Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
Sections older than 5 days archived by ClueBot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:


Elizabeth Warren RfC is being fought over, please give input on ground rules[edit]

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

Starting a few days ago, contentious wholesale changes have been made to a section in the Elizabeth Warren article. I felt the changes were being pushed through despite objections, and that the changes were poorly sourced, against previous consensus, and potentially libelous. I reverted to a stable version from a few days ago before the back and forth, and called a RfC to establish consensus. Unfortunately the RfC process itself is now being disputed. It would help if the people from this board, who are more experienced in BLP RfCs, could comment on the article talk page and lay down some ground rules, as the whole thing is just a mess right now. Much thanks, LK (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lawrencekhoo: You might consider contacting an admin for a neutral review of the current RfC. There's a lot of crap flying around and frankly it needs the attention of someone very familiar with BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but surely there are some BLP-interested admins here? Could one drop by and lay down some ground rules? LK (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I've full protected Elizabeth Warren for the next three days. Dragons flight (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Dragons flight. There are some concerning comments on the talk page if you have time. If not, no problem. I think the page protection sends a message that recent behavior/edit warring in general was unacceptable and hopefully that will translate into something at the talk page. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
What was truly unacceptable was dropping an RfC into the middle of a dispute, and coming up with a three-option multiple choice for it and asking editors to choose from: one option, the so-called "stable" version (of an entire section)and two "disputed" versions, leading to valid complaints that those aligning with the "disputed" versions will have their !vote split. Then, rolling the section back to the "stable" version and then insisting no one touch it, potentially for a month, as this half-baked RfC is hashed out was just icing on the cake. That it became a "mess" was completely forseeable and I hope anyone interested in learning how NOT to do an RfC will take a look at it and learn. Marteau (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Above editor has been told multiple times he is welcome to submit his own favorite revision as an option and ignored every single one of them. Other editors have submitted their choice revisions. ― Padenton|   01:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of YouTube and Blogs as references in Julia Galef[edit]

This BLP article has references to Blogs and Youtube. I think that could be delicate for a BLP article, and so I placed a {{unreliable sources}} tag there. But, in the article's talk page, the authors have provided good reasons to add those as references. But I'm not convinced. Could someone go through the references and give reasons to remove/keep the tag and update me on what have I mistaken here!!? --†ããrøn95® 11:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think in this day and age, blogs and youtube can't be dismissed anymore, internet is here to stay. I'd say the sources are good but what about notability? That I'm not sure of. I'd say take out the nowiki questioning reliable sources but add one to question notability and then discuss it on talk page, get consensus if possible. Popish Plot (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
While that may be true one day, at this time, Wikipedia still wants reliable sources, youtube and blogs don't serve (usually) as reliable sources and as a rule , should be kept out of BLP's. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's wrong to say never use youtube or any blog as a rule. It depends on what the video is on youtube and or who is writing the blog and how notable or reliable the person is. For example I see some of the youtube videos for Julia Galef are videos of her herself saying something. That is then a primary source. If that is all there are, primary sources, that's not enough to be considered notable. Notability is the key here I think. Is Julia Galef notable enough to have a wiki article? That I don't know. Popish Plot (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The way you figure notability out is by seeing if there are reliable sources. Per the notability guideline regarding people: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Footnotes omitted.) We don't look at notability first and then look at sources, whether for people or for other articles, it's the other way around (take a look at a few listed cases over at Articles for Deletion). I agree with KoshVorlon that blogs and YouTube are ordinarily questionable sources about living persons, but I also agree that it is possible for them to be reliable. In many if not most cases, however, they're going to be self-published sources and are only going to be usable when published by the person the article is about. For example, this YouTube video and video page is used in that article to support the assertion that the subject of the article, Julia Galef, was the keynote speaker at the 2013 HCCO 2013 Winter Solstice Banquet. The video was published on YouTube by the Humanist Community of Ohio and that community's YouTube user page states: "We are an all-volunteer organization." That video is, therefore, clearly self-published by the Humanist Community of Ohio and under the policy on self-published material here, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." This video and video page are, therefore, not an acceptable source about Ms. Galef's participation in that banquet since Ms. Galef is a third party as to the Humanist Community of Ohio. Had she been a member, officer, or owner of the Humanist Community of Ohio and speaking in that capacity, this might have been a more difficult question. I go through that to illustrate that this is the kind and degree of analysis which must be applied to each of the YouTube and blog references in that article in order to properly answer the poster's inquiry, rather than just stating generalities about those kinds of sources. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi TransporterMan, thanks for your valuable answer!!! So, I guess, I did the right thing by tagging the article with {{unreliable sources}}... Right? Thank you!--†ããrøn95® 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Like a lot of articles here, it appears to have a lot of sources which are probably fine and a lot which are less certain. The tag was probably okay, but I have to say that I'm not much of a fan of tags and positively opposed to fighting over them. The best practices approach is to examine the refs that you think questionable and remove the ones which you do not think are reliable. If your removal is reverted, then discuss them one by one at the article talk page and seek help through a specific opinion here and then through dispute resolution if the discussion becomes stuck. If you're not interested in putting that much work into the article, yourself, tagging is about your only option but the odds of it actually getting the references improved are pretty slim since at the present moment there are with that tag. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
TransporterMan thanks for that great reply. Popish Plot (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi @TransporterMan: I've made an edit in the BLP Julia Galef and removed the YouTube links which I think violates WP:SPS, you can see them in this diff. Can you please check if I've done a mistake? And Hi Popish Plot, by looking at the references, I think the Subject is quite notable, and would meet WP:N! Cheers! --†ããrøn95® 09:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Jaaron yes so she has reliable sources? And is notable? And Transporterman gave an epic great reply full of great tips that I can use in the future? All in all a nice example of wikipedia working well. Popish Plot (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Jaaron95, I'm not going to have time right now to go through all the deletions and make the kind of analysis that I made above. I will note that when I was writing my 17:49 post above, I initially drafted that reply using this source from among those that you subsequently deleted and diff'ed to above:

* 2011:''The Straw Vulcan'' at [[Skepticon]] 4<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc |title=The Straw Vulcan, Julia Galef Skepticon 4 |work=YouTube |publisher=Hambone Productions |date=25 November 2011 |accessdate=12 April 2015}}</ref>

but then changed to the Humanist Community of Ohio one because I thought that the result in the Skepticon one wasn't crystal clear like the result in the Humanist Community one. Why? Because Hambone Productions (which is actually just a single person) on its YouTube author's page claims to be the official videographer of Skepticon and also claims to have been executive producer of some legitimate documentary. That could at least give some weight to an argument that Hambone is a third-party reliable source. Frankly, I think that would be nonsense — as Skepticon's official videographer there's virtually no chance that Hambone is a third-party source and I'd be amazed if anyone can come up with any proof that Hambone has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy — but there's at least enough there for someone to argue about it, so I didn't use it as my example. So I think that the Skepticon ones, at least, are probably good edits though with some room for a probably-losing argument, but that's about all I can say right now. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Federal sex scandals[edit]

FYI, I've started a talk page discussion about BLP problems with this article at Talk:List of federal political sex scandals in the United States#Big picture.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Navid Khiabani[edit]

Resolved: deleted and WP:SPA users warned

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Navid_Khiabani

As you can see from the two comments posted on my talkpage by two WP:SPA accounts that have created this article (a third has now appeared) there is clearly some conflict in regards to this person. I would appreciate an experienced editor having a look at this and please also consider commenting at the deletion discussion. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Govindaharihari I really know the Navid khiabani, since 2000 i am chasing his life in and his activities in hidden manner, during 2004 to 2007 he has office in Iran address: No: 178 Africa Ave.Tehran-Iran Now he is living in Mc Lean Va USA 22102 this article should not be removed as i am adding new information about his education and political activities with references.Special:Contributions/Jeanthefact

Please do not delete the navid khiabani page, we a group of free reporters and chasing the guy soon we will give more info with references give us time for one month or two.Special:Contributions/Remot_sam

The new account is Special:Contributions/Ahmadreza1342 - Govindaharihari (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeanthefact and Remot sam, if you wish to weigh in on whether the article will be deleted, you must do so at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Navid_Khiabani. Statements you make here will not be considered. Govindaharihari, editors interested in participating in deletion matters generally monitor those pages. Making a case here for retention (or for other editors being SPA accounts) will not be taken into consideration unless you also make those arguments at the deletion page and doing so and asking for help here may be seen as canvassing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I posted here as I consider there are WP:BLP issues with the current content in the article and I have removed them once already and the three WP:SPA accounts have replaced them. Is it canvassing to report WP:BLP concerns here, did you even look at the article User:TransporterMan? Govindaharihari (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Where, exactly, above did you say that there are BLP issues with the article? And what are those issues? This forum isn't for the purpose of just saying "article X is about a living person and it stinks." It's for working out particular issues. Feel free to ask about specific issues. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I just found this thread. I've warned all four of these "free reporters" (see User talk:Jeanthefact#Your attack pages), deleted several drafts here and there, suppressed a draft at a talk page, and nominated the image for speedy deletion at commons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Soukaina Boukries[edit]

I hope that Soukaina Boukries's page will be protected or semi-protected from the subversion of its informations .

Make requests for page protection here, but you'll have to clearly state why you believe it to be needed. Be sure to sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Caroline Hoxby[edit]

I request that the final sentence of the Research section be deleted. It reads, "Hoxby alleged that Rothstein's allegations were baseless and represented 'race and gender bias.'" This sentence was extensively discussed in 2012, as the Talk page indicates, and the consensus of editors was that it did not belong in the article. It has recently been reintroduced without dicussion. There are several reasons to eliminate it. First, the BLP guidelines state, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source; . . . or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." The sole source for this charge was a school newspaper, and Hoxby wrote a letter to the editors specifically disclaiming the charge and accusing the paper of engaging in sensationalism and tabloid journalism. That published letter is linked above in the Talk page for 2012. The guidelines state that care must be taken to be fair not only to the subject of articles but to anyone named incidentally in them. Retention of this sentence is unfair to Rothstein's reputation because even Hoxby clearly did not wish to make such a charge. The guidelines for BLP furthermore state that "Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." The only reason for including this sentence could be to perpetuate a scholarly dispute. Wikipedia should be a balanced encyclopedia of record, not a site for gossip.Rubric6 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Harvard Crimson, although obviously not on par with the New York Times, shouldn't be dismissed as a mere 'school newspaper'. That said, if Hoxby has denied that she stated that Rothstein's allegations are baseless, and that they represent 'race and gender bias', then we should at the least include Hoxby's statement in the article. Is there a Reliable Source for Hoxby having denied making that statement? BTW, this discussion should be on the Talk page of the article and not here. LK (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Another editor posted at least once reliable source on the talk page a few years ago, when the sentence was disallowed:

I found the letter to the Crimson in which Hoxby said she had been misquoted regarding "race and gender bias": http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article/2005/7/15/hoxby-article-presents-slanted-veiw-of/ . I don't think the Wikipedia article should repeat a quotation by a student reporter if the originator of the supposed quotation claims to have been misquoted. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Rubric6 (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Anal jihad[edit]

Anal jihad appears to be based on a single source with a COI slandering the Muslim Brotherhood. More input and watchers are needed on the page. Rhoark (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • If someone starts an AfD, I will !vote to delete, but I must admit that's kinda funny. IMHO, in the absence of an identified individual person (or persons), however, I don't see how this is a WP:BLP issue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Vernon Jones[edit]

This article is in serious need of attention by editors who understand BLP policy. A paid editor came to the Teahouse asking for help. I do not have much time this evening, so please take a look if you can. Thanks so much. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Two of the links to ajc.com are dead, one of which is regarding a rape allegation. That should be resolved quickly or the claim removed. Apart from that the sourcing seems strong enough for the claims that are presently on the page. Rhoark (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Morrice[edit]

Page is being edited with incorrect content. Requesting a block on all edits for brief period of time until culprits stop trying to provide false information to the page.

Thank You.

As nobody else seems to have looked at this yet, I have warned the user adding unsourced content. I'll also try to keep an eye on this --nonsense ferret 17:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Stilwell[edit]

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

Article is a tremendous puff piece. Appears to have been fairly well owned by a single account for many months, during which time it's accumulated a rich patina of promotional content, blurbs, and primary sourcing. Extra eyes requested. Thanks, 2602:302:D89:D609:B15C:85A5:7132:56FD (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Q. Wang(Artist)[edit]

I saw a notice on Q. Wang (Artist) page. I can not find the reason for it.

Q. Wang's painting is totally new. His artworks was published in many countries, in English, Russian, Arabic, Chinese and Italian.

Please review it.

Thanks.

John,

Jon Bounds[edit]

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

This article includes 'evidence' from web pages that no longer exist, uncited info that could seemingly only come from the subject, and info with only citations to the subject's own website as evidence. Therefore I edited it so it was accurate and reflected Wikipedia's policies on living persons. Another user has reversed this change twice and I would like third party feedback to resolve the dispute. Thanks, User:Journotracker

Unsourced or poorly sourced material in BLPs can be removed and only restored if sources are forthcoming. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
As I previously commented on your talk page (where you have yet to do me the courtesy of replying), I reverted your edits because you removed material with valid citations to reliable sources; and you removed a recoding of the subject's voice. Your edits summary in doing so did not mention these removals. Furthermore "Web pages that no longer exist" are still acceptable as citations; your 'scare quotes' not affecting that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix Global / Mick Featherstone[edit]

Hi, we really need more eyes on this article. There is apparently a big scandal breaking in Queensland, Australia involving possible police corruption and we have a slew of inexperienced editors wanted to load up the article with allegations. Additionally an IP claiming to be the son of one of one of the principals has been running amok as well. Am cross-posting at ANI. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Liz Cheney[edit]

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

A sock/meatpuppet brigade is intent on a matter at Liz Cheney that I removed, inserting unsourced material regarding the subjection's connection to an apparent Iranian oil magnate, Navid Khiabani. If there's meat to the story, then it needs actual sourcing. Tarc (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox technical request[edit]

I'm not sure this is the right venue, but it seemed the closest from the list. Some time ago, consensus was reached to deprecate the "Influences" and "Influenced" fields in Template:Infobox person since they had a long history of being abused by fans and others; the template now says "No longer supported."

However, there are dozens of subordinate templates for different professions. These can only be edited by admins, and propagating the change hasn't been gotten around to. Therefore, the original issue that the consensus was supposed to solve is still contentious in, particularly, articles about comedians. Could an admin please propagate this "Infobox person" change to at least Template:Infobox comedian? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please provide links to the prior consensus, and diff(s) for the changes to {{Infobox person}}. Dragons flight (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Dragons flight, for addressing this. Admin Kww made the revision at 16:09, 22 July 2013 with the edit summary: "consensus on talk page is clearly to remove these parameters". The discussion and the extensive support to remove the parameters appears here: [2].--Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Restoring. This was just archived, though it's still awaiting a response from Dragons flight, who made a links request which was answered. I guess another admin could like to weigh in if DF is busy IRL. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to get to this when I'm off work if Dragons flight has not. The discussion is here, BTW.—Kww(talk) 18:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Quoting inflammatory/controversial comments[edit]

Has there been any discussions in the past about when there's a BLP subject said something controversial, and placing an exact quote of what was said? Hypothetical example:

"John Doe came under fire for making comments described as sexist towards a coworker"

vs

John Doe came under fire for describing his coworker as "worthless waste of time" and that he "would rather gouge out his own eyes".

Especially when the comments include slurs and/or swearing. Stickee (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd go with the first version as opposed to the second. Wikipedia isn't censored, but it's also not supposed to be sensationalized. In many cases we don't really need to list what someone said since it's usually easier and more efficient to summarize. The section Paula_Deen#Racial_epithet_controversy is a good example of how controversial remarks should be covered on Wikipedia. I know that sometimes if a specific slur word or quote is extensively quoted and we have confirmation that this is what was said, then sometimes we can include the phrase but it should be very, very carefully done because we don't want to be seen as having a bias in either direction. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Park Yeon-mi again[edit]

The article has been overrun by Park's unofficial PR team turning it into an advert, which has caused the opposition to reinstate their "she's a liar" campaign. More eyes and experienced BLP editors are needed. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I second that. I posed also questions on which sources are considered reliable and which are not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Virtually this entire article is troubling: Thrill killing[edit]

This article is deeply concerning. It does not appear to be based on any particular scholarly or other high-level source that encapsulates this as a distinct topic or identifies notable figures who are regarded in this way. Rather, it's built of news accounts of individual incidents plus, apparently, a WP editor's determination that a given incident fits the criteria stated for the article. To give a single troubling example, the article currently refers to the legal case of Chancey Allen Luna, who has been convicted of murder and is currently in the sentencing phase of his trial. I'm not a person to be overly alarmed by abuses of WP's supposed ability to influence people, but it seems outrageous that we'd have an article identifying this person as a "thrill killing" participant while his fate is still being determined, much less doing so without any real substantiation. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)