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:

Joseph W. Westphal[edit]

Joseph W. Westphal (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Joseph W. Westphal is poorly sourced and reads like a CV rather than an encyclopedia article.

Potential sources found:

Working on a rewrite now.  NQ  talk 06:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Needs to be checked for grammar, tone and style. Left out much detail as I couldn't find secondary sources to support them.  NQ  talk 08:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I added headings to the page to improve layout and removed excessive images which made the page abnormally long and unpleasant. Meatsgains (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

1805 articles marked as unsourced BLPs[edit]

A few years back there was a concerted effort to source or remove all unsourced BLPs. Just wondering if there was any continuing effort to do the same as there is now quite a large list of articles tagged as being unsourced. Hack (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You are thinking of Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue, which is not currently active. I go do a few every now and then for old times sake, but that backlog is a problem for sure. If you're interested in digging in, I would be happy to provide some protips for working through that list efficiently. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going through soccer and NFL articles at the moment. Was just wondering if there was any discussion on this anywhere. Hack (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Bob Beers (Las Vegas City Councilman)[edit]

15 Aug 2014 - Since announcing that I will run against US Senator Harry Reid in 2016, my page has experienced ongoing edits by partisan Wikipedia users. Currently, I hold one of seven seats on the non-partisan elected Las Vegas City Council.Bob Beers 21:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Two days ago, the partisan moved the article from "Bob Beers (Las Vegas City Councilman)" to "Bob Beers (Nevada Politician)". I moved it back for two reasons: first, because this creates ambiguity - there have been two separate people with my name seek and win elected office in my state. Second, the term "politician" is an evocative label these days - so evocative that it has been removed from Harry Reid's Wikipedia page by other partisan editors.

The next day, the same partisan made the change again, setting off an "editing war" and this entry into the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. The partisan editor this time listed his reason as "if he loses election, he will no longer hold that title but will go back to being a Nevada Politician." This statement is false - I lost reelection in 2008 and went back to being a CPA for a living, for the next three years, with no political activity whatsoever.

So I would like the community's help either by "protecting" the page about me from partisan markup, or to have my page removed from Wikipedia altogether so I no longer have to monitor it for such partisan vandalism.

Thanks for the administrator community's consideration.Bob Beers 21:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)bobbeers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbeers (talkcontribs)

Mr. Beers, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on assuming good faith and editing with a conflict of interest. I am not a "partisan editor" so please do not go throwing around things like that just because someone moves your page.
The article should be at Bob Beers (Nevada politician) or Bob Beers (politician). There is no ambiguity as the "other Bob Beers" doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Articles that need disambiguating are not listed according to the person's current job. So, for example, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is at Scott Walker (politician) and not Scott Walker (Governor). Likewise, Chris Murphy (politician), John Walsh (U.S. politician), Jack Reed (politician), Tim Johnson (South Dakota politician), Mike Lee (U.S. politician) and Ron Johnson (U.S. politician). As for what Harry Reid's page says, that is not relevant to this article.
Articles aren't moved around based on the person's job. If he stays on the city council he should still be at Bob Beers (politician), if he gets voted out of office, still at Bob Beers (politician) and if he's elected to some other office, he should still be at Bob Beers (politician). The article wouldn't be moved to Bob Beers (CPA) or Bob Beers (State Senator). Tiller54 (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, admin community. I did not realize this contributor (Tiller) had cut and paste his comments on my article's talk page to this page. Is it adequate to reference my responses, which I wrote and posted on my article's talk page, or should I cut and paste them here?Bob Beers 01:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbeers (talkcontribs)
I have copy edited and wikilinked the biography, and also reached out to Bobbeers on the article's talk page and his own talk page. The issue of the article title presents a true conundrum, and a real challenge in disambiguation. In short, there are two Bob Beers. Both are from Nevada. Both are from Las Vegas. Both have served in the state legislature. Both are Republicans. I do not believe that they are related. So, that issue has no easy answer, and geniuses are invited to comment. I ain't one. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
No relation. But I sure have learned a lot about Wikipedia policies and guidelines this weekend!Bob Beers 22:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbeers (talkcontribs)

WP:QUALIFIER gives a little guidance, while saying that it's still down to editor discretion. The case of two poker players with the same name was ultimately settled with the parenthetical addition of birth years, (usually discouraged). It also says to Try also to limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term. and Try to avoid using ... anything capitalised... which combined with WP:CONCISE could also suggest (city councillor) instead of the more ornate (Las Vegas City Councilman). __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've suggested on the talk page, we could move Bob L. Beers to "Bob Beers (politician, born 1951)" and this article to "Bob Beers (politician, born 1959)", which avoids anything capitlised and uses only a single, recognisable and highly-applicable term. Tiller54 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Patrick B. Moran[edit]

I do not believe this article meets general notability guidelines. Patrick Moran is not notable except as pertaining to his role in a vote fraud scandal in his father's campaign, which is already covered in detail in the Jim Moran article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I PROD'd the article as per WP:BLP1E. Subject is non-notable. Meatsgains (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Tag was removed, so I nominated it for deletion under BLP1E.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Two kinds of pork. Users can weigh in at the article's entry on the AfD here. Meatsgains (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Joni Ernst[edit]

An RFC is being conducted at about the appropriateness of including critical material about the subject of the article which is present in the reliable sources used in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The RfC as written completely mis-represents the dispute and violates the guidelines for neutrality when creating an WP:RFC.CFredkin (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The "reliable sources" include editorial opinions connecting Ernst indirectly with segregationists and slavery supporters for backing "nullification" in any way. Clearly the opinions of that nature must be regarded as statements of opinionand not as statements of objective fact here. Collect (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Opinions in reliable sources if properly attributed, are 100% kosher for inclusion in articles and in BLPs. That is what we have WP:NPOV in Wikipedia: to represent all significant viewpoints about a subject without bias. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Collect: Are you arguing that Wikipedia articles can only contain "objective facts"? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Read my posts please. Where opinions are involved, and especially if the claim is contentious, we need strong reliable sources. If we include stuff like "this persona arguments were used by slave owners" - then I consider that to be a "contentious claim" and one which may well be violative of the letter and spirit of WP:BLP. Clearly you appear to think that adding "her position was held by slave owners and segregationists" is a valid claim - but WP:BLP appears to quite disagree with your position here. Suppose we had an editorial opinion that "Georgette Gnarph" was an "effing whore" --- would you support adding that claim to a BLP? Cheers - but on this sort of claim, the policy is damn clear. Opinions must be clearly cited as opinions, and your assertion that I said we can not use opinions is simply a blatant misstatement of policy. Collect (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC, Talk:Joni_Ernst#RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article?, is not neutrally worded. It may be difficult for the closer to determine consensus when the well has been poisoned by the RfC question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will do better next time. Lesson learned. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

dual survival cody lundin[edit]

[cody lundin] to say cody lundin slowed the duo down due to bare feet is subjective on one hand , and incorrect on another - cody lundin stated numerous times in the show that to be aware and alert was the reasoning behind moving at a certain speed , with conservation of calories and hydration also a factor -- as written it is derogatory and false .

Please provide context and maybe a link to what you're referring to. What you wrote makes no sense.- MrX 16:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I've added a citation needed tag.  NQ  talk 07:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Rick Perry article[edit]

Clearly MrX and Cwobeel are engaging in an edit war with any editor that attempts to remove information that violates BLP on the Rick Perry article. There is no justification to name the worst potential penalties for yesterday's indictment and remove information where even well-know Democrats and liberals believe that the indictment is weak and has not support. That information is supported by a reliable source and they both have removed that information without discussion--just reverting in a blatant edit war manner.--NK (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked User:NazariyKaminski for edit warring on this BLP. I did not see any BLP violations that would grant this user an exemption from WP:EW, but please let me know if I missed something so I can correct as needed. Dreadstar 21:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that a block is warranted. The editor did not exceed 3RR. If you're not willing to undo it, I think it should be reviewed at ANI. I don't think the editor will edit again in the relevant time period, and I think they should be able to participate on the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I've addressed that here, and considering that the editor clearly does not understand or admit the edit warring, I'm not sure an unblock at this point is warranted. But feel free to take it to ANI for review, that's why I mentioned it here - for review. Dreadstar 21:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm of the same opinion here. Especially since it's a BLP and he was the one -removing- information not the one readding it. Especially since it was contentious material. should be observed indeed in the case of BLPs. Tutelary (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I've addressed the content being edit warred over here and again here. Dreadstar 22:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani[edit]

In this edit, User:Rtc has added materials based on two sources that IMO speculate about possible backlash by Iranian government. I have explained in my edit summary that the Guardian's article seems ill-informed and speculative as well. Since she is a living person, would you please comment on whether we should have these materials in the page or not? Taha (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact that the president twittered two pictures of her, one of which was showing her without a scarf. This has nothing to do with "possible backlash by Iranian government" and my edit does not suggest that. However, there is a debate going on, with some pointing out similar cases of Iranians who were punished after returning to Iran. My edit is describing the arguments of the debate. What exactly do you see as "ill-informed and speculative"? The arguments point out what is usual in Iran, it has nothing to do with the Government, but it is Iranian law. There'S nothing speculative about it. It is actually quite common, for common Iranians, to receive punishment if they live outside of Iran, even for generations, but still retain Irianian citizenship according to Iran's law (it's inherited by the father and cannot be waived), and then return to Iran, perhaps even only for a visit. --rtc (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
My point is that the "Law" in Iran is essentially "what the government decides to do" (at least in these highly publicized cases). Thus, comparing with other cases and talking about possibility of her arrest in Iran is just groundless speculation. Maryam Mirzakhani has traveled to Iran with her husband and nothing has happened. You can never guess whether her husband is Muslim or not (as conversion to Islam is very easy.) I don't think we can speculate about possible punishment in future in the wiki page of a living person, especially when the page has been cited by formal organizations. Taha (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
the possible scenarios people are putting forward in this debate might be somewhat "speculative", but they are certainly not groundless speculation. And certainly Iran has a law and this law is actively enforced, in most cases without any involvement of the government at all. It's not "we" who are speculating, but we are merely reporting on arguments put forward by others. You are speculating when you say her husband might be muslim. Nothing whatsoever points to this and I can only rely on what the cited articles say, which is that he's not. --rtc (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
RTC, please stop adding speculative garbage to what was an excellent article, cited by the International Mathematical Union. No one notable said these things about her. My translation of Spiegel attributes these comments to "a social media activist irony". This article needs help in mathematics (not in speculation). -SusanLesch (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the section in question as per WP:CRYSTAL. Meatsgains (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello @Meatsgains: and @SusanLesch:. Thanks you're joining in to our discussion. But I am sorry, I just can't accept blanket deletion of the section, because your claim that there's nothing but speculation in there is simply wrong. How about a compromise. We put the section back in but delete everything except "Iran president Hassan Rohani congratulated Mirzakhani on twitter for her Fields Medal. However, one of the two photos he attached showed her without a scarf. This provoked controversy in Iran." Do you agree? I think this is a very important topic, her being the first woman to be shown by Iranian president without scarf. This is indeed an historical event. It would not be prudent to censor this information just because you're more into math than into politics. --rtc (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I am by no means "more into math than politics". Do you have any reliable sources making the claim that "This provoked controversy in Iran"? Because it seems to me this is your own speculation. Meatsgains (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, the controversy has been among "social network activists". I haven't heard any backlash from Iranian officials yet, though I cannot guarantee that I have read all news sources. Thus, this doesn't worth mentioning in the article. Taha (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: certainly not. everything is in the Guardian article I cited, which is mentioning a "controversy surrounding Rouhani's tweet". Further, it says that "local media in Iran struggled with the coverage of Mirzakhani's win. The state-run Iran newspaper digitally retouched her photograph to put a scarf over her head while the reformist Shargh published a sketch showing only her face." @طاها: Non sequitur. The fact that the president showed her without a scarf is definitely worth mentioning, even if you dispute that there is any controversy (which I think there is, without question). Press coverage on this is international. --rtc (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, I must clarify that the twitter account of Hassan Rouhani is only attributed to him and never verified. In his official message in the press, there is no picture. Taha (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You are again guilty of the crime you accuse others of, making completely groundless speculations. Though I'm not saying it should be punished by lashing. --rtc (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is "a fact" that the president's twitter account has not been verified. Meanwhile, the foreign minister's account has been verified, just take a look: JZarif and HassanRouhani. Also, the controversy that you mentioned above is not about Rouhani's tweet, it is about the general appearance of Dr. Mirzakhani. Taha (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you, Meatsgains for your help. RTC, I'm sorry for calling speculation "garbage". That was a very poor choice of words. The Guardian cites "One Iranian" as the source of "I congratulate Maryam Mirzakhani with or without hijab but we will arrest you when you come back to Iran because of your unveiled photo.". The Guardian's reporter, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, appears to have compiled together a whole bunch of unrelated events about Iranians. That just does not add up to a section in this article. Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@طاها: It is an irrelevant fact, given that all press coverage says that it's the president's account and nobody is disputing that. The controversy provoked a controversy about the picture posted by Rouhani. @SusanLesch: Non sequitur. Even if some of the "events" "compiled together" are "unrelated" this does not mean we shouldn't have a section on at least some of them. Of course that fact that this picture was posted by Iran's president and the controversy it caused and is reported by press internationally is very relevant. I proposed a new version of the section, what is your opinion on it? --rtc (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that people have disputed that. Depending on the message, those who like the message consider the account to be authentic. Welcome to the limbo of Iranian politics :) Taha (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
[1] says that the account seems to be "semi-official". --rtc (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"semi-official" precisely fits the meaning of "limbo". I have seen that whenever they like they deny its authenticity and whenever things look good, it is an official account! BTW, western media love that account to be authentic. Taha (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
[2] has some more specifics on it. Overall the authenticity of the account looks very questionable. So I agree it's better not to put the section back in. --rtc (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Taha (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
There is even a second twitter account claiming to be his, see DrRouhani. Zerotalk 15:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate very much if people could also comment in the talk page of the same article, whether it is proper to describe he in the lede as Iranian mathematician, American mathematician, or American-Iranian mathematician.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Dacia Maraini[edit]

The link to Maraini's homepage needs to be corrected to because the old link leads to an inappropriate site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  NQ  talk 03:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Bérubé[edit]

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

My name is Michael Bérubé, and I am writing to ask for editorial intervention on my Wikipedia page. (I see that someone has already done so for the Talk page.) A glance at its revision history will show that over the past few months, it has been subject to an edit war that amounts to persistent vandalism. There are three outstanding issues that I have not been able to resolve on the Talk page, largely because of the intransigence of one or two very determined editors.

The first concerns someone’s obsession with the high school I attended. Ideally, I think, a professional encyclopedia entry for a university professor would follow the contours of a curriculum vitae (more or less), and of course I do not list my high school on my c.v. However, because one or more users insists repeatedly that my high school is of some importance, it is now on my page. The discussion of Regis High School on my Talk page suggests that this user or users is especially obsessed with the term “feeder school.” The result is that there is more information about my high school and my Class of 1978 classmates than about any other educational institution I have attended or taught at. (To give some sense of how devoted this person is to his/her description of Regis: when another editor tried to change the phrase “boxing magnate Lou DiBella” to “boxing promoter Lou DiBella,” he or she promptly reverted to “boxing magnate.” I have no idea why this person is so motivated to include this detail, using this description, about a high school classmate I have not seen in 35 years.) It’s fine with me if the place is mentioned, but the overemphasis here seems inappropriate in a BLP.

The second is a POV question; it concerns someone’s insistence on misconstruing my position on the Iraq War, and providing a broken link to the journal “Politics and Culture.” I have tried repeatedly to correct both these edits in the interest of accuracy, but another editor usually deletes my emendations within hours, and even refuses to accept edits that correct the broken link.

The final issue is a question of undue weight. Someone has become fixated on an essay I wrote in 2009 about the GRE exam. On the talk page, he or she insists that the essay is important because it reveals something about the profession of literary studies. I disagree; as I make clear in the essay, the GRE exam in English is a joke– so irrelevant to the profession of literary studies that most graduate programs in English do not require it (and some actively discourage applicants from taking it). The user who insists on including the paragraph about the GRE essay does not provide any rationale for including it on the main page. The result is that one essay (out of 200+ essays I have written on various subjects academic and nonacademic) is given a paragraph to itself– a paragraph that does nothing but broadcast my GRE scores. By contrast, major aspects of my career, including my service as president of the Modern Language Association– and essays of far more substantial relevance to academe– receive no mention at all. Again, the motivation here is unclear, though the obsessive nature of this person’s editing is all too evident.

I will attempt a small experiment with this paragraph: I will edit it today to give some sense of what that essay was actually about (though I do not think the paragraph belongs in the article at all). I predict that the edit will be reverted within 24 hours.

I know Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, collective enterprise. And I know that none of these edits amounts to slander or libel– they are merely very weird and very obsessive. But I would like to know if there is any way of protecting my main page from these inappropriate edits and persistent reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A quick glance shows that the concerns are valid and the article needs cleanup.  NQ  talk 16:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the matters of concern regarding the high school; the material on the classmates was unsourced, the material on the quality of the school were from sources that did not mention the topic of the article and were discussing the quality of the school decades after the subject had left it. However, I'm not doing a full analysis on the other points of concern or the article as a whole; I'll leave that to other hands. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Removed the paragraph on the GRE scores. The source was in violation of WP:BLPSPS as it was written by Mr. Michael Bérubé.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I still think the paragraph should be removed, but I missinterpreted and under WP:BLPSELFPUB it might be acceptable, I restored the page and I leave the issue to editors with more experience.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, everyone. But the "Regis is a prestigious feeder school" stuff is all back in (despite Nat Gertler's comments above), along with unsourced references to my classmates Patrick Fitzgerald and boxing magnate Lou DiBella. That took what, all of six hours? Like I say, we are dealing with a seriously obsessive user here. --MB — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and now we have other editors with their eyes on it, who can escalate things if situations warrant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Bérubé: Please avoid getting into pointless discussions with other anonymous users on the talk page, and generally also please refrain from editing your biography unless there is a serious problem with the content that requires immediate removal. Anything you wish for us to consider in terms of editing can be discussed here, where more editors with biography experience are bound to see and act on it. As they say on the internet, don't feed the trolls. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Pointless discussions have indeed been pointless. I am happy to turn this matter over to editors with biography experience. --MB — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Berube is suddenly submissive once the editors removed all his ad-hominem attacks from the talk page! Classic! What a change from the Schuman attacks (and attacks on those who point out that you're a troll!). You've found some fellow boorish chauvinists for protection! Enjoy it! It must be a big "wheeew" that that's offline... And whoever reads this, keep the mention about the high school. It's important.

Mr. Berube should also refrain from trolling his page and female bloggers. (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not care what subjects of biographies do, unless and until what they do is covered by multiple reliable sources. I suggest yo wait for that to come to pass, and stop inserting information that is inappropriate and lacks consensus. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The elite high school should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Please. The problem with this page is that a bunch of faculty and grad students are editing it and Berube is angry about it. He wants control. I don't know why - the only contentious stuff is what he himself put on the talk page. He's dug himself a huge hole, and all of that discussion should be cut and pasted back in, in my opinion. Anyway the administrators should be much more careful with their revisions as the consensus is already clear. The high school should be described as a feeder school, elite school or some version that makes clear it places lots of grads in top universities.

Berube's opinion is a conflict of interest and irrelevant except for cases of blatant vandalism. This entire dialogue is a waste of time. The consensus about the high school is clear (which is: because he is an academic, the rank of the school is important to note). (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

From the discussions here and on the talk page, it is quite clear that there is a concentrated effort to restore content that does not necessarily adhere to WP:NPOV. Since WP:BLP applies here, I recommend temporary protection, at least until concerns can be addressed.  NQ  talk 05:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that the edits of concern are all IP SPAs (including those from the user who identifies himself as the subject of the article), semi-protection would have the intended effect. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The paragraphs concerning GRE and the Iraq war listed under "Publications and achievements" are nothing more than personal commentary based on opinion pieces by Berube himself. There is no coverage about it anywhere else to identify its significance. If this were a puff piece written by the author himself, we would be demanding coverage in multiple reliable sources to include it. Since there isn't any, and since there are concerns about WP:UNDUE and the use of POV language, I suggest removing it.  NQ  talk 06:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • This article is screaming for semi protection or pending changes. Frog, can you do that, or if you feel "involved" could you make the request?Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Semi'd for a week. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a community effort and we have administrators reverting edits that are clearly in the consensus without any explanation or comment to the existing discussion on the talk page. The edits being removed are from professors and grads students, all of whom are PhDs or will soon be PhDs, as if someone without a wikipedia account should have no voice. That's troublesome. And it's also troublesome that Berube is attempting to write his own page. The administrators have said that he should not write his page except in the case of vandalism, but their recent edits have all submitted to Berube's wishes, which are in conflict of interest and are also against the discussion on the talk page. These are serious problems that go against the mission of wikipedia. I am going to make an account (and post to facebook recommending others do the same) and renew the consensus edits as they have been nuanced and modified per the discussion on the talk page. I would expect any future edits from anyone to be discussed in the context of what is already on the talk page. (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This has become an exercise in how bad wikipedia is at maintaining its own mission. All of the MB comments are conflict of interest. The administrators appear to be so in awe of his title that they are using their block tools and whatnot to go against the discussion on the talk page. The admins read like mainsplainers, too, so I guess Berube has some kin on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree and there is no consensus, but regardless, the recent edits have been done following Wikipeda Policy. The article should be encyclopedic. Editors must contribute within those guidelines. Or can choose to use more adequate means like blogs, forums, Facebook etc to post that information or voice their concerns. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. There are 8 or 10 people who have commented against these edits, offering insight and detailed perspectives on the talk page. Those comments do not in themselves indicate a consensus but it should be recognized that many more people have weighed in against than in favor. And those people have changed their version of the text in accordance with the wishes of others already. Even more people than that have commented about this topic in recent months on the talk page. All of that discussion does not accord with the recent edits. One or two admins opinion should not override that conversation and all those opinions. Admins and Berube are not more capable of writing an encyclopedia page than the group of scholars already taken to the task, whose work has been deleted. There is no policy that says it's appropriate to remove collaborative work of many people that has come together over several months. The edits have been reshaped many times, denoting consensus shifts. This wholesale selling out to the professor's whims is sad and is not encyclopedic and it's not community-based discussion. It's top-down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • To all of the ip addresses This board (BLPN) is primarily for discussing and notifying other editors of issues that relate to articles about living people. Now that has occurred, please direct your concerns about the content of the article to the articles talk page, as most of the comments here are related to disputed content. This section is becoming quite large and it won't help anyone to have two conversations occurring in separate venues. Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for a better understanding of what should be included in a biography. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies to the "bunch of faculty and grad students" too. "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Comments like "You've found some fellow boorish chauvinists for protection! Enjoy it! It must be a big "wheeew" shows that you have a personal grudge against the subject, which should be taken elsewhere like Crystallizedcarbon said. Read WP:MEAT for our policy on coordinated campaigns off wiki.  NQ  talk 12:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Those comments do not represent the discussion that has been ignored by the editors who took out all the other text. Berube has been awful in this discussion throughout and his comments, like those you just cite, should not be taken into account. That said, the present version of the article does not respect the discussion on the talk page in any way. It just capitulates to what the professor wants. It should be a community activity that takes into account others' opinions. The present page (Aug 18) doesn't do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Note I will be removing any future comment in its entirety that makes judgment values about Berube that does not have, or is likely to not have a source. For example, the comment above stating "It just capitulates to what the professor wants" is an example of bad faith.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

leo minaya[edit]

please remove the date of birth and my real name is LISANDRO not Leosandro — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. DOB was unsourced. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)[edit]

I noticed this on Wikipediocracy. Looks a bit like a hatchet-job to me. The councilman appears to have been trying to neutralise it and possibly erring on the side of puff. Does a disinterested editor with a good grasp of our BLP policy have time to help out there? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I took a crack at it and, while it's not something I'd offer up for GA consideration, I think it's better. I invite anyone to check my work - JohnInDC (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, John. That's much more like an encyclopedia biography now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Suman Sahai[edit]

The accusation of plagiarism made against the BLP subject Suman Sahai in the previous version of the Controversy section was later proven to be false. The University issued a letter dated 07.02.2014 confirming that no plagiarism proceedings had been initiated against her, after a case was instituted against the Dean for making false statements against the subject, which she won. Similarly, the information given regarding the venia legendi was false and has been removed. The article which made the accusation, cited as the main source of information in the previous version of the Controversy section, is patently defamatory ( and cites a press release by the University but the link provided does not exist as it was subsequently deleted for being false and providing incorrect information. ( However, the post has been consistently re-edited in the past to include the same false accusations. Sleepingcow (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I was in the process of filing a note on this article myself when I noticed that Sleepingcow already did this. I would like to solicit some input of editors experienced in BLP issues to have a look at this article and its sourcing to avoid a budding edit war. Personally, I think the sourcing is impeccable and the conclusion that the accusation of plagiarism was false is based on SYNTH and unreliable sources. Laborjournal, to the best of my knowledge, has never retracted their article, which seems to be based on solid investigative journalism (i.e., they investigated the appropriate primary sources -the habilitation thesis and the review article that was plagiarized- interviewed people that were colleagues o the subject at the time, searched for other material online, and finally published their conclusions). --Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, I can't read German, so I'm at the mercy of the machine translations. But the source referred to doesn't look like an article, but rather an opinion piece on the editorial page. I'm not sure we can assume the fact checking is as rigorous as it would be for an article. I tend to suspect the allegation is true because I don't see a denial, and academics are quite sensitive to this allegation, but I'm not confident we have BLP worthy sourcing for this assertion. Has anyone else anywhere noted the supposed plagiarism? If not, we probably should remove the allegation. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Laborjournal is a respected publication. It has an English version, Lab Times (but not all articles are identical between the two versions, this one only appeared in the German one because of the local interest, I guess). Retraction Watch has a column in the English version. After posting this yesterday, I sent an email to Labjournal asking whether their article had been retracted. They responded within an hour and told me that the subject's lawyer had contacted them lat year but in the end did not undertake any legal action, which is telling. I know that this is not useful as a source in our article, but the fact that Laborjournal stands to their story and hasn't retracted tells me that the allegations are basically proven. (After all, plagiarism is much easier to detect than other forms of scientific fraud, such as "inventing" data, because all one needs is to compare the two versions). As for the question whether this was an article or an editorial: the layout here is their web layout. A German friend of mine who gets the journal in hard copy sent me a PDF and it definitely looks like an article and most certainly is not an editorial. It's too bad really that this journal doesn't publish their PDFs online... BTW, for those not able to read German, a good translation in English is available and linked to in our article. --Randykitty (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Jaspreet Badhan - Preet Badhan[edit]

Jaspreet Badhan urf Preet Badhan is a punjabi poet who belongs to Jalandhar Punjab. The majority of his poems are on the social issues and are revolutionary.He is going to publish his own book ,a collection of poems under the title "Kavita - Ek Sheesha". He is post graduated in english fom Doaba Colllege with degree of B.Ed. from GMT College of Education Ludhiana. A number of honours are bestowed on him for his poetry and social work by number political and social personalities and organisations. He is quite in the cmpetitions of poetry in Punjab Area as he has won number of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badhanpreet (talkcontribs) 09:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, congratulations and all the very best for your upcoming book. I have left a note on your talk page.  NQ  talk 09:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

John Kline (politician)[edit]

There is a minor edit war (mentioned at ANI) over the wording in a "worst members of Congress" mention. I removed the entire mention, which was

Kline's 2014 campaign has received national attention since Kline was nominated as one of the US's worst members of Congress on the HBO showReal Time with Bill Maher.[3][4] Maher seeks to unseat a sitting U.S. Representative and takes nominations by Facebook, Instagram and/or Twitter.[5]

It seems to me that Wikipedia should not be used to amplify political attacks. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I support the removal. A segment on a satirical show.  NQ  talk 09:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Satire and sarcasm != actual fact. And the use of Wikipedia for political purposes including campaigning for or against any person or group is, IMHO, evil. Collect (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Please, may I semi-protect this for a few days? Bearian (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely -- as well as any others where campaigners think Wikipedia is a substitute for advertising. Collect (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Would you agree to allow a mention of Real Time is they select Kline as their "winner" and the show spends substantial money in the district influencing the outcome race? At that point, is a historical component of the election. This is a huge event in the district which has never received national attention. It would be no different than discussing other substantial propaganda campaigns in history. Mismolly0 (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq,User:NQ,User:Collect, it appears that this content has been restored by the same editor. I'm reluctant to engage myself, since I've already attempted to deal with this content once, and have been engaged with the same editor in a dispute over other content on the same article.CFredkin (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the mention of worst member of congress is what is critical here. When a national show engages in a minor race, it has major impact. It is substantial news and atypical of campaigns. We can take suggestions on how to word this so the crux of the information is about the nomination rather than the opinionated designation but satire or not, the intention of the show (which has millions of viewers) is to influence the election. Kline's campaign has directly addressed the attack in papers which is notable. Kline's opposition is also engaged in a coordinated effort to utilize the media attention. We can't simply neglect the show's campaign because it is satire (although it is also a news forum) if it has potential to influence the race, which it does. Mismolly0 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The FlipADistrict web site doesn't say anything about "worst member of congress".CFredkin (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Reviewing the episode's in question will reveal the wording that the show used to describe the candidates but I agree, this is mostly irrelevant and what is interesting that "flip a district" has the intention to change a district from Republican to Democratic based on social media nominations. Mismolly0 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not unusual for wiki bios (including politicians) to contain information about an individual's appearance or being featured on a news or satire show. What is important is to make sure that the information featured is FACTUAL. I support including the information about Maher's #FlipADistrict if we can find a way to make it as factual as possible. That means including the date of the episodes, a link to the relevant video, etc. Hlodynn (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That might be a good idea if the material is added at Bill Maher. The satire/attack is something done by Maher, so it may be useful as an illustration of Maher's work. However, an attack is not placed on a target's biography just because someone made the attack. If anyone knows of another BLP which contains attacks on the subject please post a link so we can fix them. Given that anyone can edit (even SPAs), information at a BLP has to do more than be verified—it has to satisfy WP:DUE. If the "national attention" is notable, write an article on the topic. Otherwise, the text belongs on a blog. If something happens as a result of the attack (for example, if someone resigns), WP:DUE would probably be satisfied. At the moment, it's just standard electioneering. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Dan Savage's "santorum" dysphemism still lurks in the Rick Santorum BLP Rick_santorum#Pornography - which is pretty much worse than this - but was staunchly defended by some people who may have had a campaign interest there as well. I suspect other examples exist. Collect (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas[edit]

Content verified by multiple reliable sources, thus not following under WP:GRAPEVINE, was removed by another editor in this edit. The removing editor argued that the single neutrally worded sentence falls under WP:UNDUE. As for the claim that there is a consensus I responded here, as there has been no quality arguement as to why the content should be excluded. Furthermore the content is not about the 2012 arrest of the subject of the article, but about the 2011 revocation of the subject of that article's driver's license.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Can this topic please receive additional eyes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Randy Martin[edit]

In the article Randy Martin almost all links are dead or link to untrusted connections, therefore it is difficult to actually verify the biography or notability. Can anyone provide advice on how to correct this? Does the article need to be deleted? Scottsadventure (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Jordan Belfort[edit]

Recently there's been a rash of IPs and new accounts trying to add material claiming that Belfort is Jewish, both in the body and as a cat. I've tried to keep it out, but the latest comes from an IP who won't give up. As I understand it, Belfort's parents were Jewish, and he was raised in a Jewish household. Not sure if he was raised "Jewish", but it's not particularly important either way. None of the sources demonstrate that he self-identifies as a Jew, either from a religious or a cultural perspective (that whole dichotomy drives me crazy but no matter). I don't mind if material is added about his parents or their household, although I think it has little to do with his notability, but to simply categorically say, "Belfort, who is Jewish ..." and to put in a Jewish cat is not supported.

I don't intend to fight it anymore. It's too big a pain in the ass. I can't characterize it as vandalism, so it would have to be handled as a content dispute, and I don't have time for it. The IP just templated me for edit warring, which is fine. The main thing I object to is them calling me "dude".

If someone wants to help, great. If not, the article will remain in some variant of its present state. As things go, it won't be the end of the world.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd seen someone template Bbb23 inaccurately with a 3RR template and traced back to this article, I've added PC protection. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

alexandre mars[edit]

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

Hi, in July there were multiple issues raised about the page Alexandre Mars, notably that it did not have enough references, and that it was an orphan. These issues have now been addressed. As such, I'd like to request that the notification header at top of the page please be removed if possible. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbourman (talkcontribs) 08:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It only has one in-link (it's still almost an orphan) to a blackberry article based on an apparently unreliable reference. It still reads similar to a resume sourced to mostly subject-authored biographies like speaker bios, and user-provided industry sites. It can still be cleaned up.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearer consensus needed on adding allegations that Song Zuying was an adulterer based only on reported rumors.[edit]

This needs a clearer consensus from other experienced editors, as it keeps getting re-inserted.

Can the following text be added to Song Zuying?

It has long been rumoured in China that Song was romantically involved with Jiang Zemin, former General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, 40 years her senior, and owed much of her career to support from him. Song and Jiang were married to other people at the time of the alleged affair. Song later divorced her husband. Song and Jiang were introduced to each other by Vice-Admiral Wang Shouye, who is currently serving a life-sentence for corruption.

Is this material BLP-compliant? All sources admit it is popularly-held but unproven rumor regarding a BLP subject. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated rumours are clearly BLP violations.--ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is the material in question.
I also am opposed to including this material. It's not a simple issue though. Some of the sources used are ridiculous -- the Daily Mail for chrissakes -- and some are not. One is the New Yorker, albeit a New Yorker blog, one is the LA Times. There is a book, "Marketing Dictatorship: Propaganda and Thought Work in Contemporary China". The South China Morning Post is invoked. The Association for Asian Research I am highly skeptical about though, and the Daily Mail is out of course.
These sources, and our article, do not state an opinion on whether or not Song Zuying had a long-term affair with Chinese leader Jiang Zemin, but rather assert that many people believed, falsely or not, that she did. If this explains in part her career trajectory that's germane. "enduring rumor that Song owes much of her career to Jiang Zemin" says the New Yorker blog, without exactly specifying what their relationship was.
It's a tough question. "Unsubstantiated rumours", IF they reach a notable enough level AND there are sufficient reliable sources to show that, might belong. For instance, there was an unsubstantiated rumor that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Completely unsubstantiated, but I bet it's described here on the Wikipedia.
Still, all things considered, I would say the material should be redacted. It's hard to know what the situation is in China, because it is far away and uses a difficult language and has censorship. It might be that this is of an Obama-born-in-Kenya level of notability there. But I don't have hard evidence of that. So: it's contentious, it's contended by some editors, and the sources are not sufficient for inflammatory material. In cases like that our policy bends strongly toward not including the material. Let's not. Herostratus (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks like this material was removed from Jiang Zemin long ago. If it wasn't considered sufficiently BLP compliant for his article, with greater editor participation, then I can't see how it would be compliant for hers.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that people were arrested due to reporting these rumours, and that her name is a blocked term in China due to these rumours is a substantiated fact - is this not allowable content, relevent to her biography? FOARP (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It could be. But look who was arrested: a retired army officer who is "known for revealing scandals about high-ranking Chinese officials over the Internet" and who is quoted as saying Jiang Zemin is "as fake as counterfeit money on the market". Sounds like a disgruntled blogger to me, and, this being China, it'd be odd if he wasn't arrested, saying stuff like that. Hell, they arrested Roger Shuler for this stuff here in the USA (well, Alabama anyway). The source for this is the Association for Asian Research, some kind of entity based at "Suite 407" on 8th Avenue and not a newspaper and I'm skeptical of their fact-checking operation. As to blocking search terms, OK, but China blocks search terms all the time (I think) so I don't know either way how much that tells us.
Also, based on the sources we have and can use, the most we can say is that they are rumored to be good friends, period. Anything about who was married to whom and so forth is out, barring much better sources. Possibly something like this: It has long been rumoured in China that Song's successful career was aided by her friendship with Jiang Zemin, former General Secretary of the Communist Party of China. based on the New Yorker piece and so on. Maybe. I'm am opposed to even this though. None of these sources are AAA-level reliability and that's what we need for contentious material about a living person. In addition to which I don't know how notable -- widespread -- this rumor was. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
An academic source ells us the blocking is related to the rumours. As for how wide-spread the rumour is, well, pretty much every source that discusses her other than government-controlled ones mentions it. FOARP (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

14th Dalai Lama[edit]

A WP:BLP violation that needs immediate scrutiny. See this section here. The Bernis PDF is an unreliable source since it was rejected from publication and never cited by any subsequent scholars in the decades after.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn[edit]

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

Heads up, there's a controversy involving the subject of this article spreading across gaming websites, 4Chan, and Reddit, but none of it seems to be actual news in reputable outlets yet. Already editors have tried to include elements of this in the article and are repeating very serious allegations as fact on the talk page. The more eyes on this article, the better. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected by CambridgeBayWeather  NQ  talk 10:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Jerry Tondo[edit]

Jerry is Japanese American, not Filipino American. I was a good friend of his in the 1970's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide a source, I will make the change. Meatsgains (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I took out the nationality entirely, as I could find no source either way. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Amr Waked[edit]

Amr Waked "Zionist occupation" does not seem to be a neutral description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Replaced with "Israeli". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Sanjay Gupta (businessman)[edit]

Sanjay Gupta (businessman) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

His page reads like a CV and is not verifiable. It seems to be written by him, a quick check on the edits of the page reveals that he himself has written this. A quick search on google reveals that this guy is: 1) Deceiving people by taking money from investors in the form of fixed deposits and then not returning it 2) Cheating the Government of India by having illegal assets 3) Removed from the Gujarath Government for Corruption.

Maybe a better idea would be to create a wikipedia page that would display information about such corrupt people :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Shooting Of Michael Brown[edit]


Posting articles containing information on an ongoing police investigation and riot is inappropriate. Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia. It is often misused for posting Current Events and Opinion. Please remove any "Michael Brown" articles until the case has been adjudicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bings (talkcontribs) 02:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No. CombatWombat42 (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

James Wright Foley[edit]

James Wright Foley (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I'm concerned, because this new article boldly declares Foley is dead. As far as I know, that hasn't been confirmed at all.

One reference we've used says, ""We have seen a video that purports to be the murder of U.S. citizen James Foley by (ISIS)," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said. "The intelligence community is working as quickly as possible to determine its authenticity." [6]

Other news sources are carefully wording things to point out it is an alleged video of an execution.

I don't know how to resolve this though, because 95% of the article is about the execution. Changing the tenses to say "James Wright Foley (died August 2014) was is an American photojournalist ..." also seems wrong, insensitive, and just silly.

I think WP:NOTNEWS and things says we shouldn't have an article on this at all?

I just hate the fact that Wikipedia - unlike mainstream news organizations - is stating in big letters that he is dead ("This article is about a person who has recently died") (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I made this edit because of my immediate concerns, but I'd welcome more ideas on how to best deal with it. (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Reg. Wikipedia entry about Gopi Chand Narang[edit]

Gopi Chand Narang (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Dear sir, This is to bring to your notice that some body who is indulging to character assassinate and malign me for personal reasons is uploading obnoxious and false material in my entry in Wikipedia (under sub heading Plagiarism) to hurt my reputation and defame me. In case such malicious material is edited, by using different perhaps fake DI s he or his contacts are Reloading that material. It is requested that this may kindly be looked into and The misuse of the entry may be stopped. Thanks. Gopi Chand Narang — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yellapragada Sudharshan Rao[edit]

Yellapragada Sudharashan Rao (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I have created a new BLP page for Yellapragada Sudharshan Rao at [7]. Can you please take a look at my wording and the sources cited in there to see if my version is acceptable? User:AmritasyaPutra has raised various objections to my wording, which seem extreme to me, but I will be glad to have your input. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Link to article talk page discussion: Talk:Yellapragada_Sudharashan_Rao. --AmritasyaPutra 15:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The article still needs a lot of work. I'll leave other users to hash out the use of "controversial" and "right winners" on the talk page. I made some minor cleanup edits and removed some rather irrelevant information. Meatsgains (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Meatsgains, If I may request: please keep it on your watch-list also. --AmritasyaPutra 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra: Already added to my watch list. :) Meatsgains (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Meatsgains, thanks for your cleanup effort; however, I noticed you removed Thapar's criticism without explanation. I've reinserted it for now, because it has been sourced, and it isn't making a claim such that BLP would require blanking. If you see any issues with it, please bring them up. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason I removed the criticism is because it does not in anyway improve the article and seems a bit out of place. Is it necessary to add that none of his popular articles "appeared in a peer-reviewed journal"? Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Honestly asking, is canvassing applicable? link: diff. A simple yes or no is sufficient, please don't get outraged for nothing, that is not the intent. I could foresee these edits that is why I am asking. --AmritasyaPutra 16:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra: Vanamonde93 could have certainly phrased her post a little different to avoid accusations of canvassing. IMO, this is indeed canvassing as she explicitly stated, "I need your help". Meatsgains (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Meatsgains, that post was on my talk page, by Uday Reddy, I could hardly have phrased something differently. Also, I just lectured AmritasyaPutra about not making gender assumptions; use they/them, makes life so much easier. Finally, you might be able to apply accusations of canvassing if you were being literal; but I had already been involved at the closely related debate here. Reddy was merely making me aware of a related discussion, so "canvassing" is off the mark (though I concede they could have phrased it otherwise). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thinking... mmmm... Reddy could do that himself, no? --AmritasyaPutra 17:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: My apologies on two accounts: 1.) For saying you participated in the "canvassing" when it was instead posted on your talk page and 2.) for making gender assumptions. :) Meatsgains (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Meatsgains, apology duly accepted, and thanks for being so gracious about it. Let's get back to the page now; personally, I do not believe BLP concerns are serious enough at this point to keep going here; shall we discuss this on the talk? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra:, Aren't you raising a strawman when the canvassing page that you have pointed to explicitly says that that kind of invitation is perfectly fine? You anticipated that I would do it, because I have previously extended similar invitations to yourself? I don't recall you raising any objections about it then! Uday Reddy (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This issue ended up here on BLP Noticeboard because User:AmritasyaPutra explicitly requested it, and that seemed to be the only avoid a protracted edit war. The basic problem we have is that User:AmritasyaPutra insists that we should use exactly the same words as in the sources. In this case, he made up the additional argument that otherwise it would be a BLP violation. Uday Reddy (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Arrrgggghhh, assume some good faith? I made my comment as humbly and explicitly as it could be. I anticipated the reverts not the invite. This issue came here because of this discussion where you were told to go to BLP noticeboard by two other editors, which you were merely re-hasing on this new page. Your assertion is plain misleading. Also, I have never re-played your edits! --AmritasyaPutra 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra:, "good faith" and "humility" are hard to see when they come in the midst of an edit war. Your modus operandi whenever you see something you don't like is to first change the words (and the meaning) to your taste, and then expect us to open a dialogue on the talk page. It is kind of like slapping someone in the face and then asking them to negotiate so that you don't slap them again. You have done this repeatedly both User:Vanamonde93 and me over the last couple of days. Calling this "humility" is the height of irony! Uday Reddy (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The pot calling the kettle black.. See this thread again for yourself. --AmritasyaPutra 02:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

BDP in BLP template[edit]

Robin Williams (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) All right. There has been some disagreements over at Talk:Robin Williams regarding the changes to the BLP template. Robin Williams is dead and is no longer living. Tbhotch (talk · contribs) and SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) argue that [8] listing this category in this article in the category Category:Biography articles of living people is more inaccurate. while Aoidh (talk · contribs) argues that it doesn't and it violates the BLP per WP:BDP since it is still on the main page. However, I am uninvolved in this particular discussion.

Per this recent discussion, a user has suggested that Template:BLP needs to be revised to include the "bdp=" per WP:BDP. As such, I am opening a discussion regarding if we should update the include the "bdp=" parameter. Hopefully, this will resolve some issues. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of the reason I'm reverting it is because changing it in that manner is placing a banner at the top of the talk page specifically saying "the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article", and per WP:BDP, that isn't true. Last I checked that article is still getting hundreds of thousands of page views per day, so I think that, being on of the first things they'd see on the talk page, a banner saying something that's contrary to policy is worse than having a name in some category that most people will never see. I think the name being in the category is a problem, but between the two is a non-issue. I do think the template needs to be adjusted to fix this, but making the talk page banner be so inaccurate shouldn't be an option in lieu of fixing the template. - Aoidh (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
BLP still applies per WP:BDP; Te only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. So yes, it still applies, but why would the cats matter? Just remove the chat and put some cat equivalent for deceased, but BLP still applies for two years at most. Apologies, not what this is about. Tutelary (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean, Aoidh. I think it might be necessary if we should start an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I've started an WP:RFC at Template talk:WikiProject Biography#RfC: BDP in Biography template. All comments welcome there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. My mistake. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Narendra Modi Government[edit]

Yellapragada Sudharashan Rao (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

A group of editors (User:AmritasyaPutra, User:sarvajna and User:Dharmadhyaksha) have tendentiously objected to the phrase "NDA government headed by Narendra Modi" when referring to the decisions taken by this particular Government. Their objections varied from "it constitutes synthesis" or "original research" to "Modi may not have been involved" and "this article is not on Modi". You can see some of the discussion on this talk page. The Wikipedia has hundreds of occurrences of similar phrases for other Indian governments such as "UPA government led by Manmohan Singh", "NDA government led by Vajpayee" or "Vajpayee government" (which even has its own WP page). Such terminology is even more common in the UK and the USA. Qualifying the government by the Prime Minister is quite necessary in this case, in my opinion, in order to clarify to distinguish it from the other NDA government led by Vajpayee. The three dissenting editors are however adamant. User:Vanamonde93 and I would appreciate your views. Uday Reddy (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Adding more of the context:
    The sentence in question in complete form as Uday wants is: "In July 2014, Yellapragada Sudharashan Rao, the Head of the Andhra Pradesh chapter of ABISY was appointed as the Chairperson of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) by the Bharatiya Janata Party government headed by Narendra Modi."
    The sentence in question in complete form as the "tendentious dissenting adamant" editors want is: "In July 2014, Yellapragada Sudharashan Rao, the Head of the Andhra Pradesh chapter of ABISY was appointed as the Chairperson of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR)."
    The sentence in question in complete form as has been agreed and settled upon is: "In July 2014, Yellapragada Sudharashan Rao, the Head of the Andhra Pradesh chapter of ABISY was appointed as the Chairperson of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) by the National Democratic Alliance government."
    @Uday: What exactly is your reason for having your preferred version? That it exists on other pages or its very unclear because there have been so many NDA governments in 2014? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
My two cents; there are several sources discussing the appointment, and 1 & 2 are currently used in the article. Source 2, as well as 3 (not currently in the article) both attribute responsibility for the appointment to the "Modi government." Therefore, I would ideally have the sentence read "was appointed by the Narendra Modi administration" and link to an article about said administration. But, that article does not exist. Therefore, Uday Reddy chose to link to Bharatiya Janata Party government led by Narendra Modi. The information is entirely factual, and we are making no insinuations about Modi himself, except that he is leading the government; therefore, I do not see any problem with including it. This fact is as notable, it would seem, as the appointment itself; if the latter is discussed, the former should be mentioned, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Uday Reddy you might consider phrasing your sentences in a better way, what do you mean by "tendentiously objected"? You are opposed suggestion of other editors and I don't see them using the same kind of language. Coming back to the discussion, Our articles are not opinion piece or gossip columns to attribute every decision of the government to one person. In 2014 there has been only one NDA goverment, how can this be confusing? -sarvajna (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
We are not attributing the decision to him; we are attributing it to his government. There is a difference. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If I am understanding this correctly, the National Democratic Alliance government and the Modi government are the same. This seems to be more of an editorial dispute on how to refer to the current administration than a BLP issue. Can't this discussion take place on the article's talk instead ?  NQ  talk 09:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The three dissenting editors have requested that it should be brought here. So, they need to explain what the BLP issue is. I suppose they believe that they have explained but you don't see it? (This is typical of the discussions with them.) Uday Reddy (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The appointment is done by "HRD ministry". Reference saying HRD Ministry makes the appointment of the head of ICHR. --AmritasyaPutra 10:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
If you have a source that says a decision was taken inside a particular ministry or by a particular minister, please feel free to cite it and change the attribution. In the absence of such information, it can only be attributed to the entire government. Uday Reddy (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Repeat: The appointment is done by "MHRD". Reference. --AmritasyaPutra 10:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The reference you mention is for a different government and a different appointment. But, you are sidetracking. Where is the BLP issue? Uday Reddy (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Who appoints ICHR chairman does not change based on UPA/NDA holding office. --AmritasyaPutra 12:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
All that source says is that as of 2001, the appointment was done by the ministry; and even if it says that, the last I checked, the HRD ministry was a part of the government. The question still remains; what is the BLP issue here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is part of the government. 'It' is MHRD. --AmritasyaPutra 12:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the article in it's current form. The appointment is attributed to the current administration - the National Democratic Alliance - which made the appointment via its HRD department. The linked page of the National Democratic Alliance (India) clearly states that Mr Modi is in power and heads the current government. While I don't have any objection to the wording of the appointment being attributed to either the 'Modi government' or the 'NDA government' (since both seem to refer to the same administration), I don't understand the whole issue of substituting one with the other - unless I am clearly missing something.  NQ  talk 11:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The current form is suboptimal because it is holding back key information about which NDA government is being talked about. The reader has to do additional investigation to clarify that. The only reason this suboptimal version exists at present is because the three dissenting editors claim that mentioning "Narendra Modi" as the Head of the government involves a BLP violation. Uday Reddy (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @NQ: It was me who proposed that this be brought to BLP noticeboard. None of the references presented here, there or anywhere state that the appointment was made by the person Narendra Modi. We have no references direct or indirect which would say that the person Modi or his post as PM makes this appointment. Nor is there any reference to state that the HRD Minister has anything got to do with the appointment. The stuff that happens inside the walls of those offices is hidden from us as of now. In such situation, why should a person's name be specified?
    (And btw, this ref has Modi's name only in the title and nowhere in the article possibly because his name trends and we know how online news articles have to do such things to get their businesses going.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: - The source cited above by AmritasyaPutra states that traditionally the HRD ministry makes such an appointment.
@Reddyuday: - You refer to his appointment as "stupid" here, which may indicate a bias for your preferred version.
@Reddyuday, Vanamonde93: - Dharmadhyaksha mentioned above that the term 'NDA government' was agreed upon earlier. Can I suggest leaving it the way it is, since both obviously refers to the same administration? (also taking into account that it isn't explicitly stated anywhere in the sources that Mr Modi had anything to do with the appointment personally.)  NQ  talk 13:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I had no problem with "NDA government", especially when there is no ambiguity as to which NDA government was acting in 2014. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@NQ: I certainly admit "bias" against the appointment, but the discussion you have referred to clearly shows that this in no way implies a bias against Narendra Modi, who is the subject of the present discussion. In any case, I will let this issue lie for the moment. However, I would like to register my sentiment that, if we keep caving in to vested interests that want to cover up facts and information, Wikipedia will quickly lose its intended purpose. Uday Reddy (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@NQ:, I can live with the current version; indeed, I was the one who suggested it as compromise, after the disputed terms were removed. However, it seems to me that mentioning the name of the Prime minister (because we cannot link to a specific administration) conveys slightly more information that just the alliance in power. Given that, and given that there is no doubt about whether the additional information is accurate, it seems to me that there needs to be a good reason to exclude it. It's notability is not in question, nor is its verifiability. The fact that a lesser version is also accurate is hardly a reason to exclude a more informative one. Dharmadhyaksha keeps saying that the sources don't show Modi made the appointment; sure they don't, which is why nobody is saying that he did. We are merely saying his administration did, and "government of Narendra Modi" is more precise that "NDA government." Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha, Reddyuday, Vanamonde93, AmritasyaPutra: - The fact remains that this isn't something that should be addressed at the BLP/N as there is no BLP issue here. Like I said in the beginning, I don't see any difference between 'NDA government' and 'Modi government' in referring to the current administration. I merely suggested to leave things as it is, (at least for now) since there seems to be some ambiguity regarding the appointing authority. This is a content dispute that should be discussed at DR/N or at the talk page itself via an Rfc.  NQ  talk 15:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Roger NQ. Thank you for your input! Uday Reddy (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Fagash123/Richard Whitehead (Fashion designer)[edit]

Resolved: Speedy deleted by RHaworth under CSD#G10 --  NQ  talk 08:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about this. It came to my attention after an ISP (possibly the same person as Fagash123, who had added (and had removed) the same information previously) tried adding Richard Whitehead to both Richard Whitehead's disambiguation page and to List of fashion designers, and I found this page on user space while casually trying to verify if there was such a designer. Normally, I would leave this bio to be deleted automatically due to lack of sources and notability as soon as it was moved to mainspace, but there's some really quite personal information in there, and the URL cited goes to a page about gastric bypass surgery loaded with expicit photographs showing surplus skin - so I think despite initial autobiographical appearances, this page is actually intended as a personal attack on Richard Whitehead. The only source that mentions him indicates that he is a student, so certainly nowhere near notable enough yet for an article - but all the personal stuff and the rather disturbing content on the alleged personal website makes me think personal attack. I doubt that a legitimate fashion designer, aspiring or otherwise, would have a site like that. But I'm not sure so I would really appreciate a second opinion as I'm a bit bothered by this. Mabalu (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Int21h Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act[edit]

The user User:Int21h has twice removed my inclusion of the template 'BLP sources' from the page Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. This article makes reference, in the 'Opposition' section, to a lawsuit currently before the Canadian courts filed by two living persons, Ginny Hillis and Gwen Deegan. It further claims that these two women have obligations to the United States government. As these two women, in fact, dispute such a claim, a reference should be provided, or the assertion that they have obligations to the United States government should be deleted. After noting this here, I intend to reinsert the 'BLP sources' template on Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and respectfully ask that User:Int21h not delete it again until it has been appropriately arbitrated.Dash77 (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Proposed solution

This debate over 'BLP sources' appears to me to be a moot point; most readers would be hard-put to explain the relevance of any BLP sources to this article. However, a consensus solution obviating further debate might be simply to revise this phrase:

  • "would not relieve them of their responsibilities to the United States under FATCA"

to read instead

  • "would not relieve them of any responsibilities to the United States under FATCA."

Then I would advocate removing the template 'BLP sources'. Seniorexpat (talk) 21 August 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the names of the non-notable living persons. Collect (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

this page mistakenly linked to Amit Shah, the actor, in The Hundred-Foot Journey[edit]

The Hundred-Foot Journey (film) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

This page is currently linked to Amit Shah, the actor, in the The Hundred-Foot Journey. I do not think that they can be the same person. The link to the film needs to be removed and a new page for the actor Amit Shah created since they are two different people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done Removed link that pointed to an Indian politician.  NQ  talk 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)