Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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


Maharaja Agrasen College, Jagadhri[edit]

Would uninvolved editors please take a look at the recent history of Maharaja Agrasen College, Jagadhri. The point at issue is that people keep inserting and removing a referenced claim that the current college principal, a Dr P K Bajpai, is facing criminal charges. The most recent insertion to this effect (since removed) reads:

In 2011-12 the management appointed a person named Dr. Pramod Kumar Bajpai (P. K. Bajpai) as Principal. He is implicated in a serious criminal case against women, (REG. CRI. CASE/1300525/2006).[1][2][3][4][5] in which trial is still under way in Udaipur.[6]

  1. ^ Details of the Case against Pramod Kumar in the court of ACJM
  2. ^ FIR number 153/2006 Pratap Nagar Thana, Udaipur. (Ganeshpura, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan ( East ) – 313001 PH: 0294-2490499
  3. ^ Charge sheet number 163/2006
  4. ^ Request for Action against Dr P.K. Bajpai, letter from the Rajasthan State Commission for Women to the Commissioner for College Education, n.d., Page 1, reproduced here
  5. ^ Request for Action against Dr P.K. Bajpai, letter from the Rajasthan State Commission for Women to the Commissioner for College Education, n.d., Page 2, reproduced here
  6. ^ Charges under sections 354 and 509 of IPC: Court of ACJM-1 - Neelam Sharma (court no. 13) Udaipur, Rajasthan

Q.: Does this claim have a legitimate place in the article, or not?: Noyster (talk), 15:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals like these - "editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." There isn't any secondary coverage for the claims either. Requested temporary protection and the page has been Semi-protected for two weeks by Ged UK due to repeated addition of material that violates BLP policy.  NQ  talk 14:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Eyes please[edit]

Back on August 12th, I reverted Zambelo's edit where he placed several names on this template . I got a notification that he'd reverted me, so I went back to look, he replaced exactly the same names back in, which I reverted as they violated BLP (he's claiming these individuals are opposed to NRM's, but there is no article, nor references to back that up with.) I checked further and see that he's also done this with Free Range Frog as well. Here he reverts Free Range Frog and notes that the individuals are "known" and that they have no articles Here I reverted him and advised him that BLP forbids this kind of thing and here he is reverting again to the same list of names . I've already dropped him a note on his talk page explaining why this cant be done. and he's responded to it, civily. I have the feeling he may wait a while then try to revert again, so I'm requesting extra eyes on this template. Thanks KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: The argument by Zambelo that the entries are "OK" because they are sourced in the articles linked to by the template is specious - it's the equivalent of creating an unreferenced list of names and claiming they are sourced in some article they are linked to. I have a problem with the names because what happens when one of these people decide they don't want to be associated with the organization or movement Zambelo attached them to? They're going to edit the article they appear in and then they're going to be lost with the template, which has a lot of transclusions and so to them it looks like their name is everywhere and they can't remove it. Are they going to contact Zambelo? No, they're going to write to OTRS screaming bloody murder. Things like these are why BLP requires sourcing everywhere living persons are even remotely mentioned, and templates should not be an exception. The names should not be added back in. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Umm, @FreeRangeFrog:? I just noticed this comment and I don't think it's supported by policy. You're right that BLP applies in general to everything, and there should be sourcing somewhere, but the sourcing requirement for BLP standards happens in the linked articles, not the the navigational template. If you look at where BLP does and does not apply, and especially WP:BLPCAT, you'll see that templates don't require direct citations. They do absolutely need to be backed up with the article itself, and a name should only be added to a template if it is directly mirroring the article and the characteristic is demonstrated to be somehow defining or significantly noted by sources. But this doesn't seem to be a case where it's even a label of ill-repute. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the edit, and I can see that the additions went wildly overboard. There can be no "redlink" or non-article names in a template. But if there's someone who is completely defined by their anti-cult work, and they have an article that supports that with great blp-compliant sources, then it should be appropriate to have their name in the template. It's okay to have living people listed in templates as long as it's BLP-compliantly covered and sourced in the article itself. See: Template:Feminist theory and Template:American social conservatism __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Elaqueate: I'm not sure if you agree with the inclusion of the names or not? Both of those templates you mention have all blue links. What I'm saying is that this is not a run-of-the-mill topical area and we have a bunch of names of people that serve no navigational purposes whatsoever, and are supposed to be sourced by the other articles in the template, which to me is an unsourced list for all practical purposes. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that that names with little chance of having articles developed should 100% be left off a navigation template. So I think we basically agree that the edit to flood the template was unhelpful. Your message made it sound like you didn't consider being sourced in an article as enough to be included in a template, but I think I understand now that you were saying they weren't clearly sourced in any article. That's fine. On a different note, I am surprised that there aren't more articles included of unaffiliated individual people strongly associated with opposition to New Religious Movements. The template seems overwhelmingly organized around group membership which seems, well, funny, in a horrible kind of way?__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it's missing people like Bryan R. Wilson, and maybe some other individuals with articles strongly defined by their association with the subject of the navigation template. Maybe I'll check it out later, when I have a moment. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the purpose of the template solely for navigational purposes only? My idea was to have a complete listing of the individuals and organizations comprising the anti-cult movement - the inclusion of individual names shows where the various organizations in the ACM overlap - for instance an individual could chair on multiple anti-cult group boards. Removing the names doesn't allow for the connections between organizations to be visible. For me, the template is both a navigational tool, but also a hierarchical map showing the relationships between individuals and organizations, which is important for the overall understanding of what the Anti Cult Movement is. The individuals in questions (those without an article) would be referenced as pertaining to the anti-cult group in question, and so there is really no BLP issue - the individuals should be added to the template, but unlinked. Zambelo; talk 15:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


I would like to see this resolved, either way - the way I see it, the individuals are listed under the anti-cult groups they belong to, and they are mentioned in these articles, since they are not notable outside of being part of these anti-cult groups. To remove these individuals is to not give a clear picture of what comprises the anti-cult group, an inter-connected mesh of secular, religious, and national opposition to new religious movements. I'm not attaching the people to the groups, these people founded and ran the mentioned groups, and this is mentioned in the articles on the groups. The alternative would be to create tiny articles for each individual, or redirect these articles to the group page where the references can be found. I'm looking for a solution, and I don't think removing the names is the most productive one. Zambelo; talk 09:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: I totally agree with you on that, that's why I reverted Zambelo and posted here about it. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 10:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way - this doesn't look very promising either. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

How so? Zambelo; talk 15:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Requesting advice on Will Hayden[edit]

Will Hayden (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Up until the last couple days, Will Hayden was solely notable as a cable reality TV personality on one show, Sons of Guns. Today, TMZ ran an article about an arrest (which has since been added to the article, though with slightly better sourcing), which I believe brings this article within the ambit of WP:BLPCRIME. I had redirected it today, and was reverted by the article creator (who left a note on my user talk). I'm reasonably certain that an AfD would have resulted in redirect prior to the arrest, and I don't think the arrest should change that per BLPCRIME. But since I'd rather not edit war over the redirect, and there's every chance I'm wrong, I'd appreciate some outside input from those more familiar with BLP than me. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME relates to people who have articles written about them specifically because of the crime they are suspected of. In other words, the suspected crime is why they're notable. Will Hayden was notable for being the star of Sons of Guns - a national prime time cable TV show. Him having an article is no different than all the people who were on Jersey Shore, Pawn Stars, American Pickers, etc. who have had articles written about them. They all fit WP:BLP standards. It would have been different if Hayden was just some guy off the street who got arrested, and somebody wrote an article about him - then you'd have a case about non-notability. But Hayden had already been established as a TV personality long before he got arrested, and the article had long been written before news of the arrest came out. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If anyone is "reasonably certain that an AfD would have resulted in redirect prior to the arrest," then it could go to AFD, but stars of TV shows have often been found to be notable in AFD, since they often have multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. It is not the general practice at Wikipedia to eliminate an existing article just because the subject is charged with a crime, as might be the practice in the UK under their "sub judice" practice. It would be a good idea to monitor both his article and the show article for vandalism and BLP violations. Both articles could be semi-protected if problems arise. A foreseeable problem is how specifically the alleged 11 year old victim can be identified in either article. Edison (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's long been my understanding that going to AfD intending for the outcome to be a redirect is considered inappropriate. If that's changed in recent years, I'd be interested to know. But I'll be the first to admit I could be incorrect about this. In the meantime, I think this article needs more eyes: some of the details of the alleged crime as reported by TMZ and the NY Post have been added to the article, including the probable identity of the alleged victim. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's called a 'Blank and redirect', and per WP:BLAR, it should be submitted to afd is editors cannot find consensus on whether it's safe to do so. Though I also think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of notability. It's not temporary, as long as the person meets the WP:GNG, an arrest or conviction doesn't simply make them 'non-notable' anymore. Tutelary (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You seem to misapprehend: I don't believe this individual has notability that is independent of the TV show. Notability is not inherited. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I was meaning that if this person was notable in the past, notability doesn't 'dissipate' so to speak, so if you're admitting that they were notable, you're admitting that they -are- notable. Tutelary (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Nobody knew who (or what) a Snooki was before Jersey Shore, but does that mean she's not notable? Rick Harrison was just some local pawn shop owner in Las Vegas prior to finding fame on Pawn Stars, but does that mean he's not notable? Will Hayden was just a gunsmith/gun shop owner in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but one hit TV show later (Sons of Guns), he became famous. If he was still just a local gunsmith, the horrible crimes he's accused of doing wouldn't have made the news it has. But because he's a star of a prime time TV show, it's all over the place. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I see someone has changed four source article titles to "Hayden Arrested". This sort of lying goes beyond what Wikipedia should do for a living person. Goes to the other extreme of non-neutrality. I've fixed them, and hope they'll stay as they were actually written. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

Will Hayden victim[edit]

Will Hayden was arrested on child rape charges. Victim is still a minor. Most respectable journalism articles don't identify child rape victims or use identifying information. Identifying information is not necessary for the charge nor is necessary for the BLP. There was some initial reports that had identifying information with victim rumor. I removed what I saw. Probably should be rev deleted, too. --DHeyward (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I added this this earlier as I missed this other section. Made it subheading here. Looks like some has delrev'd versions but more could be done. No source we use should in any way identify victim and no old version should exist that does it either. The paramount BLP issue is minor victim of sex crime. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It is bizarre to say that we cannot cite reliable mainstream news sources just because their stories identify the victim in some way. This is an amazing argument and should not be applied in this case. See Trial of Michael Jackson where the alleged minor victim is specifically named. See Roman Polanski sexual abuse case where the 13 year old victim is named. Harvey Milk names his 16 year old sex partner (no prosecution involved). The name of the victim is more likely to appear in all the news coverage if there is a trial. Wikipedia cannot "unring a bell." That said, we need not repeat the specific identification hints pointing to the victim at this point in this case. Edison (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not real bizarre when the reliable sources like AP decided to do it when it was announced that the new charge was rape. AP specifically moved to that stance and removed all identifying language. For Wikipedia, the standard is what value does identifying the victim have in the article? In this case, none. What harm can it cause? Lots. WP will have records long after the news sites have archived theirs. Look at the Discovery Channel website. Purged. But we still have his article and will continue to. The least we can do is not increase the harm already inflicted. AP seems to agree. The article does not suffer by leaving it out and it doesn't gain by adding it in so do the least harm. --DHeyward (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Joni Enrst[edit]

Joni Ernst (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

A NYT article of today includes this statement "The channel released audio of three other Republicans in tough Senate races — Representatives Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Cory Gardner of Colorado, and Joni Ernst, a state senator in Iowa — all of whom also praised Charles G. and David H. Koch and the millions of dollars they have provided to help Republican candidates." [1].

This comment was the result of tapes that have surfaced in which Ernts said the following in a panel in an American for Prosperity fundraising event  : “I was not known at that time. A little-known state senator from a very rural part of Iowa, known through my National Guard service and some circles in Iowa. But the exposure to this group and to this network and the opportunity to meet so many of you, that really started my trajectory.”

The edit that includes that material and the quote (diff [2]) was deleted on the basis of the edit being a WP:COATRACK.

I would appreciate uninvolved editors to weigh-in on the merits of the removal/inclusion of that material. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: this misstates the discussion at the article talk page, but Cwobeel called me WP:DUCK[3] and has not apologized nor filed the SPI report he should file if he actually believed me to be a sock master. so I decline to respond to his inaccurate statement of the issues involved. Kindly note that either we have a source that Ernst praised AFP, or that she praisedthe Kochs, but the quote given in the NYT shows neither, nor do I think that the quote as given shows much of anything at all. The transcript of the speech has not been given by the editor who wishes to make the claim that she praised AFP and the Kochs at the one speech. Collect (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Oops sorry. I meant DUCK, in the context of this reporting on the NYT and HuffPo being obvious. Now that I see what that essay is, my apologies. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Meanwhile, the NYTimes did not refer to praise of the AFP, which means the claim is inaptly stated. And the quote given does not mention the Kochs. Which is also a problem. The NYTimes does name several people as "praising the Kochs" but without any transcript or quote backing that up, it appears to be an opinion about the tenor of the comments rather than an actual factual claim that the people thanked the Kochs by name in any way. And, of course, what precisely does "praising" mean here? The quote actually cited appears to thank a group for support, but I am unsure that this is the same as "praise" which has a specific definition not met by the wording of the quote (which appears to be the basis for the NYT opinion). Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

How WP:NEWBLPBAN is mis-used to stifle debate on BLPs[edit]

The ArbCom ruling was a great decision to protect BLPs from being abused and to protect the integrity of the project. But there are some editors that use the restriction as an indiscriminate fire-hose and a way to stifle debate.

As an example, see this comment in an RFC [4].

Note that the discussion here is not about some controversial aspect, coat racking, undue criticism, or lack of sources. This is a discussion about the inclusion of things that a living person said in the context of a speech, quoted word by word without interpretation or criticism.

This is just one example of many I encounter when editing articles about politicians, and I find it ridiculous that WP:NEWBLPBAN is applied in this manner to stifle debate and to disallow inclusion of material. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Alexsandra Wright[edit]

This page on the subject is defamatory and derrogatory to her and her innocent child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.175.30 (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism has been reverted. Thanks for the notice. Face-smile.svg Brambleclawx 01:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Suman Sahai[edit]

This is a continuation of an archived discussion - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive205#Suman Sahai The post was edited to remove a more recent article, (available at http://www.gen-ethisches-netzwerk.de/GID/224/kurz-notiert-politik-und-wirtschaft#17) vis-a-vis the Labjournal editorial, which clearly says that the University never initiated any plagiarism proceedings against the BPL subject and she returned her venia legendi voluntarily. If the University never initiated a proceeding then it seems more likely that there wasn't any plagiarism, especially considering the fact that the main source the Labjournal editorial is relying on is a dead page. (available at http://www.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/ShowSingleNews.176.0.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=6772&cHash=493fc2a4bdbf14a5532b76df14417abd) Further, it is very easy to prove a plagiarism charge now thanks to turnitin. If this Labjournal is so certain they can easily publish more information such as where it was plagiarized from, how much etc. but they haven't done so. There is also no evidence to show that the 'source' they refer to actually exists . Even then the article has been edited to say that the subject was "shown to have committed plagiarism in her habilitation thesis". I think it would be accurate to say that she has been accused but there has never been any proof. The University also has not made any accusations against her.

Compare the last edits and it becomes obvious that the current version is definitely not NPV and actually the page is being vandalized to push this plagiarism accusation as a fact without any proper sources. See - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suman_Sahai&diff=621911889&oldid=621909786 I am editing the page to present a NPV and including both articles so that the reader can decide as there is no proper proof shown yet. I hope it is not vandalized again to present a biased opinion.

Edit - The dead page cited by Labjournal is dead now because it was retracted by the University to rectify the error. That's also the reason they gave a statement to her lawyer saying that there was no proceeding against her. Sleepingcow (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you not read the labjournal article given as a source? It clearly states Sahai copied the chapter ‘Glutamate in the brain of mammals’ in her habilitation from Fonnum, Frode. (1984), GLUTAMATE - A NEUROTRANSMITTER IN MAMMALIAN BRAIN Journal of Neurochemistry, 42, 1, pp. 1-11. They also give a link to an online copy of Fonnum's article so it clearly exists! Turnitin was useless in this case as Sahai's habilitation did/does not exist in any digitized or online format & had to be ordered as a paper copy from Heidelberg. So yes, there is indeed proof that Sahai committed plagiarism. The absence of an investigation was undoubtedly for political reasons. rgds 46.64.184.159 (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ambode[edit]

Akinwunmi Ambode is a candidate here in Lagos Nigeria vying for political office in the 2015 elections. The article Ambode contains some irregularities as shown below:

  1. "All Progressives Congress candidate for Governor of Lagos State, Nigeria"
  2. "Incumbent - Babatunde Fashola" ← Indicating he is the incoming Governor
  3. "His belief in mentoring and passion for passing on leadership skills..."
  • Wikipedia link has been distributed via SMS and viral emails - here in Lagos - to legitimise claims using Wikipedia's good name

This sockpuppets associated with this article have been known to be repetitive and continuos as seen on the deletion thread. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadegoke (talkcontribs) 10:12, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

Cherie Blair[edit]

Cherie Blair (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I've posted a note to the talk page about a photo in the article. Since it's a photo of me, I think it's probably best if I don't remove it myself, so I'm just calling attention to it for others to discuss/decide.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Image removed per t/p discussion.--ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Andreas Schleicher[edit]

We would like to have the opportunity to update the article entry for Andreas Schleicher to reflect this current status and CV: http://www.oecd.org/edu/andreas-schleicher.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.41.128.8 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume that you have a conflict of interest based on your question. If so please use the article's talk page to suggest edits, but note that a CV produced by the subject or his connections is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. You will need to provide independent sources. --ukexpat (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Avishai Margalit[edit]

Your article states Avishai Margalit died in 1962 and also shows his works in 2010 and 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.89.154 (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find any reference to your claim on the page Avishai Margalit -  NQ  talk 14:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Wey[edit]

The article on this prominent financier does not contain information on a sexual harrassment suit brought by a former employee. It has been removed on the grounds that it has only been reported in tabloids: The New York Post[5] and New York Daily News[6]. I realize that WP:BLPSOURCES argues against inclusion of this material: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." However, I notice that it has been covered in Law360[7]. Would that push it over the threshold into includability? Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 14:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sharad Pawar[edit]

Sharad Pawar (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Could someone take a look at Sharad Pawar - a page about an Indian politician. I came across the article a few months back, trimmed it and added tags, but was promptly reverted. It showed up again on my watchlist today and it seems there are no improvements.  NQ  talk 15:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Alex Jones, "moon landing hoax" input needed[edit]

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

Some days ago an IP removed long standing content about Jones' "moon landing hoax" peddling, referencing a Youtube video by some guy. This is the content removed:

  • He has accused the U.S. government of (...) the filming of fake Moon landings to hide NASA's secret technology.

I reverted this edit noting the video was not a proper source for the claim the IP was making, to have it reverted by Collect claiming the videos in place used as sources where Jones can be heard and even seen saying "they put on some fake stuff for you—see, there was a lie" and "You were shown the tinker-toy stuff because you're not supposed to see what they really got", were not a WP:RS. So I added a secondary reliable source (an article in The Daily Beast by a political journalist) and reinstated the content warning Collect (having seen him use the same tactics before) to follow WP:BRD and not to revert again. Of course he immediately reverted again this time claiming WP:BLP as a "reason" and dismissing completely the secondary sourced I had just added.

After reverting that second time, thus completely ignoring WP:BRD, Collect opened a new section in the talk page. From there on his reasons for refusing to self-revert have been: you need a "reliable secondary source" (which was already in place before he removed the content), the Daily Beast article is an "opinion source" (it is not, it's an article by a political journalist in a WP:RS), "primary video sources are,however, not permitted" (not true, they are permitted as long as no interpretation is made, which in this case is not being made since it's a source showing himself saying that), "Find a transcript for what you wish to claim" (moving goalpost now, I point out that the article indeed has the full excerpt transcripted), find a "a transcript of the show not an excerpt in an article" (now he demands a transcript for the entire show).

I told Collect numerous times that if he had an issue with the accurateness with which the content was being presented he should have edited it instead of edit-war to remove long standing content twice, completely ignoring WP:BRD. I would appreciate some input on this issue. Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gaba p: He removed per BLP, BLP is exempt from 3rr. More than that, he removed a youtube video that you were using to support a fringe theory from a crackpot. Anytime an extrodinary claim is made about a living individual, reliable sources have to be used, youtube doesn't meet that criteria. Yes, I know it's a video of him, and yes, he's spewing crackpot ideas about how the moon landing was faked, however videos can be faked, and since youtube doesn't check for this on any of it's videos, it can't really be confirmed that he believes this. Now, if a reliable source (say Time Magainze, reports that Alex Jones has this theory that the moon landing was fake, that can be used. Collect is correct in this case. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Not so minor quibble: Youtube is a medium which can absolutely contain BLP-compliant sources. If the owner of a Youtube channel is considered a reliable source (example) then videos published by that owner should be considered reliable. --NeilN talk to me 16:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
If the material is only sourced to a self-published/non reliably-sourced sources, then it is absolutely correct to remove that material, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Self-published stuff like that is not a useable citation either for claims about other third parties or extraordinary beliefs about third parties. You can use it for beliefs like "The subject says they enjoy grilled cheese sandwiches" but not for claims like "The subject says lizards are from outer space and control our minds." It's different if the material comes from a reliable independent source, of course. Even then I would be cautious about adding the video as a direct citation.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Your comments do not apply, since this concerns an issue WP:ABOUTSELF permits: a source for the statement that Jones said X (so long as X is not interpreted).
Regarding an earlier comment above: BLP does not have a blanket exemption from 3RR: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." The possibility that the video of Jones is faked is simply a conspiracy theory, par for the course for Jones and his fans, but not for Wikipedia. Is the video from the official Alex Jones YouTube channel? If so, at this rate anything and everything on-line is doubtful, since heck, maybe someone is putting fake news in the NYT archives or something.
The real issue is whether this (or other Jones' statements) ought to be in the article. If third-party sources have not shown interest in Jones' views on X,Y,Z, then it seems out-of-line for WP editors to include them. Stick to summarizing what third-party sources have felt worth saying about Jones, backed up by official Jones video if you like. Choor monster (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
One added problem is that a "really juicy quote" about Jones was sourced to a book whose search through google does not show that quote. Thus I am especially vigilant of misuse or "creative use" of sources on that BLP. And we should avoid pure opinion sources for claims of fact, IMO and according to WP:BLP. In short, this BLP has been shown to attract "fake quotes" or ones taken from contenxt in the past. Jones may be a loon, but we still have to follow the rules. Collect (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF absolutely applies. We can't quote every single thing people say they believe if it's only cited to an SPS or questionable source. There are defined limits. It cannot involve an exceptional claim, it can't involve a claim about a third party, it can't involve claims about events not directly related to the source. Saying the subject believes "Extraordinary claims about moon landing knowledge" has at least three strikes against it. Collect was initially correct that this needed a secondary independent source before it could be included. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────KoshVorlon & Elaqueate the secondary source has been provided and the article even contains a transcript of Jones saying those things. Neither of you mentioned this article, do you believe The Daily Beast is not a WP:RS? KoshVorlon are you saying we can't use the YT video of himself saying those things as a primary source because it might be fake? Do you have any reasons to believe this? Gaba (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate: Yes, there are limits, but they don't apply here. There is nothing exceptional about Jones supporting yet another conspiracy theory. An exceptional claim here would be "Alex Jones claims fluoridation is good for you", I would assume something like that is an Onion headline. Jones is talking about himself—his beliefs on certain 1969 news—and the video is used for the article on Jones. The claim cannot be used as a source for anything else. Choor monster (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Three strikes on WP:ABOUTSELF. Saying the subject believes an extraordinary claim about third parties still involves extraordinary claims about third parties. Doesn't mean it's not true that he believes it, we just need better independent sourcing that the belief is important, verified to not be a joke by the subject, not a mental lapse, etc. Not about the truth, just what we use as to say we verified our claim about what he stated.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC).
I absolutely agree that truth of "Jones said X" is not the issue here, just what are our rules for including such a factoid. I favor waiting for third-party sources to give significance. I do not view "Jones said X" as a claim about X, but about Jones, and I think this is an illogical misreading of WP:ABOUTSELF on your part. The concern over misinterpretation is irrelevant to this particular detail: it's not part of WP:ABOUTSELF, but a general issue, applied with extra concern for BLP. Choor monster (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There are some "Jones said X" that are not usable under WP:ABOUTSELF. If the X is "Jones says Mr. McGillicuddy is a murderer." then you can't tun it on its head and just say it's a statement about Jones and what Jones happened to say. It still involves an extraordinary claim about a third party. If Jones is considered an expert or otherwise reliable source, then WP:ABOUTSELF might not apply, but if he's not it's not supposed to be only self-sourced. He's not making a claim only about himself, if he says "NASA lies". "Jones said X" still involves X (even if it's also about Jones's belief) which requires us to be more cautious about sourcing it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. This is confusing use and mention. Let me illustrate with a less all-or-nothing example. Suppose Smith is a novelist, and he's really only noted for being a novelist. If the only source of information on his fringe beliefs is his webpage, I'd say leave them out, it's not WP's job to pass on maximum trivia. But if he was interviewed 10 years ago, and the interviews were RS published, and he stated he was a truther, sure, include it then, no questions, despite the derogatory claims about Bush. But what if Smith is a major has-been and hasn't had any interviews since? And his webpage reveals he's a birther? I'd say include it, despite the derogatory claims about Obama. And since Smith is an established fringe advocate, it can't be viewed as an exceptional claim about Smith. And WP isn't making exceptional claims about Obama in this scenario. The only issue is whether WP is making an exceptional claim about Smith. Choor monster (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
If the only place for the info is his webpage I don't think it matters if he's not famous anymore or was never famous. People sometimes joke on their web-sites or don't take them seriously, especially if they're not that famous. If someone has some small fame as a novelist, I don't think a single SPS for possibly contentious material is appropriate, too much risk of OR or SYNTH from an over-enthusiastic editor not backed by a reliable source to cover their butts.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
And it completely depends on the material too, if the website said "In September, he spoke at a Birther convention." that's fine. But Wikipedia should never have something like "Jones said that Obama was born in Antarctica" sourced only to an WP:SPS. We can't use SPS all by themselves to report people's beliefs about other living people, even when attributed. Please keep in mind I'm only talking about material where we can only source to a SPS; there are plenty of things that can be attributed to people if they're backed up through RS. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, you are confusing use and mention. "Jones said X" is a statement about Jones, not about X. Given Jones' track record, this was not a contentious claim. OR/SYNTH is simply not allowed, and WP:ABOUTSELF giving limited permission is not negated just because the risk exists. Choor monster (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
"Jones said X" is about Jones and X. If the only source was a SPS or questionable source, and the X was a contentious claim about a Wikipedia editor called "Choor monster", then it wouldn't be allowed in a Wikipedia article, even if it was written in the form "Jones said X". If the NYT mentioned the accusation, it could be possibly used, cited to the NYT. But not when it's a combination of "third party accusation" and "self-published questionable source".__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Not, it is not about X. If you only partially quote "Jones said X" you get a statement about X. By your logic it would in fact mean the NYT has become fringe because it's saying X, and X can be mentioned on WP using non-fringe sources only. But in fact the NYT does not become fringe because it would say "Jones said X". Again, for the umpteenth time, you are making the use/mention
Collect: Not finding a quote on Google, especially for recent books, is not proof of fakery, although the burden is on the quoter to give the edition/page number. (Also, 100% irrelevant to the issue at hand.) Choor monster (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The page number was given. The quote does not appear to be on that page, nor in the entire book. I find using the Google search function within a book to be fairly reliable. The same editor is involved in citing the "quote". Collect (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Google books is great, but not perfect. Go to the library. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Discussion of The Daily Beast as a reliable source - here and here.  NQ  talk 18:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gaba_p, I said it's a different story when there's a independent reliable source for the material. For the moon landings, try using this Esquire piece. I think it should be easy to find multiple secondary sources outlining that Jones is considered a conspiracy theorist and specifically the moon landing accusations. I just think we can't and shouldn't source it directly to his raw videos. Otherwise articles about contentious figures could turn into ersatz podcast catalogues, with direct links to every nonsense idea anyone's ever had.

Independent links from reliable sources are needed for surprising and clearly extraordinary claims about people's beliefs, regardless of whether we can directly verify that someone confessed a nutty idea on their blog. It's better to summarize as the reliable sources do, than list every pronouncement he's made as if every idea deserves a place in the encyclopaedia. It's supposed to summarize what RS think about him, it's not supposed to be a laundry list of every weird thing he's said. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate I agree with you, the raw videos where there before I added the DB article and I also think adding a secondary source is the best thing to do. So given that there is a reliable secondary source in place which not only comments on that but provides a transcript of what he precisely said (which Collect dismissed claiming it's not a transcript of the entire show), do you agree that the original statement should go up? I can of course add the source you provided too. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the fact he believes the moon landings were faked is verified from good secondary sources and should be included. Even though it seems counterintuitive, I don't think the transcripts are great Wikipedia material, in the same way that court transcripts are not as reliable for Wikipedia purposes as a good secondary source supplying a reliable legal interpretation. It's too easy when using purely primary material to get into OR or SYNTH problems. There's a quote where Obama mistakenly says "here in Asia" when he was in Hawaii; it would be too easy to source "Obama said he believed Hawaii was in Asia" if we allowed a transcript citation rather than a proper RS for the actual context of the quote. I think the Esquire piece shows a reliable source believes Jones is sincere when saying he believes the landings were faked, I'm probably neutral on the the Daily Beast, but it's not a bad source, just people will predictably argue if it's the main or only citation. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments Elaqueate and Choor monster, I'll await to see what KoshVorlon makes of this. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that WP:PRIMARY makes it clear that primary sources are allowed, but must be used with extra caution for just the reasons Elaqueate summarized. They are normally worthless for evaluating notability, significance, importance. (And further note that WP:BLPPRIMARY forbids certain privacy-violating uses, not relevant here.) Choor monster (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
A point: When Jones is publishing his views of what happened at NASA half a century ago, he is not presenting the view of a primary source. He's analyzing events he had no direct part in. That makes him a self-published secondary source. He's not presenting it as material about his personal beliefs or direct experience, but as objective fact. If the material is clearly "I spent all of the Nineties investigating Moon Landing theories", then sure, that's completely about himself. If the material is framed more as "he says NASA fabricated this moon rock out of papier-mâché" then we are going beyond a summary of belief and repeating his analysis about third parties and events he was not a part of. The more it's about events or people beyond the subject's direct experience, the more we need independent reliable sources, rather than parroting material from SPS/questionable sources that we generally consider unreliable.

I think we are encouraged to use primary sources more for primary claims, (when a source is clearly talking about their direct experience in a way most people wouldn't find controversial) but we are discouraged from using any primary source when it is making secondary claims (somebody considered non-expert who wasn't in WWII talking about what happened in WWII on their blog). __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

As WP:PRIMARY says, "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." Jones on Jones is primary, your analysis is irrelevant. Did Jones say X or did he not? He's either secondary or tertiary on NASA, so there is no chance his self publications can be used on NASA-related pages. Choor monster (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources:

  • The Skeptical Inquirer, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal., 2009 - Page 30 The show focuses on various conspiracy theories, such as those promulgated by Alex Jones about the New World Order, those on the Moon landing hoax, and HIV/AIDS denialists' theories that HIV/AIDS is a government plot.
  • The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy Page, ISBN 978-1621572022 Alex Jones, a radio host who ferreted out government conspiracies behind the Sandy Hook school shooting, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the moon landing

- Cwobeel (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"Among Jones' theories are that the moon landing was a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job by the U.S. government and the euro was a Nazi-hatched scheme to control European economies." International Business Times, emphasis mine. MastCell Talk 04:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all for the new reliable sources contributed. I'll be adding this information back into the article in a while and will post back here to let you all know in case you want to take a look at it. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to throw in my three cents: while the new sourcing is very useful, I think that the Youtube videos pass muster because they are in the realm of claims about the person himself, ultimately, and not about third parties. The purpose is to show that this person promulgates conspiracy theories and not to discuss the conspiracy theories themselves. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The videos are not good by themselves. You're saying we could interpret the video as being proof he's a conspiracy theorist based on the SPS videos alone. That's OR. That would be like saying Colbert videos are sufficient to prove he's a conservative. This is exactly why we need independent sourcing for contentious material. They aren't claims only about himself and can't be sourced only to self-published/questionable sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Avoid the interpretation. Just quote Jones, with full source (never a context-free clip). As for Colbert being quoted misleadingly, that's ruled out because there's sources to the contrary, hence it's "contentious". What on earth is "contentious" about yet one more conspiracy from Jones? Choor monster (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It involves a contentious claim about a third party, whoever it comes from, and whether or not the source is considered routinely incorrect (because really? the more unreliable the source, the more of his self-published opinions we can document on Wikipedia? That's completely backwards). If we allow self-published and questionable sources to be an allowed source for random contentious opinions of third parties, then the Obama page could filled with Birther nonsense sourced only to self-published youtube videos, because we were "just citing a personal opinion". This is about sourcing. Ignoring guidelines, Jones wikipedia page could be a chronological list of every statement he's self-published, sourced directly and solely to every podcast and youtube video.

An example: "Mr Smith wrote on his blog that his neighbour Mr Jones is a big fat thief" is not currently allowed by policy on any article page if the only source is Mr Smith's blog. You can't say "It's just Smith's opinion" and you can't say the material had nothing to do with the neighbor Mr Jones.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your scenarios are completely specious. They only work as you say if you ignore existing guidelines. The reason birther claims are not on Obama's page is precisely because the only reliably sourced information we have is of the form "Smith said Obama is Kenyan", which is of zero relevance to Obama, even if the NYT quotes Smith saying this. Having a big mouth does not make one relevant to the topics that come out of the mouth, but may be relevant to the owner of the mouth in question. If such a claim appears in a RS, then such a claim can show up on a birther page, and they do. If only sourced from Smith's webpage, the only place it could appear on WP, as WP:ABOUTSELF says, would be at the Smith page, or closely allied Smith pages (his TV show, say), and so long as it is not contentious to claim "Smith said Obama is Kenyan". As I mentioned above, I would only accept his webpage as a source for this if we have RS evidence that Smith is given to saying fringe statements in general. Choor monster (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay just to correct something possibly dangerously misleading there, SPS can't be used if they involve claims about third-party living people. Period. It doesn't matter what page. You can't tuck it in a side page, you can't put it in an infobox. If the only source is an SPS it can't be used. You tend to confirm this yourself by saying you'd only use it if you had more sources than just the SPS. It has to be more specific than "often known to have bad ideas" though; it would have to directly reference the contentious material. Not indirectly or by editor assumption. ("Smith said Obama is Kenyan" involves a claim about Obama, even if it also represents a claim about what Smith said. Can't be sourced solely to an SPS.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe time to close this long discussion? Feedback has been given in the noticeboard, so the discussion can now continue on article's talk. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks all for the input. The edit is back up sourced by the original DB article and I added the IBT article too. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to contribute to Bieber DUI discussion[edit]

All editors are invited to contribute to a discussion regarding the inclusion of certain content and references for the conclusion of the court case of Justin Bieber#Legal issues for DUI and other charges. Thank you very much. starship.paint ~ regal 09:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Bob Avakian[edit]

Bob Avakian (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

The BLP has strong POV piece based excessive quotes and 90% of text cited to the subject's own memoir and publications. Could use some additional eyes and aggressive clean up in my opinion. My assessment and recommendations for clean up can be seen on the talk page here.-- KeithbobTalk 14:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Centerplate#Animal abuse[edit]

I'm concerned the Animal abuse section of the Centerplate article is turning into a coatrack for an attack piece on Desmond Hague. There are some reliable sources, and I'm not necessarily arguing for removing the section entirely, however I'd appreciate the input of experienced editors. PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I share the concern and have edited down the section. There appears to be a SPA which wants to devote as much space as possible to Hague's misdeeds. Edward321 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that the incident's only connection with the company is that it involved their CEO - in his own time - I'm unconvinced that it needs inclusion at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The SPA continues to restore and expand the Animal abuse section. More eyes on the article would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Given the clear violations of WP:BLP policy involved in using the article as a coatrack for negative material on an individual - off-topic, since it had nothing to do with the company's business - I have removed the section entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparent lack of reliable sources covering most-notable point about an actor's biography[edit]

As far as I can tell this person is only notable for a co-starring role in the 15th season of Power Rangers. I'm not a fan of the show, but I am a fan of the internet personality Linkara, who occasionally makes videos about the show. I got from the most recent such video (29:20~30:20) that the only thing that sets the actor in question apart from the dozens of other individuals who have appeared on the show is a rumour that he did something not nice. I came to Wikipedia to find out more and found an article that was basically a promotional page and of course didn't even mention it. The page history doesn't look good, though: it seems a number of users (IPs and SPAs, mostly) tried to add the information but it was removed as BLP-violation.

I can't find a reliable source that either verifies or disproves the rumour. The video I linked to above is from a series that is generally trustworthy, but the sole person responsible for it has occasionally uses Wikipedia as a source. I know the standard modus operandi in these situations is to leave it out, but isn't the standard modus operandi when there are insufficient reliable sources to discuss a topic objectively to delete/merge the article? Can anyone else find any decent sources for this topic? What do people say about merging the content into List of Power Rangers actors or some such?

Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Y'know, the fact that Linkara, who has his own online TV series on a fairly-exclusive website that he gets paid for, does not get his own Wikipedia article while each of about ten leads in a single season of a children's show gets one seems a bit odd. (If "online TV shows" don't get their own articles how does one explain this?) Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Lawrence[edit]

Jennifer Lawrence (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

BLP watchers might want to chime in here. --NeilN talk to me 16:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Have done so. Tabloid rubbish like that, even if not in a tabloid, does not belong in a BLP. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 17:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Your reasoning has no basis in policy. Wikipedia reports what is covered in reliable sources and the incident has be covered in dozens of international newspapers. TF90 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sourcing isn't the issue. As someone else pointed out in the discussion on the talk page, BLP specifically disallows this kind of material: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist..." Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Reporting facts reported in international newspapers is hardly sensationalist. TF90 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 celebrity pictures hack (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

In a related manner, I've removed[8] the name of a person accused by Redditors of the breach per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn[edit]

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

Additional eyes from experienced BLP hands would be appreciated here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific as to the problem, here or on the talk page. The last posting on the page is clear as to policy but ambiguous as to the material in the article at issue. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The material in question isn't currently in the article, but has been proposed for inclusion. Several previous versions were revdeleted by administrators based on BLP concerns. It centers on disputed allegations around a person's intimate relationships. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes I see that it has been deleted. I'll watch the article. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 18:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Berwick[edit]

Jeff Berwick is a run-of-the-mill business man that has been involved in a couple of scams (e.g. Galt's Gulch Chile) and is using his wiki page as a promotional tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.18.145.149 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Šćepović Stefan Šćepović[edit]

Some clever munchkin has taken it up on themselves to fill this page with immaturity - cute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_%C5%A0%C4%87epovi%C4%87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.247.107 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)