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:

Reviews on Environmental Health[edit]

Hi. User Brian Dell seeks to demonstrate or imply that David O. Carpenter is a biased editor-in-chief of this journal. For an editor of a peer reviewed journal, this is a serious allegation. Brian Dell has advocated persistently on the Talk page [1] since his Dec 7th edit[2] and subsequent attempts have been rebuffed by 2 other editors and myself, who joined the conversation with a 3PO. Dell and User:Randykitty have been edit warring IMO, though they do discuss in Talk and both avoid a formal 3RR violation.

The most recent Dell edit[3] does finally provide a source for the allegation against Carpenter. However, it's from an admittedly biased source -- and so the controversial allegation is very poorly sourced. Maybe reliable sources will come to light? Meanwhile, I am concerned that Dell's edits violate our BLP policy and should be removed. Is it appropriate for me to report this and then remove the problematic edit myself? Thanks! HG | Talk 06:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt you to make the good faith assumption that I'm simply interested in having Wikipedia fulfill its role as an information source, and accordingly opposed to efforts aimed at suppressing controversial information about this publication simply because it's controversial. I am also of the view that you are misrepresenting the background by having it appear that the same sort of edit has been at issue for some time. The earlier edits constituted efforts on my part to avoid having critical material in the article and avoid leading readers to the conclusion that there is a controversy while still suggesting to them relevant facts readers could use to inform themselves but you rejected those efforts of mine calling my efforts to make any criticism more indirect "original research". The edit now at issue cites a source questioning a "publication's credibility" as opposed to that of an individual (either living or dead), such that it requires some WP:SYNTH to get even a possible BLP concern here. Re "very poorly sourced", aside from the fact that WP:RS says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources...", Scientific American does not just use the source but directly links to the source's website. The source is also used by US News, Bloomberg News, CBS News, the LA Times, USA Today, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. I could go on.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It'd be good to get input from an experienced BLP editor. I think the source is unacceptable for this kind of allegation. This is the proposed edit, "Energy in Depth, a research and education program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, has contended that Carpenter's editor-in-chief role "brings up questions as to the publication’s credibility." I compared it to Energy & Environment, where allegations are mentioned due to sources like The Guardian and Chronicle of Higher Education. The petroleum association may be a credible or sufficient source for some things, but not for whether Wikipedia should cover allegations against one of its academic critics. I do agree that we should assume that Mr. Dell is editing in good faith. HG | Talk 16:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The Guardian, which is generally known to have a perspective that is more in line with the environment lobby than the industry lobby, was cited for a grand total of two sentences. And the Chronicle of Higher Education was not cited for its main point, that there's a "fierce" scientific and political controversy, but to pluck out a quote that's used to present Boehmer-Christiansen as having a "political agenda". Which she does, but not just this citation, indeed, most of that article, is material contending that Boehmer-Christiansen (who, say what you will, is an "academic") had an "agenda", something I would think you would deem a BLP violation if you were consistent.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This situation is pretty clearly covered by WP:WELLKNOWN: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (emphasis in original). In this case, the allegations appear to be sourced solely to an oil-and-gas lobbying group with an obvious agenda. Unless these allegations receive substantive coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, they do not belong in the article, according to our WP:BLP policy. (Note that the WELLKNOWN provisions apply to public figures; arguably, Carpenter is not a public figure and thus would qualify for even more stringent protection against poorly sourced accusations). MastCell Talk 17:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
You can't have your cake and eat it too here. If "WELLKNOWN provisions apply to public figures [and] Carpenter is not a public figure" then you can't cherry pick a clause from WELLKNOWN just because it serves your purposes. Either WELLKNOWN applies or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then cite the policy that does.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the concept of a public figure. Public figures are "fair game" in many ways, but even they are protected from poorly sourced accusations by WP:WELLKNOWN. Private figures are subject to all of the protections of public figures plus additional deference by virtue of their low profile. Either way, this material violates WP:BLP and, as an admin, I will treat it as such. MastCell Talk 10:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the use of that source would be appropriate in this context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
How about Energy & Environment? Nothing in there is inappropriate? This is not a Wikipedia:Other stuff exists observation but a question about what you think the standard is. Just giving an opinion without any reasoning is not helpful, at least not to me.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Without a reliable independent source asserting that he is biased (and in this case it would need to be a source specialising in the scientific literature in this field), it's WP:OR. His views are entirely at odds with the scientific consensus, and that may well end up going badly for him, but it hasn't yet and we're not here to blaze the trail. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
If Energy in Depth does not know the "scientific literature in this field" then why do publications like Scientific American turn to them as a counterpoint to the articles that appear in Reviews on Environmental Health? I'll add that we see "Mr. Carpenter’s claims are way out of line with the actual findings of the Hites study" in the National Post, so it is not like Energy in Depth is the only one to question Carpenter. In any case, this is all a side show, since it's entirely possible to not make any reference to Carpenter. The appropriate thread is therefore over at the RS Noticeboard.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Guy et al. Mr. Dell has reinserted the allegations from the (biased) industry publication. Now the allegations do not contain the BLP name, but the source is unreliable and the implication against the individual is clear (and in the industry allegation). Thanks. HG | Talk 04:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"the implication against the individual is clear" is not true. The only reason we are here and not on the RS noticeboard is because of forum shopping. Repeating "source is unreliable" again and again is not going to make it so without some evidence and argument that the editors of everything from federal government presentations/handouts to industry journals to the Wall St Journal should have their editorial judgement replaced with a WIkipedian's judgement as to usability.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The source supports the claim about the publication, with no names mentioned. It does not support allegations of bias against the individual, for that we would require reliable independent sources that are properly qualified to make the statement, and make the statement in those terms. If you're not already aware of them, WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP may help you. Wi-fi / emf crank notions fall solidly in WP:FRINGE. The content you added from Energy In Depth was a novel synthesis from primary sources, find a reliable independent source that makes the same point you want to make, and attribute it. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


WP:BLPPRIMARY says not to use public records etc. for living people - just to confirm, this does not apply as soon as someone dies, such as using a public record to confirm death details? GiantSnowman 19:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP still applies to the recently deceased. Besides if the details aren't in a secondary source do they need to be in an encyclopaedia? — Strongjam (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Think of the hundreds/thousands of notable people who dropped out of the public eye many years before their death, which consequently went unreported in secondary sources... GiantSnowman 19:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If a secondary reliable source does not think it is important enough to mention, neither ought we. Collect (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem with that is if they have 'dropped out of the public eye', you may well end up reporting their death based on a public record concerning another person with the same name. Which, if the subject of the article is alive is definitely a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the general trend of discussion here of not including an article-subject's date of death unless reported by secondary sources. If the person is indeed notable, their death should be a de-facto part of the article where applicable and is not a weight issue. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes this is right. If someone passes GNG and has an article, the fact that they have died is always going to be noteworthy for inclusion in the article, even if we have to make do with primary sources. The alternative is that people who are not-so-famous when they shuffle it off are immortal for Wikipedia purposes, which would be a bit silly. Of course, we also need to ensure accuracy, but that doesn't rule out using primary sources per se. Formerip (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Perhaps so - but there have been examples where "the wrong box" occurred and the person was actually not dead. Collect (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
But common sense and WP:V ought to be enough to prevent that. Formerip (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I recommend reading Talk:Frederick Meyer for an example of the real danger of mixing up two people with the same name. Also WP:FRANKIE. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Frederick Meyer looks like it might good example of the dangers of taking secondary sources at face value, or even just an illustration that there are some cases where Wikipedia gets it wrong if the media gets it wrong first. There's nothing in the example that says we should ignore primary sources. Formerip (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The initial question was much more broad. We should be careful using primary sources for adding details about a persons death (e.g. suicide, details of an accident, etc.) This is especially true if this for someone recently deceased. Editors should also be very careful about conducting OR and linking a primary source to the subject of the article, and until it is established by reliable sources that a subject is dead, or that enough time has past that it is obvious they are dead (i.e. they would be unbelievable old if alive) then WP:BLPPRIMARY applies. If for example, a reliable source says that someone is dead, but does not note the date, then it may be acceptable to use a primary source to note when they died. As long as the primary source is clearly and plainly linked to the subject. — Strongjam (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Where we are wrong, we are at least definitively wrong. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's presumptively fine. To quote policy: Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers..." If only people would spend half the time reining in bad editors that they spend confronting good editors who, by virtue of exercising their editorial judgment broadly and research skills extensively, are adding value. Yes, there is a such a thing as unacceptable original research, but every time we exercise our editorial judgment we are doing something "original" if we are not engaging in serial copyright violations.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I worry about this. True, we do cover people who become notable then leave the public eye. But in most cases a local newspaper will run at least some obituary. It doesn't even need to be a long one, just "John Smith, former drummer for the One Hit Wonders, leaves behind two daughters and a dog." Otherwise, if all we have is "John Smith, died February 31", we are in real danger of referring to the wrong one. Sure, there can be a little bit of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and if the person's name is clearly unique (Honoria Winifred Funkenstein), maybe the primary source will do. But in general, when there is a reasonable possibility of doubt, I would say not; we are better off by not writing the truth than by writing misinformation. --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
...and "clearly unique" is quite dubious. We spent some weeks at my old parish praying for someone named Leontyne Price, who proved to be the mother-in-law of another parishioner and not the opera singer. We shouldn't go by name alone. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
"... when there is a reasonable possibility of doubt, I would say not..."
This is 100% the right attitude, but it has nothing directly to do with using primary sources. You could have a secondary source that is unclear or you could have a primary source (a probate document, for example) that gives the person's name, address, date and place of birth, the names of all her children, her profession, and so on. Formerip (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Steven Emerson[edit]

Steven Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a discussion on the Steven Emerson talk page on if we should include the following to the lede:

Emerson has been accused of inaccuracy and anti-Islam rhetoric by people and organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center,[1] the Muslim Public Affairs Council,[2] New York Times reviewer Adrienne Edgar,[3] investigative reporter Robert Friedman,[4] Eric Boehlert,[5] and was directly contradicted by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano,[6] leading Salon writer Alex Seitz-Wald to describe Emerson as a "fringe" theorist[6]. Despite these progressive detractors, Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations,[7] with his own Investigative Project on Terrorism describing Emerson as having been "consulted by White House, National Security Council, FBI, Justice Department, Congress and intelligence agencies".[8]

  1. ^ Steinbeck, Robert (August 26, 2011). "New Report Details Funding Sources Behind Anti-Muslim Fearmongers". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved January 19, 2015. The five key misinformation experts identified by the report [include] Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Their research – which is routinely exaggerated, deceptively selective or outright false – empowers key “grassroots” activists 
  2. ^ Counterproductive terrorism, Muslim Public Affairs Council, December 31, 2004, pp. 5–6, retrieved January 14, 2015, Emerson’s lack of precision leads him to conflate legitimate organizations that can help America and secure the homeland with others that are neither genuinely American nor transparent. ... Emerson’s decade-long investigation of the American Muslim community is discredited by deliberate distortions, questionable sources and shoddy research techniques. ... His work ... is plagued by anti-Islam and anti-Muslim alarmist rhetoric. 
  3. ^ Edgar, Adrienne (May 19, 1991). "“A Defector’s Story: A Review of Terrorist by Steven A. Emerson and Cristina Del Sesto". The New York Times Book Review. p. 714. 
  4. ^ Friedman, Robert (May 15, 1995). "One Man’s Jihad". The Nation. pp. 656–57.  Cited in Counterproductive terrorism, Muslim Public Affairs Council, December 31, 2004, p. 7, retrieved January 14, 2015 
  5. ^ Boehlert, Eric (March 5, 2002). "Terrorists under the bed". Salon. Retrieved January 14, 2015. Whether this egregious conceptual flaw, which renders most of his book all but worthless, is the result of a political agenda to demonize passionate supporters of the Palestinian cause as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, or is simply the result of hysteria and/or ignorance, is unclear. ... Nor does Emerson’s at times loose way with the facts inspire confidence. ... [‌Vince Cannistraro, a former director of counterterrorism for the CIA] dismisses Emerson’s entire thesis. ... 'He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.' ... The truth is, Emerson uses the word “terrorist” the way Sen. Joseph McCarthy used to use the word “communist.” 
  6. ^ a b Seitz-Wald, Alex (April 18, 2013). "GOP Rep. embraces Boston conspiracy theory". Salon. Retrieved January 18, 2015. Just hours after controversial terrorism expert Steve Emerson reported last night on Sean Hannity’s show that unnamed “sources” told him the government was quietly deporting the Saudi national who was initially suspected in the bombing, South Carolina GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan grilled Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on the rumor at a hearing this morning. ... “I am not going to answer that question, it is so full of misstatements and misapprehensions that it’s just not worthy of an answer,” the Homeland Security secretary shot back ... Duncan’s willingness to embrace Emerson’s charge highlights how quickly theories can go from the fringe to the mainstream in an environment when the political opposition is desperate to score political points against the president, and less concerned about getting facts right. 
  7. ^ Champion, Matthew (January 12, 2015). "That Steve Emerson #foxnewsfacts interview is even worse than you think". i100 from The Independent. Retrieved January 18, 2015. 
  8. ^ "About The Investigative Project on Terrorism". Investigative Project on Terrorism. Retrieved January 18, 2015. 

This section is supposed to reference Steven Emerson#Controversies and Steven Emerson#Media and testimony sections of the article according to WP:LEDE, and would replace another sentence which was removed because of accusations of WP:BLP violations. we seem to have hit an impasse where editors on bot sides are accusing each other of bias and one group claiming that it is a WP:BLP violations. I'll not summarize the arguments so that I avoid misrepresenting either side. I am not satisfied that it is a BLP violation to add sourced references about controversies to the lede. Please advise.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE (my highlight): The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. So, providing that the sources are reliable and the controversy significant, such material could be included in the lede, but you have to take into account also WP:UNDUE. A much shorter summary of the controversy may be a good compromise. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yup. There is no WP:BLP violation in reporting the controversies surrounding Emerson's claims - they are basically all that makes him notable in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Now that is not very nice. The section is not neutral, poorly sourced, and last two sentences are synthesis and a violation of BLP. The proposed addition sets up a negative characterization of Emerson and then says despite he being a liar he is STILL used as a resource. This is synthed using Emerson's website to back up the statement. Two of the main sources for attacking Emerson are MPAC and "The Nation" which are clearly biased and simply not usable or reliable for anything factual. The book review is from 1991 from an obscure reviewer. Just because a couple of people are pissed at him does not entail that their opposition be given prominent position in the article. Arzel (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You can't negate that there is significant controversy. WP:ENEMY may be a good way for you to address this. Just find a way to report the controversy. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It says 'inaccurate'. It does not call him a liar. And given that he has admitted that his latest example of 'anti-Islamic rhetoric' was inaccurate, I can't see any particular problem with us describing it as such. Maybe the wording needs work, but there is no reason whatsoever why the lede should not fully reflect the matter that brought him to international attention. Few outside the U.S. will have heard of him before his latest gaffe, and any article needs to explain why he gained such attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
My problem with the proposed text is that it's not really on point. It's focused on proving that progressives don't like Emerson. While this is undoubtedly true on some level, it's rather besides the point. The notable issue is that Emerson says things in his purported field of expertise which are not true. In fact, some of his commentary is so not-true that he's been called out by reliable sources (e.g. [4], [5], [6]) and even provoked the (conservative) Prime Minister of the UK to opine that Emerson is "clearly an idiot" ([7]). That's the notable aspect here, and the aspect that's had significant coverage in independent reliable sources—not the fact that a number of (mostly progressive) commentators have criticized him over the years. MastCell Talk 18:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Unaware of this conversation I have just made this point on SE Talk page: In the last census Birmingham had more children registered as Muslim (97,099) than Christian (93,828). David Cameron has previously apologised for getting his facts wrong on Islamic issues. So has Steven Emerson. To repeat the former's comments that the latter is "clearly a complete idiot", without any perspective, is a clear violation of Neutral point of view (NPOV).Stacie Croquet (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Made an edit [8] summarizing the controversy in a few words. The rest can be expanded in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
"It's focused on proving that progressives don't like Emerson." When the British Conservative PM said what he did and even Fox News says Emerson is wrong, it goes a bit beyond what progressives don't like. Those of us who don't watch Fox News would never have heard of the guy if it weren't for his wildly incorrect statements. Jonathunder (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick clarification on how I am interpreting MastCell's comments. The notable aspect isn't simply the Fox News Gaff, but rather that he has been criticized by multiple sources for his inaccuracies for a while, and the Fox News Gaff is simply another example of that. I don't think he is notable for simply one event, but rather that he has a history of controversy. If I'm incorrect MastCell, please correct me.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrator attention please? This BLP is being attacked with both unsourced blanket criticism, and poorly sourced contentious statements, including an accusation of prejudice - [Islamophobia] - in the lead which is totally unacceptable. [9] I realize residents in the UK would like to lynch this guy - he made a huge blunder - but it doesn't justify the personal attacks. AtsmeConsult 19:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The source is The Washington Post, which reports that ""Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past." - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
There are many books, including one from Cambridge University Press (now included in the article), that mentions Emerson in the context of Islamophobia: [10] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Your contentious statements are poorly sourced and are based on questionable allegations at best. Using poorly sourced contentious material to discredit a BLP is clearly a violation as I've tried to explain to you. Emerson may be a goofus, but he is not an Islamophobe. To call him that isn't any different from calling a civil rights activist a Crackerphobe, or other biased label. Contentious statements must be well-sourced, the partisan Washington Post made an allegation based on other allegations. The book you cited was co-written by Omid Safi, "whose writings on Islam have been criticized as faulty and “utopic” by other scholars." [11]. The sources you cited do not pass per WP:RS. AtsmeConsult 22:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Without comment on the underlying, saying that someone is engaging in BLP violations and then using the freebeacon as a source to call someones work faulty should really consider taking my username and spelling it right. Hipocrite (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Atsme is actually right there is issues with the article and the fact there is a "Controversy" and a "Reception" section which splits out "praise/mixed/criticism" sub-sections is a bright red flag. The praise is unsourced and out of context from circa 2000. Much of the attention was paid to a minor gaff and the recent gaff. Sources like Salon and such are pretty poor and the whole "what other people think" is already veering into the weeds for a BLP. It is a problem to see editors prop up/tear down Emerson (or any person) by what other people said about him. None of it goes towards advancing a disinterested and neutral portrayal of a person. There is a huge misconception that "if it exists" it can be included or is worth including. Wikipedia should not be using low grade sources or filling up a page's content on what amounts to gossip and dirt. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't being hypocritical, I was being bi-partisan. I couldn't think of a better way to demonstrate my point. Well, except maybe for this one: [12]. I think it's fascinating how things appear depending on the angle of bias. We all just need to remember that WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. AtsmeConsult 23:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In short -WP:BLPGOSSIP. Though it should not really need to exist, but a reception section for a BLP is a bad idea and is nothing more than a lowering of the BLP bar to get otherwise unacceptable material into the BLP. Often this is a "wikilawyer" backed approach to slip a source of questionable nature into the article by attributing the material to the source as justification per policy. This results in gossip being included because it exists instead of whether or not it is appropriate at all. This is aided by not being a major BLP issue, but more of a WP:DIRT issue. This makes attempts to correct or rectify the problem (requiring the removal as the only suitable option) appear to be damaging instead of beneficial. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Tip: Criticism/praise is not gossip. --NeilN talk to me 01:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Tip: Hate speech and bigotry accusations are BLP violations not criticism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
really? because when the addition that stated he was accused of Islamophobia was made it was vetted through this board. Perhaps you are accusing the BLP Noticeboard of not understanding BLP?Coffeepusher (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
And again, BLP does not say what you want it to say. Please copy the exact sentence in BLP the prohibits adding well-publicized, well-sourced attributed assessments to biographies. --NeilN talk to me 02:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NeilN - Think Progress and/or Salon are not a high quality reliable sources. If it is not a proper high-quality reliable source it cannot be used to make contentious assertions against living persons per BLP. Also you are completely off base because being accused of inciting Islamophobia is completely different from being a bigot (Islamophobe). This is not "one sentence of BLP" it is entire sections of BLP and IRS. Stop wikilawyering and stop trying to label a living person as a bigot to such weak sources. It a BLP attack and is unacceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
But the Cambridge University Press and Washington Post are high quality sources. and they say the same thing. So since you just asserted that this is a sourcing matter and we can make those claims as long as we have quality sources, we can consider it closed unless someone at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard agrees with your interpretation of sources. Unless of course you are WP:POV pushing and going to shift your argument again. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you'll just move the goalposts again to your preferred version of BLP - no analysis no matter what the source (Supreme Court clerk, LA Times, New Yorker legal analyst - were all not good enough for the other article). --NeilN talk to me 04:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is pretty clearly covered by WP:WELLKNOWN: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. There are multiple reliable sources (including the Washington Post and the Cambridge University Press book) documenting the allegations of Islamophobia, so it is appropriate (and consistent with WP:BLP) to mention the allegation. Of course, the allegation should be presented with appropriate in-text attribution, rather than as a "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. MastCell Talk 04:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There are many RS that have labeled civil rights activists as racists and race baiters, or that have expressed views of anti-Semitism or whatever. Such labels and contentious material is not included in the leads of WP:BLPs. Using the term Islamophobia, or fomenting Islamophobia applies equally - it is hate speech, and it doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP. WP is neither a tabloid nor a partisan (mis)information source - we don't hang labels on people. Reliance on what pundits claim in partisan media, and then writing about it as "encyclopedic" is terrible authorship - embarrassing, in fact - especially knowing the media has been known to screw-up the facts at one time or another. WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability is of the utmost importance. Please pay heed.

Read WP:Verifiability,_not_truth, If it's written in a book, it must be true!":

  • Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: "The hypno-toad is supreme" is more likely to be found than "our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us." It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice; this is one reason Wikipedia's voice should be neutral.
  • The best way to describe a dispute is to work with a tertiary source that already describes the dispute and cite it as a reference. Tertiary sources may also help to confirm that there is a legitimate dispute to begin with, and not just a fringe theory against a universally accepted idea.
  • It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately.
  • In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources.

The issues at Emerson are a result of not following the above guidelines. AtsmeConsult 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme and Arzel keep making the same points here as they've made on Talk:Steven Emerson and refuse to accept that criticism of someone is not a violation of WP:NPOV or of WP:BLP and are repeatedly objecting to reliably-sourced words like Islamophobia. I've made these arguments repeatedly on the Talk: page and they have failed to answer at any point why the sentences I wrote (which Coffeepusher helpfully brought over here) is not appropriate for the lead. In particular, their objections seem to centre on "biased sources", despite WP:NPOVFAQ explicitly stating:

The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.

To be honest, I would suggest that their objections have gone beyond the point of being a reasoned discussion and are now Disruptive. Frankly, big arguments like this are why I — and many others — avoid editing topics around politics. It's just not worth the stress and hassle; I've spent hours crafting and defending reliably-sourced and carefully-balanced wording that I could have been spent actually improving the encyclopædia. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Administrator's attention needed please?
There are a few editors insisting on maintaining BLP violations in Emerson. For example, the lead currently reads (and is properly sourced and cited):
Emerson has testified before Congressional committees on such topics as the financing of terrorism and organizational structure of networks known for their involvement in Islamic militantancy, including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.[3] Some of Emerson's statements have been challenged for inaccuracies, including a recent statement he made during a television interview wherein he incorrectly stated "there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in."[4][5][6] Emerson retracted his statement, and extended a public apology.[7]
The few editors who are edit warring want that paragraph to read:
Emerson has testified before Congressional committees on such topics as the financing of terrorism and organizational structure of networks known for their involvement in Islamic militantancy, including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.[3] Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia,[4][5][6][7] and for inaccuracies related to Muslims in the U.S. and Europe.[8][9][10][11]
I have already pointed out that the cited sources used for including contentious statements such as "fomenting Islamophobia" cannot be verified per WP:VERIFIABLE and "If it's written in a book, it must be true!". Other editors have tried numerous times to help the three disruptive editors to understand the problem, but to no avail. The liability for stating in Wiki voice what just is not true and/or inaccurately stated was also demonstrated in a link posted at the TP: [13]. The same few editors insist on the inclusion of the "fomenting Islamophobia" statement and "inaccuracies related to Muslims" in the lead, ignoring verification, and BLP policy. They cannot see past what they perceive as RS. I went to the effort of pointing out the problems source by source [14], but Cwobeel (now retired), Coffeepusher, OwenBlacker, and Nomoskedasticity keep reverting. AtsmeConsult 16:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Translation: ChrisGualtieri and I can't force our interpretation of BLP on other experienced editors so I want admins to restore my preferred version. Instead of threatening everyone else with BLP blocks, why not avail yourself of dispute mechanisms like RFC? --NeilN talk to me 16:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Experienced editors...hmm...the Birmingham Post, a reliable source, has the WP:Verified translation: "Steven Emerson attacked by digital lynch mob of anonymous pseudo-journos in dingy rooms" Stacie Croquet (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Stacie Croquet, any reason why you're linking to a site which seems to consist of copyright violations? --NeilN talk to me 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I just found this edit which states "Pour the liberal koolaid down the drain" by User:Atsme which is one of many that shows them editing to defend this article against a perceived partisan ideology rather than using wikipedia's guidelines to evaluate the edit. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
And if you actually read the source, the 'no-go areas' in question (in the English example) were actually areas where Muslim youth felt threatened. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

An edited volume from a major academic press certainly appears to be a BLP-appropriate source for contentious claims. And there are multiple high-quality sources here. I don't see how there's a problem beyond WP:IDHT. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason it is not appropriate is because it failed verifiability when checked against the actual source cited by the author to justify his use of such a contentious statement - "If it's written in a book, it must be true!". It flies in the face of WP:BLP and WP:V. To include such bias in the lead of a BLP would be spreading prejudicial and (borderline ethnic/racist) slurs used by an author who incorrectly attributed another source that did not make such a statement. Furthermore, none of the tertiary sources verify the contentious statements as they were used. Liken it to what happened to Emerson in reverse - a source gave him the wrong information. WP should not be spreading such misinformation. The lead I wrote which was constantly reverted actually had the proper amount of criticism, balance and was properly attributed with inline citations to reliable sources, and verified. AtsmeConsult 03:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a big disconnect between the suitability of contentious allegations and the ability to verify the existence of contentious allegations. The ability to verify the existence does not make it suitable to include it "because it is sourced". There is a reason "reception and controversy" sections are not fit per WP:CRITS and Featured articles on persons like Barack Obama do not include them at all. BLP requires high quality sources and NPOV should be a disinterested overview of a subject - labeling persons as bigots or even claiming they are bigots (because someone said so) is not proper. Obama has had no end of attacks on charges of corruption and other issues - yet not one reference to any accusation stands in the biography despite multitudes of sources and even books dedicated to asserting this. What we see here is sentence or less claiming bigotry by biased sources and without high-quality evidence of actual bigotry. The sources are not suitable to carry such an accusation into a biography. Doing so would result in biographies containing all the accusations by detractors and whatever scrawlings malcontents come up with. Verifiability does not mean inclusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry Atsme, I don't understand what you mean when you say "failed verifiability when checked against the actual source". Are you saying that Hammer and Safi failed verification when they were checked against their "actual source"? Who did this checking? Where's the source that undercuts Hammer and Safi? I'm confused. Guettarda (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm moving this into a new discussion below since we have gone so far from what the original post is, and if I was not involved in the ongoing discussion, I would have no idea what User:ChrisGualtieri was talking about. So Chris, I'm going to paste your above comment in the section below, if you feel I'm misrepresenting your position feel free to modify it or delete it as you choose. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Mmm.. if you misrepresent it then I made a poor argument! I'd prefer a new section, but this has gotten far from the original point and I do worry of Atsme's position as one of support instead of the creation of a disinterested biography. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No need to worry about my position. Neutrality, fact-checking, and verifying sources has never been an issue for me throughout my 30+ year career as a writer/publisher. I'm ok with the lead as it is now, but if it is ever expanded, I believe it should be done with the same adherence to policy, and with the consistency, care and careful consideration that was given to Anthony Weiner, Tony Blair, Anjem Choudary, Jesse Jackson, and Eric Holder.

In response to Guettarda's question, yes Hammer and Safi failed verifiability because they said things that were not in the source they cited. The Cambridge statement, "Islamophobes Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh), etc. was attributed in the book with an inline citation to an article written by Think Progress [15] which states, "Most notably, in 1995, Emerson claimed that the Oklahoma City bombing showed “a Middle East trait” because it “was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.” <---- Where in that statement do you see Muslim? Where do you see Islamopobes? Where do you see "discredited terrorism expert"? The use of "Islamophobe" is a biased slur and the opinion of the author(s). Emerson actually works to help Muslim groups protect against terrorism [16]. I have not read anything to date in a RS that validates or justifies Islamophobe or Islamophobia labels on Emerson, and certainly not in Wiki voice. I listed a similar breakdown at the TP for all the other sources that were used to justify the contentious material in the lead. AtsmeConsult 08:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:SQS much? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal[edit]


British Prime Minister David Cameron had earlier denied that there were no-go zones in the UK, describing Steven Emerson, who had made the same claim previously as "a complete idiot".

Directly relevant to a BLP about Bobby Jindal? Collect (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes -- it's a direct extension of Emerson's claim. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • And you assert that Jindal is directly associated with Emerson in some manner? I found no source making that much of a reach - the quote is about Emerson (see section above) and is not about Jindal unless one wishes to use Wikipedia to imply that Cameron is calling Jindal a "complete idiot" for which, again, I find no reliable source. Comments about third parties are generally not considered relevant in BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - [17], [18] [19] [20], [21] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • In what way? Or just "yes"? Collect (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Cameron was responding to Emerson, not Jindal - and I very much doubt that Jindal's comments would have been noticed at all without the earlier nonsense. The article previously gave the entirely false impression that Cameron had somehow made the comment for no reason whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • NO that edit implies that Jindal said that there were cities which were all Muslim. Cameron's statement against Emerson was in response to his statement that Birmingham was 100% Muslim. Not only is it a BLP violation, but it presents a synthesis of material problem. I can't believe that anyone is defending such a clear violation, and it should be removed immediately. Arzel (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Can you explain why, in removing this 'violation', you left a claim that "British Prime Minister David Cameron had earlier denied that such zones existed in the UK"? You have just asserted that Cameron said no such thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Please don't make uncivil comments like this. You show a lack of good faith in this type of edit comment. Arzel (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
That's nitpicking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
How about a good-faith explanation for why you complained of synthesis, and then restored the claim you objected to, Arzel? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I said the claim was wrong -- and you appear to have agreed that Emerson had not made "the same claim" which is SYNTH as the source did not say "Jindal made the same claim as Emerson"[22] in point of fact, and Cameron's reference to Emerson applied to Emerson only and not to Jindal (SYNTH) refers to the "same claim" and connecting Emerson to Jindal. Textbook case, in fact. Collect (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) .
I have revised it to read 'a similar claim' - which is what the Christian Science Monitor says. [23] And the fact remains that the article pulled Cameron's statement out of nowhere, removing the context which explained why Jindal's comments were seen as significant in the first place. It is entirely clear from the sources cited that the media see a direct connection between Emerson and Jindal, and that they reported his assertions because he was making similar claims to the ones that Emerson had to retract - similar claims to the ones that Cameron responded to in the manner he did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It still implies that Cameron called Jindal a "complete idiot". It is really almost beyond belief that some of you are defending this. Arzel (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No. The comment was referring directly to one person's statements -- it's inappropriate to use that to make inferences about someone else. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No This is not an improvement to the article. Emerson doesn't work for Jindal, he isn't apparently connected in anyway except that they are both Americans that have spoken about no-go zones. This is a Bio article about a specific figure not a forum for broad or extended commentary and context on no-go zones. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Contrary to what some people have asserted, there are numerous reliable sources which explicitly link Jindal's comments and Emerson's (e.g. The Guardian, CNN, the International Business Times, The Week, Bloomberg News, etc). So I don't see any grounds for the WP:SYN objections—this link appears explicitly in numerous independent, reliable sources. Nor is there any clear WP:BLP issue here, and I would strongly caution anyone who attempts to use BLP as a justification for edit-warring in this situation. There may well be issues of undue weight and recentism in giving a lot of airtime to this incident, but those are appropriately handled on the article talkpage rather than this noticeboard. MastCell Talk 23:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course - Per the sources presented by Cwobeel and MastCell that unequivocally make the connection. If would be WP:UNDUE not to include a mention of this. "Similar claim" may be preferable to "same claim", but that's really splitting hairs.- MrX 01:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    So do you think that Cameron is calling Jindal a "complete idiot"? Because that is what the section implies. Arzel (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    No. Jindal is repeating a claim which Cameron described as complete idiocy. Numerous independent, reliable sources say as much. MastCell Talk 17:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    No, Cameron called Emerson a "complete idiot", he didn't call the claim "complete idiocy". That is what prevents us from linking the two in a BLP.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think that's hairsplitting, but in any case there's no need, and probably no reason, to include Cameron's "idiot" quote. My main point is that there is no synthesis (and no WP:BLP violation) in linking Emerson's and Jindal's comments, since they are extensively and explicitly linked by reliable sources. My sense is that people are perseverating about the "idiot" quote rather than acknowledging the sources and working to find an acceptable way to reflect them. MastCell Talk 17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Mast, here is the section from CNN. "The Prime Minister said he choked on his porridge after hearing the claim by Steve Emerson, a Fox News pundit, that non-Muslims “simply don’t go” to Britain’s second-largest city.... Mr Cameron said: “Frankly I choked on my porridge and thought it must be April’s Fools Day. This guy is clearly a complete idiot." Jindal made no such statement. Seriously, how can you make that claim. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    As I said above, I don't feel it's important to use Cameron's quote, which as you point out was addressed to Emerson. On the other hand, it is clearly appropriate to draw a link between Emerson's and Jindal's comments on a broader level, since many reliable sources explicitly make this link. I think that focusing on the "idiot" quote is attacking a strawman at this point. I'm not defending its inclusion, and I don't think anyone else is either. At the same time, there needs to be some acknowledgement of the content of reliable sources and the response to Jindal's comments. At this point, it should be clear that there is no distinct BLP issue, and the matter should be returned to Talk:Bobby Jindal so that the denizens of that talkpage can work on the questions of appropriate weight and recentism. MastCell Talk 17:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No The inclusion can be seen as an attempt to implicitly apply the label (and the insult) to the subject via synthesis - assuming that wasn't the intention to begin with. When Cameron calls Jindal an idiot then that can be added to Jindal's bio. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think it's relevant given that Jindal has made similar sorts of claims to those made by Emerson. If nobody else had made the connection it would be OR, but the media has done so, so it's an acceptable thing to mention. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC).
  • No I read the CNN link and the "idiot" remark was made towards Emerson for making the "whole cities" comment. Jindal's statement was, by all accounts not as inflammatory. This is synthesis per FRF. I haven't checked all the links, but I suspect they are quite similar. If someone wants to present an unadulterated quote from a RS that supports inclusion, that would be helpful. Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 09:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Let's be frank. If you want to link the two, it's doable. But wanting to include the "idiot" part speaks volumes about some of you. Take it to Twitter with the rest of the malcontented. Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 09:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think there are numerous ways to go about presenting the fact that Jindal was soundly criticized, for both the initial statement and the refusal to retract it when proven false, without the need to resort to the "idiot" comment which was not directed at him. I don't think it is a BLP violation per se in its present form, just poorly realized. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I can't believe this is even under discussion. It's not only about relevance - it's about importance (weight). Jiminy Cricket. AtsmeConsult 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No - WP:BLPGOSSIP for starters and WP:10YT for a relevancy check. Comments and reactions by others to trivial comments made by the subject are rarely encyclopedic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • WP:BLPGOSSIP absolutely does not apply to this situation—that's just silly. I agree that WP:10YT (and recentism, more generally) are legitimate concerns. MastCell Talk 04:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No - In the end, the comparison is barely relevant and any criticism can be presented better. Tarc has it right. --NeilN talk to me 05:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Beatrix Campbell[edit]

Dear friends, Recently I wrote in WP:BLP page, under the heading Beatrix Campbell, as follows: "I would like to learn in particular whether there is provision, if an erroneous paragraph is continually reinserted into an entry, of placing an immovable statement to the effect that the subject of the biography contests its truth. And secondly, is there provision, in cases where the subject of a biography finds it continually misrepresents her, to have the entry in her name removed from Wikipedia completely. Advice will be very welcome." You will see from the last entries to the Beatrix Campbell discussion on WP:BLP that her version is still being contested. I have not received any reply,giving the advice I request.Bold text Could somebody help please? Sturdytree (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You, User:Sturdytree, say that her version is still being contested. What I see is that you made some edits to Beatrix Campbell in September, and most recently on 2 December 2014, which was more than a month ago. Your edits were partly reverted, also on 2 December 2014. There has been some discussion on the talk page, Talk: Beatrix Campbell, most recently on 12 December 2014, which was more than a month ago. I don't see any indication that you have attempted to discuss the article on the talk page. I am not entirely sure what your question is, but I will guess. You ask if an "immovable statement" can be inserted that the subject of the biography contests its truth. In Wikipedia, nothing is "immovable", but there are tags that can be attached to an article that should not be removed without discussion. You ask if the entry can be removed from Wikipedia completely because it misrepresents the subject. Articles can be deleted from Wikipedia via the Articles for Deletion process. Since it appears that the subject of the biography does meet general notability guidelines, I don't think that her biography will be deleted as not notable. It also does not appear that her biography can be deleted as unsourced. If there are specific statements in her biography that are not backed up by reliable sources, those parts of her biography can be removed as per the policy on biographies of living persons. However, my advice is to discuss the content of the biography at the article talk page, which you haven't yet done. If that does not result in satisfaction, you can follow any of the procedures described in the dispute resolution policy, which would include coming back to this noticeboard after the issues have been discussed on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fab Five: The Texas Cheerleader Scandal[edit]

Fab Five: The Texas Cheerleader Scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article seems like a large WP:COATRACK for WP:BLP issues. I significantly trimmed the article to reduce the issues [24] but am concerned that it still may be a BLP violation to use sources discussing a TV show as sources of fact for real people the show is based on. In some cases the sources used do discuss the real people, but the source doing so is the TV producer/director etc, which I feel may be unreliable for negative statements of fact about real people . ex [25] The real-life story of these cheerleaders shocked many when the story broke, not only for their racy and inappropriate behavior but also for the inaction of the school's administrators and parents," Lifetime senior vp original movies Tanya Lopez said. "We hope this movie reminds parents how important it is to set limits on their children. Obviously the plot of the show itself can be discussed in the article, even where that may imply something about the real people, but I don't think the article should have much about the real people in it at all, especially when newsweek writes [26] By all accounts the girls' behavior is wildly exaggerated on screen, but it makes for good TV

There is another newsweek story, directly about the real people from the time the real story broke. Ironically, it is not used in the article at all.[27]

Additional input would be appreciated. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Neelam Saxena Chandra - Claims and sources[edit]

This issue could also belong at WP:RSN or WP:COIN - bringing it here as this seems to have the most eyes. Over the past year, a COI editor has been adding puffery to this article. [28] Today, she added this. I reverted because I'd seen those claims before, using a "garbage" source (excuse my term, it's difficult when an editor is only here to promote something). [29] This time, I took another look and she's using another source, one that has a Wikipedia article: Limca Book of Records. Is this a reliable source for the claims she's making? If not, should the claims still appear if attributed to that source? --NeilN talk to me 16:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The book has been "published" by soft drink makers. I would say, not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The book does not meet WP:BLP requirements for a high quality source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Pat Ahumada[edit]

Pat Ahumada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A somewhat controversial former mayor who is, apparently, running again. The article is poor and has mostly negative (though sourced) information. There is more out on the internetz (here, for instance) but I haven't found anything positive. Whether the guy is notable in the first place is an interesting matter. In the second place, I wonder if recent edits have anything to do with his campaign. Your eyes are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed the detail per WP:UNDUE - watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Too bad we don't have a List of mayors of Brownsville... we could totally redirect there. Not enough for a bio and will always be negative. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Being negative is not a good reason to remove content; this would be a terrible encyclopædia if we were never allowed to accurately report on subjects that have been criticised in the real world. However, poor sourcing or low notability is a good reason to remove content. bobrayner (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Poor sourcing isn't either, but an eternally negative stub is better off as a redirect. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Cathy Gannon[edit]


Cathy Gannon

This article's title is inaccurate. Gannon's name is "Kathy" not "Cathy": — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Now moved to Kathy Gannon. Thanks for letting us know.--ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Charles Gordon-Lennox (or maybe Charles March)[edit]

Charles Gordon-Lennox, Earl of March and Kinrara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Charles Gordon-Lennox, Earl of March and Kinrara, an entirely unfamiliar name to me, popped up in my watchlist. Even by WP standards, the article was dreadful. I rather lazily sprayed it with warning flags and added a few internal links. Later, I noticed that it had been edited again, with no edit summary, and took a quick look (mostly to see whether hagiographic elements had been reinserted). It was then that I noticed that there'd been a series of edits changing unsourced factoids to different unsourced factoids.

The biographee seems notable for horseracing, car racing, and running a large house, three areas of which I know very little. While I'm concerned that WP should not misinform, I'm not the best person to be fact-checking this material. (I also have other, major demands on my time.) Could other, level-headed editors please take a look at this article and its fairly recent history? (If a sweeping reversion is in order and my own changes are among those that are swept away, of course I shan't take offence.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The article does not have a single source. I will stubify it and check for notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Additionally, this is within a bizarre genre of articles that treat their biographees as racehorses or similar, with precise (if usually unsourced) details of breeding. I never know quite how to take this kind of thing, but it seems vaguely insulting. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

BUMP Cwobeel, the editor who said (close above) that he'd stubify it and check for notability, merely stuck a humdrum template on it and seemingly left it at that. Cwobeel is now in no position to edit anything and has announced retirement. Is there nobody here with any interest (in the desirable sense of this word) in horse-racing, car-racing, or running a large house? I could try it myself, but I know nothing of these matters and am not tempted to read up on them. -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Park Yeon-mi again[edit]

More eyes are needed, there is one camp turning the article into a hagiographic (and extremely extended) speakers promotional blurb and another camp attempting to insinuate that she has lied about everything she ever stated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Rob Halford[edit]


Profile pic is of the wrong person - definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Carol W. Greider[edit]

Carol W. Greider, a 2009 Nobel Prize winner, has recently been editing her page (along with her assistant) to remove mentions of her husband, Nathaniel C. Comfort. Both User:Carol.w.greider and User:Scrow1 (her assistant) have deleted the references multiple times without adding any additional sourcing. It's evident based on a number of different sources that they were married in 1993, but I've yet to come across any sourcing to indicate otherwise. Per a note left by User:Scrow1 on my talk page, she's attempting to remove mention of her (apparently now ex-)husband.

My question is since Greider is clearly a public figure, 1. is she (or assistant) allowed to edit her page without it being a conflict of interest, 2. is she allowed to remove current, sourced information, and 3. to what extent, if any, is she allowed to dictate what appears on her page?


GauchoDude (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In order: 1. There is no absolute prohibition, but it is "strongly discouraged". 2 and 3 No. provided that the article complies with WP:BLP and other relevant policies and guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
What happened is that an unregistered editor (whom the original poster implies is either the subject or her assistant) removed the mention of their marriage both from Carol W. Greider and from Nathaniel C. Comfort. Their marriage was not referenced to a reliable source, although the original poster provides a source. As the original poster implies, it is likely that they are no longer married, in which case it is probably best to allow the deletion of the reference to their marriage. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ukexpat: @Robert McClenon:, yes there were a number of edits removing the mention of the entire marriage, which I edited back. While seemingly an uncoupling is most likely if we believe the duo above (whom I cannot verify if they are who they say they are aside from their word alone, in addition to not being able to find any mention of this potential event to source), the history of the marriage should not be in question. Per the sources in the article and above, both primary and secondary, it is black and white that a marriage did, in fact, exist. I am curious as to if this person has the ability to remove said information even though there are sources present that show it existed and, essentially, to cover up the past by "censoring" the page at their will. —GauchoDude (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The way that you are asking the question is "loaded". Content in Wikipedia is determined collaboratively by consensus. This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone (with the exception of banned and blocked users) can edit. Of course anyone can edit it. The question is not whether they have the ability to remove the information, but whether its removal is appropriate. In general, the place to discuss article content is the article talk pages. It appears that neither you nor the unregistered editor has used the article talk pages. I would suggest that you post a question about whether the marriage should be in the article on the two article talk pages, and that you notify the unregistered editor on their talk page. At the same time, I would advise that if someone says that the subject of the article does not want the marriage mentioned, and there is no compelling reason to mention it, that it be omitted out of respect for the privacy of living persons. (Do you have a specific reason, other than the fact itself, why you think that the marriage should be mentioned? Is there anything in your past that you would prefer not to discuss? Unless you have a specific reason, I suggest that, out of respect for the privacy of living persons, some facts can be omitted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

kajol is born in 1975. not 1974[edit]

kajol is born in 1975 as i heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reloade (talkcontribs) 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Reloade: Heard in what reliable source? We don't change biographical articles only based on what somebody "heard". —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source, you can propose a change at Talk:Kajol. Since her birth date is referenced to two reliable sources, I would not recommend editing the article without discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Jayne Heitmeyer[edit]

Harry the Dirty Dog has insisted on including this external link in the subject's biography, which apparently he decided is actually the subject based on original research rather than relying on a secondary source. The image was previously being used (in conjunction with IMDb) to support the subject's date of birth, with this hidden note:

DO NOT change the year of birth to 1970. Jayne was born in 1960. The date on the photos linked below (1979 in both cases) is the year these people would have graduated high school, not the year the photo was taken. Jayne could not have been in both grade 4 and grade 6 in the same year. To graduate from high school in 1979, she would have to be born in 1960

This kind of OR is unacceptable in biographies, and while my removal of the DOB was not challenged, they insist on keeping the external link, which makes no sense since there no biographical information regarding the subject's early life, and in any case it is an unacceptable source to begin with. Further, Harry the Dirty Dog has apparently managed to elucidate which of those children is actually the subject, based on some unknown criteria (age regression?) and a faded 36-year old signature. Is there consensus that this is acceptable as a standalone external link? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jayne Heitmeyer can be used for context on how important this apparently is to the editor, and the amount of OR that has gone into it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I had actually removed the link before this notice was posted.
There is also this link, [30] Heitmeyer appears in the bottom photo on page 62. She is named, and it is a PDF of the yearbook which appeared in 1974. She is clearly much older than the 4 years old she would have been if she was born in 1970.
I am actually happy to have no DOB in the article. What is important to me (and should be to all editors) is that we should not have the wrong one. My only aim has been to avoid having misinformation in a BLP. If you go back through the history of the article you can see that a year of birth of 1970 had been added on the very first edit with no reliable sources. The photo that is in question here is signed by Heitmeyer, so there can be no question that it is genuine. A signed document by the subject is certainly valid as an external link, as is a PDF of a yearbook in which she appears. Whether or not it confirms a year of birth is a separate matter, and I am happy to accept that it may not be sufficient, but if it is not being used as a source for a year of birth, but merely a link illustrating the subject, there is no reason for it not to be there. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I suppose the question then is: "Is a yearbook published by the school a primary source?" I'd say yes but I'm not 100% certain so that's why I brought it here for further discussion. For the record, I don't doubt that this is Heitmeyer and your investigation is correct - but that's not the point. This would be acceptable only if a secondary source had done the research, and linked to the yearbook. There's a not-so-subtle difference, which is encoded in the OR/SYNTH and BLP policies. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree since in this case the DOB seems to be contentious. My purpose in assembling what evidence I could that 1970 couldn't possibly be the year of birth was to avoid the incorrect year being reinserted. But if we are happy that that there should be no DOB on the article then the issue is moot. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree, and I didn't adjust the DOB in any case because that would have been equally wrong. We're better off without it altogether. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

James R. Clapper[edit]

James R. Clapper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article states: He responded - committing the felony of lying to congress under oath - "No, sir."

This is a legal opinion. Unless the writer can cite a felony conviction, it has no place in the article.

Nor does the section heading. The administration expressed confidence that the Director answered in the least misleading way possible, given the wording of the questions. To use the phrase "False testimony" is an opinion and is not supported by any citations to legal findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the bit where someone asserted he was lying, since it was nothing more than an opinion. Articles are supposed to be neutral and reproduce only what the available sources say. As to the lede, I don't think there's a problem with it because all that is sourced later in the article, and it is worded neutrally. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It's called mind reading, where the writer assumes to know the intimate thought processes of the subject. Strongly discouraged in professional journalism, it has no place here either. (Fine in The Onion, though).--Auric talk 20:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Donald Keene[edit]

Donald Keene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As the template for BLPs says "If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns", material has been repeatedly inserted and undone, and there are concerns outlined in the Talk page for the subject in question. In particular, COI via self-promotion self-referencing, (indirect) libel, and relevence of putting outlier information not shared by mainstream sources.

Not sure how much detail I should add here, but the gist of the concern is in the Talk Page for the Wikipedia BLP mentioned above. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 02:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Argentine political figures[edit]

There's some editing that needs further attention -- see this section of the COIN. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject field to look at it with the necessary care DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Josh Seefried[edit]

Subject of BLP continues to make edits to the bio, removing all content that is negative towards him or shows verifiable proof of his past work actions, in violation of BLP guidelines and standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Holy edit warring. But the removal is justified as the placement of the material is unacceptable. --NeilN talk to me 06:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
If an admin processes this, can we get the article semi-protected so the IP's use the empty talk page? --NeilN talk to me 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've semi'd it. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Both IPs are past 3RR, but User:Callanecc has saved them from themselves by semi-ing. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"Criticisms" section in bio of a scholar citing one instance of another scholar who disagreed[edit]

I did this last night but I'm not entirely sure about it. As I pointed out on the talk page, it seems the view of his under discussion was expressed in an early work (published when he was in his late 20s) that happens to have had an influence on other scholars, and scholars (at least those of the opposing school) consider him to be the "founder"of the revisionist view in question. A seemingly neutral review in The Journal of Japanese Studies apparently considers his scholarly method to have been flawed but not without merit, as other scholars continue to take this view. (By "neutral" I mean in relation to this debate, not to make some sort of claim that one source is superior to another based on how objective and NPOV it is.)

But regardless of which view is more mainstream, I'm inclined to think discussion of that debate belongs in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, not in the form of criticisms of one of the scholars on one side.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections are almost always bad. A nuanced description of someone's work should reflect the secondary sources that exist, both positive and critical. If you're writing a criticism section you're almost certainly running into undue weight issues. (There are exceptions, of course, like where a work is only notable because of the criticism it received.) Guettarda (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Guettarda. When it comes to scholarly criticisms we need to be careful to only cite those body's of work which are significant for the field. Almost every notable scholar has critics, but we must be careful not to highlight a particular criticism due to WP:WEIGHT issues. If you decide to move forward in this addition, you will probably need to demonstrate why this particular criticism is significant for the field. Did it produce a significant body of work or develop a new direction for the field? Was it a criticism by a notable scholar which changed the direction of that scholars research? Has it been a sustained conversation taken up by multiple scholars over a period of years either within a field or does it produce interdisciplinary cross pollination?Coffeepusher (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Coffeepusher: Just to be clear, the article previously contained a "criticisms" section, and I removed it. The problem is that it was (very briefly) discussed by two IPs on the talk page some years ago, and remained in the article all that time, so I was wondering if I was right in removing it. If we're all in agreement that the criticism section didn't belong, then we're probably done here. (I assumed that when Guettarda said If you're writing a criticism section you're almost certainly running into undue weight issues. they were speaking hypothetically, but I could have been wrong...) Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for looking for my opinion in the matter. I agree with it's removal. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sajin Vass Gunawardena[edit] is a large edit which looks to me to be laden with potential BLP issues. I reverted it once (no time to pick through the whole thing and it looked like it would clearly violate BLP policy if left alone) but it's back. Some of this material has been in before, and the page was semi-protected in December 2013.

I'm calling for help; it seems clear there are BLP issues, but equally some of the material may be good. I have no time to pick through it, and know nothing about Sri Lankan politics. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it okay to add back a completely unsourced awards sect about BLPs?[edit]

  1. Please see DIFF by Murry1975 (talk · contribs).
  2. I had removed a sect from an article with completely unsourced info about WP:BLPs.
  3. Murry1975 (talk · contribs) added the entire sect back, with zero sources, asserting he can do that because "WP:BLUE" and because the "articles are linked".
  4. Last I heard, WP:BLUE was an essay, while WP:BLP and WP:V are policy.

Some clarification would be helpful here, because I think it's best to remove completely unsourced info related to WP:BLPs from articles.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLUE is irrelevant - the colour of the sky is common knowledge, whereas who won an Academy award etc for a particular year isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, definitely shouldn't be added back without adequate sourcing. GiantSnowman 18:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
All sources are available at the linked award pages, citation over kill for a page that has clear links.
"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced"
How are actual facts contentious?
How is removing vast sections, linked to sourced pages, across multiple articles "improving" wikipedia?
Removing material, blanking when sources are available on the linked articles is actually disruptive. If the editor in question would like to improve rather than delete. Utter tautology. Murry1975 (talk)
No, Murry1975, refusing to use citations is disruptive. As for whether the material is contentious or not, put yourself in the shoes of the person that actually won the award. We have a serious problem with these unsourced award sections, and a lot of them consist of false information.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
If the information is well-known and obvious, then it should be trivially easy to provide a reliable source for it. It's not "oversourcing" to provide such a citation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The My Left Foot artilce, is it contentious that Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar? Is it not counter productive that instead of drawing attention to the possible need for inline citations, the section is removed? Is it not counter productive that when an article is linked that instead of transferring inline cites that the accurate, neutral infomation is deleted? Common sense is meant to used. Murry1975 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
First, if they are sourced at the article for the award then the addition of the award to other articles is entirely appropriate. Per WP:PRESERVE any editor is free to add any citations that they wish. OTOH removal of the info is counterproductive to say the least. An alternative is to add "CN". Claiming that awards won is a BLP violation is pure sophistry.I'm not sure what the WP:POINT of these removals is but they do not improve the encyclopedia. MarnetteD|Talk 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added the unref section tag instead. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
And based on the logic of blanking the whole section, then the article for 43rd British Academy Film Awards should be blanked too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
A third of it sourced in 5 minutes. You can bow down and thank me later. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me see, Lugnuts, you knowingly restore unsourced material about a living person after its been objected to and then expect thanks? I assume that you will accept this block warning instead. Never, ever, again, under any circumstance, should you restore uncited material about a living person to an article after it has been challenged for lack of sourcing.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Please get off your high horse. What an attitude problem you have. I've added several sources to that article. How many have you added? None. What a hypocrite. Another admin who thinks they're better than the editors who actually do the legwork around here. Pathetic. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Gone quiet now Kww, haven't you? Not surprising now you've been outted as a bully. Go on, take me to ANI about adding unsourced text with a ref needed tag. I dare you. If you think anyone who adds any unsourced info to an article is going to get blocked, then pretty much every one here is in the shit. Including plenty of admin lackeys. I bet your edit history is worth looking over while we're on the witch-hunt bandwagon. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Strongly agree with this comment by admin Kww. — Cirt (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think Lugnuts' actions were clearly productive, and that your threat of a block is completely out of line. You are really threatening to block someone for adding relevant information back to an article and sourcing some of it, just because he wasn't able to add citations to all of it in 5 minutes? Kww, while WP:BLP is an important policy, so is WP:CIVILITY, and threatening to block someone for good faith edits that improved the article is clearly not acceptable behavior. Calathan (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
No, agree with admin Kww. They can work on unsourced info about a WP:BLP, offsite on a txt file, and then add it back to the article, sourced. There is no urgent need to add back wholly unsourced info about a WP:BLP to a page. — Cirt (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not objecting to Kww complaining that Lugnuts added some of the information back in unsourced, or to Kww removing the unsourced portion again. What I feel is inappropriate is the block threat over what was a good faith edit that improved the article. It would have been even better for Lugnuts to add citations to the info in the same edit where he added it back in, but his actions were still helpful and certainly not something someone should be threatened with a block for. Calathan (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I can agree with that part. :) — Cirt (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The removal may or may not have been the best approach on a collaborative project, but WP:BURDEN is very clear. The challenged content cannot be restored to the article without the inclusion of in line citations at the time of restoration - vague waves to "the claim is sourced in some other article " are not at all sufficient. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── More time was spent arguing over this than it took me to find the sources. It might actually take me more time to write this comment than it took me to find the sources. It DEFINITELY took both Cirt and Murry1975 more time to revert and argue over this than it would have taken either of them to find the sources. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The WP:BLP exception applies to contentious material only. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree completely with Hipocrite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree with application of WP:BURDEN, specifically with regard to completely unsourced info about WP:BLPs. And also strongly agree about claims of "but but but ... it's sourced in another Wikipedia article". — Cirt (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • And no, it would take way more time to add citations for all this completely unsourced info about WP:BLPs. Better to remove it, and add back, iff and only iff properly cited to sources that conform to Wikipedia site policies. — Cirt (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
{edit conflict}I replied to Cirt over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, but the gist of my comment there is that the right action in this case was to source the content. It clearly needs sources, WP:BLUE definitely doesn't apply, and Murry1975 was wrong to add it back in without trying to source it. However, for content like this that so clearly could easily be sourced, Cirt should have just sourced it himself (and removed anything he couldn't find sources for). Please remember that the idea here is to build good encyclopedia articles, and that having good sourced content is clearly better than either option of having unsourced content or removing content. I commend Lugnuts for taking it upon himself to start adding sources to the content. Calathan (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
No, agree with admin Kww. There is zero urgent need to retain completely unsourced info about WP:BLPs on a page until sourced someday. — Cirt (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Cirt, you don't need to post that you agree with Kww over and over again, both in this discussion and on other pages. We can get it after the first time. Anyway, I'm not saying that you should have left the content unsourced in the article, I'm saying that it would have been better for you to source it yourself. It would indeed have taken a little longer to source it than to just remove it, but that would also have made the article much better. Calathan (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Calathan, that effort on quality improvement could indeed be done by anyone, offsite or on a draft page, after removing unsourced info on WP:BLPs from a live Wikipedia page. — Cirt (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that there is now a WP:AE request about this issue. Feedback is welcome here.[31] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: Result of WP:AE request: "Cwobeel: Blocked for a week and banned from editing BLP awards and nominations lists.". — Cirt (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Kagan[edit]

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

User:Wixifixer, who is the subject of the article, is attempting to remove ethnicity information from this page. I've had conflicts with him in the past and would rather defer the case to other administrators. Owen (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Labelling people as Jewish etc. falls into the topic of WP:BLPCAT where unless the person self-identifies as Jewish, we do not do so. Collect (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the page in question, self-identification seems to be required for religion, but not for ethnicity. Or is this guideline given elsewhere? Owen (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the Robert Kagan article, the disputed statement was entirely unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Tell ya what - look at the prior discussions about "Jewish" on all the noticeboards - and note that categorizing a person as "Jewish" invariably is viewed as contentious where no self-identification is made. Trying to assert that "Jewish" merely is an ethnicity has not flown here before, and is unlikely to fly now. Collect (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Support per Collect's argument - labeling persons without self-identification or other high quality sources is not acceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Glad to see this is already here. Article has no sources regarding Kagan being Jewish; no mention of being Jewish at all. Agree with Collect. Must be removed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I think Jewishness, in the final analysis, is irrelevant to this discussion. What we are discussing is whether or not unsourced material should be removed from a WP:BLP. As we read at WP:V: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately." I disagree with those who might say that this material is "contentious". It is merely unsourced. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Prior discussions all reached a different conclusion than that, however. Collect (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Any time the subject of an article indicates in good faith that they do not wish to be labelled with a given ethnicity, we should respect that. It's a matter of courtesy and logic before we even get round to considering WP policy. Same goes for religion and sexual orientation. (Caveat: I have no idea if Wikifixer actually is the article subject in this case, and I have done nothing to check). Formerip (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


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

Joni Ernst's Wikipedia page states " ..the first woman ever elected on a statewide level in Iowa...." this is incorrect. Patty Judge was elected Iowa's Iowa Secretaries of Agriculture in 1998 and served until 2007 Iowa Auditor of State Mary Mosiman was elected in 2013 and is the current Auditor. Secretary of State office has been Held by Mary Jane Odell elected in 1980 and served until 1987 and Elaine Baxter elected in 1987 and served until 1994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourced to WaPo which is a reliable source - but proving again that "reliable" != "correct." Collect (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Labeling the origin of material "reliable" by publisher instead of "a source" gives authority to something by origin instead of by examination. While the source is markedly different from Daily Kos - publishers are not infallible and this is an example of an error in a normally fine source. Thank you for addressing it Collect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a case of {{sofixit}} to me... Guy (Help!) 15:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Zero sources on "awards" pages about BLPs[edit]

  1. List of awards and nominations received by Susan Sarandon
  2. List of awards and nominations received by Nicolas Cage
  3. List of awards and nominations received by Adam Sandler
  • "Awards" pages about WP:BLPs, each had zero sources, none cited, whatsoever.
  • I've removed the wholly unsourced info about WP:BLPs.
  • Please don't add back unsourced info unless properly cited to sources that conform to site policy, including WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary, add {{cn}} where needed or {{refimprove}}. The BLP exception applies to contentious claims only. Do the work or let others do it if you are not interested. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
First, Cwobeel, WP:BURDEN applies to all material, whether it is about a living person or not. Second, "contentious" doesn't mean "disparaging" or "unpleasant", it only means that someone may disagree about it. While removing it in the first place may not have been the best choice, once it has been challenged, it can only be restored with a citation to a reliable source.—Kww(talk) 22:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is Cirt disagreeing with the content? --NeilN talk to me 22:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
He's been pretty clear that he objects to it because it is inadequately supported by sources, i.e., it may not be true. If it matches up with my experience on similarly unsourced awards articles, his suspicions are well justified: they tend to be exaggerated and inaccurate. I've warned him not to go on a spree of these removals, despite any suspicions he might have.—Kww(talk) 22:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal per Cirt's citation of applicable and relevant policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I recall one BLP where one editor wanted to include a Nobel Peace Prize "nomination" for a person as being important <g> so yes - awards can be contentious in the sense that other editors find the claim dubious. Collect (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is one of those instances where WP:IAR would apply, as these awards are very easily sourced. But I will not fight for this, I leave it to you to continue blowing up the work of good faith editors for no reason other than being super-narrow in your interpretation of policy. Have fun. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
While you are at it, go ahead and do the same with List of people who disappeared mysteriously, List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career and similar lists. There are many to keep your fun going. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Cwobeel, please stop attacking other editors. This is a good faith claim and the material is contentious and unsourced, policy states it should be removed until it can be re-included with a proper source. This is a key fact of WP:BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations to Cirt for playing a straight bat and posting for third party review, this is wholly uncontroversial. Unsourced material has no right to exist, regardless of how notable some related article subject may be. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Cwobeel restored all three articles and sourced the entirety to IMDb. [32][33][34] They were promptly redirected as IMDb is not a reliable source, much less a BLP source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong is using IMDb for a an innocuous list of awards. That material is not contentious. WP:IAR exists for a reason. Use your common sense, and think of the reader. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
There is indeed something wrong. The same person who creates the Wikipedia article could create the IMDB content, and we'd never even know. It's not an acceptable site to be the sole or primary source of an article. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Make the BLP day and also redirect Susan Sarandon filmography, and Nicolas Cage filmography. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing them is always better than removing them. In my opinion the lists should be as comprehensive and well sourced as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: Result of WP:AE request: "Cwobeel: Blocked for a week and banned from editing BLP awards and nominations lists.". — Cirt (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlo Greene[edit]

Charlo Greene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm not sure if this is a BLP/N thing or maybe an issue for another forum. Long story short, I've had someone make a few comments on the talk page saying that Greene doesn't pass notability guidelines (she passed an AfD) and making statements that come across like they're saying that there's a bias on the page because it doesn't contain this or that content. I'll be honest: it really comes across like the editor in question has a genuine strong dislike of the person because of how they've phrased everything. I've told them that if anything is missing or seems overly puffy that they can make edits if they think that they can do it in a neutral fashion, but I'm fairly concerned that any edits by them would be done with the specific goal of stripping sources from the article and editing to reflect their point of view, which is that she's non notable and the article should be deleted. I would like someone to come in to the article and help with edits and also with mediation with the editor in question. It just feels like unless some other people step in this is just going to be a pattern where the editor comes back, makes more POINTy comments about Greene and the article (stating how there's a bias and that it's missing information that they don't seem to want to add), and then takes off to do other things. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Also, should the recent eviction be mentioned? I've added it, but it doesn't seem to have been as widely covered as some of the other stuff like the other recent legal issues (misusing campaign funds) and it just feels a little minor. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Tokyogirl79: Did the AfD address if she was covered by BLP1E? I have watchlisted the article and commented on the eviction issue back at the article talk page JBH (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
..."and then takes off to do other things." Uh, you mean such as paying work out in the real world? How dare I give that a higher priority than fucking around on Wikipedia! This has been the quintessential BLP1E from Minute One. As I recall, the AFD began with the nominator referencing BLP1E and using it as justification for deletion, which obviously fell on deaf ears. I also recall that it was taken to AFD after it was PRODed and her supporters removed the PROD tag with no rationale or discussion whatsoever. Perhaps all that helps to explain why sensible people have stayed far the fuck away from this. I attempted to offer comments prior to and during the AFD, but abandoned them. My real-world obligations took a sharp turn in a different direction about eight months ago, which means that I truly did have better things to do with my life at the time.
In my eyes, this is one of far too many examples of giving undue weight to something because it was "trending" on one particular day, considerations such as WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM (among others) be damned. The rationale was given during AFD that this received "significant coverage". What others may view as "significant coverage", I view as a result of a media environment in which an endless number of media outlets endlessly rehash the same content over and over in an attempt to appear "competitive" or "relevant". I'm sure some won't understand that statement, but I'm merely looking at the bigger picture here. I came here to help build an encyclopedia, not a portal to CNN and The Huffington Post.
There has been "continuing coverage", but that's mostly on account of the Anchorage-based corporate media deeming her to be the next "homegrown media darling" a la Sarah Palin. The only thing I see in common between Charlo Greene and Sarah Palin is that they both had a cup of coffee at KTVA, and that Wikipedians seem all too eager to bludgeon readers with their respective fleeting associations with the station, all the while deleting sourced content pertaining to individuals who actually had something to do with putting KTVA on the map. Is there an essay which spells out the difference between "notability" and "celebrity" and outlines how not to confuse or intertwine the two, or have I just given someone an idea for their next big Wikipedia project? Anyway, I'm totally puzzled as to why any media executive would view Greene as a logical successor to Sarah Palin in terms of the similarities in coverage. I don't think I have to explain Palin's accomplishments. Greene, in comparison, is just a pitiful bottom-feeder. This has been reflected in "social media commentary", with multiple instances of readers asking media outlets why they insist on wasting readers' time with this bullshit, giving such excessive coverage to her eviction proceedings and other non-events while "even Ray Charles can see" that she had already jumped the shark by that point.
As to the issue of omission of content: hopefully, we're all at least familiar with the circumstances surrounding this individual. There was a larger issue, Ballot Measure 2, to decriminalize cannabis in Alaska, which was successful. One of the primary figures on the side of opposing this ballot measure was Deborah Williams, the top Alaska-based official of the United States Department of the Interior during the Clinton administration and a politically powerful person in Alaska in general. The simple fact of the matter is that Charlo Greene outed herself because Deborah Williams went to KTVA's management and complained about the tone of her reporting. This fact was reported by reliable sources. That Wikipedians somehow didn't find this to be very important boils down to one of three things: someone was afraid of possibly offending Deborah Williams, someone felt that mentioning Williams would detract from the important task of procuring enough turd polish to make this appear legit in the eyes of the uninitiated, or providing proper context would detract from continuing to promulgate the sort of BizarroThink which permeates Wikipedia and further lends to the laughingstock image many people have of the encyclopedia.
As with "social media commentors", I feel enough of my life has been wasted reading about Charlo Greene (there's a James A. Michener quote to the effect of "Nothing in your life matters before age 45, but once you reach that age, you better make everything in your life matter" – well, that's me, plus it also partially explains why I've had a whole lot less time lately for Wikipedia than I used to), so don't necessarily count on any replies from me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Paying bills and real life are important- I'm not denying that. My issue is that you come on, make statements about how awful the article is, how it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, how it should include this or how not having that is a sign of bias, yet you never actually do anything. Rather than just complain about how much you think that Greene is a bottom feeder, why not actually help improve the article? As far as I can see with the article you just mostly complain about how Greene and the article exists, but without actively doing anything to improve the article or even re-nominate it for deletion. At some point it seems like you're more using the talk page as a forum to complain about Greene's existence and her tactics on self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to be used to further a specific viewpoint. You don't like what Greene did or that she got media attention. That's duly noted but again, Wikipedia is not here to be used as a platform to either promote a person in a positive or negative manner. Even if you feel that someone got media attention for something stupid or sleazy and you don't personally agree that they should have gained that attention, that doesn't automatically mean that they aren't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. There have been times that I've had to vote to keep an article for topics I really didn't want to have an article and there have been times that I've had to delete articles for topics that I genuinely wanted to keep. At this point I can't help but wonder if you really can make any neutral edits concerning Greene. You clearly have a very strong negative viewpoint about her and you also clearly want the page gone from Wikipedia. Will the world end if the page got deleted tomorrow? No, but we should not delete pages based upon our personal convictions and if you don't think that you can be neutral about the page, then odds are you should probably keep from editing or suggesting edits. No matter what I do to the page, you complain and at one point on the talk page you made blanket statements that I personally inferred as me having a positive bias towards Greene. (IE, statements about this being a puff piece, about how "desperate some of you are to give free publicity", and so on.) You don't like Greene and you don't like the page. Duly noted, but each time you come on to the page you get nastier and nastier about everything. At some point you really do need to step back and just sort of distance yourself from the page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, the reason that she even survived deletion was the award from High Times and the Elle recognition. If I hadn't found those then I'd have voted to delete the article myself, but High Times doesn't give out many awards and it was enough to warrant a weak keep from my end. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
For the record, in case you haven't already perused the history, I haven't made a single edit to the article. I also really could care less about the person. My main concern is that the existence of content such as this makes Wikipedia out to be a reflection of all that's wrong with the web rather than a reflection of human knowledge. "Wikipedia is not here to be used as a platform to either promote a person in a positive or negative manner". Hmmm, from my perspective, I've seen too many instances of WP:BLP or even the threat of such being used to turn articles into promotional puff pieces. In one case, an editor was so quick to whitewash the placement of {{Advert}} on a BLP with no real discussion, I began to wonder if that editor even knew the difference between an advertisement and an encyclopedia entry. It's understandable, really. People are just aping the rest of the web, which since about 1996 or so has existed more to advertise and promote and further corporate agendas than it has to inform.
Three years ago, I expressed concerns on here about Levi Johnston and the coverage of his so-called "mayoral campaign". The cherry-picked sources used were little removed from Johnston's own press releases, which emerged not long after the announcement that he had hired a publicist. Later, around the time of the actual filing period for the office, when other sources emerged showing that Johnston didn't actually file for the office and had no comment as to whether he was going to file, those sources were ignored. The response to that posting was similarly cherry-picked, basically another blow-off. Is anyone expected to believe that Us Weekly has anything credible to say about an election in Alaska, yet when the same Us Weekly has something negative to say about Johnston, suddenly it's not a reliable source? Go look at the history of that article if you doubt me on this.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand: the appropriate response only came to mind a few hours ago while looking at coverage of Joe Franklin's death. Like I said, I came here to help build an encyclopedia, not a portal to corporate media. Is this article evidence of the notion that notability is gauged by how many media outlets pick up the same story? By the standards used to judge this as notable, everyone ever mentioned by Nancy Grace deserves their own article. As for the High Times award? Cannabis as a political issue in Alaska goes back to 1972, not Charlo saying "Fuck it" on a live television broadcast. I suppose the reason why Irwin Ravin doesn't have an article is because dead people aren't in a position to craft a social media strategy. There's numerous other things, such as the notable events of the 1990 cannabis-related ballot initiative not being covered (because they occurred in 1990 and therefore Google is not going to make tons of sources automatically fall into one's lap, never mind that it leaves the impression that those events are somehow not notable because they occurred in 1990 rather than 2014), the WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE issues in the KTVA article being made worse by this episode and so forth, but I'll save my breath. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Marco Rubio et al[edit]

Election 2016 is a little way off, but already polls are being taken on all sorts of "possible candidates" all over the place by every organization. I rather think that adding such polls to political BLPs is pure recentism and makes Wikipedia into an ersatz newspaper, but others demur. So far at Marco Rubio an extensive section of all the current polls was added -- at this rate, and adding each poll as it is released, the BLP will be 90% "polling results" long before election day. Again, IMO, polls taken this far out are of minimal, if any, biographical value, and of nil encyclopedic value. I objected to the 2014 polls added to many candidates which aggregated up to 150 polls for each candidate <g> and I suspect the mere eight or ten added in the first half of January will easily surpass that level in 2016. How much weight in BLPs should be given to crystal ball polls as opposed to actual election polling? Collect (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This would be a discussion best had on the article talk page. 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.- MrX 14:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Generally yes, the article talk pages are the best place for these discussions, however Collect makes a valid point; American election cycles are very short and the polls are never ending. Repeating the same process for every BLP is a waste of time. Where else would we have this conversation?Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not a policy issue; it's a content issue. Summarizing a few polls for potential/actual presidential candidates should be of value to our readers. Obviously, this would apply to just a few BLPs, not every BLP.- MrX 15:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually -- where information is of nil biographical value, it is, indeed, discussable here. We can expect literally several hundred polls in this year alone - and a full year before the election. I know some people are fascinated by hundreds of polls in every political BLP, but the issue of what weight to ascribe to the crystal ball polls (polls where no one has even declared a candidacy are absolutely crystal ball gazing exercises) is properly discussed here as it might affect hundreds of BLPs. Or each BLP could end up looking like United_States_Senate_election_in_North_Carolina,_2014#Polling_2 where the polls take up about 100K out of the 114K article. As I noted - that is a very valid topic here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)!
Fortunately there's now a productive discussion at the article talk page as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Even so - this topic affects just about all the major US political BLPs as we head into the 2016 election season. Best t get general input and not just from one single BLP,no? Collect (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
As a general observation, it is not an improvement to biography articles to have multiple poll results for an individual or individuals who have not yet declared (and may never declare ) that they are running for public office. This is little more than wild ass guessing on the part of media companies. The only place tht this sort of routine "crystal ball" polling might be an improvement or suitable inclusion would be an article about the relevant primary (in a section on pre-primary maneuvering). Even then it seems a marginal addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there any good reason to mention polls in an ongoing way? It can be relevant to note things like "after repeatedly polling less than 5%, Mr. Mugwump ended his campaign for dogcatcher" but in most cases there's no point in keeping a blow-by-blow account of every poll. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have quite a few political articles on my watchlist. Every election cycle, a certain few editors show up in certain articles they may have never edited before, or are otherwise active with newer articles pertaining to current events, particularly election articles. The pattern is the same: dump polling data en masse, puff up whomever happens to have made a few recent headlines or whose press releases are being rehashed into "reliably sourced content", and willfully trash rather than build upon or improve any attempts on the part of other editors to improve these articles. I would name names, but when I have before, they tend to show up and throw WP:WHATEVERYOUCANDREAMOF in my face and make me out to be the real problem. Yes, I hope you've figured out already that I hold strong opinions sometimes and only "back down" because I may not have as much time for tit-for-tat as they do. The end result found in the articles is exactly as Collect described: fully fleshed-out polling data, while most of the remainder of the article is a pretty crystal-clear example of why we have a policy known as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In the 8½ years I've had this account and 5½–6 years of being at least a nominally active editor, this is certainly the most egregious WP:SPA/WP:OWN complex I've ever witnessed. Worse yet, an overwhelming majority of these polls come from Public Policy Polling. Reading that article gave me the impression that PPP is a Democratic Party front. Even the dimmest of dimwits can figure out what a slippery slope that is. Finally, having a BLP which contains an excess of polling data pertaining to a single election, which is then later removed from the article, validates the "ersatz newspaper" comment and also is thumbing its nose at the concept of "enduring notability" which we all see mentioned so often in discussion pages. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

J.C. Jones[edit]

Tulipmaster (talk · contribs), formerly Islandsound (talk · contribs) has added some controversial info to J.C. Jones about the person being charged for fraud under the name Charles Jones. While one of the added (Lebanon Democrat) does verify that a Charles Jones was charged with fraud, it does not give any indication that this is the same person. The other two sources added give 404s.

I asked the user about this, and they responded by saying, "I have had personal dealings with this guy. I can send court documents on the matter if need be. Image can be verified via youtube search via his music. People who steal like alias names." and providing a link to YouTube which proves nothing. I then explained that Tulipmaster seems to have a WP:COI

Is there any chance that this user can be blocked for harmful COI edits? Also, should their edits be redacted from the history due to lack of valid sourcing identifying this as the same person? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be the same person: "As for, Charles Jones - or J.C. as he's known - said the company has gone out of business." but none of the sources make that connection, so it has to stay out the article. I would just keep reverting it and give the users escalating warnings. If they continue after being warned, they should be blocked. Since the content may meet on the criteria for oversighting, I suppose it could be reversion deleted.- MrX 18:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
If this persists, please take to ANI - this is not funny. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[edit]

This article conflates David Eisenhower with David Eisenhower II. The first is the son of a President, the second is the grandson. See the article to view the errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4380:5AB2:C11B:7277:185C:3A84 (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tony Jimenez[edit]

absolutely none of this page is sourced, and it reads like promotional material. This man is not a person of note, the page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking at the content and sources. --NeilN talk to me 18:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done. I think the subject meets WP:GNG but I've stubbed the article. There were three main issues:
  • Completely unsourced material
  • Sources that didn't mention Jimenez at all
  • Material that was sourced to Jimenez's Huffington Post columns or his Huffington Post bio
When looking for other sources I found there's lots of stuff in the Daily Mail and the Mirror but both are not used in BLPs. --NeilN talk to me 19:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move of Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy[edit]

I have proposed moving the above article at Talk:Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy#Requested move 24 January 2015 because I see at least potential BLP issues in the existing name, which I more or less itemize in the comments there. I think that this might not be the only instance of common names which might be unfortunate for BLP's, and I would welcome any input on the specific move and any possible, similar, title questions elsewhere in the future. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The "controversy" is incredibly minor and I don't think the article does us any service at all. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Kothapalli Jayashankar[edit]

The section titled "Controversies" does not have a valid reference or base. It is added by people who did not like his principles and they wanted to bring bad name to him. There is no evidence to prove that he acted as mentioned in this section. So, please remove this section from this wiki page. This hurts millions of people who consider him as grate hero and who fought for a cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Although the subject died more than three years ago, that section was poorly sourced and contained an unsourced allegation against a living person so I've removed it. Other sections could use more sourcing. --NeilN talk to me 21:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Charles LaDuca[edit]

This individual's wiki article appears to be largely promotional and self-serving. The external links he provides are known in the legal profession to be websites that help lawyers promote themselves, often in exchange for a fee. The cases in which his name appears as counsel, which are not themselves legally prominent, are no different than the thousands of searchable cases in which various names of other attorneys are also listed. Cbreitel (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

On a quick glance, there actually isn't a single significant external reliable source supporting this biography — it's entirely based on primary sources linked to the subject, or simple attorney directories. I substantially agree that unless significant external sources are found to support the existence of this biography, it should be deleted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been working on checking sources and trimming the article and now it's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles LaDuca. --NeilN talk to me 06:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: What we have here seems to be a classic COI editor who hasn't edited since 2011. [35] --NeilN talk to me 06:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm the COI editor? I have no connection to this person. I stumbled on his page. Cbreitel (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
No, no, NeilN is referring to the article's original creator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, just realized that. I haven't edited in a long time so I was projecting. :) Cbreitel (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Chad Ford[edit]

Edit to Chad Ford happened on January 25th entering libelous, unfounded character attack. Should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been removed. --NeilN talk to me 20:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Steven Emerson part 2[edit]

Steven Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been some serious controversy at the Steven Emerson page over the following sentence:

Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia,[1][2][3][4]

  1. ^ Hammer, Julie; Safi, Amid (2013). The Cambridge Companion to American Islam. Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 9781107002418. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Islamophobe[s] Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh) 
  2. ^ "9 questions about Birmingham that Fox News was too embarrassed to ask". Washington Post. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past. 
  3. ^ Ernst, Carl W. (2013). Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 86. ISBN 9781137290083. 
  4. ^ Yazdiha, Haj (2014). "Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation" (PDF). Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Critical and Political Protest (Taylor and Francis) 13 (2). doi:10.1080/14742837.2013.807730. Retrieved 23 January 2015. "funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism 

It appears that one group of users believes that because this sentence documents the fact that Steven Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia, it is a violation of WP:BLP. The most recent position against it posted above is as follows:

There seems to be a big disconnect between the suitability of contentious allegations and the ability to verify the existence of contentious allegations. The ability to verify the existence does not make it suitable to include it "because it is sourced". There is a reason "reception and controversy" sections are not fit per WP:CRITS and Featured articles on persons like Barack Obama do not include them at all. BLP requires high quality sources and NPOV should be a disinterested overview of a subject - labeling persons as bigots or even claiming they are bigots (because someone said so) is not proper. Obama has had no end of attacks on charges of corruption and other issues - yet not one reference to any accusation stands in the biography despite multitudes of sources and even books dedicated to asserting this. What we see here is sentence or less claiming bigotry by biased sources and without high-quality evidence of actual bigotry. The sources are not suitable to carry such an accusation into a biography. Doing so would result in biographies containing all the accusations by detractors and whatever scrawlings malcontents come up with. Verifiability does not mean inclusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please advise. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

on a completely related note, the article itself has been locked until we get a consensus and both positions appear to be willing to listen to what you have to say on this matter. Input would be appreciated so that we could get the article unlocked and back to normalish operations. Thank you and Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The first and third sources appear to be reliable secondary sources which would support mentioning that Emerson has been criticized for his views and inaccurate statements about Muslims/Islam. The second source is a little weak, but somewhat supports the fact that Emerson has been criticized. I can't access the full text of the fourth source, but would note that it has been cited elsewhere [36] [37]. Generally, I don't agree with ChrisGualtieri's above statement. WP:NPOV would mandate that Emerson's biography acknowledge that his views on Islam have been criticized and discredited. It's not a fringe view and it is well-sourced, as far as I can tell. Comparison to Obama is not apt.- MrX 15:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

uzi rabi[edit]

Uzi Rabi This Page is full of blunt inaccuracies. I've checked several of the facts presented in this page and they turned up as absolutely not true (for example: Rabi's name never appeared in the Wall Street Journal, and only 3 times in the New York Times (And even then he was not "interviewed" - he was only mentioned), A quick search in Google Scholar will show that Rabi's articles and books were cited very few times - So I doubt that's he's a "leading authority" in his field) and also: "Prof. Rabi consults regularly with Israeli and world leaders" - that sounds ridiculous to me. What do you think, and what should be done in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjrr5 (talkcontribs) 15:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Article trimmed. It would probably survive a deletion discussion as a cursory search finds newspaper interviews. --NeilN talk to me 15:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
He is mentioned per NYT search function in four separate articles. He appears to meet notability requirements as a result, but you are free to propose the BLP for deletion. Collect (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)