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:

Michael J. LaCour[edit]

Michael J. LaCour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am not sure if this article is adequately sourced or if the statements made in the article are verified by the cited sources. Attention would be appreciated as the study this guy authored is in the news a lot for having been retracted and we need to be careful about not exaggerating what the sources say about it. (Also, LaCour appears to fail BLP1E). Everymorning talk 20:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The contents look accurate enough. BLP1E is a real concern, however: this story may well run but it's very early days; indeed the paper was only withdrawn by the journal today. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
There's a new opinion piece in Science [1] which is quite useful. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hamid Dabashi[edit]

(Restoring from archive because the user keeps restoring the BLP-noncompliant material.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC) At Hamid Dabashi, we've got a user repeatedly restoring a paragraph cited entirely to Front Page Magazine, to an op-ed in a student newspaper from the instigator of a controversy about the subject, and to a small-circulation politically oriented paper (as well as to a primary source by the subject which is being interpreted by this student). I think it's clear that these sources are not BLP-compliant; if the information was verifiable and truly controversial, this user should be able to cite reliable sources in order to add it, not personal rants and conspiracy theorists like Daniel Pipes. I'd like BLPN to help confirm which, if any, sources are available to support the inclusion of this supposed controversy, and - if that answer is nonzero - how it should be included in the article, since the current text appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi's article for political purposes. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

FrontPageMag is definitely not a reliable source, and Campus Watch is a polemic site usable, at best, only for its own opinions. I've removed those sources immediately, and will examine the remaining text at further length. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Campus Watch is neither here nor there - I agree it's unreliable, but it's just reprinting an op-ed from a student newspaper (which, as I said - given that it's not only an op-ed by a student, but that it's by someone with a personal grudge against the subject, it's also not a reliable source.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this article is sourced primarily from the New York Sun and this is the first source cited. Frontpagemag was used only as a peripheral source (and yes, while that article was written by controversial scholar Daniel Pipes, it's citation here does not repeat any of his opinions). As to Roscelese's claim that this text "appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi's article for political purposes", I challenge her to elaborate as too how it misrepresents Dabashi. True, it doesn't portray Dabashi in a particularly favourable light, but that alone does not mean that it misrepresents him.

The primary source of this article is the New York Sun, which was a fully published newspaper in circulation in New York City from 2002-2008 (although it only exists today as an online publication). Yes, it does have a political slant (i.e. it is conservative) but that doesn't mean it is not RS - Conservative and left-wing sources are cited throughout Wikipedia (also note that the New York Sun is cited as the source in the article, although I will try and make this more obvious). Finally, Victor Luria's piece in the Columbia Spectator is only being cited to reflect the opinions of Victor Luria himself. Dabashi was offered the chance to respond to this by the New York Sun, but he has declined.

If the Frontpagemag citation is what is making Roscelese so uncomfortable, than I suppose it can be removed, but the New York Sun (regardless of Roscelese's personal opinion) is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, and there is no reason why this section should be removed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC))

If the event was notable, why was a tiny political paper the most reliable of the sources that picked it up? Why not just try to find reliable sources, instead of removing FrontPage but keeping the material that was cited to it? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 13:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
As I've explained numerous times, the New York Sun is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards and it was (at the time), not a "tiny" newspaper. The Frontpagemag article largely reiterated what the Sun had already printed. Yes, the Sun does have a conservative slant, but that doesn't mean it is not reliable - Wikipedia contains material taken from both Conservative and left-wing sources.
More importantly, you still haven't responded to my challenge; you claimed that "[the] current text appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi's article for political purposes." Again, please clarify exactly how this section "deliberately misrepresent[s]" Dabashi's emails. I look forward to your answer.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC))
How about taking your source to RSN to see if people agree with you before using it to source controversial claims about living people? You shouldn't be edit-warring to restore material cited to questionable sources. Since the sources aren't reliable in this BLP, the misrepresentation question is a bit moot, but the article selectively quotes Dabashi's article to claim that he made general statements instead of describing a specific incident. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I've restored this from the archive because Hyperionsteel persists in restoring the unreliable sources and the misrepresentation of the BLP subject's writings. Hyperionsteel must get other users to agree that this tiny agenda-oriented paper is reliable for controversial claims about living people in order to include it, and, either way, cease to deliberately misrepresent primary sources. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat my response. The New York Sun is a reliable third-party source by Wikipedia standards. Roscelese hasn't cited any evidence to indicate otherwise except for her own opinion (which, as I have shown above, is not based on reality). Roscelese can't accept this, so she is trying to come up with a new excuse to remove this material (since her previous attempt at doing so in this noticeboard failed). There really is no point to continuing this but I'm willing to repeat these arguments as long as is necessary. The source Roscelese was concerned about (Frontpagemag) has been removed, and it was only used as a peripheral source to begin with. Anyway, until Roscelese provides some evidence to support her claim that the New York Sun is not a reliable source, she has no case here.
More importantly, Roscelese made a serious accusation that "[the] current text appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi's article for political purposes." I have asked her repeatedly to clarify how I've "deliberately misrepresent[ed]" Dabashi with this section, but she has not provided any clarification (rather, she has only provided evasion and double-talk). I will ask Roscelese to either provide evidence to support this accusation, or to apologize.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC))
Hyperionsteel, you should be able to make a case for the source being reliable and get other people to agree with you. Making it all about your beef with me won't help that. Instead, explain why a small agenda-based outfit (whose current front-page "news" includes this sort of nonsense) should be trusted to report claims about its political enemies when those claims do not appear in reliable sources, and propose text that corrects the misrepresentation of the subject's writings. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You are the one who made it about me when you accused me of deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi without any evidence to support your claim. But getting back to the issue at hand, the New York Sun was a published newspaper from 2002-2008. True, today it exists only as an online publication. You don't seem to like the New York Sun solely because you disagree with its political slant (i.e. it is conservative). Unfortunately, that alone is not a reason to declare it non-RS. Your statement that the Sun has a list a "political enemies" is nonsense - leftwing publications publish similar reports against those on the opposite side of the political spectrum (do they have a list of "political enemies" as well?). Finally you state that this section includes a "misrepresentation of the subject's writings" - I will ask you again, how does this section "misrepresent" Dabashi? You keep making this claim, yet can't provide any evidence to support it. You need to accept the fact that you can't label a publication as non-RS simply because it has a conservative slant.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC))
  • This is the BLP Noticeboard, so we are concerned with more than just sourcing. I do not have a problem with using the New York Sun as a source. I may (repeat, may, not do) have a problem with quite so much of the article being devoted to controversy. That's always a red flag, but in this case may be justified. The Luria subsection, about which there was some edit warring before the article was protected, seems excessive in length. Coretheapple (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, dealing with Roscelese's obsessive hatred of all conservative-leaning sources and her false accusations against me (i.e. of trying to deliberate misrepresent Dabashi with this section), have consumed most of this discussion. Since Roscelese failed to get her way the first time this was posted to BLPN, she's making a second try at it, and in doing so, wasting everyone's time. Getting to your point though, Dabashi is a controversial figure, as evidenced by his controversial statements and writings (e.g. comparing Azar Nafisi to Lynndie England, claiming that Lee Bollinger is a white-supremacist, etc.) which is why this section is so large - note that Dabashi's responses to these controversies are also provided where available. Anyway, if you think that the section on Victor Luria is too long, I'm willing to consider reducing its size. Sadly, Roscelese has already made it clear that she will settle for nothing less then the removal of this entire section, so your suggestion is probably not an option at this point in time.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC))
  • There is nothing wrong with the sourcing and I haven't seen Roscelese bring any substantive objection to the veracity of the material being cited. If there is anything worth bringing to the BLPN table it's weight; the section seems petty and trivial. There was no police report, there was no enduring affect on anyone involved, the University didn't change a policy, etc. The only thing the section seems to illuminate or note is the suggestion that Dabashi is something of a hysteric. GraniteSand (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, since other users find the source acceptable, when the article is unprotected we can just fix the weight and misrepresentation BLP issues. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 13:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Also, I look forward to you finally explaining how the material I added to this section "appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi's article for political purposes." I'll expect either an explanation or an apology when we return to this issue.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC))

Ben White (journalist)[edit]

Of the 33 sources currently in the article, 22 were written by White himself. 4 are by groups he's involved in (Amos, Kairos, his film). 2 are book reviews (neither loads) And only 5 are from 3rd party reliable sources, used for a "criticism" section. (the articles mainly discuss an Amnesty kerfuffle that doesn't even appear in the article). These kind of articles are not supposed to be a showcase for the subject's opinions which weren't noted by anyone else, per WP:BLPSELFPUB. The whole "Political views and activities" section, which is easily half of the text, is sourced only to the subject of the article. There isn't even a 3rd party source that confirms he's a journalist.

Suggestions? I posted on the talk page but no takers. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If the sources about the subject are not independent, is he notable? Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 10:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I have trimmed the article substantially. It was essentially a WP:SOAPBOX. A brief Google news search suggests that the subject is notable.- MrX 15:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Brian Leiter[edit]

There is an edit war going on regarding Brian Leiter. This entry has been locked for many years, apparently due to past vandalism and retaliatory editing. The subject is a philosopher (my area of interest), but is controversial due to strongly expressed opinions on his blogs. Prior to the edit warring initiated by user Epefleeche, this is what the entry looked like:

It included a section about controversy, but correctly focused on the subject's career and work and maintained a NPOV. User Epefleeche radically altered the content and tone of the entry on Brian Leiter, making a recent controversy the primary focus, and has been accused by another user of retaliatory editing:

If I understand the history, user Epefleeche only started editing the entry after someone invokved the subject's name with regard to the reliability of Law School Transparency, which appears to have enraged Epefleeche (Leiter is a critic of this organization, I do not really understand that debate).

User Epefleeche has repeatedly used blogs (such as "Above the Law") as sources and has disregarded the opinions of other editors on the TALK page (myself and Sneekypat, among others). User Epefleeche also removed relevant external links and positive references to the subject, without explanation. Restoring the version from mid-May may be the only way to salvage this article. Thank you for your attention to this dispute.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You have not made it clear where there is a BLP violation. Some blogs can be used as sources, as long as they are under editorial control and have a reputation for checking facts. Please provide specific diffs and explain how they violate policy. Otherwise this seems like a basic content dispute.- MrX 14:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
ATL does not meet those criteria for reliable blogs. It is also very strange to cite a law blog for the proposition that Leiter is a Nietzsche expert. It is not NPOV to turn the entry into primarily an entry about the controversy, which is what Epefleechee has done.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ATL is a reliable source as far as we are concerned. The reasons Leiter is controversial are far more expansive than just a few opinions on his blog. The article previously has maintained a way too pro Leiter POV, glossing over what are major controversies in the community. Honestly, I'm tempted to rewrite the article with impeccable sourcing to make it NPOV - and that'll look a lot worse for Leiter. Also, as a warning to participants in this discussion, Leiter has previously threatened to sue Wikipedians for perceived slights. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
There was nothing pro Leiter about the version before the edit war. It included a discussion of the fall 2014 controversy, it relied on proper sources, not blogs, and it described the subject's work, like most entries on philosophers I have worked on over the years. Do you have legitimate sources for evidence of controversy beyond the Gourmet Report controversy? I also think that, without evidence, you should not assert that a subject has threatened a lawsuit. How do you know? Did he threaten you? If so, you shouldn't be editing the entry, since that would suggest COI, wouldn't it?Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking at your page, Mr. Gorman, I see that you have worked on the Noelle McAfee entry, someone intimately involved in the fall 2014 Gourmet Report controversy. See Leiter's blog: Are you a friend of hers? If so, that would be a clear COI in regards this matter.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that anyone who knows a philosopher who disagrees with Leiter is unable to edit his article? If so, you have a pretty clear misunderstanding of the basics of how Wikipedia works. I, btw, know probably 75 people who know Leiter, and am friends with many of them, supporters and detractors. Also, even if Leiter had threatened to sue me (and he didn't, but he has threatened an editor) it wouldn't prevent me from editing the article. Otherwise any BLP who objected to their coverage could make their article as puffy as they wanted by simply threatening to sue any editors who tried to impose balance. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
My question was whether you are friends with Noelle McAfee, one of Leiter's most vocal detractors? If you are her friend, then you have a COI. Are you her friend? It is a fair question.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I've corresponded with her probably twice. Even if it was a COI (and it's not) it wouldn't stop me from editing Leiter's article. You seem to have a fundamentally misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Then it sounds like you are not her friend. But FYI, user Epefleeche told me that I had a COI because I had e-mailed information to Leiter for his blog in the past (he did not realize that lots of people e-mail Leiter). So someone else may not understand how Wikipedia works.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
About three years ago, I e-mailed Leiter (whose blog I read and enjoy, that's the extent of my connection with him) about the Critchley entry. Three years later he finally blogged about it. I have never corresponded with him about Wikipedia. At best, when I send him material for the blog, I sometimes get a terse "thanks."Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Junkie -- you've ducked my first question. Once again: "How many times have you been in communication with Leiter, and he with you?"
Furthermore -- didn't Leiter write back to you, with regard to your email to Leiter criticizing the Critchley Wikipedia article that you edit-warred on? Which Leiter followed, by writing a blog entry criticizing the Wikipedia article, in accord with your edits? --Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I did not duck your questions. I have never communicated with Leiter (or anyone for that matter) about Wikipedia. I never said anything, anywhere, to suggest that Leiter wrote me about the Critchley article. I have no idea how many times I've e-mailed him suggested blog links--20 times? 15 times? As I said very clearly, the most I have ever gotten is a "Thanks" response. Since you continue to impugn my motives, I must note that according to wikipediareview you have a reputation as an abusive administrator. And I think you need to explain how your comments here can be reconciled with maintaing a NPOV. You are intent on proving the subject is "not respected" and "disgraced" based on a single incident (which you acknowledge has nothing to do with his blog, contrary to the lede you wrote). We can pursue these back and forth accusation, or we can try to write a NPOV entry that observes the BLP rules.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The most you ever received back from Leiter, in response to your 15 to 20 emails to him, was a "Thanks" response? He never communicated more? Then how do you know, as you assert, that you were "one of several people who e-mailed Leiter about the Critchley [Wikipedia article"] that you edit-warred on?[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Because YOU linked in an earlier round of accusations to this blog post, in which Leiter refers to "readers" (plural) writing him about the Critchley entry. Since I had e-mailed him about this several years ago, but he used the plural, I inferred other readers had as well. This was plausible given how often philosophers joke about it.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You emailed Leiter. Leiter wrote that more than one reader did so. Which means at least one more, in addition to you. At least two, total.
Not, as you asserted, that "several people" contacted him. "Several" means by definition more than two." Either you were shamelessly exaggerating, without support for your "several" assertion. Or you had other personal knowledge from Leiter, as to how many people contacted him. And then denied it. Neither option is pretty.
And that's assuming Leiter was telling the truth. We know from his own admission, in his own writing, that for effect Leiter is not above telling a lie in what he writes. And then being proud enough of having done so, that he tells the world. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You made half a dozen deletions of material in the article each of which was over 22,000 bytes in size in your edit war. You were alone in that regard -- no other editor made a deletion of even 4,000. You are trying to make yourself appear to be one of "several". But you not only emailed Leiter criticizing the article. You were tearing it apart, like no other editor. Nobody even came close. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Instead of the COI track Epee is pursuing (and I agree there is likely a coi) I think SPA/battleground/CIR may be more relevant routes to pursue. I'm vaguely uncomfortable asking how many times someone has been in communication with someone else. Although I guess I do feel comfortable asking: Philo, have you been in direct contact with Leiter specifically related to improving his Wikipedia article, or his complaints about his Wikipedia article? Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I started looking into this today following a request by Philosophy Junkie on my talk page yesterday. "What a bloody mess" is my first thought. There seems to be a two-fold question here: (a) is a reliable source? (b) is a reliable source for the claim that Brian Leiter is an expert on Nietzsche? I reckon the best thing we can do for the former is to probably have a discussion on WP:RSN. As for the latter, I don't think it needs much sourcing at all. It's pretty obvious Leiter is a Nietzsche expert. Professor Leiter wrote the Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Nietzsche on Morality, which has been reviewed in the Notre Dame Philosophical Review. Leiter contributed a chapter to Richard Schacht's 1994 book Nietzsche, Genealogy, Morality (and Schacht is himself a Nietzsche scholar). Finally, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy invited Leiter to write an entry on Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy. He has also given interviews to Philosophy Talk and Philosophy Bites on Nietzsche. The question of whether Leiter is a Nietzsche expert seems to be one which can be answered without resorting to a law blog like Above the Law. I've thus removed this from the article and replaced it with a sentence that doesn't reference Above the Law. The remaining issues regarding the use of Above the Law for the UCL Nietzsche Club incident probably ought to be dependent on consensus from an RSN discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tom Morriss for clearing this up. Under BLP rules, high quality sources are to be used. Can a gossip blog about law be a high quality source?Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Junkie -- Under blp rules, blogs can be used as RS sources if they meet our criteria. This blog has both a managing editor and an editorial staff, and meets our criteria. Your POV denigration of it as a "gossip" blog notwithstanding. Nor do I see any other BLP issues here. Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The American Bar Association journal also describes it as a gossip blog: . Maybe it is RS for some purposes, but not for BLP.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a laudatory article about the blog and its leadershiop. It starts with: "Harvard. Yale. Wachtell. Federal prosecutor. Federal appeals court clerkship. All are part of David Lat’s impressive resume. Yet the 32-year-old is now prominent not in a traditional legal job but as the editor of one of the nation’s most-talked-about legal blogs, Above the Law." This is an editorial-board-led blog, and as that article points out, its editor has an impressive background. This is what we look for in RS blogs. Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You objected to my calling it a law gossip blog, but that's what it is and that's what the linked article says. If the qualifications of the author make a blog a RS, then Leiter's blog is much more reliable than Above the Law. But I agree that neither are RSs for purposes of BLP.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
No -- Leiter's blog lacks any editorial oversight, and is therefore not an RS. ATL does have editorial oversight. In contrast. This has been explained to you repeatedly. Further, ATL has a good reputation, as the ABA article indicates. Leiter, in contrast, as we can see from Leiter's writings, is not above telling a lie for effect in his writing, and perhaps because of this and because of other missives, his personal reputation seem to have suffered, leading to his being thrown out as editor of PGR. Anyway, his no-editorial-board blog of personal musings is clearly not an RS, and if you think it is and need others to say what I have said -- just open up a thread about it. But it is a waste of time. Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

li sheng[edit]

Best wishes to you ! The article called "Li Sheng(professor)" which i am editing is really from reliable source. So i beg your careful consideration and please do not deleted it at will, thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messiandzcy (talkcontribs) 07:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Messiandzcy. The article in question is Li Sheng (scholar). An article about an academic who has spent 30 years trying to improve translations from Chinese to English should be written in excellent English. But instead, the article is written in mangled English, presumably badly translated from Chinese. Can you please correct that, if you are able to? Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure i will try my best to correct it till the article meets the reading habit of American native people ,just please try not to delete it at will ,thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messiandzcy (talkcontribs) 08:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The article should be written not only for American tastes, but for fluent English speakers worldwide, including those residing in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Jamaica, South Africa and every other country in the world, including China, where the English language is treasured and treated with respect. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

about "Li Sheng (computer scientist)":the tag tells me that my citation style is wrong .But what kind of it is standard? i do not understand at all,cause I edit it for my first time .please tell me about it ,thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messiandzcy (talkcontribs) 02:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

David May[edit]

The article on this former Manchester United footballer states that he now works as a senior account manager for Motorola. I have no private knowledge but the evidence for this claim is weak. In particular the entry footnotes this statement to a newspaper article which doesn't actually contain any reference to a job at Motorola (it does, however, say that May has been involved in a wine-importing business, which is a rather more plausible activity for a retired professional footballer who has recently come out of a lucrative career). Also, it is suspicious that Linkedin has a different David May who is indeed a senior account manager at Motorola but who describes himself as "an experienced IT account executive" whose recorded career in that industry stretches back to the 1990s when the David May who is the subject of this Wikipedia entry was playing for Manchester United. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to Motorola, which does not appear in the citation given (as noted above). Substituted 'wine importer'.. which does appear. Eagleash (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ghost (Swedish band)[edit]

Ghost (Swedish band) is a Swedish band whose members wear masks and do not disclose their identities; so we don't know their names or what they look like. Naturally, rumors about who they are persist. The most well-spread claim is that Swedish musician Tobias Forge is the lead singer, with the justification being that he supposedly has writing credits under the alias "A Nameless Ghoul" (which is credited for all of Ghost's music), that a member of Behemoth posted an Instagram picture with Forge with a caption of Ghost lyrics, and simply that is sounds like him.[9][10]

My question is just because seemingly reliable metal music websites report on rumors like this, does that give them validity to be added to a BLP article? I have removed such things in the past numerous times, but am now seeking a definitive answer so I can link back to it for when it gets added again in the future (it is currently in the article with this edit [11]). I can't see it being allowed and if that's the case would like to request the article to be protected. Xfansd (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I think that as long as the rumors are repeatedly reported on in reliable sources over a long period of time then we could maybe include some names- as long as it is emphasized that this is just a rumor per these RS. Unless it's officially confirmed somewhere then it shouldn't be quoted as a fact. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert Ira Lewy[edit]

Robert Ira Lewy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could use some help dealing with an apparent COI editor (Kingseason) here, and some more eyes/perspectives on the article. I stumbled across the article last week and removed a lot of un-sourced or poorly-sourced puffery, while adding some details about Lewy's involvement in breast implant litigation during the 1990s, which seems to me to be the primary and maybe even the only reason why Lewy is notable. (See these sources from the NY times [12], [13])

Kingseason does not seem to have heard/understood me when I've explained WP:COI and WP:RS, and they feel strongly that my edits were unfair. The sourcing and COI problems seem pretty clear-cut, but I'd love for more people to weigh in on how the article should treat the NY times articles and Lewy's involvement in the implant lawsuits. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Kingseason would like to add information about his ABIM certifications (See Talk:Robert Ira Lewy#Verification of Credentials American Boards of Internal Medicine and Hematology) to the article. They have provided this link for the ABIM website as verification. The problem is that this is not a direct link and the name "Robert Ira Lewy" needs to be added and searched I have done this and it does take you to a page verifying the certifications, but I am unable to find a way to link to that page. Would it be acceptable to use this as a source for "Lewy is certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine in internal medicine and hematology"? If so, how should the citation be formatted? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sepp Blatter[edit]

The first reference misspells his real first name: The reference says "Josep", but his real name is "Joseph". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinhenz (talkcontribs) 14:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the misspelling in the article, the reference or the citation. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
One "Josep" in a footnote has been corrected a few minutes ago, should be OK now. GermanJoe (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Hastert[edit]

Hastert's legal troubles revealed over the past few days are described in great detail in a section of the article on him, as is appropriate. Some editors have also been placing that in the lead, to an overwhelming degree, violating UNDUE policy on a BLP. Jonathunder (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a pretty major revelation, so it should at least be included in the lead in some form. How did you come to the conclusion that it "violates" WP:UNDUE? Did you count sources, or words? WP:WEIGHT has to be determined by consensus on the article talk page, since it's not a black-and-white attribute that can easily be measured.- MrX 23:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Discussion is at Talk:Dennis_Hastert#Indictment_in_lead. The OP needs to engage in discussions rather than edit war, or post in AN/I and in here. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree that the material about this in the lead is excessive. Since Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and since there has been no conviction, I would put less than half as many words about this in the lead. Here is my suggestion:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that two sentences out of five in the lead, (roughly 40% of the lead), is excessive per WP:RECENTISM and due weight, given Hastert's long career, and the fact that he has been convicted of nothing at this time. We must write BLPs conservatively, and over-emphasizing recent news in the lead of a BLP is always inadvisable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Two sentences doesn't look like WP:UNDUE to me. After all, the indictment is a major revelation, an indictment of a U.S. House Speaker no less, and two sentences is relatively short. HillMountain (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
There are now 79 words about it in the lead. My proposal above is 37 words.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Too much detail would be missing in your version. Let's just be glad that the accusations of sexual abuse aren't in the lead; that would be WP:UNDUE. HillMountain (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I count 139 words in the lead, of which 79 are now about this topic. Maybe, as more news comes out, we can work our way toward 90% of the lead? Seriously, I have not seen such a big emphasis in the lead under similar circumstances. See, for example, this archived Jesse Jackson, Jr. Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. If more news comes out, I have no problem with that. HillMountain (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess some Wikipedia editors are WP:NOT HERE. Often I suspect that Wikipedia itself is WP:NOT HERE. Anyway, I guess we'll have to await more input.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it certainly belongs in the article, but I'm not convinced that it belongs in the lead at this point. If he is convicted, then it likely will, but at this point, I don't think it should be there quite yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Presently it's just under half the lead, and says this:

If it needs to be shortened further, I'd simply get rid of the second sentence, because the alleged misconduct, compensation, and concealment are not federal crimes that he's being charged with violating. But since I've already managed to whittle this stuff down somewhat, I don't plan on taking the lead in getting rid of the second sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

David O. Russel[edit]

An edit war is currently going on for the page for David O. Russel. The statement (and associated source) are written in the style of tabloid journalism (the source itself references TMZ as a news source) - which violates the BLP policies.

The earlier version is the one I think should stay. Diff Jacquelyntwiki (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the content is problematic per WP:BLPCRIME. I have reverted the recent addition of similar content. Although it was published on the, it appears to be syndicated content, with no fact checking whatsoever.- MrX 14:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Saheed Balogun[edit]

The name should be Saidi Balogun not Saheed — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nick Leslau[edit]

Hi. This article Nick Leslau (did I do that right? reads like a puff piece: "Thanks to his friend Tom Hunter, Leslau became interested in solving the world's problems" is particularly striking, but there are plenty of others: "the dynamic retail group Richer Sounds", "it could never hope to achieve the dizzy expectations generated by the media" etc.

Sorry, am not an experienced Wikipedia editor (at all) but came across this and it felt notably non-Wikipedia-like and so I wanted to flag it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


Conflation of two different people in[edit]


I'm writing because I am the subject of a recently created biography on Wikipedia. The trouble is that the article conflates two different Catherine Crumps. I am the Catherine Crump on the faculty of Berkeley Law School. There is a different Catherine Crump, a 57 year-old Illinois woman, who sought to register a trademark on Eric Garnder's dying words ("I can't breathe."). I am NOT that Catherine Crump.

Here is my Berkeley Law School bio, Please compare it to this Washington Post article discussing the Garner trademark petition.

The article explains that the woman who filed the trademark application lives in Illinois and was 57. I live in California and am two decades younger.

The easy solution is to delete the last two lines of the current Wikipedia entry, which pertain to the Illinois Catherine Crump, and to delete the inaccurate reference to my age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccrump (talkcontribs) 23:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Slender Man stabbing[edit]

Slender Man stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An IP has added the names of the alleged perpetrators and the victim to the article. Should this be removed? I strongly suspect it should per WP:BLPCRIME but want to hear what other editors think. Everymorning talk 00:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No, having read the article, all the information is clearly reliably-sourced with secondary sources, not to mention the fact that articles on stabbings and shootings routinely name victims and perpetrators, as long as the stuff is reliably sourced. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)