptly for improper sourcing. That a nominally-reliable source opted to do this means this one article should be considered suspect, and that the statement should be taken as a claim of one journalist, at best. (That said, there seem to be other RSes that also infer Assange has tied to the Russian gov't, so again, inclusion of some source as claims, not fact, may be reasonable.). --MASEM (t) 00:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not a quote, so it can't be a "misquote" as asserted. What that is is a summary of his quote, followed by the quote itself (which allows the reader to judge for themselves). And you're completely off on the whole construction thing:

First, the Guardian article says:

"Assange, who briefly hosted his own talkshow on the state-owned television network Russia Today, has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime." - there's no mention of the la Repubblica interview up to this point.

Then, the Guardian article says:

"In his interview with la Repubblica, he said..." - NOW the interview is introduced to the reader.

Then the Guardian goes on to say the part which you say is not problematic.

So no, the construction of the paragraph does NOT suggest that the "close relationship with the Putin regime" is sourced by the la Repubblica interview.

And this is such silly splitting of hairs. Which, I guess, is why first the argument was "The Guardian is not reliable", then it became "This is undo", then it became "This is an editorial opinion" (it's not), and I guess now we've moved on to "Guardian misquotes Assange". Which it does not. This whole "The Guardian misquotes Assange" is such a bunch of hokey shit and ya'll know it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Other than the ungrammatical heading, the disputed material is not a WP:BLP violation. "Putin regime" is a direct quote and is attributed, so that's not an issue. WP:DUEWEIGHT would be a reasonable concern, as the entire section depends on a single source. Fortunately, as others have pointed out, other sources are available to support that such a relationship probably exists.[4][5][6][7]- MrX 18:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Given the original interview that the Guardian writer references for his that Assange has ties to Russia as fact, where there does not appear anything in Assange's own words from the original interview to imply this, there is a BLP problem without careful attribution. I do find in the added text under debate that the added commentary about the seemingly lack of freedom of press to be soapboxish and unnecessary. Basically, thus claim seems like something that can be covered in existing sections and not called out as explicitly as it is in the added text. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're doing original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not original research to evaluate news sources for reliability or bias. If news article A references the "original" source of news article B to come to a conclusion (one that is certainly contentious w.r.t. to BLP) not explicitly stated in B as to come to state as a fact in A, we should attribute it as a claim to news source A, not as a fact. This case is representative of far too recent behavior of editors that want to stop any type of "intelligent" evaluation of news sources that are throwing out questionable/contentious facts (particularly towards BLP) by going "but these sources are reliable!". Reliable sources can be biased at times, and we are allowed to use consensus to evaluate such biases to stay with NPOV and BLP. We are not to be blind to the larger problems of the media, but it can be rather convenient to hold this view that "reliable sources are always right" to push forward a specific view or deny inclusion of other views. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, this isn't stopping "intelligent" evaluations of news sources, it's to stop editors from making up shit because they "evaluated" a source and decided it was against their POV. What you wrote is basically an excuse for ignoring no original research based on some idiosyncratic WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. At the very least when presented with an iron clad reliable source, the burden of proof is on those who wish to argue "this reliable source is wrong". And this should be met by presenting alternative reliable secondary sources which contradict the initial one, not just "I think otherwise and my word is law!" as some are trying to do here.

Also, "bias" and "unreliable" are not the same thing. A source can be biased AND be reliable. In which case you can still use it but it needs to be attributed. Which it is in this case.

We have rules like WP:NOR and WP:RS because that's the only thing that gives Wikipedia credibility as an encyclopedia. You start letting people make shit up on their own or throwing out reliable sources nilly willy you basically wind up with a glorified message board and the whole thing falls apart. Those are policies for a reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You're starting from the assumption that reliable sources never can be questioned. Our policies on NPOV (and which extend to BLP) enable editors to debate if sources are problematic for a given topic, such as independence, bias, and plain mis-reporting of clear facts.

It should not be questioned that stating that Assange having very close tied with the Putin government or administration is a contentious statement and which will be nearly unlikely to be verified by any non-government agency, and certainly not any member of the press themselves. When the Guardian article introduces this as a fact and then follows it up pointing to the Italian interview in a format that undeniably says "this is my proof", and that the interview can be verified to not contain that fact in any of the words Assange said, that's a major point of doubt we should put to the Guardian article. That type of proof would fail in any other academic system on earth, including WP's. To that end, the Guardian article at best should be included as a claim to the Guardian to be within NPOV and BLP on this highly contentious claim, and absolutely not as a bare fact in WP's voice. That's what WP:POVYES guides us to do, and even more important for a BLP to take the more conservative/middle-ground option. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Masem has put this better than I could have hoped to. I would only add that evaluating sources may be research, but it is not "original research", as meant by that term of art. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps I'm being naive here, but I think that this may be premature, as there's still a lively discussion going on at Talk:Julian Assange (albeit with certain sides seemingly stonewalling or perhaps deliberately not hearing certain arguments of their opponents). I've also left a message at User talk:Snooganssnoogans (the user who originally added in the offending section) to invite him to join in the discussion there, as I still hold out hope that he might be a normal Wikipedian who's willing to work with other editors on consent in good faith. We'll see. (as a side note, this is the reason why I edit rarely these days - fighting battles with very obstinate people who constantly wikilawyer you gets tiresome) Esn (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• For regime vs govt see WP:SPECIALSTYLE. VM has turned a problematic Guardian piece (please read the Assange talk page, I can't repeat all the arguments here) into an entire section which paints Assange as a Putin "regime" stooge, a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. The only evidence offered comes from that piece: 1) Assange had a show on RT (like Larry King, Ed Schultz and others) 2) Assange praised Trump and the Russian media landscape. You can't turn #1 into a whole POV-coatrack section about Assange's "relationship" (wtf that means) with Putin. #2 is arguably The Guardian's editorializing because it does not reflect what Assange said (again see talk). VM insists that Guardian's "summary" of what Assange said to La Reppublica takes precedence over direct quotes from Assange, which he considers inadmissible because he does not appear to get that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. I am not foreclosing on the possibility of a section about the "relationship", but this is a very bad start. Regardless of what the "mainstream view" appears to be (and conventional wisdoms differ), it's no excuse for such a lazylow-information edit in a BLP. Otherwise, you'll end up filling the encyclopedia with poorly sourced hoaxes and tendentious nonsense, just because it buttresses what you consider to be the "mainstream view". Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

" VM has turned a..." - First of all, I'm not even the one who added that text, it was another user, but I guess you were too busy blindly hitting that revert button to have noticed [8], [9], [10].

Second calling it a "problematic Guardian piece" is just a weaselly way of saying I JUST DONT LIKE what a reliable source says. Who says its "problematic"? You? Sorry, not your call. It's a reliable secondary source and just because some random dude on Wikipedia decides it's "problematic" doesn't make it so. I could remove any thing I want from Wikipedia under that kind of bullshit excuse.

Also saying "mainstream view" is contradicted by "conventional wisdom" is... an oxymoron, or, completely illogical, or... it just doesn't make any freakin' sense. And please don't try to pretend that you're saving Wikipedia from "poorly sourced hoaxes and tendentious nonsense" when in fact you're edit warring to remove actual reliable sources from articles. That's sort of the opposite, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not a BLP issue. It is enough to look at refs by MrX and others above to realize that the claim is well sourced and therefore is not BLP violation. Crying "BLP" in such cases is a clear sign of POV-pushing. My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The edit sucked and the sourcing was laughable, and that is a BLP issue. Weak sourcing is weak sourcing, regardless of whether or not it is used in supports an alleged "mainstream view." Even if we agree on what that view is, the "noble lie" is not acceptable. Edits are judged based on what's in them, not by "what's out there". VM should write a decent section and that's the whole damn point. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The sourcing was The Guardian. If you think The Guardian is not a reliable source you can take it to WP:RSN. You might get some laughter over there then. The section is already "decent", wtf that means, as it's based on reliable secondary sources and covers an issue which is very pertinent to the subject of the article. Stop making up random rules and criteria that don't exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

How come? NY Times and Washington Post [11][12][13] are very good RS. "Sucked" is not going to convince anyone, just as your "yawn" [14] . My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

For the edit to be properly sourced, you have incorporate these sources into the actual edit. How hard is this to understand? Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We have established that there are multiple RS that supports the claim. Therefore, this is not an unsupported/poorly supported claim, which might be a BLP issue. How hard is this to understand? My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

For BLPSOURCES to be satisfied, those sources need to be actually referenced in (and actually & directly support the text as included in) our article. Simply existing somewhere in the ether (or kind of maybe talking about the same thing) is not sufficient. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure, please use more sources that are actually exist. What's the problem? Fix it instead of talking on various noticeboards. This is not a BLP issue. My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations). This is core policy - Wikipedia 101.
I'll also add that there is no way to "Fix it", while maintaining the information as included, if no source directly supports that information; and that BLP mandates removal. contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Challenged or likely to be challenged). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• BLP violation* - The issue is compound. Firstly, The Guardian column[15] clearly & demonstrably misrepresents Assange's comments in La Repubblica[16] - it is not a simple, nor an accurate, summary. Secondly, the text being editwarred misrepresents The Guardian - it is not a simple, nor accurate, paraphrasal. Consequently, The Guardian column is not a reliable source for the text as included. Thirdly, the whole section, as written, has NPOV issues, particularly w.r.t DUE & IMPARTIAL, which is a BLP issue.
  * NOTE: BLP does not start and end with BLPDELETE. Verifiability through reliable sources is necessary, but not sufficient. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Guardian column does not misrepresent Assange's comments, clearly or unclearly. It's a slight paraphrase, that's all. You don't get to second guess reliable secondary sources. Because that's original research. The text does not misrepresent The Guardian either.

And to say that "The Guardian is not a reliable source because it is being misrepresented" just betrays a fundamental ignorance of what makes a source reliable. And of course it's not "UNDUE", I mean, I can't see how you can argue that the relationship between Putin and Assange is not important with a straight face.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We do get to second guess sources, even those which are considered normally reliable, and that's not original research as meant by that term; it's part of the normal editing process - evaluating sources for reliability in the context of the information for which they are being used as references.
The Guardian column does not misrepresent Assange's comments, clearly or unclearly. It's a slight paraphrase, that's all. Bollocks! The text does misrepresent The Guardian, as discussed here.
Editors are invited to examine the text from the La Repubblica: "In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like "Novaya Gazeta", in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn't a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow. So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks, and no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player. WikiLeaks is a predominantly English-speaking organisation with a website predominantly in English. We have published more than 800,000 documents about or referencing Russia and president Putin, so we do have quite a bit of coverage, but the majority of our publications come from Western sources, though not always. For example, we have published more than 2 million documents from Syria, including Bashar al-Assad personally. Sometimes we make a publication about a country and they will see WikiLeaks as a player within that country, like with Timor East and Kenya. The real determinant is how distant that culture is from English. Chinese culture is quite far away".
and compare that with the "summary" from The Guardian, which we used as the basis for the inclusion in our article: "In his interview with la Repubblica, he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there.",
and the editwarred text itself: "Assange has said that there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia because of the open, competitive and "vibrant" media environment he claims exists there." It is not a reasonable conclusion to suggest that these latter two are a paraphrasal of the first; or even of each other. Yes, The Guardian goes on to include a partial quote of Assange's interview answer; but that is not the text that we chose to reference in our article, and not the information that we chose to include.
And to say that "The Guardian is not a reliable source because it is being misrepresented" just betrays a fundamental ignorance of what makes a source reliable. No source is reliable for a thing which it does not say.
I mean, I can't see how you can argue that the relationship between Putin and Assange is not important with a straight face. I don't (but thanks for the strawman); I argue that Ben Jacobs' views, as expressed in The Guardian, are, in isolation, and in an article which covers the whole of Assange's life, undue. I have no issue with an inclusion of information on the alleged relationship between Assange and Putin (and his government), provided it is well sourced and policy compliant. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait. You say "The text does misrepresent The Guardian here" and the link to... a comment by me. I have no idea how that is suppose to support your assertion that the Guardian is being misrepresented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It was discussed there, and acknowledged there, that the text from The Guardian and the text as included in our article are not congruent. It was suggested that one is a paraphrase of the other - which is nonsense - there is a clear change in meaning. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72:: Could you please point out specifically which of Assange's comments in "La Repubblica" have been misrepresented in the Guardian article? It is not clear, so a demonstration would indeed be helpful. - MrX 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see my concurrent reply above. Essentially, Assange does not say "there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there", far less "there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia because of the open, competitive and "vibrant" media environment he claims exists there". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. My interpretation is that the Guardian did not necessarily misrepresent Assange's comments, but that they drew a conclusion from his comments. Assange's comment "In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics... So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks, and no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player." could easily be interpreted as there being no need for Wikileaks because of open and competitive debate in Russia. Whether that was his intended meaning is not clear, but it's certainly very plausible.- MrX 01:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I am inclined to agree that the assessment that this is The Guardian columnist's conclusion is the only one which can be reasonably drawn. If the text, "In his interview with la Repubblica, he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there", is taken as a simple statement of fact, then it does misrepresent that interview (because Assange does not make such a statement; he has not directly said that). If it is taken as a conclusion, then, by policy, it needs to be attributed as such. Our article text, as editwarred, however, included a version of this text as simple statement of fact.[17][18][19][20][21][22] The The Guardian column is not a reliable source for such an inclusion as a simple fact; and the inclusion of such, based on that column, is in violation of BLP. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Yes, I agree that that statement should be attributed to The Guardian.- MrX 23:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please explain why this is being discussed in two venues simultaneously? The discussion should be moved back to the relevant article talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Another point to add is in reading the NYTimes article that has been linked: "Among United States officials, the emerging consensus is that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services." If you are going to include anything from the Guardian and these other sources, this statement absolutely must be included too, as the US gov't is going to be more authoritative than any journalist opining on the apparent connection between Assange and Russia. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, provided that the Guardian part is included, I agree - the New York Times line should be indeed be included as long as the Guardian text is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, arguments are merely being replicated here. Could you please take this to the Assange talk page where other editors who are unaware of the fracas here can assess the arguments and policies. There's absolutely no point in the same discussion coming to two different conclusions. This idiocy is spilling into user talk pages and noticeboards. If you want to wage a war, keep it constrained to the appropriate territory. It isn't as if you have no idea of where it's taking place, and where consensus needs to be reached. Incidentally, writing walls of text and trying to make them look smaller by using "small" mark-ups doesn't stop a wall of text from being just that. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"Russian state propaganda." exists. How to describe it neutrally? The Russian way of misinforming? Xx236 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian has retracted the controversial statements on Assange's supposed relationship with the "Russian regime," so this discussion appears to have become moot now. I do think, however, that this episode does illustrate that we should exercise a bit of caution when approaching sources that make these sorts of accusations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I was going to add this [23] (yes, The Intercept is not necessarily an RS, but the point that the original interviewer even declared the Guardian as falsifying his interview with Assange is a key point). A core walkaway is that we at WP cannot blindly assume BLP-controversial statements from even the best RS that have no backing from the sources they claim to use (or a complete lack of sources) should be considered only as claims and only thus included following BLP and UNDUE with proper attribution. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Props to the editors that caught that before Glenn did. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually that Greenwald piece sort of underscores how shoddy of an outlet the Intercept is. And one's views of Assange are completely irrelevant to that fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

And to be perfectly clear, what the Guardian did was remove the "close connection to Putin's regime" sentence and tweaked the wording slightly in another. It's sort of ridiculous to act like this is some great admission of guilt or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Its evidence of shoddy reporting that can happen to all RSes (arguably, more frequently as of late). They presented a highly controversial statement as fact against a source that we as editors could check and when checked did not show any support for that statement; at that point, we should be treating it as a claim and thus in appropriate balance per UNDUE and keeping in mind issues around BLP. This is what we're supposed to do as WP editors - we simply don't take RSes as infallable but make sure that if we're going to include a controversial statement about a BLP that make sure it is not treated as a fact if there's no evidence or data to back it up. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree. Volunteer Mareks simple assertion that .. "we follow the sources" is far from correct within WP:Policy and guidelines and even more so within WP:BLP Govindaharihari (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

No, my "assertion" that "we follow sources" pretty much IS Policy and guidelines. In particular WP:RS and WP:NOR. Not sure why you're linking to a page which describes how "policies and guidelines" are written on Wikipedia.

There's also a broader context here - that Guardian article kicked up a storm of whining in the internets, with all kinds of far right websites and/or JA fans complaining that it was "misrepresenting" the interview. As a result it looks like the editor told the author "just remove that one sentence and tweak the other so that they'll leave us alone". The point is that 99% of the article did not change and the "amendments" made were minor. It's still a useful article and it can still be used in Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Policy does not say we blindly follow sources (if we do, we simply become an echo chamber for the loudest voices), and we use editorial discretion to identify controversial claims, and avoid stating controversial claims as facts, and to apply appropriate weight to claims and opinions, particularly on a BLP. The results of what happened here doesn't make the Guardian article unusable, but it should be taken that much of what it says are controversial claims, not facts, and thus on a BLP article, should be considered how much we should actually include, and if we do include, 100% make sure its labeled as a claim to the Guardian and make sure that counter-statements from other RS (like the NYTimes article that notes the US Govt found no ties between Assange and Russia's gov't) are given their appropriate due weight too. Arguably in light of what had to be done on the Guardian article, it seems inappropriate to call out a whole section to address the potential of Assange/Russia ties, but a paragraph elsewhere seems in appropriate weight. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Even though 99% (less, actually, but that's not really important) of the Guardian article remained unchanged, the controversial statements that were being cited in Julian Assange were removed. So for the purposes of how the Guardian article was actually being used in Julian Assange, everything relevant was retracted. That's important, and it should serve as a cautionary example of how we should treat otherwise reliable sources. Marek, you can have your guess as to what happened in the Guardian office, but it may well have been that an editor took a closer look at the article and at the original interview, and decided that the article was incorrect. Given that the La Repubblica interviewer pointed out the false "instrumentalization" of her interview, I think the latter scenario is the likely. But whatever happened, we shouldn't be so cavalier about including controversial assertions about BLPs, especially when the sourcing is weak, and the source appears from a spot check to be completely wrong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek states that only "far right websites" took umbrage with Ben Jacobs's lies about the la Repubblica interview—taking Assange's commonplace reference to "opportunities for change in the United States" created by Trump's election and turning it into "praise for Trump" (who Assange actually describes as "part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities"), twisting Assange's praise for Russian dissidents into a deranged suggestion "that Russia is too free and transparent to need whistleblowing"—but la Repubblica's original interviewer, Stefania Maurizi, publicly stated that she was "furious" over Jacobs's distortions: "I am completely furious with how my interview with Julian Assange has been distorted"; "this is completely false: Julian Assange never ever declared that in my interview." As Greenwald notes: "The absolute last person anyone should trust to accurately and fairly report on WikiLeaks is Ben Jacobs, unless the goal is to publish fabrications that will predictably generate massive traffic for The Guardian. (Recall, for example, Jacobs's belittling Manning's confinement and torture: "And the world's tiniest violin plays a sad song." There was never any evidence for Jacobs's extraordinary claim that Assange "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime" besides "eight interviews (by Assange) that were broadcast on RT (in 2012)" and in which Assange steadfastly refused to peddle the Russian line on Syria: "Practically speaking, Mr. Assange is in bed with the Kremlin, but on Tuesday’s show he didn't put out ... Unlike RT, Mr. Assange supports the opposition forces in Syria. He took Mr. Nasrallah to task for supporting every Arab Spring uprising except the one against Syria and asked why he wasn’t doing more to stop the bloodshed."—Alessandra Stanley, The New York Times, April 17, 2012; "Assange's questions were grounded in support for the Syrian opposition forces and were hostile to the Assad government: exactly the reverse of the Russian government’s position, which has maintained steadfast support for Assad. ... The media attacks on Assange's show reflect far more about the critics than about him: they assumed that he would slavishly serve the agenda of his benefactors because that’s what American establishment journalists largely do. It’s pure projection."—Glenn Greenwald, Salon, April 18, 2012. It was an egregious violation of WP:BLP to create an entire subsection at Julian Assange specifically devoted to characterizing the subject of the article using the same inflammatory terms Ben Jacobs did in a single throwaway sentence, which was false on its face and has since been retracted. If Volunteer Marek truly cannot see the issue and remains convinced that the only people opposed to the propagation of fake news about Assange are alt right extremists, that reflects badly on him and his judgement—not on his critics.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Volunteer Marek states that only "far right websites" took umbrage..." <-- since this is so completely and utterly false... I didn't bother reading the rest of this comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right—I almost forgot about all those "JA fans" on "the internets," who joined with the so-called "far right" to "whine" about fairly and accurately representing the views even of people the U.S. government disagrees with—what losers!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your amendment and retraction. Also... you know, the irony.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Normally, I choose my words a bit more carefully when composing an article (especially a WP:BLP) as opposed to merely venting on some talk page—but I can appreciate that you may not feel the same way.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you don't care when you misrepresent what others are saying in content discussions? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a slight paraphrase, that's all. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Harvey Karp

Harvey Karp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am Dr. Harvey Karp. I have read the policy on living biographies and have requested help on my talk page. I understand I am supposed to request help here too. Please edit the bio to accurately describe the arc of my career and help make it more balanced by including published studies about my work. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr harvey karp (talk • contribs) 21:40, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing your concerns on the talk page and here. Can you provide a list of published works that you would like incorporated into the article? Meatsgains (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've struck through my previous comment - I see you provided a list on the talk page. Meatsgains (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Berwick entry used for promotion, marketing, and vanity

The entry @ Jeff Berwick is being used for promotion, marketing, credibility, and vanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.15.12 (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Van Badham

The above article Van Badham is being targeted by persistent abusive vandalism. Editors reverting the changes are abused via talk/messages. Vandalism is being restored at (eg) 1:00 a.m. AEST so subject cannot undo for several hours. Attention of more experienced editors / admins would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AiasBigAndLittle (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for three months and will keep an eye on the talkpage. The latest IP is blocked. Thanks for posting here. Acroterion (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Professor Watchlist

I'm concerned that this article is going to be used as part of this watchlists attack's on academics. I'm not sure what the solution is but eyes on the article would be a good idea. It might need some sort of protection. I've reverted the addition of one name but in turn have been reverted by an SPA IP. Doug Weller talk 06:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any consensus to use Wikipedia as a place to rehost this site's hit-list, and I've reverted the IP and will open a discussion on the article talk page. Just as we don't list everyone on other partisan or interest-group lists, such as the SPLC's "anti-Muslim list." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I have watchlisted Professor Watchlist, and I encourage others to watchlist the watchlist too, and to revert any attempts to add parts of the list to Wikipedia inappropriately. MPS1992 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Juan Orlando Hernández

I have a concern about information being added to Juan Orlando Hernández. I have removed the "Appointment of sister to Secretary of State" section twice now as I do not believe the sources that are given are reliable or verify the negative info given. One of the sources provided is the Spanish Wikipedia, never a reliable source. One source just says she is the "minister of strategy and communication" no verification of any of the negative information. The third source to me does not appear reliable (I do not read Spanish so am relying on a machine translation), looks more like an opinion piece. I do not believe there is enough in these sources to say he broke the law. - GB fan 11:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to update, I have now removed it 6 times as a BLP violation. - GB fan 12:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The notibomba.com article seems to based on a Spanish CNN article. Here is what does seem to be supported by the source:

"In a controversial decision in July 2014, Juan Orlando Hernández allegedly appointed his sister Hilda Hernández as "Secretaria de Estado de Comunicación y Estrategia" (Secretary of State of Communication and Strategy). When questioned by journalist Fernando del Rincón of CNN en Español over the appointment of his sister and the apparent act of nepotism, Juan Orlando Hernández said in his defense that his sister does not hold any position of Secretary of State and does not receive a salary. Hilda's work Facebook page describers her as minister counselor in the Ministry of Strategy and Communications."

Also, I don't know if it's relevant, but Hilda just quit her government position.- MrX 13:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on that, the source does not verify that she was the Secretary of State of Communication and Strategy or that even if she was it was in violation of the Honduran Constitution. So the controversial information is not supported by a reliable source. - GB fan 15:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Chris Atkins

As I have just explained at Talk:Chris Atkins (filmmaker)#BLP issues, I have concerns about recent edits to Chris Atkins (filmmaker). I'd be grateful if someone else could review the various versions of the article and rescue the good parts from each. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

See also recent, related, edits at UKIP: The First 100 Days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time we've met. Thank you for returning to the article and for adding the police mugshot of the subject. Please, steady on with the response to my involvement. I appreciate that you started this article and you may have made more edits to it than anyone, and I'm not a threat to your good work. While I would of course welcome others, there's no need to immediately pass it over to a third editor to 'revue and rescue' before we even discuss the matter ourselves. To clarify, I came to this article in response to the banner request by User:Sam Blacketer [24] for an update. His banner had gone ignored for months, prior to my input. Yes, in updating I cut content that in my assessment is undue. For the record, I've made one edit (now reverted) to the related UKIP: The First 100 Days; it was to echo that same update and create a link to this article, which had not been done before. In case of any misunderstanding, my personal politics is actually against UKIP and Brexit. I'm happy to re-read the guidelines on BLP. Like you, I have concerns about edits to this article. I made one revert to the article. You made one revert to the article. We can work this out together. So let's get off to a good start. -Applefall (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Grenville Kent

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

The BLP Grenville Kent has been subject to defamatory edits (unsourced and/or unreliably sourced) in August and December 2016. These are the sole contributions to Wikipedia by these editing accounts, to date. The latter edit included a deliberately "unflattering" photo of the subject (though already deleted for copyright violation). The latter edit also included an image of an alleged court case entry, which has the appearance of a screen capture of a website database. This was already removed from the page, but is it eligible for full deletion (oversight/suppression) from Wikipedia/Commons, due to its defamatory + unreliably sourced nature? Also would a warning or otherwise on the above editing accounts be justified? Or protection for the page?

Apologies if any of these questions and concerns belong in another forum — please redirect me if so (I am very rusty with Wikipedia, though I have tried to catch up on the relevant policies). Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If the photo was uploaded via commons and has been deleted at commons, it wont appear in the revisions. I cant see its there in the history. See WP:REVDEL for what is eligible for revision deletion, basic vandalism generally isnt. Unflattering (but truthful) information information would not necessarily be rev-deleted. We dont use primary sources (in this case the court system) in BLP's for a number of reasons, and what commons keeps/deletes is sometimes opaque. RE the court grab - as there is nothing actually linking that directly to the subject, there is a good argument it should be removed from the revision history (worst case - there is some information that may later turn out to be true, worst case, its a similar-named person). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Charles Coughlin (yes, I know he's been dead for decades)

This could be just as appropriate for the NPOV-Notice board,but that page is backlogged, and this involves a living person: Donald Trump. I am certainly no apologist for Trump, but I make it a point to check my biases at the door when editing. A user is attempting to use the Coughlin article as his personal anti-Trump soapbox, adding line upon line of media that have compared the two. Many of these are the briefest in-passing mentions, and they're not about Coughlin; they're about Trump. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any mention of Trump at all in the article, but the pile-on has become ridiculous and inappropriate. There is certainly no shortage of fora on the Internet for those wishing to express an unfavorable opinion of Trump, but Wikipedia should not be one of them. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that the inclusion of Trump on the Coughlin page is a soapbox violation, though noting the Trump has been compared to Coughlin frequently in published criticism would likely be appropriate in an article about Trump and/or Trump's political stance. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Coughlin is in the news in a big way in the last year for the first time in many decades--and that is notable for his biography. It's the first time he's been compared to an (incoming) President. Comparisons are made by expert trying to put Trump in historical perspective. The connection between Coughlin & Trump has been widely noted by in the RS. The BLP rules require well sourced statements, and User:Joefromrandb simply erased statements from RS he does not want to hear. He says the quotes are too brief--which is not a Wiki criterion. He erases quotations from The New Yorker, from TIME magazine's Person of the Year cover story on Trump & a cite to the scholarly magazine Foreign Affairs. He has a false excuse: WP:UNDUE is all about fringe minority views and here we are talking TIME cover story. Instead we get his incivility & obscenity & a refusal to use the talk page. see 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Coughlin&diff=757915947&oldid=755066694 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Coughlin&diff=757918815&oldid=757918240 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Coughlin&diff=757919079&oldid=757918815 he calls these RS a "straw man" but he has zero support for his own vague position: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Coughlin&diff=758012074&oldid=757938770 Does User:Joefromrandb agree or disagree that the media have repeatedly cited Coughlin & made explicit comparisons w Trump? the NY Times said it in August clearly enough in a way that meets all BLP guidelines: "Hardly a day passes without some columnist comparing Donald J. Trump to Huey Long, Father Coughlin or George Wallace." Fredrik Logevall and Kenneth Osgood, “Why Did We Stop Teaching Political History?” New York Times Aug. 29, 2016 He erased that noncontroversial factual statement as well. Rjensen (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It's fine on Trump (or one of his subpages) to make the comparison to Coughlin, but it is pushing a POV to put Trump on Coughlin's page. The issue is that without any other context about Trump's political beliefs, pushing that on Coughlin's page is NPOV just to name-drop. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Joefromrandb. This Trump "material" is non notable and doesn't need to be added to every historical biography. We are not the news and just because it comes from the NYT doesn't mean automatic inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

How about being featured in the TIME cover story on Person of the Year??? Not yet notable? Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Can we split the baby here? There are many RS that make the comparison. Noting every one of them in the popular culture segment is over the top. Mention it once somewhere in the body of the article and be done with it. Maybe in a "legacy" section that mentions the other people he has influenced. I haven't looked, but there are probably RS about that, both in academic publications and in newspapers and periodicals. Also, since when is something involving the President-elect of the United States "popular culture"? The way it is being included now is inappropriate on multiple levels, but including Trump as a part of his intellectual/political legacy would be fine in a broader article, since it is mentioned in the sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's a good solution and I will add it there. Rjensen (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If Trump self-stated he was influenced by Coughlin, that would be one thing for a reasonable inclusion in a legacy section. But if others have compared Trump to him (and this appears to be a negative connotation in context) that is absolutely inappropriate on the Coughlin page. IT's POV and coatracking. --MASEM (t) 04:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that this is very sensitive and should be handled with care, which is why I definitely oppose the popular culture stuff that is in there now. I think it could be developed into a more comprehensive legacy section, where Trump is not the sole individual covered, or even the primary one. I would have to see it to know if I supported it, but I don't think that mention of Trump here is necessarily taboo in itself. Basically, I'm saying that a broader legacy section in the Coughlin article would be beneficial, and that depending on how it was done, Trump could possibly be mentioned there because there have been so many comparisons made in RS. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow the complaints of User:Masem who says it's ok if Trump admitted it but NOT ok if multiple RS make the statement. That reduces wikipedia to content approved by Trump. In any case this is about Coughlin's status in US history. which in the last year became MUCH more visible because of the comparisons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs)

The source that appear to compare Trump to Coughlin are not positive or flattering pieces for either individual. This is the POV problem, by pushing this comparison on the Coughlin page. It is 100% fair criticism if it were on Trump's page/subpages since it is fair criticism of Trump on a page about Trump. But pushing it to Coughlin is coatracking these negative POVs about Trump, and makes it a BLP issue. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Flattering? no-- they are verifiable and that is what Wiki is all about. MASEM wants to flatter Trump and that is his POV. POV by Wiki editors is not allowed. (POV by RS is allowed by the rules.) WP:BIASED states reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. -- no the WP:COATRACK is when a new article ostensibly about X is actually all about Y. A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely. Here we have well under 1% of the Coughlin article so COATRACK with its "entirely" factor does not apply. Rjensen (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no POV to or against Trump, but sticking criticism of him (which the comparison to Coughlin is) in a completely different article is the essence of coatracking, even if we're talking about a relatively section of a larger article. It's a BLP issue moreso than anything else. Again, on Trump's article(s) where there is plenty of space for context, it is fine. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

cOATRACKING is explicitly defined otherwise in Wikipedia. (it would cover an entire article that is supposed to be about Coughlin but actually is entirely about Trump.) MASEM goees on to invent a rule. He is saying that the statement by a RS that "Coughlin's rhetorical style was echoed by A, B and C" cannot appear in the Coughlin article but can appear in the A, B and C articles. That's a strange new policy that is nowhere laid out or followed in Wikipedia. It would of course hurt many history articles--it would mean we cannot say in the Wilson article that "Wilson's foreign policy was echoed by George W Bush" or in the Kennedy article that "LBJ promoted Kennedy's tax policies" or in the Obama article we cannot say "Trump promised to reverse Obama's climate policies." 06:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If it was the case that Trump referred directly to Coughlin's approaches as his inspiration, that would be something appropriate for inclusion here. That is not what is said by the articles being used by sources. Those reliable sources are trying to compare Trump's politics to Coughlin's approach (among others), which is written by these RSes in a negative, detracting style. That's a seriously contentious BLP statement, and to make it on a page not under Trump or subarticles is pushing those negative views where they don't below, the essence of coatracking even if it doesn't exactly fit the definition. The other thing that stands out is that no other person is given a similar connection to Coughlin in the current list as suggested by the edits for Trump, despite that Google News shows several other similar people that are claimed to follow Coughlin's path in a similar manner. That's cherry-picking Trump over any other person. Again, I stress that on Trump's page or more specifically on Political positions of Donald Trump, referring to the commentary that Trump follows Coughlin's approach is 100% acceptable as criticism of his position from RSes, and I can see backed by additional sources. But that's because you're discussing Trump's position and given how Coughlin fits within that context, necessarily to mitigate any BLP/NPOV issues with the sourcing. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ithink we'rre making progress. MASEM says the comparisons are a) negative (agree) and b) contentious (disagree--he lacks a RS who disagrees with the comparison as unfair). Now the BLP rule says that negative or contentious statements are allowed but MUST be supported by very explicit RS. That has been done by TIME in its major annual story of the Person of the Year and by NY TIMES (which states every day commentators are saying it = it's a common view) and others. MASEM says the statement is OK on a Trump page--that is he says there is no BLP violation there. GOOD! but he seems to believe there would be a BLP violation against Trump by saying the same words on the Coughlin page. MASEM's latter point is unsupported by Wiki policy & practice, I suggest because it makes perfect sense on the Coughlin page to say that Coughlin's style influenced A, B and C years later. That's a historical statement and BLP does not apply to a person dead for 80 years. Rjensen (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it is significant to the Coughlin article that he has been mentioned by numerous writers on the 2016 election. There is certainly no dispute that Trump has tapped into the U.S. populist tradition in a way that no modern nominee has. TFD (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Perfectly reasonable on the Trump article. Completely irrelevant and coatracking on Coughlin's. (Although strictly speaking it would not be a BLP issue as it is all reliably sourced) That Trump has been compared to Coughlin gives no insight to Coughlin, but a fair amount to Trump. Its essentially coatracking in criticisms of Trump to the Coughlin page which skews the NPOV of the article and is UNDUE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

OK perhaps we are reaching agreement that the coverage is OK on the Trump article. Does anyone here disagree? Rjensen (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Its a reasonable argument to include it at Donald Trump if reliable sources have compared his politics to anothers. That does not necessarily mean it should be included. Given we are talking about the next president, the correct approach would be to open a discussion on the Trump talkpage. As most of the regulars here are unlikely to have a long-term interest in the content of Donald Trump, except in preventing BLP violations. Personally I have no opinion on the matter RE Trump. There is very little 'new' in politics so everyone is compared to someone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe, include in one of the Trump sub articles, about the election, ect., but even then, how notable is this? --Malerooster (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Its been mentioned numerous times by reliable sources to a lesser or greater degree. If there is a separate article on his politics/political career, that would be the sensible place for it to go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Political positions of Donald Trump would be the article then. I can see it being a much better fit there than in the main Trump article. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No, sorry, it's just worthless opinionated trivia, go ahead try and add it wherever you want but its a WP:BLP violation adding very opinionated sources screaming antisemite. 18:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, given the strength of the reliable sources that have this opinion, it is completely acceptable under BLP to include these allusions to Coughlin's own political views as claims (not fact) ascribed to these sources in criticisms of Trump's political stance; the question become to with what weight they would then be given. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Masem or any user please let me know where you intend to add it, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no intention of adding it, only that adding it to the Political positions of Donald Trump page as a claim with attribution falls within BLP allowances given the strength of the sourcing for it. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Masem I am grateful you state no intention to add it but you are encouraging others. It has actually nothing to do with the political positions of Donald Trump at all it is purely opinionated commentary, as an Administrator I would expect higher levels of policy understanding. I suggest if you encourage other users to add such content you open a talkpage chat requesting it be added? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"purely opinionated" is not a BLP issue. Verification by high quality RS is the standard here at BLP. Rjensen (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but actually it is, WP:BLP Govindaharihari (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Weeeellll, not exactly. We don't want any random John Q Smith's opinion that is highly contentious, but a highly contentious opinion shared by many top-tier reliable sources (as has been outlined here) is reasonable to include under BLP allowances, as long as it is clear this is a claim, and we attribute that claim appropriately. If only one RS made this comparison to Coughlin, I would think it would be unnecessary under UNDUE, but its been shown more than a few have stated it. There's still consensus decisions to be made about if it should still be included per other content policies, but you cannot say that it must be excluded because it fails BLP, because it meets the fundamental requirements for when contentious information can be included. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Masem here. WP:BLPSTYLE allows for both well-sourced praise and criticism to be included. The Coughlin piece would be interpreted by most negatively, but the fact he has been compared here is a fact. I've been brought around to Masem's view on this. Inclusion in the Coughlin article at this time is non-ideal, but political positions of Trump seems fine. It also would seem a bit odd to me for it to be in the Trump article since the political positions article exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, if you have a desired addition to an article post it to the talkpage and well open a chat there. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm personally not interested one way or another about writing about Trump. I'm only expressing my opinion that if someone wants to make the comparison, Political positions of Donald Trump would be the correct article and that it would be allowed by policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculing Phyllis Schlafly and Andrew Schlafly

USER:36hourblock has created a vicious parody of the recently deceased Phyllis Schlafly in his Sandbox at User:36hourblock/sandbox in violation of warnings at wp:BLP and WP:Sandbox. [“Please do not place copyrighted, offensive or libelous content in sandboxes.”] It is a fake article titled “Phyllis-Diller Schlafly" and includes the Wikipedia photo of her son Andrew Schlafly--so his inclusion is also a BLP violation. for fake photo of the subject he uses Axis Sally and has the subject die on Hitler's suicide date 30 April 1945 Rjensen (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Nuking it. She died in September so I am invoking the 'recently dead' bit of BLP which can sometimes be applied up to 6 months after. I am pretty sure that wikilinking a real person with the 'Burlesque' article is against the rules, its certainly tasteless, so I am happy to take one for the team here if anyone wants to drag me to AN/I over it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: - actually BLP says " the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." Doug Weller talk 14:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh good. Its been awhile since I looked at that bit. I know its rarely invoked past 6 months. (I cant think of an example offhand where it has been). Do you concur its a violation? Its petty namecalling but its still a violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the pre-blanking version it looks like an attack page to me so I just deleted the sandbox. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Good. I'm sure I recall one case where I thought it might extend 2 years, effect on the family might have been the issue. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Marc Femenella

Please delete this listing Marc Femenella. This is a biography about me. I created it in the early days of Wikipedia, but it is now grossly inaccurate. I have attempted to edit/delete it in the past and it keeps reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcfemenella (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm assuming for purposes of this discussion that you are the article subject, since your account created the original article and has been registered so long, although we don't actually know that for certain. In any case, blanking the page is not proper "wiki-procedure," and I'm not locating the prior unsuccessful efforts to update it that you're referencing in the article history. But (no offense) the article contains no evidence that you're a "notable" person by Wikipedia standards and no third-party reliable sources, so under policy I believe it would be appropriate to delete it. Leaving this thread open for others to comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• It was de-proded by an IP in 2009 [25]. I would be open to a G7 here, since the only substantial contributor seems to be the creator, but I thought the PROD worth bringing up. If it goes to AfD I'd be willing to bet it be deleted for notability like Newyorkbrad said. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

They've blanked it, and I've reverted.--Auric talk 22:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Auric: May I ask, did you revert because you believe the article should continue to exist, or purely on process? (Not that there's anything wrong with process.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Process. The article would need significant work to bring it up to standards.--Auric talk 22:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Author has requested deletion, so I applied the G7 tag. Thanks Newyorkbrad, Drmies (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

K. A. Paul

K. A. Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor has been adding and removing content to the article, claiming to be "Dr.GVNRSSS Vara Prasad,Advocate High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & For the State of A.P, Iam the Attorneyof Dr.K.A.Paul,as the earlier info is not genuine, i made the changes with the exact info.09949251118, gvnrsssvaraprasadgmail.com". Possible legal threat.

another IP has removed information more recently, claiming that it has "hurt his reputation & has made him loose millions that he could be helping people with". Needs more eyes.

--Auric talk 22:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Auric, I am removing that one claim--there is no evidence of a conviction or even a court case. I think we should play it safe. I'm also pinging Doug Weller, who had made an earlier revert in that article. Thanks for bringing it here, Drmies (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've searched a couple of times. I don't know what happened to the court case and can find only a couple of statements that he was in jail for a short while. Good revert, Drmies. There is a Prasead with that name, but I don't know if he works for Paul. It doesn't really matter though. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Amanda Lang

Amanda Lang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Attempts to edit inaccurate, poorly sourced and non-neutral material to the page [amanda lang] have failed. There appears to be a campaign to maintain biased information. Some of the sources are not up to policy standard. Some of the edits were also for relevance. The poorly sourced material contains slanderous content. A brief review of the edit history of this page should reveal that the restored content contains information that is likely from a single source, and one that lacks neutrality. Help is asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryip13579 (talk • contribs)

• This editor has been trying to remove some information for a while, and never bothered to explain even in the edit summary what was going on (let alone discuss on talk page or with reverting editors), until the last edit they made to the article. It is altogether unclear to me which supposedly biased reference they are talking about--I assume it's either this or this article, but those are from reliable sources. I see no evidence whatsoever of any campaign, of any slanderous content, or of sources not being up to snuff. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The reference to unreliable source is to Canadaland, which originated the slander cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Lang#cite_note-20. The use of the word "favourable" is slanderous and contradicted by the exhaustive CBC review of all of Lang's journalism. Removal of the word 'favourable' is the edit required. That is it later repeated in subsequent articles does not make it accurate, just makes for poor journalism. And is also the grounds for those articles to be removed. There are multiple facts that are incorrect throughout the entry, including the number of days a week Lang anchors on Bloomberg, as well as the date of her separation from her husband, which was may, not august 2012 (which is sourced to an article, but which is nevertheless inaccurate. impossible to clarify without a copy of a separation agreeement which seems unlikely). But it is also an irrelevant fact in a BLP, and given the proximity to the next personal entry (Lang's current relationship - also arguably gossip) - it violates policy around BLP where relevance and gossip are concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryip13579 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Elaine Pagels

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

Hello,

I work with Elaine Pagels, and we'd like to change the marital status on her Wikipedia page. She's been divorced from her second husband for 10 years, and we'd like her page to reflect that. Do please let me know how we can move forward with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.201.7.18 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is a bit tricky since no evidence of a divorce is provided--but neither is there evidence in the article of the marriage; it does not state that she remarried, let alone verifies it. To play it safe I will simply remove the second husband's name from the infobox; if we have enough evidence for marriage and divorce--and if this is deemed relevant in the first place--we can reinstate it. I have removed her from R. Kent Greenawalt; the only evidence there was a note from 1995 saying she "will" marry him. Please give my regards to Dr. Pagels, and please thank her for her important contributions to scholarship. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the 1995 marriage was mentioned in a New York Times article. Hack (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi there. I'm not exactly sure, but shouldn't the editor have been pointed over to Template:Request_edit? Perhaps there are cases when I (and possibly other reviewers) might need to send requests here? Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

VB00, this may be the first time I've seen that template. Sure, I see your point--but I'm glad enough already that the editor found their way through our byzantine labyrinth to BLPN. I have no problem whatsoever with such questions being posed here; there's apparently a backlog for requested edits, and BLP matters are urgent enough. Well, that's my opinion anyway. Imagine landing onto Wikipedia and finding something you need corrected--it's hard to figure out. I can't even do it quickly on Commons. Hack, you have a point, and I think that references was in the husband's article, but the way I feel about it is this: yes, the marriage is verified, but the divorce is not, and I give more weight (and good faith) to the BLP request. I'm sure others feel differently--but to have your marriage verified and encyclopedically available but not your divorce, that's not right. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Emily Morse

• Emily Morse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been trying to keep this article neutral and factual for a while now, but I think it's time for new eyes on it. There's been a lot of challenges to Morse's PhD education and the recent uncited additions about her undergraduate experience are concerning [26][27]. - Brianhe (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Uncited material doesn't belong in Wikipedia anywhere, and the fact that she attended WMU before transferring doesn't seem meaningful, especially given the esitor's apparent attempt to portray the transfer as somehow meaning the article subject is less qualified or "didn't really go to Michigan." I have reverted the edits as having neither sources nor consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof, I agree with your edit (as I do with this one, Brianhe). Drmies (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Shahid Masood

• Shahid Masood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page contains promotional and unsourced material and cited sources are either dead links or unreliable sources. I've tried blanking the page but my edits are being reverted. The subject of the article raised the issue on a TV show as well so this page need attention. --Saqib (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Saqib. Continual reinsertion of unsourced puffery and promotionalism. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you keep an eye on this page User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi as I will be not very active due to travelling. --Saqib (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: could you please look at the page. --Saqib (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Kamala Kanta Dash

Kamala Kanta Dash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This profile has verifiable sources. The Citations are from credible sources like Monash University, Australian National University, Carnegie Council, Hindustan Times, Pioneer Newspaper, Art of Living, Telegraph Newspaper, Orisaa Post Newspaper and Orissa Diary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debadattaindia (talk • contribs) 12:29, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

I will be taking a look soon!Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 17:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done-I have drastically edited and formatted the article as far as possible.Regarding your query of reliable sources,every trivial matter is not included in an Wikipedia article irrespective of the quality of the sources to back it up.Also see WP:CITEKILL.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 17:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Etdrick Bohanon

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

Repeated entry and deletion of potentially libelous material about current activities in Atlanta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.232.28.4 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed it and warned the IP. Please help watch the page as this seems to have been added repeatedly. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

IPs from the range 2602:30A:2C53:8880::/64, which represents one person, have been adding this material since June. I've blocked the range for 2 weeks and warned them that there will be longer blocks if they persist after the block expires. (Feel free to let me know if the same additions should come in from somewhere else.) Bishonen | talk 21:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC).

Draft:Abudukeremu Kadier

The user Abudoukeremu is persistently attempting to create an autobiography page. In total, he has created 4 AFC submissions, 3 of which were deleted and I put a WP:AUTO notice on the 4th. This issue culminated when he successfully blanked WP:AFC and replaced it with his autobiography. I am unsure of how to continue at this point. Any Ideas? -SilverplateDelta (talk)

I think he has stopped at least for the time being.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 06:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)