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)

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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

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.



I personally do not see any notices or tags on this BLP. What exactly were you concerned about with the article? Cheers, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 16:54, 22 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: [1].--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)
Hi, Dragons flight, Kww. I was just checking in to see if we could make this consensus change to Template:Infobox comedian and head off this recurring POV issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to do this at this point. I am sympathetic to the reasons why the influence items were removed from {{Infobox person}}, especially the tendency to fill it with unsourced and opinionated lists. At the same time, a sampling of 30 articles using {{Infobox comedian}} found 11 cases where at least one of the influenced / influences fields was populated, which makes this pretty common. I wonder whether comedians might be a special case, since on a variety of cases I have actually heard comedians talk about their influences. In addition, the infobox discussion was nearly two years ago, and there was no specific discussion about comedians at the time. Altogether, I would suggest that the best course of action would be to bring this issue up at some suitable forum (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Comedy). If there is general agreement among people that work on comedy articles that the influence fields should go, then I'll take them out. I don't think a new RFC is necessary (unless the issue proves contentious), but I don't want to kill the fields without at least some input from people that work on the comedian articles. Dragons flight (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking the time to look at this, @Dragons flight:. Let me ask: You mention something that I think reflects my leaving out an important point.
You're absolutely correct: Comedians do talk about their influences, and some comedians' articles have "Influences" sections in the prose article itself. For some reason, there's less tendency toward adding uncited, fannish POV claims in the article itself than in the infobox, which I suspect is because the main article body is watched more carefully than the infobox. Since no one's talking about removing "Influences" in the article body, but just in the infobox, does that give a new perspective to the request? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Federalist (website): inclusion of the Neil deGrasse Tyson "fabrication" allegation.[edit]

Arrived at consensus at article's talk page.- Cwobeel (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The Federalist (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The issue I present is not, I believe, a BLP issue. Editor @Cwobeel: believes it is, and is claiming BLP violation while twice reverting an edit of mine, which is why I write here.

Background: I added the following to The Federalist (website):

"In late 2014, The Federalist gained attention and criticism when, in a series of articles, it claimed astrophysicist and educator Neil deGrasse Tyson "fabricated" quotes he attributed to George W. Bush during some of his paid speaking engagements.[1][2] "

  1. ^ Adler, Jonathan. "Does Neil deGrasse Tyson make up stories?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 April 2015. 
  2. ^ "The Right’s War on Neil deGrasse Tyson". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 19 April 2015. 

Cwobeel twice reverted, claiming on the talk page that this RfC applies. This RfC asked the question, can the issue of Neil deGrasse Tyson allegedly misquoting George W. Bush be added to the Neil deGrasse Tyson article? The result of the RfC was "no consensus" with one of the closers saying:

Closing this as do not include on the basis of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It is clear that this is a contentious issue, so without excellent sourcing - which establishes the weight of this incident in the context of Dr. Tyson's life and career - the default of non-inclusion applies

It is this RfC closure that Cwobeel believes prevents me from adding the text I quoted above to The Federalist (website) without gaining new consensus per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE

It is my position that the cited RfC does not apply in this case. Reading the invocation of BLP by the closer, it seems clear that they are addressing relative weight of the issue in Tyson's biography and it's relation to "Dr. Tyson's life and career". These issues are not present and not a factor in "The Federalist (website)" article.

In the RfC, it was claimed by some that the inclusion of this material in the Tyson article gave undue weight to what some considered a trivial thing and the other closer echoed that, questioning whether it had "the kind of depth and quantity that will make it a part of the lasting mainstream image of this personality."

These issues cited in the RfC were particular to the Tyson biography. Whether this issue is pertinent, trivial, or gives proper weight to the life story of Neil deGrasse Tyson or not is a completely different question from whether it is pertinent, trivial, or weighty enough to include in an article about a website. Claiming that the preclusion of text in the Tyson biography per this RfC carries over to "The Federalist (website)" article is, in my opinion, a complete misunderstanding of what the closer was saying and intending, and a complete misapplication of BLP and the RfC.

Furthermore, the RfC was crafted by the submitter to answer the question of inclusion in the Tyson article only. The submitter of the RfC requested in his RfC submission, "The only discussion I would like to have is on it's weight and if it is really important enough to include in this article." And both closers did just that, with neither saying inclusion of the issue elsewhere in the encyclopedia for a different purpose was precluded, only that consensus was not shown that it had enough weight to include in the Tyson article.

So I ask here: does the text I added violate the terms of the RfC at the Tyson article (which had a BLP aspect) as Cwobeel claims.

Thank you. Marteau (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not a BLP issue to say that Tyson misquoted Bush. Everyone agrees to that, including Tyson. But it might be an issue to say that he "fabricated" the quote. Maybe he just mis-remembered the quote, and I would not call that fabrication. Roger (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It could be simply a case of false memory. However, the Federalist used the word "fabrication" repeatedly, which is why I put it in quotes. But I would have no issue using a different word or qualifying it or explaining it more fully. I was going for tight prose, and don't think this needs more than one sentence. Marteau (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't be used to forward made up scandals by partisan websites. All I am telling you is that given the long RFC and its closing and concerns expressed in talk, you needs to seek consensus for adding the material. The burden is on you. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That the Federalist published those articles, and that it lead to controversy and criticism is not a "made up scandal", it's a well-documented fact. Furthermore, it is my position that the RfC for the Tyson article is specific to the Tyson article and it's preclusions do not carry over to the Federalist article, hence this. Marteau (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The Federalist publishes article daily. And yet, we don't report on a any of these. This was a storm in a teacup made up by a highly partisan website, and we are not here to advance their viewpoints, but to report on what secondary and reliable sources write about that website. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlike what the Federalist publishes daily, those articles published by the Federalist were mentioned in articles by numerous mainstream news organizations (two of which I cited, I could easily cite a dozen more), and the resulting backlash and controversy certainly is relevant in any discussion of The Federalist. Marteau (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Numerous you say? A couple of sources does not make this neither relevant, nor notable. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The partisan echo chamber does not count. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's a dozen that mention The Federalist by name:
1) "Cosmically Dishonest"
2) "Does Neil deGrasse Tyson make up stories?"
3) "Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Text-Burning Followers"
4) "The Right’s War on Neil deGrasse Tyson"
5) "Earth to climate-change deniers: Neil deGrasse Tyson's errors won't help you"
6) "Neil deGrasse Tyson finally kinda sorta admits he got that Bush quote wrong"

7) "The Cult of Neil deGrasse Tyson"
8) "Neil Tyson: Just Trust Me, OK?"
9) "Conservative Website ‘The Federalist’ Targeted For Wikipedia Deletion After Criticizing Neil deGrasse Tyson"
10) "Wikipedia wants to ban acclaimed conservative site the Federalist"
11) "Neil DeGrasse Tyson Enters into Dan Rather Territory"
12) "Politico’s dopey climate denial: Global warming might be fake because Neil deGrasse Tyson did something dumb" Marteau (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Breitbart, the Daily Caller, The Washington Examiner, The Weekly Standard (realclearpolitics is a reprint from the Federailst)? remove the partisan websites and what are you left with? Some responses from the left-leaning media, a single article in Politico and and a single article in the WaPo. Not notable, and WP:UNDUE in the context of a LP.- Cwobeel (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
"Not notable"???? To a small operation like The Federalist, this is HUGELY notable. I really am having a hard time believing you believe what you are writing here. It's astounding. Marteau (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, my friend. It is a small operation, and we have a stub in Wikipedia about it. Not notable, and WP:UNDUE to have a lengthy explanation about it (a short one will not do without wading into POV territory), in particular when it affects a LP. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The issue for me is that the The Federalist (website) article neglects to give the mainstream view when giving partisan one. Maybe:

"In late 2014, The Federalist gained attention and criticism when, in a series of articles, it described astrophysicist and educator Neil deGrasse Tyson's misquotes of George W. Bush as "fabricated".[1][2] "

  1. ^ Adler, Jonathan. "Does Neil deGrasse Tyson make up stories?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 April 2015. 
  2. ^ "The Right’s War on Neil deGrasse Tyson". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 19 April 2015. 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talkcontribs)
Why we should promote The Federalist views on Tyson in Wikpedia? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not "promoting" any views. This is one proposed sentence to be added to an article about a website describing what they do and did. Their writing about the Tyson issue has been covered by a significant number of secondary sources, as demonstrated by my list of a dozen (above). This is completely relevant in any discussion about The Federalist. Marteau (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I like it. Good work. Marteau (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I just want to point out that the Volokh Conspiracy is not a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Neither is breitbart. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


OK, this discussion has veered off onto tangents which do not address the the question submitted here. Cwobeel has repeatedly cited the results of the Tyson RfC as being in effect for The Federalist article, and has used that RfC as a basis for insisting on the exclusion of the quotes issue from the Federalist article. The question is: Does the Tyson RfC, and the prohibitions of mentioning the quotes issue in the Tyson article, carry over to The Federalist? Questions such as wording, sourcing, weight, notability, etc, can all be hashed out once the issue of this Tyson RfC and its applicability/inapplicability to The Federalist is addressed. Marteau (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The RFC was significant but not crucial for this discussion. Anyone can raise a good faith concern on BLP material as I did, so please address the concerns and seek to build consensus for inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not side track the question at hand. The RfC, and it's applicability to the Federalist article, is the the issue here. It is not a simple issue and deserves to be directly addressed. If you want to talk about other issues pertaining to The Federalist as it pertains to Tyson, use the talk page at The Federalist. Marteau (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Read the title of this section, and your opening paragraph. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That is precursor and not the question. I said,

So I ask here: does the text I added violate the terms of the RfC at the Tyson article (which had a BLP aspect) as Cwobeel claims.

This is a valid question, the question I asked, it is not a simple issue, it is an issue you repeatedly cite, and it needs to be addressed. Marteau (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
When you bring an issue to BLP/N it is open to scrutinity, not only on your preferred framing. Just read the comments by uninvolved editors above. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not the Tyson RfC applies to the Federalist article needs to be addressed. So far, no one has been able to make any legitimate argument that it does, beyond simply going "RFC" or "BLP" and simply insisting it applies. I have made some legitimate points towards this isssue, but so far no one, including you, has addressed them.
It was my hope this issue of applicability could be addressed here. That may prove to not be possbile, particulary if discussions keep getting sidetracked, in which case it'll have to move on up the ladder. Marteau (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel:, you are claiming the Tyson RfC applies to the Federalist article. The fact of the matter is, the Tyson RfC was specific to the Tyson article. Your saying it applies to the Federalist is not as immediatily apparant as you seem to think it is.... it is a leap of logic and its applicability is under dispute. You cannot just cite the RfC from a differerent article from different circumstances and say it applies to The Federalist article without explaination or without saying why. The burden is on you to make your case. Should you not wish to do so, and simply insist on saying that it does it does apply, without really saying why, I'll just move on to addressing the sourcing and fairness issues which have been brought up here and consider this matter at an end.

So I will ask you again. What does the Tyson RfC have to do with The Federalist article? Marteau (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Everything. The material you want to insert into The Federalist article, is exactly the same material that was negated at that RFC. What makes you think that it is any different? WP:BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. not just on BLP articles. You may need to refresh your understanding of WP:BLP: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages'.' - Cwobeel (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Cwobeel:It is not the material, per se, that was the problem in the Tyson article. It is the weight of that material and whether it was notable for the Tyson article. It was judged not to have enough weight and not be notable for the Tyson article, not globally throughout the encyclopedia.
As one of the closers put it, the question was whether the "threshold towards 'real' notability, and whether this coverage is of the kind of depth and quantity that will make it a part of the lasting mainstream image of this personality" (emphasis mine). THAT was the BLP issue. It was determined that this issue had not enough weight for the Tyson article. It was determined that this was not 'notable' for the Tyson article. Whether or not this is notable or weighty enough for the Tyson article is a completely different matter than whether it is notable or weighty for The Federalist and you simply cannot say that a finding of inappropriate weight and notability for one article carries over automatically to another article.
What is non-notable and not weighty enough for the Tyson article could be completely weighty and notable elsewhere. Marteau (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Per Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson/Archive_7 - closing statement: Closing this as do not include on the basis of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It is clear that this is a contentious issue, so without excellent sourcing - which establishes the weight of this incident in the context of Dr. Tyson's life and career - the default of non-inclusion applies. What makes you think that without excellent sourcing is this material suitable for inclusion anywhere in Wikipedia? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course excellent sourcing is always required. But the closer in this issue was requiring more than just excellent sourcing... he was requiring sourcing to put this issue in proper context. The requirement to put an event in the context of a man's life and give it proper weight in the biography of that man, is proper. That is what the closer was complaining about... that it was not given proper context and weight for the man's life story. But the Federalist article is not dealing with the story of a man's life. The weight issues are completely different. Completely different issues. The issue, again, was not the material. The issue was the weight of that material in the context of a man's life story. That's what the closer was saying. To say that we must frame this issue in the context of the man's career and and life in an article about a web site is ridiculous. Marteau (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I mean, really now. You are seriously saying that you think that the closer, while closing the RfC for a biography, was also intending that any future mention of this incident anywhere in any article in any context for any reason must also put it in the context of his "life and career"? That you don't see that there are context and weight issues particular to the coverage of issues in a biography that would be different in an article about a website?
I don't know how much more of this I can take. Marteau (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I would have accepted your argument per WP:AGF, but it seems that you are overly keen in including this material somewhere, given your comments at Neil deGrasse Tyson talk page]: How anyone can seriously put forth the proposition that this does not even have enough weight for so much as one sentence is astonishing. Simply astonishing, so your attempts to diminish the RFC results to try and force inclusion of the rejected content in another article seem dubious to me. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, will continue to assume good faith and will continue to debate, question, categorize and comment on only your arguments, and not your motives. Marteau (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
You know what? Strike that. The hilarity of you, of all people, accusing me of having a "keen" and "dubious" interest surrounding this issue, when it was YOU who submitted this article for deletion during the heat of the moment in the Tyson debate... an action which gained coverage and criticism of Wikipedia in the press (or, the "echo chambers" as you call them). And then, the very same day your attempt to delete this article went down in flames and the result was "strong concensus to keep" you have the gall to propose that this article, the article that just survived the deletion you sought, be "merged and redirected" to "Ben Domenech#The Federalist". The very same day. Now that is "astonishing". So please do spare me the "oh, he has a keen interest in this issue, it seems dubious to me" business, mmmkay? Pot, meet kettle. Marteau (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Henrikh Mkhitaryan - Personal Life[edit]

Dear WikiPedia users, i believe im on the right noticeboard for this issue. On Article of Henrikh Mkhitaryan in section of Personal Life, it is mentioned that he visited "Artskah Republic" which is not correct use of both political and commonly used terms. Both political and commonly used term is de facto independent Nagorno Karabagh which is de jure part of Azerbaijan. Using incorrect term first of all is not line with neutral point of view of Wikipedia where Azeri side claims it should be de jure and also with the commonly used name. My several attempts to edit and use talk page for this were either ignored or reverted, I got also suspended by user Golbez who openly supports the Armenian side of the issue which again i believe is not on neutral point of view. I believe using incorrect political terms makes users believe that N/K is a proper republic and omits the Azeri side of the claim. Please advise on next action! Agulani (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this edit will take care of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear User, thanks for the change please see my edit which i believe makes more sense while keeps the neutrality of this. Same thing with Ararat vs Agri Dagi where Ararat is used over Agri dagi since its commonly used Agulani (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't wikilnk Nagorno-Karabakh twice in one sentence. Moreover Nagorno-Karabakh is merely a geographic region, and that is why Wikipedia has a separate article titled Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield[edit]

The wikipedia page on Andrew Wakefield includes the highly debated topic on vaccines. The article includes information that contains the heavily biased mainstream view, without always backing up the evidence.

Andrew Wakefield has been taking libel action against Brian Deer in the US, and while he has failed recently in the US due to it being outside of jurisdiction, we are not to know whether he will pursue libel action against Brian Deer in the UK. Irrespective of whether he pursues litigation, this Wikipedia must strive to only publish the facts, and not the opinions or assumptions perpetuated in the media.

I have not verified the ENTIRE content of the biography, but the derogatory claims made on his page need to be carefully evaluated to determine they are factual statements. I have highlighted several inaccuracies with the page which I have factually proven with high quality references.

The below refers to some of the factual inaccuracies published on his page:

The paper should be referred to as the "retracted paper", as Wakefield and the paper was never proven to be fraudulent and therefore should not be referred to as a "fraudulent" paper.

Wikipedia says: "Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born c. 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease."

The facts: The retracted paper ACTUALLY says "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. ... If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. ... We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."

Note that the paper specifies that the parents reported a link between the MMR and the child's onset of symptoms (and in some cases the GP), not Wakefield or his team. Retracted paper:

Wikipedia says: "Wakefield's study and his claim that the MMR vaccine might cause autism led to a decline in vaccination rates in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland and a corresponding rise in measles and mumps, resulting in serious illness and deaths"

The facts: The increase in "deaths" is not supported by the evidence. In the UK, where Wakefield had the most influence, there is zero evidence of an increase in deaths following the 1998 paper:

The increase in the "incidence" is also not supported by the evidence. In England and Wales, there was no significant increase in the incidence of measles following the publication of the paper in 1998. The incidence in measles was on significant decline just before the 1998 paper, and continued to decline or remain steady until an increase in 2008 and 2009 after which the rates declined again to lower than pre-1998 rates. Wikipedia says: "After the publication of the paper, other researchers were unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism, or autism and gastrointestinal disease"

The facts: Wakefield's retracted paper was a "Case Series", which is not a hypothesis testing paper. He simply took the doctors referrals, treated the disease and reported the information provided by the parents, the referring doctors and the outcomes of his investigations. Also, his 19 other papers were never retracted and still stand today.

Wikipedia says: "most of his co-authors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations."

The facts: His co-authors withdrew their support for the media's incorrect interpretations of the paper (which was not a study remember).

Wikipedia says: "As recently as February 2015, he publicly repeated his denials and refused to back down from his assertions,[32] despite the fact—as stated by a British Administrative Court Justice in a related decision—that "there is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Dr. Wakefield's] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked."[33]"

The facts: The retracted papers says "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. ... If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. ... We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."

Wikipedia says: "In spreading such fear, acted dishonestly and for mercenary motives in that, although he improperly failed to disclose the fact, he planned a rival vaccine and products (such as a diagnostic kit based on his theory) that could have made his fortune"

The facts: The patent was for the "treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and regressive behavioural disorder", not a rival vaccine.

The Wakefield paper was retracted by the journal after elements of it were found to be intentionally dishonest by the uk medical council. Intentionally falsified research findings are, by definition, fraud. This was reported by numerous sources, eg
The patents for a vaccine are online, and it appears that Wakefield attempted to hide the true purposes of his claims when he filed summary statements. See page 1 (tenth page of patent) These patents have also been reported by countless sources. The quotation in the Wikipedia text is taken from an official document.
The interpretation that was retracted was (obviously) not an interpretation made by other people, such as the media. It was the interpretation set out in the article, headed 'interpretation', by the paper's authors. Later the paper was fully retracted.
The GMC determination found "Dr Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct". It is important that Wikipedia reports factual information as reported by official sources. Newspapers are not official or necessarily accurate sources.
The patent you linked to has no evidence of Wakefield as being the owner of the patent. Even if it is proven this is his patent, there is no proof that he "attempted to hide the true purposes of his claims". Brian Deer has highlighted the sections he choose, putting the information out of context. To conclude that he was hiding the true purposes of the patent is mere speculation and is not permitted on Wikipedia.
To make it clear, only a possibility raised in the interpretation was retracted. The paper established no causal link between MMR and these children's illnesses. The Wikipedia article needs to make it very clear that this was hyped up by the media and was NOT EVER reported in the paper. Goddessofmarshmellows (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to cite *reliable* sources. Official sources are often among them, but a great deal of citing of newspapers is done and The Guardian is usually regarded as a reliable source. Shritwod (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
And in fact what is being stated here as "official" is what we would normally call a WP:PRIMARY source, which we are discouraged from using in favor of reliable secondary sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, per WP:FRINGE, we have no duty to report both sides equally; on the contrary, we primarily focus on the mainstream view(s) as supported by reliable sources. Indeed original research is forbidden to be used here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Should we take "Irrespective of whether he pursues litigation, this Wikipedia must strive to only publish the facts, and not the opinions or assumptions perpetuated in the media" as a legal threat? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The OP makes a strong case for a BLP violation. The terms "fraudulent", "deliberately dishonest", and "dishonest" mean different things. The WP article says "fraudulent". Someone defends it by saying "deliberately dishonest", and cites a source that only says "dishonest". If the source says "dishonest", then WP should not change that to "fraudulent". Furthermore, it is clear that the media publicity has embarrassed The Lancet, and it might have blamed Wakefield more than is justified. The article should make it clear that "dishonest" is an allegation from The Lancet (and maybe others). Roger (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Except no such thing has taken place. For example, British Medical Journal article. Title: "Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent" - there are numerous, top-tier sources saying he was fraudulent. Please, check the actual sources in the WP article.
The simple face is that, whenever the article uses the word "fraud" or some variant, there's a source saying "fraud". The only issue is reference 120, which has been separated from the other sources (115-119) which are, frankly better sources than it is, and half of which use "fraud" in the title. Indeed, checking the sources, it's clear that the sourcing is, by and large, impeccable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Simple fact: the original source proves the secondary sources to be incorrect and inaccurate. The BMJ link provided above states: "The Lancet paper has of course been retracted, but for far narrower misconduct than is now apparent. The retraction statement cites the GMC’s findings that the patients were not consecutively referred and the study did not have ethical approval, leaving the door open for those who want to continue to believe that the science, flawed though it always was, still stands." This makes it clear that the GMC finding did NOT conclude the study was a fraud, and the accusation of "fraud" has come from a single person: Brian Deer. The BMJ link also includes a correction "The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines."
Official retraction of the Wakefield paper: "Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al1 are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.2 In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record." Goddessofmarshmellows (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Cameron Thor[edit]

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

User Mr Ripfrog is deleting all references to current charges against Thor and stating in comments blatant untruths such as this, "I have updated the Personal Life section as it was out of date and inaccurate. The charges have been dropped against Cameron Thor and I will be updating the story as the accuser was simply looking for money in a scheme they were planning ..." This is outrageous fiction and highly offensive. See the latest issue of The Hollywood Reporter and many other news sources for the current state of the story and the charges still pending against Thor.

aldiboronti (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it does become more frequent then we can protect the page, but right now the vandalism is a little too light. Probably will pick up once the trial coverage really starts, though. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Zeena Schreck[edit]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style

This article sounds highly biased - it uses emotive language inappropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've scanned through it and it seems pretty average to me, some good, some bad, but nothing jumping out at me as needing to be urgently corrected. What, in particular, are you seeing that I'm not seeing? Better yet, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit: why don't you just go ahead and correct the problems that you see. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Cathy Cooper page needs deleting[edit]

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

To an editor that can delete properly,

The subject herself "Cathy Cooper" has requested to have the page about her deleted entirely. She has emailed me and wants this done due to recent developing personal reasons. I have let her know if this bio page is to be deleted then another page will most likely not go up in the future (biography) because of the rules and editing involved with Wikipedia. Yes, I had allowed her to make an edit but she said the page needs to be deleted all together and she is fine with that.

Please let me know if this can be done.


Shelyric (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest contacting WP:OVERSIGHT, who are far better to handle sensitive information than a page like this. You don't want her personal details to be public, so using the people appointed to handle sensitive issues quietly without need for public discussion would work better.
In particular, I don't think we should delete it without proof you're acting for Cathy Cooper: Obviously, it's probably not the case here, but we don't want to be in the situation where someone's rival can get a page on them deleted by claiming they're acting for that person, so a little safeguarding is called for, and that group can do it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Uh, on the Cathy Cooper page itself, in [| this ] edit, you state in the edit summary that you are Cathy Cooper, yet here you say you're working for her. So which is it? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger)[edit]

Can we please get more watchful eyes on Anthony Watts (blogger)? I've started a new discussion on the article talk page here.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There's activity from a good range of people on that article; it's just that they disagree with you... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Lucien Lagrange[edit]

At Lucien Lagrange, there is a reversion cycle going on with pacifist content. I got an email from Elekberg99 stating that "I am trying to make a few updates to Lucien Lagrange's Wiki page at the request of Melinda Jackovich who currently works with Lucien. However, edits keep getting changed. My goal to make the page as accurate as possible. Please let me know if there are any issues you have with the page." Is there a BLP reason to remove the sourced content?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't not, without engaging in original research support the part of the second sentence which reads, "He was a pacifist and had avoided involvement in French military confrontations such as," it only supports the idea that he didn't want to fight specifically in Algeria. Unless there's some part of that source that I've missed, all it says is this:

Well, when I graduated in ’72, before I went to work, I went back to France. I was done with my schooling, my degree. And meanwhile, I managed in the first twelve years to be a draft dodger from the French government, because I didn’t want to go and fight in Algeria and shoot some Algerian with some guns and stuff. So I went back to France. I went to court and I fought the French government and I did win so I was let go, which is a vastly- it’s an interesting story. But I went back to France to fight and then I was allowed to go back to France at my will and not to be bothered by the French army.

(Source.) That doesn't support the idea that he was philosophically a pacifist without engaging in the interpretation that his desire not to "shoot some Algerian with some guns" was due to philosophical pacifism. Perhaps he just liked Algerians, perhaps he was phobic about guns or shooting, was — I don't mean to implicate him with this, just say that it is one of many possible other explanations with as much support as pacifism — a coward, or was specifically opposed to the war in Algeria but would have found a war somewhere else entirely justified. Tagging him with pacificism is controversial and that particular chunk of the material restored in this edit ought to be removed under WP:BLPREMOVE, but the rest of the material in that edit should, indeed, have been restored. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

TransporterMan, How about if

(instead of) After graduating Lagrange had to return to France to fight charges of draft dodging the French Army. He was a pacifist and had avoided involvement in French military confrontations such as Algeria for twelve years. He won his fight, which enables him to freely return to France. He then returned to Montreal to work...
(we try) After graduating Lagrange had to return to France to fight charges of draft dodging the French Army. He had avoided involvement in French military confrontations in Algeria for twelve years. He won his fight, which enables him to freely return to France. He then returned to Montreal to work...

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much word for word what I would have proposed, so it's fine by me. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

ANDREW GEORGE Politician[edit]

There has been a long-running dispute about material relating to MPs' expenses in this article. The material is in fact false and arguably defamatory. Mr George was in fact completely exonerated by the Legge Committee over these issues and each time they have appeared you have stopped further recurrences for a while. Can you intervene again?

Many thanks

Graham Kerridge (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that the user added only half of the story, and omitted the exoneration by the Legge Committee, I've removed the text as not adhering to NPOV. I've advised the user who added the text to discuss the matter at the article's talk page if he really thinks it should be included. —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Eric Dott[edit]

" When game designer Oliver Jovanovic was accused in 1996 of sexual assault against a woman, Dott noted that Jovanovic's version of RuneQuest had not been published because the developers repeatedly missed deadlines.[2]"

strikes me as defamatory--and not necessarily all that relevant to Eric Dott's life, given that Dott published dozens of games, including a previous edition of Runequest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A Voice for Men[edit]

A Voice for Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors have repeatedly restored the content of this edit in violation of WP:BLPGROUP and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Note that the article is under article probation.

The company in question "A Voice for Men" has a single employee, Paul Elam. The site ( indicates it's "owned and operated by Paul Elam" and has a limited volunteer staff. As such I believe WP:BLPGROUP strongly applies.

Statements using this buzzfeed article as a source, those using primary sources (the SPLC blog and are the most problematic and have been restored without talk page consensus. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The BuzzFeed article was discussed on the RS noticeboard a few weeks ago. [3] The findthecompany info is used to corroborated the statements made in the BuzzFeed article. The SPLC content (which I wouldn't classify as a "blog") is about a group of websites and the groups that post to them, not a specific person. The SPLC's characterization is presented as their own assessment, and its has been repeated by several reliable sources, such as Time[4]. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no issue including BLP information from strong RS. A neutral reading of the Buzzfeed article, including the title, shows it is not sufficient as a sole source. Although I don't believe it's directly relevant to the argument, I classified the SPLC source as a "blog" because the URL begins with: José Antonio Zapato (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: I've no dog in this fight, but have fully protected the page at an arbitrary version due to a slow, weeks-long edit war that's been going on - Alison 07:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That's understandable, but we still have an editor who's confessed to edit warring, and as soon as he was blocked the IPs started working on it. By his own admission, he doesn't care if he's blocked as long as the page is on the "right" version. That seems like a very good incentive to continue the slow edit war. Gaming the system like that seems messed up. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It's frustrating, I know, but what's going to happen is that they'll refuse to engage on the talk page while others will try to come to some agreement. The dispute will get hammered out and the article changed again, and they'll have had no say in the matter. Only this time, when they revert, they'll be doing so against consensus and thus their changes will not stick - Alison 08:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to reverse Alison's protection even though she gave permission to any administrator to do so. I tend to endorse it because she's right about the edit-warring. I blocked the editor who was being the most disruptive and when I did so, his version was in place. If I'd wanted to revert it, I could, but although I think many of his BLP claims are marginal and certainly not of the sort that justifies reverting under WP:3RRNO, I also didn't think there was any policy-based reason for my choosing a version. The only thing that gave me pause subsequently is the block evasion, and an editor shouldn't benefit from block evasion. At the same time, though, honestly, Grayfell should not have reverted after my block of the other editor. Finally, I also agree with Alison that there's nothing wrong with the current version being in place until a consensus as reached as to what material should or should not be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I can see that. I was getting edit conflicts with the IP while attempting to fix some of the raised issues, which was irritating. It seemed like a clear-cut case of ban evasion, but there was nothing that couldn't wait until that was resolved. Grayfell (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The A Voice for Man page is clearly not a BLP. It's the most popular men's rights website. Hundreds of activists publish content on the site and dozens of volunteers help keep the site going. The claim that BLP applies to the article because most of the activists involved with AVFM aren't officially employed by the site is absurd. Moreover, the BuzzFeed article and especially the conservative way that source is used is actually BLP compliant. The men's rights topic area has had the same problems with "new" editors and IPs for years. One of them gets blocked only to have the next one show up and make "their" article more "on message". It's not just frustrating for individual editors, it's detrimental to the aims of the project. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Sonicyouth's comment here [5] pretty much demonstrates how and where BLP applies to the AVFM article. If we are adding content about AVFM the website/community, then BLP does not apply. If we are adding content about AVFM the company and its financial spending then BLP applies. That is because there is no one in AVFM the company besides Paul Elam. You can't differentiate off of him. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
But we are adding content about the website/online community/online presence, its content, its activities, its online store, its attempts to raise money, etc. AVFM is notable and discussed in RS only as a website/online community/online presence. For example, the Huffington Post is obviously also a company beside being a website, but nobody would ever suggest that The Huffington Post is a BLP and that statements about the website are indistinguishable from statements about Arianna Huffington or the other founders. AVFM is not the same as its founder. Please come up with something more convincing than the BLP angle. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
But you are also adding content which cannot be differentiated from Paul Elam. Read the Diff, that's your words. Paul controls the money flow, so you can't question the money flow without questioning him. If you are saying AVFM is spending money in a bad way, you are saying Paul is spending money in a bad way. If people are questioning how AVFM spends money, then they are questioning how Paul spends the money. It isn't because Paul is the founder, it's because he's the only person in the company. A Voice For Men, the company, is Paul Elam. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
RS are questioning what AVFM (not a specific person X) is doing with donations. Everyone involved with the website is welcome to answer, whether it's the founder, the managing editor Dean Esmay, chief information officer David King, chief marketing officer Peter Wright, or any of dozens of activists and hundreds of contributors who are involved with the site's workings. And absolutely no, I am not saying that "AVFM is spending money in a bad way." If you absolutely must attack a straw man, do it with someone else rather than waste my time. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for using the term 'you' it was not meant to be a direct statement, but a generic you more like "someone". However the point you seem to be consistently missing, is that questioning AVFM about financials is no different than questioning Paul Elam about financials. Paul has set up the company so that he is the only one in control of such things, so while you might think that Dean, or David, or any of the other activists involved in the running of the site could have input, they cannot. That is because the financials are through AVFM the company, not AVFM the site, and while AVFM the company pays for AVFM the site, they aren't the same thing. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The money is raised online, as in one the website, with many people involved in the fundraisers. You assume that the RS share your opinion of the founder's omnipotence concerning every decision and only pretend to discuss AVFM. But they don't. I do not know how you could possibly have arrived at the conclusion that a page about a very popular website is a BLP but maybe you'll have more success convincing others. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, so what, exactly, is the BLP non-compliant content, here? I don't understand the complaint about the BuzzFeed article other than that it's extremely unflattering. Everyone seems to agree, including Elam himself, that Elam has financial control of the site. He has made this statement himself, and sources have commented on it. We use unflattering sources all the time, including for BLPs. Being unflattering is not, by itself, a valid complaint against a source. What is it about this source that makes it unusable? What are the statements in the article you object to, and why? Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
First we can make sure we can quote correctly, and with proper context. I know you, Grayfell, have helped with that on the article talk page here [[6]]. However, Sonicyouth has repeatedly asserted that BLP doesn't apply on that page. [[7]], [[8]]. To answer your question, the non-compliant content is the Buzzfeed piece on its face. Under BLP We should be using High-Quality reliable sources. What's more per WP: ELBLP we need to take consideration of BLP with what we're linking to. And that Buzzfeed piece isn't merely unflattering, it's a hit piece which has delved into Paul's personal history in an attempt to smear him. If it were a piece about an organization it would be fine, but we expect better than Tabloid journalism on BLP content. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The editor who started this section has not only been banned for edit warring, but had their ban extended for coming back as an IP account to continue to revert towards their intended version of the article. I do not believe this section was started in good faith. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jillian Barberie[edit]

This discussion from 2004 was started by an editor who removed horribly sourced content, and an IP who actually copy-pasted material from aforementioned horrible source. I see the entire section as a BLP violation, and in my opinion, the section should be blanked. Thoughts? — Confession0791 talk 01:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Måns Zelmerlöw[edit]

Does this article contain information that violates policy? What about the "Controversies" and "Personal life" sections? --George Ho (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the "Controversies" section as it was not notable. Though it was properly sourced, the content is editorializing and reads like a tabloid. Meatsgains (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Arianit Sllamniku[edit]

Fiona Graham[edit]

It has been noted multiple times that Sayuki (Fiona Graham) does not want her date of birth listed, or year. This is something that is mentioned in the BLP section of wikipedia (WP:DOB), which states that her D.O.B, at least, should be removed to only have the year. However as a Geisha who is bringing up new, younger Geisha she is trying to reinforce traditions that will quickly be lost to this type of behaviour. Other Geisha do not have there D.O.B listed as it is detrimental to there work and can often force them out of work, this is what will happen through the victimisation of Sayuki if you cannot take down her age. As is stated within WP:AVOIDVICTIM this is a strong case of victimisation by certain users who consistently try to keep up her age even though it is affecting the tradition of Geisha and is affecting the livelihood of many new prospective young girls. Can we not agree that it is best to remove her age altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrywoodley28 (talkcontribs) 00:44, 23 April 2015

  • I'm linking to the prior BLP/N discussions. So far it doesn't really seem like there's been a truly clear consensus (at least via what I can see on the BLP/N pages) to completely remove the content or that this would irreparably harm Graham. (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive126#Fiona_Graham, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive217#Fiona_Graham) I'm not taking sides, just that right now the biggest argument against adding the age was that many of the sources pulled their information from other websites. I also have to mention that there was a concern of sockpuppetry with the prior attempts to remove the content, mostly a few editors expressing concern that there were SPAs and IPs coming in saying that the content would cause irreparable harm to Graham's career. Again, not taking sides either way, just summarizing the BLP discussions for anyone who wants a Cliff Notes version of the prior versions. I will say, however, that it is not a good idea to accuse others of deliberately victimizing Graham (ie, WP:BADFAITH). As far as DOBs in other articles, you'd have to prove that the DOBs were removed/omitted for this reason and not because there was a lack of reliable sources that backed up their date of birth. If you can do that then it would help begin to build an argument for precedent. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Another thing that would be good to argue is to ask whether or not removing her DOB would harm the article. The problem with saying that having her DOB present on the Wikipedia article will harm her career is that the DOB is present on the Internet as a whole- it isn't hard for people to find it, so removing it from Wikipedia won't entirely make it impossible to find otherwise. Also, if you are Graham or someone that knows her (expanding on the sockpuppetry concerns voiced by other editors), you should read over WP:COI. I need to again state that I'm not arguing for or against the removal of the DOB, just that these are all things that need to be taken into consideration. (Although personally so far I don't see where it'd harm the article if we did remove it, although all of the fuss over it is having sort of a Streisand effect.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Just a note, I am adjusting the section title and two inline citations of the OP's post to internal wikilinks, it was messing up the format of the rest of the page. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Joan Jett[edit]

IQ125 (talk · contribs) has twice attempted to insert the claim into the Joan Jett article that she is a lesbian, using what I regard as a dubious source (an article which offers no evidence to back the claim). Available evidence suggests that she is probably lesbian or bisexual, but she has never discussed this publicly or self-identified as either lesbian or bisexual. I believe it is inappropriate to insert this claim into the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC) is a not in any way a reliable source, doubly so for sensitive issues in a BLP article. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Tarc is correct: No, is not a reliable source. Furthermore, I thought it was understood that Wikipedia would not include speculation on an article subject's sexuality unless the subject has either commented publicly or otherwise publicly confirmed it. There is far too much of this tabloid-style "journalism" working its way into our biographical articles, and damn little of it is supported by reliable sources. If an article subject chooses not to comment on his or her private relationships, and there are no reliable sources on point, how about we omit the speculation about their private lives? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not supposed to be The National Enquirer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Joan Jett self-admits to being a lesbian, it is not a secret! Thanks IQ125 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Results of a Google search is not a self-admission. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you actually read any of the linked articles from the Google search? I did, and I don't see a quote from Joan Jett "self-admit[ting] to being a lesbian," nor do I see a reliable source stating that she is. She may very well be, but until there is a reliable source for that proposition per WP:RS, it is not appropriate for her Wikipedia article to include speculation on a matter that she has clearly chosen to keep private. Period. If you have reliable sources, quoting Jett or otherwise, please provide links to those sources, not to a Google search. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
She is not self admitted - so the pedia cannot say she is. There is apparently RS for her being an icon to many lesbians,[9] which is something different altogether. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll second the whole "she's never said it so we can't include it" stuff. Unless she explicitly says it out loud and to reliable sources, it's considered to be a rumor. Heck, for YEARS we couldn't label Jodie Foster's article with any of the LGBT tags. Her lesbianism was probably one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood but until she officially came forward and confirmed her sexuality in the media you could not add any of this information in her article. Heck, even now we have to be careful in how we phrase things in the article since she specifically did not use the terms gay or lesbian in her coming out speech, so that's exactly how careful we have to be on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

King Jabulani[edit]

Adesola Michael (born July 24, 1987) better known by his stage name KING-JABULANI, is a prolific Nigeria Singer, Recording artist, dance, songwriter, performer, producer. King-Jabulani started his career at the age of 11 by playing drum set at his father's church and became choir master at the age of 16. Love listening to other artiste and miming their songs. He was then started writing lyrics for artists. He is a single bless with a male child name "Emmanuel". — Preceding unsigned comment added by King jabulani (talkcontribs) 14:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place to propose new articles. Propose your article at Articles for Creation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Vanessa Lynn Bryant[edit]

This article is incredibly offensive, particularly this comment: "Dozens of additional Connecticut practicing attorneys voiced their concerns about her qualifications. It was widely held that Vanessa Bryant's chief qualification was her race and gender.[4]"

In fact, Judge Bryant is a very well-regarded and accomplished District Judge. For instance, in 2012, she issued an opinion finding the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, tackling a difficult and contentious constitutional law issue before the Supreme Court's review of the question. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Judge Bryant and also struck down parts of DOMA as unconstitutional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not only does the link given not work, it's a self-published blog. I've removed it. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems all the criticism levied at her in the first paragraph of 'Federal Judicial Career' is from a primary source. I don't think this is acceptable. Incidentally, I don't think a section titled 'Federal Judicial Career' should exist solely as what seems to be an area to bear out a grudge against the subject of the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Went through and correct a few issues, but an IP editor has since seen fit to revert my changes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
IP editor here, hang on a sec. You make it sound like vandalism! I posted a full explanation to the talk page. The reasons given in your edit summaries are misunderstandings, which I've explained there, e.g. "does not exist in source" when it does, "sourced to primary source" when it's not, etc. I expected to have this conversation on the article's talk page... (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You're free to explain which edit summaries were incorrect. "Does not exist in source" was (by your own admission) correct, and there were no edit summaries I made which contained "sourced to primary source". If you disagree with particular edits, you should not completely undo my and other editor's contributions- there are easier ways to do it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You removed about half the article and several sources in about half an hour. If you make bold changes be prepared to justify them. You didn't say primary source, right, I assumed that was your objection when you said "Cannot use online rating system as source" - the characterization of the rating come from an RS, no an "online rating system." I'd really rather have this talk on the article page though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The BLP issues which other editors introduced (and you are edit warring to retain) are perfectly relevant to the BLP noticeboard. Any editor can see that the edits I made have not 'removed half the article', and when I removed an online rating system as a source I removed something cited directly to 'The Robing Room' (which is, amazingly, an online rating system.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I encourage editors to see the extent of content Peter removed. Re: 'the Robing Room' you also removed the characterization of their rating cited to an RS. Apparently you missed that, as you missed the quotes that you claim in your edit summary had no source when the source was right there. s far as "edit warring" - you made big changes, I reverted and posted why on the talk page, you reverted my revert, which I then reverted. Can't see how you'd describe that as me edit warring. (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now this guy is edit warring. He's reverted my revert twice now with no effort to address the very specific reasons I listed on the talk page. Only suggesting that I don't understand WP:BRD and if I want to revert his bold changes I'll have to discuss them. Can an admin maybe help here? (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The removal by Peter seems perfectly reasonable. We don't need to go into absurd levels of detail on the ABA's rating of her from 2007, and it's undue weight to extensively discuss a nearly-decade-old rating with no apparent relevance to her current performance and no evidence of any significant or lasting external interest in the rating. The ABA said something about her, she was appointed and confirmed anyway, the end, so far as the sources are concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Great! Your criticism here doesn't seem to be with the quality or characterization of the BLP sources so lets have this discussion on the article talk page! (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Another ('completely unrelated') IP joins the edit warring, and my interest falters. Best luck to any other editor who wishes to correct these issues. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I get this a lot as an IP editor. Look over the article's revision history, the majority of work here was done by IPs. I'm still happy discuss specific changes on the talk page. I mean that sincerely. (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rudrangshu Mukherjee[edit]

This article does not have any notable facts to qualify for a page in Wikipedia. I would prefer this to be deleted or rewritten with some notable facts. (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

While the article is, indeed, insufficiently sourced at the present time, a Google News search on his name reveals that there are plenty of reliable sources out there which are sufficient to base an article upon. There's nothing sufficiently controversial to invoke WP:BLPREMOVE, so please feel free to find reliable sources for the current text or rewrite the article using reliable sources. I've tagged it as needing sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

IP edits to BLP article suspected to be made by subject[edit]

If there is strong, publicly available circumstantial evidence that IP edits to a BLP article were made by the subject of that article, I don't suppose raising this concern on the article's talk page, along with a discussion of the evidence, would be considered harassment, or would it? ARK (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

While editing an article about oneself is strongly discouraged, it is not prohibited. Therefore, the identity of the IP editor is irrelevant and an inquiry into the IP's editor would, indeed, be harassment unless either (a) the IP editor has here at Wikipedia and not at some other site openly identified him/herself (and has not attempted to revert or otherwise obscure that revelation and it has not been such a long time since it happened that it's no longer easy to find) or (b) the IP editor is attempting to post absolutely fraudulent information or otherwise corrupt the encyclopedia in a way that ordinary editing processes cannot handle and if that is the case, then contact the Arbitration Committee privately by email through the email link on this page. In general, we concern ourselves about edits not editors. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! ARK (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Don Lane (Santa Cruz)[edit]

Don Lane (Santa Cruz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am new to this. I have been including reference to his past that is clearly documented and that he freely discusses in other media, though with his own spin on it. I had discussed this in a talk with Mr. Lane's Rep here under my previous IP

The Revision has stood for five months with no problems (undo revision) until recently and with no discussion as to why.

Mr Lane refers to this episode and admits to doing it here:

I wish my original revision to stand for it is important for voters to know about it.

I wish Keri to be sanctioned for reverting and blocking the revision and for requesting temporary semi-protection: User talk:The Man of Heart

Thank You and Please Advise: Don Honda The Man of Heart (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because something happened and can be reliably sourced does not mean that it is appropriate to be included in an article, see the Neutral Point of View policy and, especially, the concept of undue weight set out therein. The fact that "it is important for voters to know about it" is irrelevant to whether something should or should not be in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Since protection is always judged by a neutral administrator, asking for protection is not generally sanctionable unless it is part of a continued practice of disruption across the encyclopedia (and I can't see that the page has ever been protected, but perhaps I missed it). Discuss the edit in question on the article talk page and if you cannot come to a resolution through discussion, consider dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like Keri's actions were appropriate. If you're having a content dispute, the appropriate place to be taking it now is the talk page of the article, as Keri suggested. Keri has appropriately warned you about editing warring, and removed a paragraph which involved editors attacking each other in the article space. The fact that you had some private discussion with one editor on the user talk pages, rather than on the article's talk page where it might be seen by other editors, does not mean that you have consensus. I see nothing here that Keri (talk · contribs) should be sanctioned for, and much for which they should be commended. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I have talked about the revision in October 15, 2014 and it was negotiated and agreed. It has stood for five months with not problems. Isn't that good enough? A direct talk and negotiation?The Man of Heart (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No, not at all. There are more than two editors of Wikipedia; that the two of you conspired to set the language in a certain way does not give you veto power over every other editor, and keeping it from the Talk page of the article keeps other interested editors from finding what's going on and entering comment of their own. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I came across this dispute purely by accident, having spotted a usertalk message on another editor's page which was on my watchlist. It seems apparent that the two parties to this dispute are both single-purpose accounts and both have very obvious conflicts of interest in the subject matter - as witnessed in this exchange here. One editor claims to be Lane's "representative" on social media - a claim accepted by User:The Man of Heart - while TMoH himself appears to have been one of the recipients of the cards at the heart of the controversy. I haven't fully researched the incident or examined it's worthiness for inclusion, as my interest was engaged purely by the disruptive editing the two parties have carried out in the article. Keri (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Since Keri has read and monitored all my correspondence, she knows that I have denied that I am one of the recipients of the Obscene Valentine's Card as seen here: It is the "Rep" of Don Lane (Santa Cruz) who is assuming this. It is patently untrue.The Man of Heart (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It feels that I am being attacked for making a newbie mistake. It feels that I am being tried and convicted without a trial. I had no intention to "conspire" with another editor. I was contacted and adjusted my posting. I had no idea of the Article Talk Page much less the purpose of it. I feel that the article needs to be expunged in toto as it apparent that the original poster is self-serving and is the one with a conflict of interest.The Man of Heart (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Jonasson[edit]

Dear editors, please take a look at the "change of direction" section in this article Jonas_Jonasson. Is this defamatory or plain weird? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:38, 25 April 2015

Done: Looks like it's been taken care of by Govindaharihari.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter Schweizer[edit]

Peter Schweizer recently wrote a book called Clinton Cash (not even published yet) alleging some bad things about the Clintons. It's made the news and several outlets and papers are running with the accusations. It's been brought up at White House press briefing. In the past few days several left leaning orgs have come out attacking Schweizer's character and reputation and he's very much become a target in the media cycle. Recent edits of the past day, including by User:Cwobeel, a frequent ideological battleground editor, have been attempting to turn his BLP into an attack piece. The next several weeks will require some active stewardship which I can't always provide. Semi-protection is premature at this point but that may change. GraniteSand (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Frances D'Souza, Baroness D'Souza[edit]

I find it very hard to believe that the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords in the UK was married already at the age of 15. Unfortunately, I have no way of checking this, most of the biographical facts on other sites are taken from the Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al69dente (talkcontribs) 09:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Done: I have removed the section about her family life, since it was unsourced, controversial and it has been contested. To add it back to the article it needs to be sourced by reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Denis MacEoin[edit]

Someone has reintroduced potentially defamatory information about me, contrary to your principle that 'Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.' Someone, possibly myself, had argued correctly that linking me improperly with the controversy on my report 'The Hijacking of British Islam' is defamatory because I had no hand whatever in the aspects relating to a possible (but unproved) forgery of a receipt obtained from one of the suppiers of material. I wrote the report but had no hand at all in the administration or the people who collected the material I was given to write the report. That there was a controversy there is no doubt, but the piece reinserted implies that I was connected to any possible impropriety is libellous. By all means write an article about the report, but in doing so make it clear that my role was simply that of author, not researcher or administrator.

May I also add that the sneering comment that I use this article as 'my blog' is wholly inappropriate. I did not write the original article, but as the subject have gone in froim time to time to correct mistake and to update things like new publications or involvements. This is not like using it as a blog, and this charge should be withdrawn. I get the feeling that someone out there dislikes me for some reason, and I retain the right to correct mistakes, remove anything defamatory, and update information. I am, surely, in the best position to make these judgements. None of this constitutes 'vandalism'. It would be better to focus on the numerous hagiographical accounts of Muslims and other religious figure that appear across Wikipedia. And please remove the accusation that this is an autobiography. Whoever wrote it, it was not I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis MacEoin (talkcontribs) 12:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)