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 MiszaBot II.
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:

Thane Rosenbaum[edit]

Thane Rosenbaum (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

The issue here concerns Rosenbaum's recent WSJ article. Another editor added the paragraph a few days ago. "Roozee" deleted it and I've twice restored it. My explanation (from the Talk page): "My rationale for doing so was that this is a writing of the subject's that has generated controversy and attention. Indeed, as someone who closely follows the Israel/Palestinian conflict, I was unaware of who he was until he wrote the column in question. I did soften the language as the editing record shows. The contention of Roozee ... seems to be that the article is either insignificant given the volume of the subject's output and/or that the article has been misinterpreted. I think I've countered the former claim; for the latter claim, rather than deleting the reference, I think it'd be better to further massage the reference to assure NPOV."

Here's a diff page

Aemathisphd (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have some outside source pointing to that article as particular significant regarding the subject of Rosenbaum and selecting that quote as the important one, then you should put that forth. Otherwise, it seems to be you picking and choosing a quote because of what you think is important, and that doesn't fit well with balance. You may have countered a claim by making a counterclaim; you did not do it by presenting any evidence that I can see. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't choose the quote. Read the history page. Aemathisphd (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Irrespective of any current controv, the article is quite overblown & well-larded with complementary quotes etc. Needs attention from experienced editors to depuff. (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. One should avoid simply picking a quote that is of interest to the editor from the article's subject and treating it, through it's inclusion, as particularly indicative of that person's place in the world.... and when that concern has been raised, one should avoid repeatedly reinserting it with that concern being addressed. It's better to find a significant source talking about the article's subject and see what statements they focus on. I may think "Whenever I get that sad, depressed feeling, I go out and kill a policeman" to be the most interesting P.G. Wodehouse quote, but if I choice that of my own taste to be how we present Wodehouse, I am inserting my own POV. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry[edit]

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

The Yank Barry lawsuit, now dismissed/withdrawn, is mentioned in the article Yank Barry#Court cases. When it was first brought up Talk:Yank Barry#Lawsuit, there were BLP objections, and they were ignored, and I brought it up again (under an erroneous section title) Talk:Yank Barry#Lawsuit against WMF in the article?. I find the discussion has been pretty lame, sometimes utterly ridiculous. So far as I can tell, its mention in the article is a clearcut violation of WP:PUBLICFIGURE (one third-party reference only) and WP:BLPPRIMARY (not cited in the article, but part of the talk page "proof" that this is supposed to be "significant", and later, to justify providing "balance" regarding the closure of the lawsuit, so far). Some of the posters explicitly stated that its presence makes sense in light of YB's pattern of behavior regarding filing silly lawsuits in general, as if that were relevant. One extremely experienced editor stated point-blank that since lawsuits typically involve lots of money, any lawsuit is of course significant. Choor monster (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There are now two RS, so this is entirely moot. Choor monster (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The mention of the cost of lawsuits, was a parenthetical (literally) explaining why lawsuits against WP editors are so rare. Indeed, although one of my bots had it's IP address subpoenaed, I am not aware of any that have come to court in the US. I am astounded that my comment should have been interpreted in this way. All the best: Rich Farmbrough07:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

Dick Cheney and Donald Trump[edit]

Dick Cheney (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

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

Have an edit warrior insisting that are "associated with the Tea Party Movement" based in one case on a speech given by Trump in front of a group which had some Tea Party members, as well as many non-members, and in the other case by Cheney saying the TPM was a "positive" for the Republican Party. No sources have been given making any greater links than those, which are prima facie insufficient for the contentious claim that they "support the Tea {Party" or are "associated with the Tea Party". Appropriate requests for a self-revert and pointers to WP:EW, WP:RS and WP:BLP have been given repeatedly. I am en vacance and would like someone to keep an eye on those BLPs please. Collect (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the source the user is providing to support these claims? Also, if there is only one source used for support, then it does not deserve to keep on the page. Meatsgains (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources are (later ones were added by one editor but do not, IMO, strengthen his claims) :

  1. (article on a AfP/Citizens United gathering it appears and not specifically a "Tea Party" gathering at all
  2. video of speech
  3. video of Presidential campaign speech
  4. Newsmax article which also includes: Trump said that Boehner, Obama, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all have the country's best interests at heart, but have different beliefs on how to achieve it. And one of Obama's problems is that he's not a natural deal-maker. Which rather makes him sort of a Harry Reid supporter as well.
  5. using a headline for the claim which is not in the body of the article I certainly seem to be in a sense. They like me, and I like them. And we have very much the same principles,” Mr. Trump answered. “When I speak to the Tea Party, they have the biggest crowd of anybody.” What he says is the TPm members like him, and he likes them, but that is a far cry from being a TPm member himself.
  6. Asked if he considered himself part of tea party, Trump said, "I think so. I'm very proud of some of the ideas they put forth. They want to stop this ridiculous, absolutely killer spending that's going on. What's going on in this country — the way we're spending money like drunken sailors — we are absolutely, we're going to destroy our own freedom." which appears to refers to issues he agrees with rather than any actual "association" with any "tea party."

As far as I can tell the sources do establish that he supports some specific ideals of the "tea party" and that he spoke before an audience which included members of the "tea party", and that in his Presidential campaign he spoke before at least one Tea Party group, as well as libertarians and others not associated with the "tea party" but is quite insufficient to say he is specifically a "person associated with the Tea Party movement" per se. Collect (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Max Bennett (actor)[edit]

Max Bennett (actor) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

This is an unbalanced article which has been repeatedly edited by the PR for the actor. It continually is edited to embellish the actor's CV by multiple anonymous sources. It takes film roles which constitute nothing but 'extra' work and pretends that these are substantial speaking roles. The article has been consistently abused to enhance the largely unknown actor's profile.

Wikipedia should consider deleting this article. There is no sense in having such an embellished CV online for a unknown theatre actor when several more established actors have very little written about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightingliars (talkcontribs) 15:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Joseph A. Kechichian[edit]

Joseph A. Kéchichian (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Thank you for keeping a page on me but there are a few blatant errors in it and I am not sure where the author/s fished them.

What is correct is the intro: Joseph A. Kéchichian is an American scholar of Armenian descent, a renowned[1] historian and political scientist specializing on the Persian Gulf region, focusing in the domestic and regional concerns of Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. He [was] an Adjunct Professor of U.S.-Middle East Relations at UCLA and Pepperdine University, a senior researcher at the RAND Corporation in California , and is now a Senior Fellow at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The next sentence is pure fabrication as I never attended Vanderbilt University, Duke University, or Georgetown University. Instead, I earned my PhD from the University of Virginia in 1985 [Department of Government and Foreign affairs]. Let me know if you need details about BA and MA and I will gladly provide them.

While the list of my books are accurate, you may want to update them:

The Al Sa‘ud Consigliere: Shaykh Youssef Yassin of Sa‘udi Arabia [forthcoming]

‘Iffat Al Thunayan: An Arabian Queen, London: Sussex Academic Press, 2015.

Legal and Political Reforms in Saudi Arabia, London and New York: Routledge, November 2012 (January 2013 for the paperback edition).

Power and Succession in Arab Monarchies, Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008 [translated into Arabic as Al-Sultah wa-Ta‘aqub al-Hukm fil-Mamalikah al-‘Arabiyyah, 2 volumes, Beirut and London: Riad El-Rayyes Books, 2012].

Faysal: Saudi Arabia’s King for All Seasons, Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida, 2008 [translated into Arabic as Faysal: Al-Malik wal-Dawlah, Beirut: Dar al-‘Arabiyyah lil-Mawsu‘at, 2012].

Extremism & Opposition Movements on the Arabian Peninsula, New Delhi: Observer Research Foundation, 2006.

Political Participation and Stability in the Sultanate of Oman, Dubai: Gulf Research Center, 2005 [translated into Arabic as Al-Musharakah al-Siyasiyyah wal-Istikrar fi Sultanat ‘Uman, Dubai: Gulf Research Center, 2005].

The Just Prince: A Manual of Leadership (with R. Hrair Dekmejian), London: Saqi Books, 2003 [translated into Turkish as Adil Hükümdar, Istanbul: Kirmizi Kedi Yayenevi, 2009].

Succession in Saudi Arabia, [New York: Palgrave (2001) [translated into Arabic as Al-Khilafah fil-‘Arabiyyah al-Su‘udiyyah, Beirut and London: Dar Al Saqi, 2003].

Iran, Iraq, and the Arab Gulf States, editor, New York: Palgrave, 2001.

A Century in Thirty Years: Shaykh Zayed and the United Arab Emirates, editor, Washington, D.C.: The Middle East Policy Council, 2000.

Oman and the World: The Emergence of an Independent Foreign Policy, Santa Monica: RAND, 1995.

Political Dynamics and Security in the Arabian Peninsula through the 1990s, MR-167- AF/A, Santa Monica: RAND, 1993.

A simple Amazon search or a Google search would have provided these details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the unsourced educational history. I have not added any information, nor expanded the bibliography; the entry is already mostly bibliography, I'm not sure we need a complete bibliography for the subject, and I don't feel like determining a source for what stays and what goes. (The addition seems to have been a change by an IP user whose sole edits were alterations to people's educational histories, unsourced and uncommented. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I have now undone all of that IP editors edits which were not already undone, except for one changing capitalization and one which merely used the more common name for the proper university. --Nat Gertler (talk)

Michael French[edit]

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

According to this article, French doesn't talk to tabloids, like London Evening Standard and The Mirror. As for the bio information, I don't think sources are trustworthy. But what can I do? --George Ho (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho: I don't see any contentious or controversial material there. Tabloids are not necessarily reliable sources, so of there is any material there that is disputed, per WP:BLP you can remove it as the burden is on the editor(s) that want the material included. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This article of a actress named Maria Vacratsis[edit]

Dealt with at the Help Desk.--ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Maria Vacratsis (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Since I put in the article she voiced the Queen_Metallia in the English dub of Sailor Moon; though many people don't know her for anime role very well. Should there a be reference to that statement? Is it a policy of Wikipedia to have a Citation_needed? Venustar84 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

timothy mcknight[edit]

Tim McKnight (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see any Timothy McKnight. Is it Tim above? --Malerooster (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ira Casson[edit]

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

The newly created BLP Ira Casson appears to exist solely to present the controversial aspects of the subject. There is nothing positive in the article. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It says he was the former co-chair of the NFL, that's not negative. Saying he was involved with research isn't intrinsically negative, either. The solution here is probably to add more biographical context, as the article is the article is otherwise generally sourced from good RS, currently. His connection with head injury research seems to be a major part of his overall notability, so I don't see that (or well-sourced assessments of his history) being removed, but it could be put in greater overall context. Otherwise, there could be a case for the article to be merged with Concussions in American football.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the article. He wasn't co-chair of the NFL (the position does not exist. The NFL has a commissioner). He was a co-chair of an ad hoc committee created by the NFL to study the effect of concussions. No statements as to the other aspects of the complaints about the article, but the article incorrectly represented what was in the sources, and I have fixed that. --Jayron32 19:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I fixed it a bit more , I moved it to the committee title - it was an attack page, total negative story about a single issue - not a biography of a notable person at all - deletion would fix it even more Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you editors for changing this article. You editors have convinced me to agree with what you were saying. His research was notable, but it would be better to have more biographical content to make an article on him. Making an article on the committee itself would be much better. Robert4565 (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC) (the creator of the original article)

I didn't intend to give this guy a bad reputation, I was just just trying to add notable research to an encyclopedia. Robert4565 (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed the page and removed the statement, "The NFL Players Association wanted to get him fired for being "biased" by criticizing a useful study" because I could not find it in any of the sources provided. That isn't to say that it's not true. Feel free to add it back if you can provide a RS. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan Sebring[edit]

Dan Sebring (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

The Dan Sebring article does not show the notability of the subject. In addition, some of the material is copy/pasted from a source, one of the "sources" is Sebring's Facebook page, among other issues. The anonymous editors and have only edited on this article, specifically replacing poorly sourced material that has been removed by other Wikipedia member editors. Please let me know if there is some other action I should take aside from posting here (I am somewhat new at Wikipedia). Thanks! Seen a Mike (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

SaM: Always good to have new folks aboard and asking questions. You could really help by lending a hand on that article. You have basically three good choices of what to do:
  • If you think that Dan Sebring is notable, and the article just isn't covering why, then edit the article to add some information about what makes him notable (with references, naturally.)
  • If you're not sure whether he's notable, edit it to put <code>{{notability|Biographies}}</code> at the top of the page. This will display a banner noting that the notability is questioned, and encouraging people to add content establishing notability if they can. (You may want to add a message on the talk page describing why you feel the subject isn't shown to be notable.)
  • If you're pretty sure he's not notable enough, you can start a deletion discussion using the process described here.
And meanwhile, if there is stuff that is just copied from elsewhere, edit the file to delete it, and note in the edit summary box that you're doing so due to copyright concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of plagiarism by John Walsh (U.S. politician)[edit]

John Walsh (U.S. politician) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

The NY Times recently reported that they had uncovered what they allege is evidence that Senator Walsh plagiarized up to 2/3 of his 2007 master's thesis at the U.S. Army War College . The Times' allegations, Senator Walsh's responses (claiming variously that he didn't think he'd done anything wrong, that it was or was not explained by PTSD, and/or that it was unintentional) and news that the War College is investigating have been widely and extensively covered by numerous reliable sources including CBS News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Fox News and others.

Currently any mention of this is buried in 4 3 bland sentences (after Montanabw just reverted one of them) in a section titled 2014 election near the very end of article. When Presbyterian1 tried to move it into an earlier section on education, Montanabw reverted with the edit remark, "Drop the effing stick, Presbyterian1 before we have you blocked."

In discussion on the talk page at Talk:John Walsh (U.S. politician)#Plagiarism allegation, Montanabw opposes additional coverage arguing WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM and that we should wait until the War College makes a decision. Wehwalt also opposes, arguing WP:BLP. Billmckern argues that the coverage should be one place but does not appear to oppose a more in-depth treatment.

It appears to me WP:UNDUE does not apply insofar as this is certainly not about a minority or "fringe" theory, nor does WP:RECENTISM apply insofar as this is not a story of "flimsy, transient merits". And while this is indeed a WP:BLP, Senator Walsh is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, meaning that "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."

My concern is with what appears to be a case of whitewashing by editors who may/may not be completely WP:NPOV and whose behavior may be overly and inappropriately protective of the subject. May I request additional opinions, please? Msnicki (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that plagiarism is unlikely to fit recentism. When a prominent figure is accused of plagiarism in the NYT or WAPO or similar is tends to stick forever. (e.g. Joe Biden, Steve Ambrose). This should be in the article. It is not undue. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Obviously it should be in the article. However, an in-depth treatment is premature. We are a trailing indicator and the election's not for three months. I doubt there will be long to wait before we hear something authoritative.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It IS in the article, My position on the matter is that we have the incident mentioned, it is sourced, and that it is mentioned in an neutral, encyclopedic tone (someone else's "4 bland sentences"), that fits WP:NPOV as well as BLP and UNDUE. It is currently in the campaign section because that is the appropriate place until or unless the War College does something or additional things develop that might warrant placing it elsewhere. To obsess about it until the story develops further is WP:SYNTH and runs the risk of putting a bias in the opposite direction. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It belongs in the Education section; it has nothing to do with "2014 campaign". I agree with keeping it brief -- but it's clearly an issue connected with his education, not with the campaign. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it has to be one or the other, at least until the War College is heard from again.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It belongs in the campaign section -- for now. Until the sources coalesce around his thesis being the result of plagiarism, we should leave it out. Just as we treat people who are accused of a crime as innocent until proven guilty, Walsh should be afforded the same treatment. Please keep in mind that Walsh could be in considerable jeopardy legally speaking, as this thesis was done on the taxpayers dime. Most of the coverage of this relates to his cmpagin, so this seems the natural place to put it util the dust settles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talkcontribs)
Perhaps the coverage is happening at the same time as coverage of his campaign. But it's really quite obviously an "Education" issue, not a campaign issue. I really don't understand the desire to see it otherwise. Montanabw didn't provide a reason for this view at all (simply said "it's the appropriate place" without providing a reason), and even the notion that it's being covered during the time when other campaign issues are being covered is far from persuasive. Alleged plagiarism in the context of a degree is relevant to education. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That was an accurate recap of my position. Of course the allegation that Walsh plagiarized his War College work needs to be included on the page. Of course it needs updated as more details become available. My specific argument was that one particular contributor wanted to include it in more than one place on the page, complete with incorrectly formatted references. I thought my placement of the allegation was OK -- a separate paragraph at the end of the page, with a link under "education" to tie his War College education and the plagiarism allegation together. But for me, where the plagiarism topic ends up on the page and how much detail is included are less relevant than the point that it doesn't need to show up three times -- once is enough. Repetition doesn't add anything to the discussion.User:Billmckern (User talk:Billmckern)

(od) At this point, it is well past "allegation" as the use of unattributed material is freely admitted by that Senator. It belongs in two places - under his education and under his career, as it is intrinsically directly applicable to each for different reasons. (The first reason being directly related to his academic history, the second for the possible loss of rank in the Army, being separate issues) The kidnapping of verbiage for at least 1/4 of his entire thesis is well documented at this point - vide [1] and [2] which has The Army War College, in Pennsylvania, said it has found preliminary evidence of plagiarism and asked a review board to investigate. The school may revoke Walsh's degree if it finds he intentionally presented the work of others as his own. which clearly states it is past the "allegation" stage. None of these sources appears t have any partisan bias against Walsh. A single mention that the problem exists should be as brief as possible in the lead primarily because readers will expect to find it noted in at least five words there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talkcontribs)

The lead?? Don't be ridiculous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Oh, I get it -- he's a Democrat… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
His party is not relevant -- and the sources given are decidedly not making charges "because he is a Democrat" for sure. That sort of aside about sources is not reasonable at all. And if readers expect to find a short sentence in the lead, then that is what Wikipedia should do. Lynn-Jones (who had several pages of his work used verbatim sans credit) stated He probably shouldn’t count on any campaign contributions from me.. The HuffPo, clearly also a GOP rag, says Since The New York Times revealed Wednesday that Walsh plagiarized at least a quarter of his master’s thesis without citations for his degree from from the United States Army War College, he’s been criticized by veterans upset over his bringing PTSD into the discussion. Neither source shows any sign of singling Walsh out for being a Democrat. I have absolutely zero political opinion about him -- only a belief that contentious claims must be strongly sourced, and that the claims of plagiarism appear very strongly sourced at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand -- it's apparent that you'd like it in the lead because he's a Democrat. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
IOW you are making a claim that I deliberately make edits on a political basis - which is grotesquely untrue and a personal attack for which I ask a retraction. Such personal attacks are uncivil and not likely to make anyone respect your posts here. My position on Alex Sink is exactly the position I have here and on every single BLP on which I edit. Contentious claims must be strongly sourced, and where they are strongly sourced, then they can be placed in BLPs. Period. So have a gallon of tea or something - your snark is not going to help this project one whit. Collect (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Folks, this is in part an NPOV issue and part a SYNTH, and the only reason it is here at all is due to a question of relative weight and placement; I think what we maybe need here are some folks from outside the USA to take an objective look that transcends party politics. If this devolves into a GOP-vs-Dems situation, that's a no-win. Right now, what we know is a) Something like 70% of a 14 page term paper (JMO but since when is a 14 page paper a "thesis" anyway? I wrote stuff that long as an undergrad...) was either copied or closely paraphrased without proper attribution. b) Walsh's campaign has said he was suffering from PTSD and other assorted difficulties at the time and he didn't mean to do so. c) The War College is looking into the matter. End. Of. Story until further developments. Really, four sentences is plenty, and at the moment, it's a campaign issue more than anything else. When the War College weighs in, and the various news and punditocracy analyze, then we will need to reassess and see what else to add. Until then, that's all there is. Accusing each other of party bias isn't going to help. Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Another assertion of "campaign issue" without any supporting argument attempting to persuade us on the point... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It's an issue that needs discussion in the article even if Walsh announces this afternoon that he's decided not to run. Calling it a "campaign issue" sounds a little too much to me like a thinly-veiled attempt to bury the issue until after the election. I also think it needs a lot more than 4 sentences to discuss what specific evidence the NY Times alleges they've discovered, the various responses Walsh has made and the reactions. Msnicki (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • IMO, the issue does belong in the article, but certainly not in the lead. I'd be inclined to move it under the personal section, or the education as a second choice. It's not really suited for the campaign section. I will admit that I was on the fence over the recentism of it, but since Walsh is conceding that there could be some sort of issue, I'm leaning toward inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It has to go in. That's simply a matter of policy, given he's a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and the allegations have been reported by multiple reliable sources. At most, there's a content question of how much column space is appropriate. But notice that a lot of the article is based on minor local papers like Billings Gazette with a circulation of 45,000 and the Missoulian with a circulation of 66,700 and various WP:SPS sources like the Kiwanis. Yet we're getting objections to including material from the NY Times (with a circulation of 1.8M) and other major sources. Frankly, I'm appalled that we would have a long hagiographic article extolling his military career and other wonderfulness like helping to fight wildfires but suppress what is likely to be the most noteworthy and most reliably and extensively reported information we have on him, especially when these allegations are the only reason most anyone living outside Montana might even know his name. If he didn't want his life picked apart, he shouldn't have become a senator. He chose that and as a public figure, he is not entitled to the usual protections of a WP:BLP. Msnicki (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Having already said I think the issue belongs in, I have to disagree with some of your reasoning. Just because something gets reported on doesn't mean it automatically merits inclusion. WP:NOTNEWS tells us that most newsworthy events don't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Second, your notion that bigger is better is wrong. Just because the NYT is bigger than the one in Billings doesn't lessen the reliability of the Billings paper. Big ones screw up too. Jayson Blair didn't work in Billings, it was the NYT. Jack Kelley was with USA Today, not the Missoulian. Janet Cook at the WAPO. No, circulation size isn't the standard we use. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that Wehwalt protected the page on July 25, citing "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy". It doesn't appear to me that there have been any violations whatsoever. It looks a lot like an abuse of his admin status simply to get the content outcome he wants. He's a participant in the discussion, not an unbiased admin. Here again, what I think what we're seeing is an attempt at whitewashing by his supporters. (And, btw, in case anyone's wondering, I'm a Democrat myself and would not be happy to see his seat go to the Republicans. But my personal agenda simply doesn't belong here and neither does that of any other editor, even if he is an admin.) Msnicki (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
We are now talking in circles. I've explained the situation and provided several reasons, but no one else is listening because everyone seems to have their own agenda. We seem to have folks with both GOP and Democratic bias accusing each other or being biased, and that is just a waste of time. If no one noticed until now that Wehwalt protected the article, then CLEARLY, no one has been paying much attention to content. The issue is, at present, something that has arisen during the course and scope of the 2014 campaign, hence its current location. The election isn't until November, there is no whitewashing, it's just due weight while the story develops. Plenty of time to figure out what the pundits have to say in the long run. We cannot engage in WP:SYNTH. So time to let go of the partisan bickering. The issue is in the article, I agree it needs to be in the article, and the rest is relative weighting and content. For now, let's just drop it and see what happens. Montanabw(talk) 04:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The protection is only semi, so it's really not a matter of Wehwalt using admin tools to get the content he wants. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Nor have I edited the article. I have no connection to the article. Nor have I have been as assertive on the BLP issue as many people are.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The only one I see doing any WP:SYNTH is you, with your claims that this is about the election. That's not in any of the articles I've seen in the NYT or anywhere else. That is YOU combining things and you've been repeatedly told not just by me but by others as well that the plagiarism allegations have ZERO to do with the election. Reporting exactly what the reliable sources state as the allegations, Walsh's responses and the reactions is not WP:SYNTH, it's not WP:UNDUE and it's not WP:RECENTISM. It is simply doing what the guidelines at WP:PUBLICFIGURE tell us we are supposed to do with allegations that are reported by multiple reliable sources.
More to the point, it is now pretty clear that you and Wehwalt are the only ones trying to sanitize the article by minimizing this to just 3 sentences and burying it at the end of the article. You are in the minority and it's time for you to step back and allow this section to be written without any new edit warring and without any new threats that you're going to seek a block against anyone seeking to include something you don't like about a candidate you do like. I haven't made any edits yet to this article because I could see that both of you were treating the article like you owned it and I first wanted to hear other opinions. I think I've heard them and they don't support you. You should hear that, too. So far as I can tell, they simply support using good editorial judgment and keeping the discussion brief. No one, so far as I can see, is proposing to turn this into an attack piece. No one is proposing to turn the whole article into a discussion of these allegations. But what reliable sources say is what the article is going to report, it'll report it in the section on education, it'll meticulously follow the sources, it will be more 3 sentences and you and Wehwalt are simply going to have to make your peace with that. Msnicki (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Added: The reason no one noticed the article was protected (or at least, the reason I didn't) is because Wehwalt didn't put a protection tag on it (meaning, there was no lock at the top) and because the obvious edit warring behavior, I had no intention to even try editting the article without discussing first (meaning I never saw the warning you get when you try to edit.) I first noticed it was protected when Tbhotch placed a {{pp-vandalism}} tag at the top earlier today. There being no evidence I could see of vandalism, which has a very particular meaning here on WP, I replaced that with a generic {{pp-protected}} tag. Msnicki (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You do realize there is such a thing as consensus? There is no voting in the true sense. And it is usual for such discussion to take place on the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do realize. And you don't have one supporting your protective behavior. Tomorrow, I'll take a cut at this, making a good faith effort to treat it in an WP:NPOV manner. And if you don't like what I do (which I expect is likely), you can discuss your objections with me on the talk page and, if need be, we can come back here for more opinions. I trust you will do that rather than edit war me. Msnicki (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I will vigorously oppose any sort of bombastic treatment of this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I intend to give you zero reasonable cause for that objection. I will report succinctly, fairly, precisely what the sources actually say and I will cite meticulously. But it will be in a section on education and it will be more than 3 sentences. Msnicki (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's the thing, though. You expect this to be opposed. The normal way, then, is to propose something on the talk page and gain consensus for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly. I expect two editors to oppose it. But then again, I think those two editors would likely oppose anything longer than 3 sentences. I think I can satisfy most people and based on what I regard as the reasonable views you've expressed, I expect to satisfy you. Msnicki (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, when you act this arrogant and cast aspersions on others, you do come across as biased. Montanabw(talk) 05:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. Feel free to complain, but I think I did this correctly and fairly. Msnicki (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Surprise. I can live with the last round of edits—though I still think that the move to education is debatable, the edits do not make the same mistake as the original problem editor. That person's problem was a repeated long drawn-out poor set of edits that was of undue weight. As I have said all along, we watch and update as the story unfolds. Interesting that the Army itself is taking over the investigation from the War College. Montanabw(talk) 05:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that is a pleasant surprise. Thank you. I guess we each misjudged the other. I apologize for my part in that and hope we can put this in the past. Cheers, Msnicki (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Aparently, I spoke too soon. I see you've now cut out a lot of material and made other changes I simply don't agree with in this edit. I especially disagree with this portion of your edit remark, "quotes taken out of context, correct material misattributed". I think I was very careful and I that my quotes are supported by the citations. At minimum, I was really hoping you would discuss your objections, first, rather start reverting it piece-by-piece.
May I request that others review, please? I refuse to edit war, but I stand by my edit and I ask that it be reinstated. Msnicki (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought the other person's edit was yours; you quoted too much stuff and were very wordy, plus you were a bit too selective in stating nly the negative, not the full context of a couple of things. But mostly, it was just messy and repetitive. I kept most of your substantive content, actually, but chopped redundant material, fixed one bit where you misattributed material, and then as I went through the article, found other stuff that was very poorly written and did some cleanup - and not just your stuff (I wish that other editor would learn to use the citation templates and clean up his older work!). I have over 15 featured articles to my credit, I know how to write for wiki, though I'm not saying this was my best prose, either - I still think this article needs a lot of work, but it is not one of my priorities. (IMHO, the campaign was doomed from the outset even before this stuff anyway.) I really didn't feel like taking three hours of my time to clean up everyone else's work, but as it sits now, the article's space is 1456 words, and over 450 of them (i.e more than 25% of the article) are devoted to assorted "scandals" which I still think is undue weight, but I'm leaving most of it in. Montanabw(talk) 06:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Jacqueline Fernandez[edit]

Jacqueline Fernandez (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

There's been ongoing disputes about the subject of the articles date of birth. [[3]] had dates of birth that was a combination of sources. Two sources gave a month and a day but no year, one of which was a twitter source, the third was a source with just a year. I removed them because to my view it's original research we can not take the sources add them together and get a full DOB as this qualifies as WP:OR. One editor has disagreed with my assessment of the sources and requirement. It's been discussion and no edit wars so no issues with User:Bollyjeff I thought this just might be a good way for a BLP consensus for DOB as this issue has been onging for more then a year by the talkpage. Dear lord why are Bollywood articles DOB BLP info crazy? Lol thanks folks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's just one of the sections [[4]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, I can give a dozen sources that have the entire date if you want, for example: [5],[6],[7],[8],[9]. The trouble is that these are lower quality sources than what have been provided, and there are also some lower quality sources that give a different date of her DOB. Therefore, I thought it best to use the highest quality sources, including here own twitter and video accounts to provide the best reliable information. If you remove it totally, some IP will just add it back the next day anyway, and probably with a lower quality source, and maybe the wrong date. There is no policy saying that the month, day and year must all come from the same source. BollyJeff | talk 12:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Bollyjeff, There absolutely is, it's called Original Research or WP:OR, if you read this subsection WP:SYNTHESIS. It states quite explicitly, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources" Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay then, lets just wait and see what others here have to say. Would it be preferred to give just her month and day of birth with one source, and no year; or give just her year of birth with another source, and no month and day? Wait, how about month and day in one section with source a, and year in another section with source b? See how silly it sounds when you put it that way? BollyJeff | talk 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not a wait and see thing though. The only thing I would say to include is the year of birth only, You are right that it would be super silly just to do the days. Sadly Bollywood articles seem to have particular issues with the DOB, we would prefer to not source it at all if we can't fin multiple reliable sources that agree. The main person I know that work BLP in Bollywood is User:TheRedPenOfDoom, I've pinged him to get his opinion, I highly respect his knowledge and he's very fair in regards to sourcing, if it's good or bad they will let you know regardless how you feel. I think it's important to intimate again though to I'm not upset with BollyJeff and I don't think he's upset with me, just a difference in policy interpretation and this has already stretched since 03/13 lol! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer that you do not call in editors that think like you to take your side. I know this editor, and have not had good experiences with them. Can a random BLP expert or two please chime in here? BollyJeff | talk 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
When in doubt, use the reliable source that has at least a year. If in doubt, go to WP:RSN to get reliable source info. And keep researching. It's out there somewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. To prove one of my points above, someone just added a bogus birthdate. It was pretty stable for a while, before my previous sources were removed. BollyJeff | talk 02:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Flávio Kenup[edit]

Flávio Kenup (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Can someone help with a source check to see whether "a.k.a. Viola Kenup" is legimate unsourced comment or not. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Call sign Viola - appears official and agrees with the first part so ... the aka has some legs Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Nico Rosberg[edit]

Nico Rosberg (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

An IP has been adding their own commentary at Nico Rosberg despite being told not to do so on multiple occasions. I've reverted three times and I'm unsure on what to do next. Can someone take a look? Thanks.  NQ  talk 16:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've given the IP one more warning on their talk page - if it occurs again, report it at WP:3RRN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Alan Guth[edit]

Alan Guth (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Can someone take a quick look and tell me if talk page edits like this and this, describing the subject of the page as a "fraud," requires intervention? I'm not conversant with the latest BLP rules and practices and I am in disputes with the editor in question on other fronts (original research, civility, editing and discussion practices, etc), so I think I'm the wrong person to even try to make the call. Thanks for taking a look.. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, saying that the subject of a BLP "looks like a fraud" is way over the top. I left a warning at User talk:Holybeef#July 2014 2. There is a related discussion at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

nick burdi[edit]

Nick Burdi (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

The wiki biography for nick has been trolled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism has been dealt with. WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism is the better noticeboard for issues like this. —C.Fred (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Curt Clawson[edit]

Curt Clawson (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)- I wanted to get some uninvolved input on this discussion. This new congressman has been in office for about a month. Last week, he made a public speaking faux pas in which he mistakenly thought 2 US govt. employees appearing at a committee were from India rather than Indian-American. There is no dispute that the incident took place. What is being disputed is the merit of including it.
I contend this is textbook WP:RECENTISM, nothing more than a minor incident that got some coverage during the news cycle and quickly drops to obscurity. Including it is giving it UNDUE weight. Arguments for inclusion have been:

  1. ) "the only notable thing that Clawson has done since assuming office". As I said, he's been in office for a month. Inserting this for lack of anything else is a poor reason to include it.
  2. ) It has 4,000 sources. Yes, there are 4,000 GHITS, but we know that alone doesn't mean anything. Fact is, of those nearly 4000 sources, 6 were from the 27th and 5 from the 28th. All the rest were in the first two days. 11 out of 4000 made it past 2 days. That strongly indicates that my position of this being recentism is correct. The essay suggests a '10 year test'. This incident isn't passing a 10 week test.
  3. ) WP:BURDEN has been met.: Again, nobody disputes that it happened. But WP:NOTNEWS tells us "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." It also tells us that " While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. " This is, in my view, one of those events that gets some attention for being funny and then quickly falls into obscurity because it really has no enduring notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
At this point it looks undue and definitely does not need a full quote of his mistaken words. I don't think it should be included at this time. That might change in the future. If the gaffe has long term secondary effects on his political prospects, as evidenced and covered by future reliable sources, then it should be referenced at that time. Essentially, if future sources treat it as a one-time flub and don't mention it again, keep leaving it out. If people later write that it made a significant change to his future, it should be included in that context (for instance, it soured a working relationship, made a law harder to pass, long term became a thing he was known for like Todd Atkin, hurt an election bid like Rick Perry's speaking flub, he flubs the exact same way multiple times and shows a pattern, etc.) Right now it looks like an ugly faux pas, but I'd leave it out until future sources weigh the longer term impact, if any.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Shorter version: Leave out now if the only news is about the event and it's confined to a couple days around the event. Insert later if reliable sources write that there was a significant consequence resulting from the event. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This user was unhappy that three other editors disagreed on having that material deleted, so he posted here to seek additional input. The discussion is at Talk:Curt Clawson - Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • You keep yapping about forum shopping, but clearly never read the policy that talks about the issue. This is exactly why this noticeboard exists. It was brought to ONE noticeboard, the most applicable one. Bringing it to a noticeboard is RECOMMENDED by the policy. So get over it. The discussion is now here Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Despite his uncivil response, the worst of which I've redacted struck, Niteshift is correct, bringing it to this board was an appropriate step to take. Gamaliel (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I've attempted to redact Niteshift's immature sniping, but he has insisted on edit warring regarding this issue. If you wish his comments to be removed, User:Cwobeel, please let me know on my personal talk page and I will take stronger action, but right now I don't feel like wasting anymore time on this nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't you mean you will ask someone else to take action? You are far to involved in this to be the one taking action. P.S. Love the hypocrisy of making uncivil remarks ("immature sniping") while complaining about some comments you want to remove because you consider the uncivil. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
"Yapping" and "sniping", you're both getting into a bit of a bunfight that will leave you both looking a little dirty. You should probably both step away for a bit and get some cookies or a glass of water instead.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Consider it done. You have my permission to remove or strike any comments I've made here. Gamaliel (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Posting at a number of noticeboards = "forum shopping". Posting at the single most applicable board != "forum shopping". Making accusations about the OP instead of dealing with the issues involved = (fill in the blank). Collect (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I am disengaging from that page, as I abhor the snipping and heated heads. There are thousands of article out there. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Except that you've returned to the page twice since you posted this to make uncivil remarks. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Mtikila[edit]

Christopher Mtikila (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I do not know if this article meets notability, but it is a highly critical, unsourced article. My first reaction was to nominate it for deletion, but I would like to hear any responses first. I know nothing about the subject, and came to the article after seeing him interviewed in a pbs documentary. TFD (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I see it has now been blanked, and nominated for speedy deletion deleted. Given the content and the complete lack of sources, this looks appropriate enough to me. If the individual concerned meets notability criteria (which will of course require sources), there will be nothing to prevent a new policy-compliant article being created. From what I can figure out, Mtikila is (or was) the leader of a minor Tanzanian political party, who has been involved in a long-running legal battle concerning restrictions on candidates in Tanzanian elections. [10] Whether there are enough sources to give appropriate coverage to any of this, I'm unsure - it originates in the early 1990s, and online sources are likely to be sparse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of book sources. That article only had a single problematic sentence, but it deleted before I could contest the speedy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I wish someone had checked Google books before that happened.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Why? We should not keep unsourced articles about living persons. If you think the article can be written according to policy, then go ahead and do so. But do not expect other editors to. I question though whether the sources in books are sufficient for an article about him. Probably better to put them into the article about his party, and his page could be a re-direct. TFD (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't expect other editors to write articles (and I never made that suggestion or implied it in any form), but I can expect them to sometimes follow the advice for WP:A7 speedy nominations before they eliminate an existing article. WP:A7 has exactly zero to do with whether an article has sources. I think you're probably right that material about him is better merged to the party article. It would have been better to have more chance of a discussion with even a single editor who said they knew the first thing about Tanzanian politics before zapping it under a rationale that didn't apply. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dylan Penn[edit]

Dylan Penn (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Could some of the experts here please assist the discussion at on writing a BLP-compliant DYK hook for the main page?-- (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

George M. Church[edit]

George M. Church (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

There is a disagreement at George M. Church (see talk page for discussion) that concerns a BLP. Leprof 7272 insists on putting COI/POV tags on the article, despite the fact that the subject has not edited the article since 2007. His partner has edited the article more extensively, lastly in July 2013. The article has been edited in-between and since then by multiple other editors. I note that the simple fact that someone with a COI has edited an article does not necessitate a COI/POV tag, if that person has not edited in a POV manner. There are also "primary sources" and "original research" tags on the article. Despite repeated requests, Leprof 7272 has not given any concrete examples of POV or OR, just stating that these problems are present and resists removal of the tags. The opinions of editors here are welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

R'kitty offers a superb summary of her position, along with a misrepresentation of mine of equal quality. First, note, that I am a strong scientific proponent of the work of Profs Church and Wu, and of their joint work, scientifically and educationally at Harvard. I have no personal or professional bone to pick. I simply believe that Prof Church's and Prof Chao-ting Wu's (his spouse/partner's) populating the largest part of the Church article, personally, has lead to a promotional sense in that Wikipedia article, such that it mis-uses WP as an extension of Prof Church's faculty and other self-managed webpages. And, contrary to R'kitty's statements regarding repeated requests for concrete examples of POV or OR, I have repeatedly made clear (i) that per WP policies, primary sources cannot be used to establish the primacy of a scientific discovery, (ii) that to use them in this way is to conduct OR, and (iii) for a scientist and his partner to populate the vast majority of the article, and to do so with only such attributions to establish the primacy of scientific discovery consitutes, prima facie, a gross COI and POV issue. In addition, I note that there is no mention of anything negative in any material posted by these two (no mention of controversies following any of various statements or writings by Prof. Church). Here, in fact, is the last explicit statement made to R'kitty on this matter:
Note, I added the "[generally]" here in clarification; for the original, and further discussion, see [11].
Finally, the thing we do agree on is that "The opinions of editors here [at BLP] are welcome." Very welcome. I encourage editors reading this to skim the Talk page just linked, and to review the Edit Summaries for the article, noting the vast proportion of appearing material introduced en masse by Prof Church and his partner (vs. the relatively minor changes and additions made by others). Then, to examine my claim of the article's—Profs. Church and Wu's—reliance on primary sources to establish Prof. Church in the list of "firsts" that appear, vs. WP policies:
  • WP:REDFLAG ("Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: ... claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest", etc.),
  • WP:PSTS ("All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.", etc.),
  • etc.
—regarding the interpretation/OR that appears implicitly in all Church primary source claims. As well, to search the word "controversy" in the article, and then to look in (via Google or other search) on the various controversies that have followed Prof Church's ideas (real or media engendered, re: neanderthal comments to Der Spiegel, ideas in Regenesis, etc.), which, if they appear, receive only a single, positive line or two.
Bottom line, we cannot delete self-promotional text/articles offered by small personalities and organizations, but allow them from esteemed ones. The rules are made for everyone. A WP article largely created by the article's subject and his partner, an article that lacks any critical commentary/discussion of others in re: the subject's life and work, and that makes claims for primacy of discovery based on the article subject's primary publications, is, prima facie, a clear case for COI and POV review. I stand by my earlier, opening request at that Talk page, [12], to ask that these two editors no longer contribute to an article that so clearly personally interests them. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Although Leprof 7272's post is very long, she's done an excellent job illustrating the problem. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You are thanked R'kitty, from the bottom of his/her heart. In future, perhaps a simple bravo (rather than brava). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
That custom ambox at the top of the article has Leprof written all over it. I take the view that the other three amboxes sum up the article's issues, and that the signature Leprof six-clause sentence is unnecessary.--Launchballer 20:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The Cleanup tag has been edited to shorten, for reasons other than this editor's non-AGF insinuations. Otherwise, in response: source considered, and all deserved merit ascribed. I urge other editors to acquaint themselves with this User, en route to evaluating his message. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Tags are concerns with the contents of an article, and the whole point about them is to fix those concerns so they can be removed. The COI tag specifically is used to invite a review of the content given concerns that the article might lack neutrality (in either direction). This should obviously be done by an uninvolved editor. Once the content is deemed to be OK, the COI tag should be removed and replaced by a {{connected contributor}} one in the talk page. In an an ideal world what happens next is that people with a COI never edit the article at all, because it causes the concern about neutrality to resurface. Unfortunately, COI is a guideline, not a policy, and there's nothing in it that specifically prevents or forbids COI editors from editing the article themselves. So every time they edit instead of request an edit, the problem returns. On the other hand, there is an extremely large number of articles which are neglected because the only people interested in them also have a COI, which leads us to huge backlogs in the requested edits categories or simply doing a wink, wink when we see obvious COI edits as long as they're not too bad. I mention all this because Leprof 7272's suggestion that the COI editors stop editing is not actionable - there is no way to prevent someone from editing an article, COI or not, unless they are being disruptive and can be blocked solely for that. So it's best to just work with them. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Note, this simple tag replacement cannot be quickly done, because—as the expert tag that appears there makes clear—expertise is needed to evaluate each individual claim (and there are many) of the preeminence of Church in each scientific discovery, priority that is currently only supported by primary sources from Church et al. In re: the request not being actionable—sorry, I see such actions being taken all the time here, by admins, and by editors acting through admins. The proposal is clearly actionable: first, make the request of these two editors to not to edit their own pages.If they are notable as individuals—and Prof Church clearly is—others will add to and maintain the page. If they have issues with content that is added or not added, they can raise the issues in Talk. Someone independent of the material can thereafter respond, and I have already offered to be such a one. Second, failing this, it becomes more difficult, but there are certainly other administrative actions that can be taken—again, such things are done all the time. And I would add that actions are elsewhere taken to restrict authorship, with less ample evidence of self-interest (and consequent COI/POV issues) than are clear here. But, again, a main issue has to do with failure to establish preeminence of discovery through independent secondary sources, and this is seeing some feedback, see next comment. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Leprof alerted me to this issue on my talk age. I think Leprof raises some legitimate issues here, and {{autobiography}} is probably warranted. As far as autobiographies go, this one really isn't all that bad, though. I'm used to more over-the-top, overt promotion (see Sharon Cuneta for an example), and this one seems almost balanced in comparison. However, the scientific studies are surely primary sources, and there are some interpretative claims made from them. For example, the article claims that Prof Church "published the first direct genomic sequencing method in 1984" and uses as a citation his own work from 1984. It may very well be true that this is the first work to do so, but we should have a secondary source say so. I'm not sure it needs all those cleanup tags, but it does need a bit of cleanup. It would probably help to alert a relevant WikiProject (maybe WikiProject Medicine?). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the Review, NRP. Note to others, NRP and I have been on the same and opposite sides of opinions, and I appreciate the objectivity, thoughtfulness, and subtly he brings to his review (and integrity, note admission of my posting to him). The issue with the 1984 citation is one of the series of cases I have tried to call attention to, with regard to needing secondary sources for claims of discovery preeminence. As for how this compares to other autobiographies, I cannot say, though we should wait until someone interested in Neanderthals has had their say. I can suggest that subtlety in self-promotion may be a characteristic of the more learned, and Profs Church and Wu are clearly that, but such does not make this aim acceptable here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As I see it, the problem mainly is that the tags contain allegations that basically boil down to Leprof saying that there may be issues. That primary sources are used does not imply POV. There is no interdiction to subjects editing their own biography. Technically speaking, this is not an autobio either, because most of the content was added by other persons (one of them the subject's wife, but still). I am not at all against tagging pages if there are problems, but if challenged, the problems should be identified (with sources showing that the allegations are correct) or the tags removed. Just saying that you think there may be a POV does not suffice. Neither of the COI editors (the subject and his wife) have been combative as yet. Both have edited quite in the open under their own names (unlike everybody here -me included- participating in this discussion) and have not attempted to hide anything. Unless sources can be presented that show that their edits are POV or, worse, false, I do not see any reason for a tag (except for an "involved contributor" tag on the talk page). --Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

William B. Caldwell[edit]

William B. Caldwell (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Yesterday, new editor @CrispinBurke: brought to me concerns that the article on William B. Caldwell "mischaracterize[s] his service" in some ways he did not yet specify. I do not have the time to address this right now, and I don't want to let the matter drop since this is a BLP, so would someone mind looking into this? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume the problem lies with the Dawood Military Hospital "scandal", and that seems rather well sourced (simple Google search shows this was a big deal). If there are counterweight sources CrispinBurke or anyone else want to offer up to make it more neutral, we can certainly consider them. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
As already stated, the Dawoods Military Hospital investigation is the only issue on the page that "mischaracterize[s] his service". The material is properly sourced with reliable sources supported each claim. One of the sources provides a quote from the deputy inspector general claiming there was no "attempt ... to delay our investigation ... or turn it off", which neutralizes the section. We could trim down the section in accordance to WP:UNDUE, but I don't think that would be necessary.

Meatsgains (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

CrispinBurke (talk)I served directly under the general during the period in question (early 2012 until his retirement). I can even have him contact you to confirm that the Dawood scandal was generally unrelated to his retirement...he had already made the decision to retire (early 2012) before the Dawood allegations were even made (June 2012).

@Meatsgains, CrispinBurke: The supporting reference for the claim that the subject retired because of this issue is a primary one, which we obviously prefer not be used. Can we get a secondary source? If not, I would support removing the association between the controversy and his retirement. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I tried to copy edit the article, and the section in question, per the given citations. I have no other opinion, except I am going to bed. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Rich Constable[edit]

Rich Constable (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Could BLPN regulars please take a look at the Rich Constable article - it has been raised at the help desk by an IP who suggests that it is being edited in an unduly negative manner, [13] and from a quick look, I'm inclined to agree that there may be problems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User: Djflem is obsessed with posting negative POV about the BLP. Every day he edits this page by providing articles and information to bolster Mayor Dawn Zimmer's unproven and uncharged allegation of extortion. Djflem also gave serious treatment to matters that are marginally relevant to Constable for the sole purpose of making him look bad (See HGI and COAH discussion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1506:76ED:2159:80B4:EA3D:F423 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Dave Horne[edit]

Dave Horne (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

written by Dave Horne. This is an autobiography — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and not an objective one. I started on it, but mainly fixed some minor grammar instead. More interesting, and easier than figuring out the truth behind all these "political" misfortunes and "paths to success". Doesn't exactly seem notable, so I don't want to invest time, then see it deleted. But I wouldn't mind seeing it deleted. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Ashok Chauhan[edit]

Ashok Chauhan (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I'm in a content dispute over this BLP article with several IP's. The section "Controversies" contains claims about arrest warrants against the subject. The claims are supported by an article by Tim Sullivan (AP) from 2007, which was adapted/reprinted by other newspaper outlets, also cited in our article. However, a critical article by Mint (newspaper) has an update stating that "A Frankfurt court has also ruled that there are no crimincal proceedings against Chauhan and that the arrest warrant issued has been revoked." From what I have learned during my previous research, the business with education in India is a very dirty business, but I have a question: Is it appropriate to associate a living person in an encyclopedic article with arrest warrants that have been revoked? The last revert at least mentions that "the charges have been later cancelled" (my earlier addition/update), which is better but I have to ask for an independent opinion. My opponents cite WP:PUBLICFIGURE as an argument, and it might be a valid argument. What do you think about that? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes education does seem to be a dirty business. All users deleting the Controvery section (like you did) with edit summaries (very similar to yours) have been blocked as sock puppets of Writers Media, most probably a PR company. And I mean all users. You also have deleted the Controversy section claiming sources are required, disregarding that there are 7-8 extremely reliable sources (from Wall Street Journal to Deccan Herald to Associated Press to Tribune to Tehelka, all independent of each other unlike what you claim above) supporting the Controversies section in the exact manner as WP:PUBLICFIGURE dictates. What is foxing is that you write above, "I'm in a content dispute over this BLP article with several IP's." You use the word "I". You strangely do not make a mention of all the other sock accounts that deleted the Controversy section like you did. Should it be understood that you have some knowledge of those accounts? I think you an administrator should really be clarifying right now what's going on, whether you have any connection with the socks and whether you're in any communication with others off-wiki with respect to this article here?! (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't be silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Aize Obayan[edit]

The article appears un-encyclopedic, promotional with notice of WP:COI policy violation connected with the article creator. I proposed the article for deletion but darreg (talk · contribs) who was the article creator reverted the edit and even clean-up all maintainance tags on the article.Wikicology (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Hollingworth[edit]

Elizabeth Hollingworth is an Australian judge who issued a 'super injunction' against (as I understand it) the publishing of allegations related to a claims made by Gillian Bird. The injunction was leaked by wikileaks and uploaded to commons. An editor linked to the commons copy from Elizabeth Hollingworth's article. The whole thing is a BLP nightmare that's likely to blow up if/when details get published in the local press. Even if the current coverage is appropriate, extra eyes would be appreciated for that eventuality. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

For now it should be kept off both articles, since all we have is a primary source. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Bennett Ratliff[edit]

Bennett Ratliff

The edits by Anomalocaridid include information that is generated by sources with a documented history of political attacks, misleading information, and a clear political agenda for the scores, reports and opinions that are produced. The particular groups cited vigorously supported the opponent of Bennett Ratliff in the last election with lies, innuendo, and misleading information and thus cannot be considered as impartial, unbiased sources that should be included in the BLP page. Mr. Ratliff would like to protect his reputation from false and misleading information about his service to the State of Texas.

Pretty much all interest groups are, by definition, biased. If there is no consensus agreement on which ones should be cited and which ones shouldn't, I've just removed all of them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

michael J meade[edit]

a search of the Huffington post reveals mentions of Michael Meade by other authors but no articles authored by Michael Meade. To the best of my ability I cannot find a single article written by Meade on the Huffington post site let alone frequent contributions.

Abhay K[edit]

I am reporting the article Abhay K for notability. He is just a diplomat, with some minimal work, just like any other diplomat of any other country. This is a very well constructed Wikipedia article, possibly written by Abhay K himself, but it certainly does not merit inclusion. If this merits conclusion, every public servant in every country should be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks plenty notable to me. Try this if you feel that's not the case. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Bob Isherwood[edit]

I recently went through and added citations and edited the article for Bob Isherwood ( and was hoping this would get rid of the warning header at the top about needing citations (which is several years old and no longer relevant). I know this may not be the place to post this but I'm curious as to how I would go about getting rid of that header now that the article is properly cited and the header no longer applies.

Thanks! JLarson15 (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)