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:

2014 Arizona gubernatorial election[edit]

This election (Arizona gubernatorial election, 2014) will take place in two weeks' time, and the biographies of both the Democrat and the Republican candidates have long-flagged issues:

Both could do with some remedial work from editors who are not known for strong opinions on US politics. Andreas JN466 21:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Fred Duval article. I'll let someone else work on Doug Ducey.-- KeithbobTalk 01:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh nevermind, I cleaned up Ducey too.-- KeithbobTalk 02:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on these. --Andreas JN466 01:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Paul LePage[edit]

[1] contains a listing of alleged beliefs of people alleged to have met with LePage, but no source that the beliefs (which are contentious) are held by LePage, or that LePage agreed with the beliefs, and the existence of the meetings is questioned.

On June 30, 2014, the website Talking Points Memo reported that LePage had met eight times with members of the sovereign citizen movement between January and September 2013. According to participants, topics discussed at these meetings, some of which lasted nearly three hours, included assertions that the US Dollar and Maine state courts are illegal, and that Maine Senate President Justin Alfond and Maine House Speaker Mark Eves are guilty of treason and should be executed,[1] and that the US government and the United Nations are planning for a war against Americans.[2][3][4]

The reasonable text excluding the edit, AFAICT, is

On June 30, 2014, the website Talking Points Memo said that LePage had met eight times with members of the sovereign citizen movement between January and September 2013.[106][107][108]
The governor's office issued a statement saying LePage has met with “hundreds of Mainers hearing thousands of ideas, concerns and suggestions” and that “hearing those ideas during constituent meetings does not translate to the Governor endorsing the ideas of others.”[108] In a phone call to the Bangor Daily News, LePage said that he stopped meeting with the movement members because "they got mad and called me all sorts of names" and had stopped listening to him. He said that he agreed with some of their views but that other views they held were "off the wall".[106] He also said that those he had met with had called his office on June 30, the day the story broke, to request a meeting, but he declined to do so.[106]
Two of the men who had met with LePage rejected the claims of ties to the "sovereign citizen movement" and denied any discussions of executions took place. Along with LePage, they threatened to sue Mike Tipping, the liberal activist making the claims.[109]

I am concerned that the iterated inclusion of the "beliefs" may be UNDUE and possibly misleading by implying that LePage holds such beliefs. Collect (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "LePage denies he discussed ‘executing’ Maine Democratic leaders". Bangor Daily News. July 1, 2014. Retrieved July 1, 2014. 
  2. ^ Tipping, Mike (June 30, 2014). "Why Did Maine's Governor Conspire With 'Sovereign Citizen' Extremists?". Talking Points Memo. Retrieved July 1, 2014. 
  3. ^ Mistler, Steve (June 30, 2014). "LePage meetings with extreme conspiracy group questioned". Portland Press Herald. Retrieved July 1, 2014. 
  4. ^ Woodard, Colin (7 July 2014). "Paul LePage Is in Trouble. Again.". Politico. Retrieved 21 October 2014. 
I have opened an RFC on this matter at Talk:Paul LePage. I did not see Collect's thread here before opening the RFC - it may have occurred around the same time. I think it would be best to centralize the discussion in one place.GabrielF (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
For concerns specifically about WP:BLP this is the proper noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Guy Laliberté[edit]

Guy Laliberté (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Defamatory comments at the top of the article. Edit history suggests users have removed these comments previously and they have been re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2014‎ (UTC)

I've removed it and added the page to my watch list. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Roger that. What C. Fred deleted from the article is one of the most egregious BLP violations I have witnessed. If you need back-up, please ping me. Hopefully, nobody is dumb enough to try to re-add it. You may want to ask an admin to remove the offending content from the edit history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nitin Gadkari[edit]

Nitin Gadkari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biased article and improperly sourced and in poor language. Logs show legitimate revisions have been reversed. Subject is a controversial political figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Evan Peters[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The edit to the article was vandalism. The individual was blocked.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In his entry, he is listed as "Died: October 20, 2014":

Born January 20, 1987 (age 27) St. Louis, Missouri, U.S. Died October 20, 2014 Occupation Actor Years active 2004–2014

Is this true? I have not heard it in the news, and when 'googled', there are no results found. please investigate — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jemele Hill[edit]

Someone has maliciously edited this biography of Jemele Hill, including snarky comments about her looks, they have inferred that her journalistic skills are inferior and not deserving of her position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for reporting it, the inappropriate edit has been reverted. If you're interested, you can read more about how to deal with vandalism at Wikipedia:Vandalism. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Excuse the deletion and thank you for reverting, that was a TW misfire of some kind EBY (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Comma before Jr. or Sr.[edit]

Seeking clarification of this guideline, which states: Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers.

In many cases, the subject individual does not have any biographers per se, but there have been books published about them or various aspects of their life. An example is John F. Kennedy Jr.. There are two possible approaches in this situation.

  • Treat these authors as the subject's biographers for the purpose of this guideline. In other words, survey the books to establish a majority preference as to the presence or absence of the comma.
  • Say that the subject does not have any biographers, and therefore the subject's preference is all that matters. If no subject preference can be determined, default to no comma.

Which is the better approach, and is there any objection to my updating the guideline to clarify? ‑‑Mandruss  05:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are 'books published about' someone, those books are biographies - you seem to be creating a problem out of thin air. Maybe 'the subject's biographers' might be better worded as 'sources concerning the subject', but one would think that common sense would apply here, and we don't (and can't) need to invent hard and fast rules for every possibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
What is or is not a biography is largely a matter of opinion. There are strict interpretations and liberal interpretations, as with many words and concepts. There are professional historians who write serious and well-researched biographies (e.g. Ambrose), and there are authors of books about people, who don't even necessarily write for a living. I am hardly "creating a problem out of thin air". Thus, your condescension is not only inappropriate, but incorrect as well. If this page is intended as an information resource, I'd suggest recruiting some people who can interact in a more collaborative way with other volunteers. I will change the language to "sources concerning the subject". Thank you. ‑‑Mandruss  19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
But that guideline looks very much like a "hard and fast rule"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If a subject has no serious biographers and there's no way to discern a preference, it would be better to default to no commas. It's cleaner. Making it default to "whatever any random source of any quality used once" seems like it would be less helpful as style guidance somehow.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally have much more often seen suffixes with commas than I have without, but don't think we need to "default" one or the other. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
There needs to be a "house default" for cases where there is no other clear basis for one choice or the other. The alternative is the editor's personal preference, which would mean endlessly bouncing articles back and forth between the two forms. As for what that house default should be, which is a separate issue, I agree with no comma. It has at least some authoritative support in the Chicago Manual of Style, which has recommended omitting the comma since 1993. And it really doesn't make a lot of sense to include the comma for Jr. while omitting it for II.
All that said, that's tangential to the reason I started this discussion, which is "what is a biographer for the purpose of that guideline?". There has been one somewhat experienced disagreement with Andy, so I'd like to hear more opinions. ‑‑Mandruss  23:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd also note that "sources concerning the subject" would include things like news items, which is an even looser criterion than a liberal interpretation of "biographers". I don't think anyone would call a news writer a subject's "biographer" because they wrote an article about the subject. ‑‑Mandruss  03:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It has been more than three days without any further discussion. I feel a cogent argument has not been made for either the original language or the current language. I also feel that the original vagueness, far from providing needed flexibility (which has not been explained or demonstrated), only creates opportunity for editor conflict and wasted effort. I would therefore like to propose the following language in the hopes of either improving the guideline or stimulating further discussion.

  • If the subject's preference can be established, use it.
  • If a subject's preference cannot be established, look at the form used by the subject's biographers. Use only authors who are known for serious, well-researched biography, such as Stephen Ambrose or Doris Kearns Goodwin. Other authors, news items, etc. should not be considered.
  • If neither a subject preference nor a biographer preference can be discerned, default to no comma. ‑‑Mandruss  22:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Slipknot (band)[edit]

The metal band Slipknot hired a new bassist and drummer with the intent to keep their identities secret. They filmed a new video with hoods over the heads of the musicians. The band's fans have identified the bassist by his left-hand tattoo, which was reported in an industry magazine.[2] More conjecture can be found in fan forums about the identity of the drummer in the video, but the evidence is not conclusive.

User:TypeONegative13 has been adding text such that the two new musicians are actually members of the band, or members in training. The band has said in interviews that these two new players are not yet full members of the band.[3] The following articles are affected by this news and BLP conjecture:

I think Wikipedia's policies are best met by keeping a conservative stance on the guesses and conjecture surrounding the new bandmembers. I could use some help in keeping these articles BLP-compliant. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly not YET full members of the band hence in training... Look at it as they're the privates and the rest of the band are the Sargents but they will rise in the ranks eventually Corey stated they have to earn their way to be "full members" again hence IN TRAINING Also I have never added Jay Weinberg only Alessandro as he is confirmed as Corey admitted it was him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypeONegative13 (talkcontribs) 18:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Band members in training? No. They are not official band members yet. They are not in training. The source does even remotely suggest this. They came with the ability to play instruments. Actually auditioning is more along the lines of what is going on. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Heard a Taylor interview on Talk is Jericho last night. Was clear that Slipknot plays with the new guys, but they're not part of the band. Also repeated that he there's no intention to name them in the foreseeable future. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:55, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: TypeONegative13 was blocked for two weeks by Materialscientist for edit warring and adding unsourced text. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Circle of Dead Children[edit]

The tone is written almost like a press release. No references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents Metal week... I think the lead does alot in the way of a press release. Some things there not in the body. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I moved a section of the lead down into the body of the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Russell A. Kirsch[edit]

Russell A. Kirsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've just removed a major claim about the subject of this article, after trying to verify the claim showed it to be clearly incorrect. Basically, the article credited the subject with an endeavor for which there is no evidence and which he could not possibly have performed, due to chronology. I'm sure correcting this doesn't violate BLP policies, but I'm nevertheless a bit concerned about this, due to the nature of the change and the fact I'm not used to working in BLP territory. Hence my inquiry here. Comments? Sorry if I'm being bothersome. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have checked the sources; Various blogs and less reliable sources do credit Russell with inventing the first computer or leading the team that designed it. However, in the cited self-published source by the author, he did not make such a statement, so it was indeed unsourced, and all reliable sources that I could find, state that Russell joined the team when SEAC was already operational. So thank you @Colin Douglas Howell: for your contribution.
Done: I have added the article to my watchlist. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP newbie and List of NFL starting quarterbacks[edit]

OK I admit it... I've been around awhile, but I haven't bothered to learn how BLP works. In a recent thread I tried to make an example using List of NFL starting quarterbacks. I was surprised by a dismissive reply asserting that that article does not involved any BLP issues. The exchange is here Can someone at this board explain to this BLP newbie why the BLP policy does not apply to that article? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I may be a voice in the wilderness, but I vehemently disagree: all articles that mention living persons have potential WP:BLP issues. At its core BLP strongly suggests that all statements about living persons should be sourced to reliable sources:
"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
Some editors have asserted that lists of living persons are not required to be sourced to reliable sources so long as the listed persons are wiki-linked to Wikipedia articles about such persons wherein the membership in the list and any statements in the list are supported and properly sourced. I think that violates the spirit of WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS, and especially WP:WPNOTRS. Clearly, it is best practice to source every statement in every article, and I believe that should apply with double effect to BLP articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the 2 bits; " all articles that mention living persons have potential WP:BLP issues." That succinctly sums the extent of my prior impression. Anyone else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Near the start of the thread you were in I had pointed to WP:BLPCAT as the specific part that was applicable in the circumstances. The bit about false light is I believe particularly applicable. Dmcq (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I was typing a rebuttal when you posted here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Editors here might like to look there where they are saying that BLPCAT means we can take a reliable source at face value in a case of possible false light and only need to remove an entry if the scientist gets something published saying they do not support what the RS said. Dmcq (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree, insofar as more eds with BLP knowledge at that thread would be beneficial.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere that living people are talked about on Wikipedia. But that has almost nothing to do with whether List of NFL starting quarterbacks requires additional direct inline sourcing for non-contentious material. If it's material unlikely to be challenged on BLP grounds, and it's inlinked to a main well-sourced BLP-compliant article that directly supports the claim, then I don't see any problem in that case. WP:BLPSOURCES demands an inline citation for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. It doesn't demand inline citations for every possible type of claim always, just the ones with a possibility of drama and possible BLP-harm. Basically, if the list is navigational, anodyne, and ultimately sourced where we are directing people, then it doesn't need additional citation to be perfectly BLP-compliant. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The actual article is not about quarterbacks but List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and possible false light is always a very real possibility if checks aren't done. Dmcq (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hussein Chalayan[edit]

The article makes reference to "ethnic cleansing" of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots in 1974, in footnote 3. I am appauled at the political and factual inaccuracy of this statement and request that it be removed immediately. Not only are semantics misused but history is misrepresented. A death toll of 600 Turkish Cypriots in 1974 can by no means be termed mass expulsion and be presented in this way to the general public. The reference to fault on the part of Greek Cypriots only, who in fact suffered 6,000 deaths, is both bias and again an unjust manipulation and account of events.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is a Wikipedia policy somewhere which prohibits the use of the term ethnic cleansing and instead we are required to use genocide–a more neutral and accurate word. Same situation where we are to state John Smith died not John Smith passed away. Maybe someone else is familiar or can find the policy. Meatsgains (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:EUPHEMISM is the guideline.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not policy, it's a style guideline. I thought User:PBS was suggesting it be removed from the guideline, as "Ethnic Cleansing" can cover activities not always contained in "Genocide", (although they are both general descriptors of horrific war crimes). We should generally describe these crimes as RS describe them..... __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up Elaqueate, I think that there is a useful summary in the Ethnic cleansing article about the difference between Ethnic cleansing and genocide. There is a quote there which I think particularly succinct and graphic "Thus, these concepts are different, but related; "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people." (by N. Naimark, 2007). There is a general problem on Wikipedia where inexperienced editors place lots of terms in the narrative voice of Wikiepdia which carry a bias. This is often because they have read or heard the definition of words like "terrorist" or "genocide" and apply their own analysis to conclude that an organisation is a "terrorist" organisation, or horrific events must be "genocide"/"ethic cleansing" or whatever. In all cases like this it is far more encyclopaedic to attribute the statement to one or more of the most prominent unbiased source or sources that use the term. If the term is not widely used, that it is easily attributable then it probably should not be used. In this case who is stating that "Ethnic conflicts between the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities eventually led to war and acts of ethnic cleansing from the Greek side". It seems very biased as the civil war ended in the partition of Cyprus with some of the territory under the control of Northern Cyprus. It would seem better to me to rephrase the sentence around the fact that "Ethnic conflicts between the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities led to a a war in which members of both Greek and Turkish communities were compelled to leave their homes" (which is roughly in line with what the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus says). -- PBS (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that Ethnic cleansing is very broad terminology and can offer very little clarity in what actually happened. I think there's pretty much a consensus off wikipedia that what happened in Cyprus was ethnic cleansing. However calling it ethnic cleansing does not tell what actually took place. Reading what PBS has to say here the removal of Turkish Cypriots seem to be a key component to this ethnic cleansing.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I think there's pretty much a consensus off wikipedia that what happened in Cyprus was ethnic cleansing. If true, this is more important than what is decided in a random conversation of Wikipedia editors. This is definitely a case where we should reflect the phrasing and assessment of better reliable sources rather than decide what to call it independently. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not important at all especially if what the hell actually happened isn't being made known. Ethnic cleansing happened on both sides. But what actually happened, what constitutes ethnic cleansing in this case, is what's important. We aren't trying to invoke an emotional reaction in readers. We are trying to give them information.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
What sources say is important; that shouldn't be disputable. We should describe it as better sources describe it, however that may be. This seems to have been a non-trivial event in this BLP's biography. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Using what the sources say hasn't been disputed. Using the exact wording has been questioned. The Greeks have been accused of ethnic cleansing but so to have the Turks. However saying that either side employed ethnic cleansing does not tell you anything. It tells you they may have done a long list of things to encourage an ethnicity to leave. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the Turkish side and it's not a soapbox for the Greek side.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez[edit]

Accounts and IPs blocked, so while WP:NLT applies, there's nothing more to do. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

James B Watson and “Jytdog” - By blocking contributors, refusing to hear what they say and attaching libellous tags you are making a travesty of Wikipedia and its mission. I know Heidi (identified as a major contributor to this article under alias Hayde Blinky), and judging from the Wikipedia picture, she doesn’t look at all like AF!! You can’t assume that everybody that writes about AF is either AF or a puppet of AF and block them. That’s not Wikipedia. This type of censorship is out, has been out for a long long time! I read the article on AF and it is pretty anemic. You talk about promoting AF, but all I see mentioned is employment, a book, papers and few accolades. Most notable people, including porn stars, get more thorough coverage. And there is nothing funny about this. I am sorry Jytdog, but I don’t think that your harassment of Heidi (I just got to read it) while hiding behind that name is funny. I really don’t. I see nothing funny about harassing Wikipedia contributors. (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Liping Laura Meng

Dear Wikipedia authority,

I am writing in regards to a libellous tag attached to an article entitled "Ariel Fernandez" that has me as subject.

The tag indicates that a major contributor to the article has close relation with the subject (me). This is false and it is libellous because it implies sockpuppetry and conflict of interest. This is not correct and I must request its immediate removal as it infringes BLP regulations.

Wikipedia editor James B Watson falsely assumes that everybody who writes about AF is either AF or a puppet of AF, refuses to listen to what they say and blocks their accounts. This is not Wikipedia, it is fascism.

Read my lips: I am NOT personally or professionally related or even acquainted with Heidi Belkin (a. k. a. Hayde Belinky). I do recall having met Heidi way back on a legal matter.

While vastly incomplete, the article on me as it now stands seems fair, objective and accurate as far as I can see. It sems to be fairly well documented and seems to have been taken from verifiable sources including websites that I have edited myself.

I must ask you to please remove the libel tag from my article.

Should you have further questions, I would be happy to discuss them.

Feel free to contact me at your convenience. NOTE: INTERN LAURA MENG WHO WROTE THE PREVIOUS REPORT IS RIGHT BY ME.

Ariel Fernandez, Ph. D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Having a tag on an article that says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." is not libelous nor does it infringe on BLP. GB fan 15:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

TELL THAT TO THE COURT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Slander, Harassment and Abuse of Power

Wikipedia contributor “Jytdog” and Wikipedia editor “JamesBWatson” may be responsible of harassment, slander per se and abuse of privileges and rights. First, Jytdog and JamesBWatson falsely included me in a sockpuppetry accusation named “Arifer”. I have nothing to do with any contributor or contributors named “Arifer” and there is not a trace of evidence to the contrary. Second, both individuals did not even bother to read what I had to say in that regard, and after blocking me, they simply attached a slanderous tag to the Wikipedia page “Ariel Fernandez” (AF) falsely indicating or implying or suggesting sockpuppetry and conflict of interest. This false accusation, real or perceived, constitutes “slander per se” in the State of Texas where AF has his residence. As I said before and repeat now, my real name is NOT “Haydee Belinky” and I have no connection, personal or professional, with AF. I learned about AF and took interest in his work after I became acquainted with his consultancy work in a patent litigation case in 2011, where I volunteered an opinion outside the Court. An accusation of sock puppetry based on the fact that the subject and I live part of the time in Buenos Aires, a city of 15 million people, is ridiculous. I don’t even know if we ever overlap. I thought the subject and his work met the notability criteria demanded by Wikipedia to be included in its pages. I have every right to publish articles on the AF work subject to the Wikipedia standards and editing. If I chose to write only about AF, that is also my prerogative. The work of Ariel Fernandez has been reviewed in some major venues like: Nature: Scientific American: Nature Medicine: Commissioned review by Harvard professor George Demetri: Chemistry World/Royal Society of Chemistry: and many others. As for the notability of Ariel Fernandez himself, it appears to be established in the Talk on his Wikipedia article. I simply was not able to find any regulation forbidding me to contribute with a neutral objective tone to Wikipedia by writing articles on a subject and his work that meet the notability criteria. The information I presented is thoroughly verifiable. There is no promotional intent in the articles contributed. I feel I may be a subject to harassment and abuse at the hands of Jytdog since I started contributing to Wikipedia. He rejected most of my entries for rather absurd reasons: books, professional papers or words like “pioneer” were arbitrarily banned and considered by Jytdog as “promotional”. In fact, they are quoted profusely in Wikipedia. In the end, everything I wrote, no matter how relevant to the subject matter, was considered promotional, as if I did not have the right to write about a single individual and his work. I feel Wikipedia may consider what prima facie appears to be a case of slander, abuse of power and harassment proceeding internally as appropriate and ex-oficio by elevation to the proper Civil Court. Secondly, out of respect to AF, I request the immediate removal of the slanderous tag from the Wikipedia article on AF mentioned in this report. Heidi B200.68.120.165 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like everyone should re-read WP:BLPKINDNESS, WP:NLT, WP:BLPDELETE, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE.... Threats of legal action are not going to resolve anything here, and whatever relationship (or non-relationship) you've had with the subject in the past is completely moot if you're saying you're advising the initiation of any kind of "Civil Court" action on their behalf. At that point, you seem a little "involved" no matter what you were before. Please review the links I've provided before continuing. Consider reading WP:NLT more than once, and if you still want to continue here in that vein, Please e-mail with a link to the article and details of the problem; for more information on how to get an error corrected, see here. It is usually better to ask for help rather than trying to change the material yourself.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Walter O'Brien[edit]

Walter O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

About week ago, I started a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard, but did not receive a response. I'm concerned that some of the sources do not meet our BLP policy. I left a note here and would appreciate any additional input. Mike VTalk 15:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Barry Freundel[edit]

Barry Freundel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So far, treatment of recent events has been pretty good. As a precautionary matter, extra eyes on the page would be a good idea. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible unreferenced HOAX pages on BLPs[edit]

  1. Golden Star Award for Best Actress
  2. Golden Star Award for Best Supporting Actor
  3. Golden Star Award for Best Actor

Please see above. I nominated these pages for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Star Award for Best Supporting Actor. But they may qualify for speedy deletion as completely unreferenced pages on WP:BLPs that are possible WP:HOAX pages. — Cirt (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Someone may also wish to investigate problems at Spanish Wikipedia on this user: contribs, and multiple warnings. — Cirt (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Does seem to be a hoax. Only mention I see of a "Golden Star" award is at Asianet Film Awards#Special awards, something briefly handed out for a few years to Bollywood actors/actresses. Tarc (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Tarc, so what should be done about Cayorto (talk · contribs) on en.wikipedia and also on es.wikipedia? — Cirt (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Depends on what their next move is; after these AfDs close, if the behavior happens again, probably an easy WP:NOTHERE block at ANI. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Greg Orman[edit]

Greg Orman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

When Orman was endorsed by former Kansas state Rep. Eric Carter, a conservative Republican from Overland Park, The Weekly Standard called attention to the fact that Carter owes Orman a debt, listed on a financial disclosure form as between $15,000 and $50,000.[1] Carter, who has represented Orman's companies in several legal cases, explained there is a revolving line of credit between his law firm and Orman's companies.[2]

  1. ^ Warren, Michael (October 24, 2014). "Pro-Orman Republican Owes Candidate Big Money". The Weekly Standard (Washington, D.C.). Retrieved October 25, 2014. 
  2. ^ Ross, Chuck (October 24, 2014). "Kansas Independent Accused Of ‘Potential’ Backroom Endorsement Deal With Republican Supporter". The Daily Caller (Washington, D.C.). Retrieved October 25, 2014. 

There is a dispute on the above content, with some editors claiming this is a notable event and others claiming that it is a BLP violation based on WP:UNDUE. My opinion falls with the latter, given that the pay-to-play allegation has been published in biased sources such as the neo-conservative The Weekly Standard and conservative The Daily Caller, attempting to discredit the endorsement on the basis of an alleged pay-to-play scheme. I would appreciate uninvolved editors to comment on this issue. Unproven accusations are not something we should be promoting in Wikipedia, let alone in BLPs - Cwobeel (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be no allegation of criminal activity, and the debt is acknowledged (that is, the debt is not "unproven"), so as long as secondary reliable sources report on it, then there is prima facie a case that a conflict of interest might exist. "Conflict of interest" is a status, and is not an action. Wikipedia often uses "biased sources" when it comes to political material - are you saying that we should excise all biased sources in BLPs? I would certainly support that, but it is not the current Wikipedia state of affairs. Certainly it is not common for a supporter of a candidate to owe the candidate money - it is more typically the reverse. Collect (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the point. This "scandal" was not reported in any sources besides right-wing sources, in an obvious attempt to attack Orman. Per WP:UNDUE this does not belong in a BLP, and it is awkward seeing how you responded to this, when I have seen you many, many times argue vehemently against these type of edits in BLPs. Care to clarify why here this is different? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, please clarify what is the biographical value of that material? Is there any? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
There's an implication of COI in that wording, but obviously that's what The Weekly Standard was going for. I don't think this is a WP:BLP violation, but it certainly seems WP:UNDUE for this biography, at least without a couple more strong sources. It kind of stands out as an awkward aside about a manufactured controversy. It's silly at best.- MrX 19:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
This material definitely needs some stronger sources to cease violating WP:UNDUE. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Jordan Belfort and Joseph Borg[edit]

An editor recently removed material from the Belfort article stating that the cited source did not support the material. I think that's a stretch and said so. The same editor changed material related to Belfort, as well as a good deal of other material, on the Borg article, which, unlike Belfort, has very few page watchers. The editor then left what I can only call a tirade on the Borg talk page, including a BLP violation, which I removed.

I reverted the edits to the Borg article but did not revert the change to the Belfort article. I confess that some of what I'm doing is based on attitude, but more is based on WP:SYNTHESIS and inappropriate inferences by the editor.

A little help on both articles would be appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Fraser Hobday[edit]

Unknown and unremarkable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Article was an autobiography - stubbed. It's been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraser Hobday. --NeilN talk to me 14:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos and Gamergate[edit]

I take issue with the subject's section on his involvement in the Gamergate controversy[4], in particular his claims of receiving harassment. Some of the sources appear dubious and seemed to have been copied from the Gamergate article, of which some such as Chinatopix and Reason had been questioned. I felt that there's an undue weight on the subject's involvement in the controversy.-- (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

When is there a possible BLP violation?[edit]

On Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Peer review section seems to be WP:SYNTH there was a discussion about whethger a section included SYNTH. Then one of the people removed the section giving BLP as the reason so it was under WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE . Now whilst I'm quite hot on ensuring BLP isn't violated, the section itself does not mention anyone and I simply do not see any false light problems that might be caused by the text to anywhere else in the article except by badly misreading it and a number of other bits. It seems to me like wikilawyering to avoid BRD and force deletion without discussion. I have come across this problem before and that time the person just said BLP a without saying which bit of BLP or why and wouldn't expand.

I feel this is a growing problem, have we got any guidelines on how to quickly assess that there might be a potential BLP problem so we can reject such things quickly and go to normal BRD? Or are we stuck with this in any article which mentions a person? Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As the person who removed this this is my reasoning: So far everyone seems to be agreeing that the part removed implied that the living people in the list disagreed with 97% of the peer reviewed literature. However the source of the 97% explicitly says that 10 of the individuals are included in the 97%. As such what is being implied about, at least these 10, of these people's views is not their view. It being said of a scientist that they disagree with 97% of their peers is a bad thing. Implying a bad thing about an individuals views that is not true is a WP:BLP problem. --Obsidi (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
That section was about why there was so few peer reviewed papers in the list. It wasn't about the scientists. Those scientists that were in the list who agreed with part of the mainstream view in a peer reviewed paper said nothing about their other views. There is no false light problem. The scientists there have been said to disagree and pretty obviously do. The section just says that there hasn't been very much that disagree peer reviewed that disagrees. The point is the section was a separate one. The scientists were in separate sections which clearly said what they disagreed about. And they actually do disagree with the vast majority of their peers. It requires misreading what the section says and not reading the article lead or the sectionheadings or the citations for the scientists to get it wrong. It is just contrived to delete the bit without discussion when the real issue you had was whether there was SYNTH in the section. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The part about how there were few peer reviewed papers in the list was not removed. If the implication is made that the scientists in the list don't agree with the 97% (which so far everyone had agreed that was the case, this is the first time I am hearing about them being in different sections might cause that implication to not flow), the rest is clear BLP violation once the false implication is made (about the 10 individuals that it is clearly false). No misreading of the section heading or article lead is required. --Obsidi (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Even if it was in the same section there would be no false lighht problem. They really do very clearly disagree with the vast majority of their peers. There was no even slightly smouldering BLP problem that required deleting that section while it was still being debated. And that's why I'm here. If the BLP implication is so very weak we shouldn't have BLP used to override BRD but that is what BLP is being used for. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Lets just say the weakness is disputed. --Obsidi (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
That somebody can just say 'I dispute the weakness' is not enough. The policy is being misused. Any wikilawyer can use that form of words. Dmcq (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
See above for the reasons why it is disputed (no need to repeat my arguments). --Obsidi (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio host)[edit]

Alex Jones (radio host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just had an RfC on how to treat the claim that he is a "conspiracy theorist" with regard to using multiple sources and quotes in the lead for that claim. The closer found than only one of the cites had a clear consensus for inclusion. Does this mean that the other material in the BLP which did not have a consensus for inclusion must therefore be kept? Do claims which were found not to have affirmative consensus for inclusion require an affirmative consensus to be found for removal in a BLP? The issue is one of weight - we had at one point five sources given space in the lead for the claim that the person is a "conspiracy theorist" and I suggest that overkill on such a matter is, indeed, a BLP concern. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

From the RfC close: "Only one editor thought that none of the contested text should appear in the lede." And: "very clear consensus against wholesale removal of the three-part text segment". You are therefore on very thin ice in your attempt to remove the contested text. Did you think no-one would notice the extremely poor fit between your question here and the edit you have been trying (and, thankfully, failing) to make? Your actions are in direct contravention of the way the RfC was closed, and I suggest you not make any attempt to repeat this in the future. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Um -- I did not ask for removal of all mention of "conspiracy theorist" only the excess sledgehammer use of five sources making the same claim. And your personal attack that I acted "in direct contravention" of the RfC close is not something which I find appealing on your part - it sounds like more of the same from you. The closer stated that only one cite had consensus support - and I suggest you reword your attack here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Time to dropthestick? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Collect, in early September you were trying to delete this material. You then posed an RfC which the closer noted had "flaws" -- and yet despite these flaws it failed to support your desired outcome. To carry on attempting to delete this stuff in direct contravention of the RfC outcome is something that might easily be considered disruptive. It's wise that you've stopped; the only question remaining is whether you've stopped for now or for good. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think it's really necessary to call him a conspiracy theorist 3 times in the lede. Once or twice is enough, not to mention the second and third-time say the exact same thing, just with a different source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there were five sources for the term in the lead alone -- which were, of course, repeated to some extent in the body of the BLP as well at one point. Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is one thing, but making it emphasized to that extent seems like swatting flies with sledgehammers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Unless, the subject is “America’s leading conspiracy theorist” and "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America", per sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. If there's one case where "conspiracy theorist" is 100% valid, it's Jones. It's like labeling Jack Nicklaus a "professional golfer". I'd think fewer people would know him as an author, and that would be the dubious thing that needs two citations in the lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

Matis Weinberg[edit]

I would like some of you to have a look at the (obligatorily titled) "Controversy" section, to see whether the sourcing is up to snuff for a set of allegations that did not lead to a conviction. I have no opinion, being not familiar with the subject or the publications, but I saw an IP editor who just removed that section and I restored it--not without some BLP trepidation. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Though the event is notable, the charges were dropped. The "Controversy" section gives WP:UNDUE weight to the convictions and the section is too long. I would suggest a heavy trim, keeping all sources. And as a side note-this is the only section on the page with reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dick Carlson[edit]

I came across this article while patrolling uncategorized pages. It's a BLP with internal consistence errors that would seem to indicate a general lack of trust in anything in the article and fishing through everything to find what's right and what's wrong may be what's required or just start anew. Please have a look. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Carlson has had a diverse career. The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training has a long interview with him here that may back up the article, although it will take time to verify everything and in the meantime, of course, WP:BLP would warrant removing any dubious content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
He was redlinked in a few articles under "Richard W. Carlson", which I've fixed. Be aware that there is also a geologist by the same name.--Auric talk 18:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

List of YouTube sex scandals[edit]

List of YouTube sex scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm coming here because I'm fairly concerned with the article List of YouTube sex scandals, as we have a list of YouTubers who were involved with several accusations of sexual abuse/manipulation/rape. What I noticed is that while a few of the people on the page have received some coverage (Sam Pepper, Alex Day, Jason Sampson, Mike Lombardo), some (Ed Blann, Gregory Jackson, Tom Milsom) have not received nearly enough to really warrant being listed on the page. I'm also mildly concerned about the inclusion of YouTube in the title, as while all of the people are vloggers the coverage in relation to YT isn't really the main impetus. For some of the people involved, it's not the videos they made that were the reason for the scandal- it's the actions they performed off camera. However at the same time, I can also see the reason for naming it as such. It's just that for some reason this just doesn't exactly fit well and I can't quite put my finger on it. In any case, I am concerned that of the people on the page, only 4 really have enough coverage to warrant inclusion and of those four, only three have an article on Wikipedia. That means that we have a page where three people have articles (Ed Blann's band has an article but does not mention the sex scandal). I'm not entirely sure that we entirely need a page on this at this point in time, but even more than that I'm concerned that this page is being used to log any YT personality that has had even the slightest amount of coverage for anything sexual misconduct related. I do think that this should be listed somewhere on the Internet, but I don't entirely think that Wikipedia is the right place for it at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Basically what I'm worried about is that this is starting to and may potentially become a place where people post about anyone who has received a modicum of coverage in regards to a sex scandal, using it as a place to make up for the coverage that the mainstream/reliable sources is not giving these people. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You mean like how there's a consensus forming on its Talk page that these guys are all douchebags? I agree, that's worrisome. What if a prospective employer sees this and thinks "We didn't want a douchebag, we wanted a janitor!" They'll be ruined. And you don't get much lower than a ruined douchebag. All because they tried to be a bit edgy and get some buzz. What if nobody had hired George Carlin for Cars? Or Richard Pryor for Superman III? Or Charles Manson for Lie: The Love and Terror Cult? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
AFD'd? The thing needs to be revdel'd immediately as a gross violation of WP:BLP policy - apart from anything else, it makes accusations of serious criminal offences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I've started a thread on ANI, asking that it be deleted, and blanked the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Support this action — I took a brief look and found, just with a casual glance, any number of terrible, unreliable sources used to support allegations of serious wrongdoing. Unsalvageable and needs to be gone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Support blanking. Started an AFD. Would prefer it being speedied. Abecedare (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Now deleted by User:John as "Potentially libelous/defamatory". AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks guys! I'm glad I posted this here. I felt like it was violating BLP in some form or fashion, but I didn't think about the libel angle. Yikes. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


I refer to the comments added in this edit: Special:Diff/456979783/440921989. I appreciate this is only the talk page, but still these are fairly offensive and unsubstantiated remarks. They've been there a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monxton (talkcontribs) 18:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The revision has been removed. The account is stale, so no point on warning. Thanks for letting us know. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi[edit]

Jian Ghomeshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Canadian television personality, recently fired and trespassed from his former employers premises, launches $50m legal action for reinstatement. The claimed actions appear to be crimes but no formal police compliant appears to have been laid. More eyes would be very useful. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

S. Truett Cathy[edit]

This subject donated money to various groups; I have started an RfC on the talk page to determine whether a modifier (in this case, "anti-gay") should be added to those groups. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: the "anti-gay" is ascribed in Wikipedia's voice in the BDP which is still subject to WP:BLP, while the sources correct ascribe the usage to Equality Matters which provided the list. Collect (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Wendy Davis (politician)[edit]

I ask yet again for more eyes on this page. One dynamic IP is transparently trying to turn the talk page into an anti-Davis hit piece. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. If I'm the only one occasionally reverting then maybe there isn't a real problem and will stop. --NeilN talk to me 17:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the diffs are about an editor, and not apparently about making the BLP talk page a "hit piece" - sometimes a thicker skin is useful here. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Added to watchlist - Cwobeel (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Justine Tunney[edit]

This article appears to give undue weight to 2 articles, one from Valleywag and one from The Daily Beast, as the basis as a hit piece against this person. Valleywag in particular is a tabloid. I think the claims about this person, such as them being a fascist and they support slavery, obviously violate BLP and I question whether they represent a mainstream view supported by other sources. (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, pretty clear WP:BLPSOURCES violation - we don't cite admitted gossip rags for highly controversial information about living persons. Valleywag is a tabloid, and the Daily Beast piece is an opinion piece, and Tunney herself writes that she does not hold those views. I'd prefer not to be the one to zap it myself (never met her, but distantly work together), but will, per WP:IAR, if no one else will. --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP mess at best, and hit piece at worst. I removed some of the worst parts (I note McInnes is covered by BLP and the claims about McInnes are poorly sourced for their contentious claims). Collect (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Vincent Sheheen[edit]

Vincent Sheheen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good morning good people of WP:BLPN. Vincent Sheheen, apparently, is a politician in the USA and currently a candidate for some office or other. Please could you evaluate whether this edit (and indeed the entire paragraph) is due weight, and otherwise appropriate based on the source(s) used, in the article about him. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think due weight applies here because the paragraph is only three sentences long. If we are presenting one side of the story, Sheheen calling the other candidate a "whore", then we should provide some sort of explanation-both of which are properly sourced. I would however, suggest a more neutral tone by removing "even joking". Just my two cents. Meatsgains (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Meh. We're not the news. It's not sourced strong enough to make a case for enduring relevance. I cut it, and some other fluff, including his Facebook and Twitter. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Not terribly important, no. And worded weirdly. I fixed the words, but was conflicted by your deletion. Readded my version, but if that's still too much, I'll understand. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, October 30, 2014 (UTC)
Hmm--that wording certainly reflects the source better. Funny--Romney is hit "in the gut" and then talks about what a "great girl" Haley is. Really, that should raise as much controversy. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I watched the video after. The "You gotta tell the truth" thing was out of context, too. It was about showing her the door because she was misappropriating funds and because her policies were "stupid". Intentionally calling her stupid and corrupt seems to be OK, at least to the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

Jason Stverak[edit]

Jason Stverak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to be advertising in nature and written by either, their parent group Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, and/or Donors Trust. The aforementioned are connected via grants from Charles and David Koch and thus not neutral. This is witnessed by the large majority of sources pointing to internal articles of and the Franklin Center as a convoluted loop to not referencing any sort of neutrality as to the issues and controversies surrounding Jason Stverak and his financiers. [1] [2] [3] [4]

  • Removed most of the content to keep as a stub. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal. I didn't feel comfortable just using a speedy, but This is a model case for a prejudicial POV split. DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Closed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Greg Orman[edit]

Greg Orman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the article on Greg Orman, the independent candidate facing Republican Pat Roberts in the 2014 Kansas Senate election. NazariyKaminski is arguing that we need to include very detailed information about Orman’s past donations as a citizen, to Democrats and Republicans, resulting in a long list of names, including names used by Roberts attacking Orman during one of their debates. The result was this: [13].

My opinion is that the section violates WP:UNDUE in this BLP and it is not necessary; a short description of Orman’s past contributions as a citizen should suffice in his biography. I would appreciate fresh eyes and comments from uninvolved editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC notice: Comma before Jr. or Sr.[edit]

There is an RfC proposing a clarification of the guideline about the use of comma before Jr. or Sr. in article titles. ‑‑Mandruss  19:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy[edit]

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Presently, on this article, there is an argument as to whether or not the content in this article (which is being discussed at RSN presently) can be added. It is being contended that identifying moderators of one forum on Reddit as moderators of other forums on Reddit that are misogynistic boards that the people wishing to use this source are violating WP:BLP. The contested paragraph is here. Does this violate BLP?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Perhaps it would be best if it was moved here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
This should arguably the right forum.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • How can it be a BLP violation when no real names are used? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    Apparently negative statements about pseudonymous people, even as a group, is a BLP violation. At least those are the arguments being put forward on the talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    Going by that logic should someone on here call me a liar it is a BLP vio, you cannot commit a BLP violation against a made up name, and if the source is deemed OK on the RS board, then I see no issue with the edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    Discussions on the article's talk page seem to be making comparison's to the target of the initial harassment campaign of being pseudonymous (her real life pseudonym) and arguing that if she is protected by BLP, then the screennames used on Reddit are as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    So, the article basically says that this or that Reddit moderator, without identifying them by personal information, posts this or that in public -- I do not see BLP as being implicated, as there is no personal information about a person. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    Yes. But, again, it is argued that their online pseudonyms are enough identifying information, akin to "Zoe Quinn" not being the legal name of the person discussed at the article of the same name.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    Zoe Quinn is a known individual person right? Are these other anonymous known, and not anonymous? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, Zoe Quinn is a known individual person. As far as I am aware, these other people are only known through their pseudonyms in this article and they are only being identified through their pseudonyms on one website. Also, it is now being alleged that by adding this paragraph I am kink shaming. I'm not sure if this falls under BLP. You can take a look at the conversation I'm currently embroiled in based on the responses here and at WT:BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
These anonymous do not appear ashamed to make public posts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yet you see the arguments being made on the article's talk page as to how BLP is being violated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: You can see the rationales being raised here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
So? Poor arguments are poor arguments. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It's multiple people making the same poor arguments to form a consensus against inclusion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

So another issue has come up. TheHat2, which is one of the people specifically identified in the article, was doxxed in the mass Kotaku dox. This kinda makes him more a person than an online pseudonym. Also, they believe all the mods are men, when one is actually a woman (not a transwoman, my bad). This is from me messaging the KiA mods because it is their sex life. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If you stop advertising this then maybe it wouldn't be an issue. And no, the piece does not say anything resembling what you are accusing. And your PMs to Reddit members have no weight on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong, it has already been released, and he was ok with me stating it, because he has a right for it to be known, since this is ABOUT HIM, and is a BLP issue. It has plenty of weight, since this is ABOUT THEM, and they cannot comment on the talk page. PseudoSomething (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
He is not a person of interest to Wikipedia. He is simply mentioned in a source that you think is a BLP issue when sources themselves are not BLP issues.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

ashish thakkar[edit]

Ashish Thakkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ashish_Thakkar his name isn't Ashish Thakkar - it is Pretal Shah.

He didn't start his first business at the age of 15, as at this age he was at secondary school in the UK, while this business was in Uganda, called EXIM, and owned by his father

The claims of businesses in 19 african countries, and 21 countries world wide are completely without substance. There are a few brand names marketed around, that amount to nothing real. He has "hinged" himself to a number of other companies, under lose co-brands, but even if you trippled these companies they would never amount to 8000 employees. However, he's a good talker and a good salesman, and having convinced a few colour magazines that he tells the truth, this is now his "evidence" of success.

Just an example of how one person can charm the (supposedly) educated masses into believing in tulip bulbs and south sea bubbles.

Surely WIKIPEDIA can finally stand up, be counted, and demand FACTUAL PROOF for all of these claims, including a copy of his passport to show his real name!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done I have cleaned up some of the unsourced material that was obvious WP:PEACOCK, and will keep on my watchlist. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen A. Parke; Requests deletion of page about him[edit]

Please delete the Stephen A. Parke page. I am Stephen A. Parke and I am embarrassed to have this page in Wikipedia because I am not a notable person. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Gail Dines[edit]

Gail Dines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all, Although maybe a bit out of scope for this noticeboard, I'd like a few opinions on this. There are a few maintinance tags on a few sections still (namely the reception section). Can someone give me a second opinion on whether the issues have been resolved or not? Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 06:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)