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:

A Voice for Men[edit]

A Voice for Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors have repeatedly restored the content of this edit in violation of WP:BLPGROUP and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Note that the article is under article probation.

The company in question "A Voice for Men" has a single employee, Paul Elam. The site ( indicates it's "owned and operated by Paul Elam" and has a limited volunteer staff. As such I believe WP:BLPGROUP strongly applies.

Statements using this buzzfeed article as a source, those using primary sources (the SPLC blog and are the most problematic and have been restored without talk page consensus. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The BuzzFeed article was discussed on the RS noticeboard a few weeks ago. [1] The findthecompany info is used to corroborated the statements made in the BuzzFeed article. The SPLC content (which I wouldn't classify as a "blog") is about a group of websites and the groups that post to them, not a specific person. The SPLC's characterization is presented as their own assessment, and its has been repeated by several reliable sources, such as Time[2]. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no issue including BLP information from strong RS. A neutral reading of the Buzzfeed article, including the title, shows it is not sufficient as a sole source. Although I don't believe it's directly relevant to the argument, I classified the SPLC source as a "blog" because the URL begins with: José Antonio Zapato (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: I've no dog in this fight, but have fully protected the page at an arbitrary version due to a slow, weeks-long edit war that's been going on - Alison 07:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That's understandable, but we still have an editor who's confessed to edit warring, and as soon as he was blocked the IPs started working on it. By his own admission, he doesn't care if he's blocked as long as the page is on the "right" version. That seems like a very good incentive to continue the slow edit war. Gaming the system like that seems messed up. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It's frustrating, I know, but what's going to happen is that they'll refuse to engage on the talk page while others will try to come to some agreement. The dispute will get hammered out and the article changed again, and they'll have had no say in the matter. Only this time, when they revert, they'll be doing so against consensus and thus their changes will not stick - Alison 08:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to reverse Alison's protection even though she gave permission to any administrator to do so. I tend to endorse it because she's right about the edit-warring. I blocked the editor who was being the most disruptive and when I did so, his version was in place. If I'd wanted to revert it, I could, but although I think many of his BLP claims are marginal and certainly not of the sort that justifies reverting under WP:3RRNO, I also didn't think there was any policy-based reason for my choosing a version. The only thing that gave me pause subsequently is the block evasion, and an editor shouldn't benefit from block evasion. At the same time, though, honestly, Grayfell should not have reverted after my block of the other editor. Finally, I also agree with Alison that there's nothing wrong with the current version being in place until a consensus as reached as to what material should or should not be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I can see that. I was getting edit conflicts with the IP while attempting to fix some of the raised issues, which was irritating. It seemed like a clear-cut case of ban evasion, but there was nothing that couldn't wait until that was resolved. Grayfell (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The A Voice for Man page is clearly not a BLP. It's the most popular men's rights website. Hundreds of activists publish content on the site and dozens of volunteers help keep the site going. The claim that BLP applies to the article because most of the activists involved with AVFM aren't officially employed by the site is absurd. Moreover, the BuzzFeed article and especially the conservative way that source is used is actually BLP compliant. The men's rights topic area has had the same problems with "new" editors and IPs for years. One of them gets blocked only to have the next one show up and make "their" article more "on message". It's not just frustrating for individual editors, it's detrimental to the aims of the project. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Sonicyouth's comment here [3] pretty much demonstrates how and where BLP applies to the AVFM article. If we are adding content about AVFM the website/community, then BLP does not apply. If we are adding content about AVFM the company and its financial spending then BLP applies. That is because there is no one in AVFM the company besides Paul Elam. You can't differentiate off of him. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
But we are adding content about the website/online community/online presence, its content, its activities, its online store, its attempts to raise money, etc. AVFM is notable and discussed in RS only as a website/online community/online presence. For example, the Huffington Post is obviously also a company beside being a website, but nobody would ever suggest that The Huffington Post is a BLP and that statements about the website are indistinguishable from statements about Arianna Huffington or the other founders. AVFM is not the same as its founder. Please come up with something more convincing than the BLP angle. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
But you are also adding content which cannot be differentiated from Paul Elam. Read the Diff, that's your words. Paul controls the money flow, so you can't question the money flow without questioning him. If you are saying AVFM is spending money in a bad way, you are saying Paul is spending money in a bad way. If people are questioning how AVFM spends money, then they are questioning how Paul spends the money. It isn't because Paul is the founder, it's because he's the only person in the company. A Voice For Men, the company, is Paul Elam. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
RS are questioning what AVFM (not a specific person X) is doing with donations. Everyone involved with the website is welcome to answer, whether it's the founder, the managing editor Dean Esmay, chief information officer David King, chief marketing officer Peter Wright, or any of dozens of activists and hundreds of contributors who are involved with the site's workings. And absolutely no, I am not saying that "AVFM is spending money in a bad way." If you absolutely must attack a straw man, do it with someone else rather than waste my time. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for using the term 'you' it was not meant to be a direct statement, but a generic you more like "someone". However the point you seem to be consistently missing, is that questioning AVFM about financials is no different than questioning Paul Elam about financials. Paul has set up the company so that he is the only one in control of such things, so while you might think that Dean, or David, or any of the other activists involved in the running of the site could have input, they cannot. That is because the financials are through AVFM the company, not AVFM the site, and while AVFM the company pays for AVFM the site, they aren't the same thing. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The money is raised online, as in one the website, with many people involved in the fundraisers. You assume that the RS share your opinion of the founder's omnipotence concerning every decision and only pretend to discuss AVFM. But they don't. I do not know how you could possibly have arrived at the conclusion that a page about a very popular website is a BLP but maybe you'll have more success convincing others. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, so what, exactly, is the BLP non-compliant content, here? I don't understand the complaint about the BuzzFeed article other than that it's extremely unflattering. Everyone seems to agree, including Elam himself, that Elam has financial control of the site. He has made this statement himself, and sources have commented on it. We use unflattering sources all the time, including for BLPs. Being unflattering is not, by itself, a valid complaint against a source. What is it about this source that makes it unusable? What are the statements in the article you object to, and why? Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
First we can make sure we can quote correctly, and with proper context. I know you, Grayfell, have helped with that on the article talk page here [[4]]. However, Sonicyouth has repeatedly asserted that BLP doesn't apply on that page. [[5]], [[6]]. To answer your question, the non-compliant content is the Buzzfeed piece on its face. Under BLP We should be using High-Quality reliable sources. What's more per WP: ELBLP we need to take consideration of BLP with what we're linking to. And that Buzzfeed piece isn't merely unflattering, it's a hit piece which has delved into Paul's personal history in an attempt to smear him. If it were a piece about an organization it would be fine, but we expect better than Tabloid journalism on BLP content. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The editor who started this section has not only been banned for edit warring, but had their ban extended for coming back as an IP account to continue to revert towards their intended version of the article. I do not believe this section was started in good faith. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


I removed this statement from the article. The claim in wikipedia's voice that all donations to the website "A Voice for Men" go to the founder's personal finances is not supported by the source. Relevant source text quoted below (link.)

Asked repeatedly by BuzzFeed News how the donations were spent — including those raised for “security” related to the conference — Elam said, “It’s none of your fucking business.”

Later, however, Elam acknowledged in a post excoriating “dumpster divers from MSNBC” that “every dollar goes right in my pocket,” but that it is nevertheless well spent in advancing the cause. “The way I look at it is that the donations are given freely by people who get a really great website (that they could just get for free) and who believe that I use this operation to further issues that they think are important to them.”

Neither the subject nor the article's author imply donations go to his "personal finances." Personal finances would cover personal vacations, movie theater tickets - it's a stretch to suggest this is what he meant by "it [goes to] advancing the cause", especially in a BLP. Despite this, there was prior consensus among three editors to include this statement in our article (link) and my removal was reverted. I suggest this violates BLP and misrepresents the source. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Joan Jett[edit]

IQ125 (talk · contribs) has twice attempted to insert the claim into the Joan Jett article that she is a lesbian, using what I regard as a dubious source (an article which offers no evidence to back the claim). Available evidence suggests that she is probably lesbian or bisexual, but she has never discussed this publicly or self-identified as either lesbian or bisexual. I believe it is inappropriate to insert this claim into the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC) is a not in any way a reliable source, doubly so for sensitive issues in a BLP article. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Tarc is correct: No, is not a reliable source. Furthermore, I thought it was understood that Wikipedia would not include speculation on an article subject's sexuality unless the subject has either commented publicly or otherwise publicly confirmed it. There is far too much of this tabloid-style "journalism" working its way into our biographical articles, and damn little of it is supported by reliable sources. If an article subject chooses not to comment on his or her private relationships, and there are no reliable sources on point, how about we omit the speculation about their private lives? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not supposed to be The National Enquirer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Joan Jett self-admits to being a lesbian, it is not a secret! Thanks IQ125 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Results of a Google search is not a self-admission. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you actually read any of the linked articles from the Google search? I did, and I don't see a quote from Joan Jett "self-admit[ting] to being a lesbian," nor do I see a reliable source stating that she is. She may very well be, but until there is a reliable source for that proposition per WP:RS, it is not appropriate for her Wikipedia article to include speculation on a matter that she has clearly chosen to keep private. Period. If you have reliable sources, quoting Jett or otherwise, please provide links to those sources, not to a Google search. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
She is not self admitted - so the pedia cannot say she is. There is apparently RS for her being an icon to many lesbians,[7] which is something different altogether. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll second the whole "she's never said it so we can't include it" stuff. Unless she explicitly says it out loud and to reliable sources, it's considered to be a rumor. Heck, for YEARS we couldn't label Jodie Foster's article with any of the LGBT tags. Her lesbianism was probably one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood but until she officially came forward and confirmed her sexuality in the media you could not add any of this information in her article. Heck, even now we have to be careful in how we phrase things in the article since she specifically did not use the terms gay or lesbian in her coming out speech, so that's exactly how careful we have to be on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Vanessa Lynne Bryant[edit]

This article is incredibly offensive, particularly this comment: "Dozens of additional Connecticut practicing attorneys voiced their concerns about her qualifications. It was widely held that Vanessa Bryant's chief qualification was her race and gender.[4]"

In fact, Judge Bryant is a very well-regarded and accomplished District Judge. For instance, in 2012, she issued an opinion finding the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, tackling a difficult and contentious constitutional law issue before the Supreme Court's review of the question. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Judge Bryant and also struck down parts of DOMA as unconstitutional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not only does the link given not work, it's a self-published blog. I've removed it. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems all the criticism levied at her in the first paragraph of 'Federal Judicial Career' is from a primary source. I don't think this is acceptable. Incidentally, I don't think a section titled 'Federal Judicial Career' should exist solely as what seems to be an area to bear out a grudge against the subject of the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Went through and correct a few issues, but an IP editor has since seen fit to revert my changes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
IP editor here, hang on a sec. You make it sound like vandalism! I posted a full explanation to the talk page. The reasons given in your edit summaries are misunderstandings, which I've explained there, e.g. "does not exist in source" when it does, "sourced to primary source" when it's not, etc. I expected to have this conversation on the article's talk page... (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You're free to explain which edit summaries were incorrect. "Does not exist in source" was (by your own admission) correct, and there were no edit summaries I made which contained "sourced to primary source". If you disagree with particular edits, you should not completely undo my and other editor's contributions- there are easier ways to do it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You removed about half the article and several sources in about half an hour. If you make bold changes be prepared to justify them. You didn't say primary source, right, I assumed that was your objection when you said "Cannot use online rating system as source" - the characterization of the rating come from an RS, no an "online rating system." I'd really rather have this talk on the article page though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The BLP issues which other editors introduced (and you are edit warring to retain) are perfectly relevant to the BLP noticeboard. Any editor can see that the edits I made have not 'removed half the article', and when I removed an online rating system as a source I removed something cited directly to 'The Robing Room' (which is, amazingly, an online rating system.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I encourage editors to see the extent of content Peter removed. Re: 'the Robing Room' you also removed the characterization of their rating cited to an RS. Apparently you missed that, as you missed the quotes that you claim in your edit summary had no source when the source was right there. s far as "edit warring" - you made big changes, I reverted and posted why on the talk page, you reverted my revert, which I then reverted. Can't see how you'd describe that as me edit warring. (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now this guy is edit warring. He's reverted my revert twice now with no effort to address the very specific reasons I listed on the talk page. Only suggesting that I don't understand WP:BRD and if I want to revert his bold changes I'll have to discuss them. Can an admin maybe help here? (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The removal by Peter seems perfectly reasonable. We don't need to go into absurd levels of detail on the ABA's rating of her from 2007, and it's undue weight to extensively discuss a nearly-decade-old rating with no apparent relevance to her current performance and no evidence of any significant or lasting external interest in the rating. The ABA said something about her, she was appointed and confirmed anyway, the end, so far as the sources are concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Great! Your criticism here doesn't seem to be with the quality or characterization of the BLP sources so lets have this discussion on the article talk page! (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Another ('completely unrelated') IP joins the edit warring, and my interest falters. Best luck to any other editor who wishes to correct these issues. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I get this a lot as an IP editor. Look over the article's revision history, the majority of work here was done by IPs. I'm still happy discuss specific changes on the talk page. I mean that sincerely. (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rudrangshu Mukherjee[edit]

This article does not have any notable facts to qualify for a page in Wikipedia. I would prefer this to be deleted or rewritten with some notable facts. (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

While the article is, indeed, insufficiently sourced at the present time, a Google News search on his name reveals that there are plenty of reliable sources out there which are sufficient to base an article upon. There's nothing sufficiently controversial to invoke WP:BLPREMOVE, so please feel free to find reliable sources for the current text or rewrite the article using reliable sources. I've tagged it as needing sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

IP edits to BLP article suspected to be made by subject[edit]

If there is strong, publicly available circumstantial evidence that IP edits to a BLP article were made by the subject of that article, I don't suppose raising this concern on the article's talk page, along with a discussion of the evidence, would be considered harassment, or would it? ARK (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

While editing an article about oneself is strongly discouraged, it is not prohibited. Therefore, the identity of the IP editor is irrelevant and an inquiry into the IP's editor would, indeed, be harassment unless either (a) the IP editor has here at Wikipedia and not at some other site openly identified him/herself (and has not attempted to revert or otherwise obscure that revelation and it has not been such a long time since it happened that it's no longer easy to find) or (b) the IP editor is attempting to post absolutely fraudulent information or otherwise corrupt the encyclopedia in a way that ordinary editing processes cannot handle and if that is the case, then contact the Arbitration Committee privately by email through the email link on this page. In general, we concern ourselves about edits not editors. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! ARK (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Don Lane (Santa Cruz)[edit]

Don Lane (Santa Cruz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am new to this. I have been including reference to his past that is clearly documented and that he freely discusses in other media, though with his own spin on it. I had discussed this in a talk with Mr. Lane's Rep here under my previous IP

The Revision has stood for five months with no problems (undo revision) until recently and with no discussion as to why.

Mr Lane refers to this episode and admits to doing it here:

I wish my original revision to stand for it is important for voters to know about it.

I wish Keri to be sanctioned for reverting and blocking the revision and for requesting temporary semi-protection: User talk:The Man of Heart

Thank You and Please Advise: Don Honda The Man of Heart (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because something happened and can be reliably sourced does not mean that it is appropriate to be included in an article, see the Neutral Point of View policy and, especially, the concept of undue weight set out therein. The fact that "it is important for voters to know about it" is irrelevant to whether something should or should not be in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Since protection is always judged by a neutral administrator, asking for protection is not generally sanctionable unless it is part of a continued practice of disruption across the encyclopedia (and I can't see that the page has ever been protected, but perhaps I missed it). Discuss the edit in question on the article talk page and if you cannot come to a resolution through discussion, consider dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like Keri's actions were appropriate. If you're having a content dispute, the appropriate place to be taking it now is the talk page of the article, as Keri suggested. Keri has appropriately warned you about editing warring, and removed a paragraph which involved editors attacking each other in the article space. The fact that you had some private discussion with one editor on the user talk pages, rather than on the article's talk page where it might be seen by other editors, does not mean that you have consensus. I see nothing here that Keri (talk · contribs) should be sanctioned for, and much for which they should be commended. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I have talked about the revision in October 15, 2014 and it was negotiated and agreed. It has stood for five months with not problems. Isn't that good enough? A direct talk and negotiation?The Man of Heart (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No, not at all. There are more than two editors of Wikipedia; that the two of you conspired to set the language in a certain way does not give you veto power over every other editor, and keeping it from the Talk page of the article keeps other interested editors from finding what's going on and entering comment of their own. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I came across this dispute purely by accident, having spotted a usertalk message on another editor's page which was on my watchlist. It seems apparent that the two parties to this dispute are both single-purpose accounts and both have very obvious conflicts of interest in the subject matter - as witnessed in this exchange here. One editor claims to be Lane's "representative" on social media - a claim accepted by User:The Man of Heart - while TMoH himself appears to have been one of the recipients of the cards at the heart of the controversy. I haven't fully researched the incident or examined it's worthiness for inclusion, as my interest was engaged purely by the disruptive editing the two parties have carried out in the article. Keri (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Since Keri has read and monitored all my correspondence, she knows that I have denied that I am one of the recipients of the Obscene Valentine's Card as seen here: It is the "Rep" of Don Lane (Santa Cruz) who is assuming this. It is patently untrue.The Man of Heart (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It feels that I am being attacked for making a newbie mistake. It feels that I am being judged and convicted without a trial. I had no intention to "conspire" with another editor. I was contacted and adjusted my posting. I had no idea of the Article Talk Page much less the purpose of it. I feel that the article needs to be expunged in toto as it apparent that the original poster is self-serving and is the one with a conflict of interest.The Man of Heart (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If you believe the page should be deleted, please see our guide to deletion to see how you might properly move that forward. You may want to look closely at our guidelines for notability of politicians, as notability is likely to be the question on which any deletion discussion will hinge. As for your being attacked, it looks like most of the responses here have been to answer your questions and to defend Keri from your call for sanctions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Jonasson[edit]

Dear editors, please take a look at the "change of direction" section in this article Jonas_Jonasson. Is this defamatory or plain weird? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:38, 25 April 2015

Done: Looks like it's been taken care of by Govindaharihari.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've now semi-protected the article for a week stemming from a related WP:AIV report. If this stuff resumes after the protection expires, I recommend requesting long term semi-protection. Monty845 13:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter Schweizer[edit]

Peter Schweizer recently wrote a book called Clinton Cash (not even published yet) alleging some bad things about the Clintons. It's made the news and several outlets and papers are running with the accusations. It's been brought up at White House press briefing. In the past few days several left leaning orgs have come out attacking Schweizer's character and reputation and he's very much become a target in the media cycle. Recent edits of the past day, including by User:Cwobeel, a frequent ideological battleground editor, have been attempting to turn his BLP into an attack piece. The next several weeks will require some active stewardship which I can't always provide. Semi-protection is premature at this point but that may change. GraniteSand (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@GraniteSand: What edits of mine you consider inappropriate in that article? And why don't you engage in discussions on that article's talk page rather than cast aspersions here. Sheesh! - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Frances D'Souza, Baroness D'Souza[edit]

I find it very hard to believe that the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords in the UK was married already at the age of 15. Unfortunately, I have no way of checking this, most of the biographical facts on other sites are taken from the Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al69dente (talkcontribs) 09:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Done: I have removed the section about her family life, since it was unsourced, controversial and it has been contested. To add it back to the article it needs to be sourced by reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Details in the section removed appear to be supported by this article by Baroness D'Souza's daughter Christa D'Souza in The Daily Telegraph, which would appear to be a reliable source; and also this source on Crossbenchers - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Al69dente & Crystallizedcarbon, just letting you know that I've added a new section to the article Talk page to facilitate discussion of re-including the section based on these two sources. Please feel free to raise any thoughts or concerns that you might have there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ryk72: Thank you very much for finding the sources, you can find my comments in the article's talk page.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Denis MacEoin[edit]

Someone has reintroduced potentially defamatory information about me, contrary to your principle that 'Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.' Someone, possibly myself, had argued correctly that linking me improperly with the controversy on my report 'The Hijacking of British Islam' is defamatory because I had no hand whatever in the aspects relating to a possible (but unproved) forgery of a receipt obtained from one of the suppiers of material. I wrote the report but had no hand at all in the administration or the people who collected the material I was given to write the report. That there was a controversy there is no doubt, but the piece reinserted implies that I was connected to any possible impropriety is libellous. By all means write an article about the report, but in doing so make it clear that my role was simply that of author, not researcher or administrator.

May I also add that the sneering comment that I use this article as 'my blog' is wholly inappropriate. I did not write the original article, but as the subject have gone in froim time to time to correct mistake and to update things like new publications or involvements. This is not like using it as a blog, and this charge should be withdrawn. I get the feeling that someone out there dislikes me for some reason, and I retain the right to correct mistakes, remove anything defamatory, and update information. I am, surely, in the best position to make these judgements. None of this constitutes 'vandalism'. It would be better to focus on the numerous hagiographical accounts of Muslims and other religious figure that appear across Wikipedia. And please remove the accusation that this is an autobiography. Whoever wrote it, it was not I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis MacEoin (talkcontribs) 12:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the controversy section, as well as a lot of other unsourced/poorly-sourced content and added a notability tag. The article does not contain any high-quality secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 17:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Pooja Sharma article[edit]

Got a problem at Pooja Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); there is repeated WP:BLP-violation editing going on at that article by Kasmile (talk · contribs), despite the multiple warnings that Kasmile has received about this. Flyer22 (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked the editor for disruptive editing.  —SMALLJIM  11:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Uma Kumaran[edit]

Uma Kumaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Subject is a candidate of in the British General elections in May 2015.Now a post was made in iharrow then removed by iHarrow from its website following a compliant from the subject to them. It was alleged in January 2014 by Harrow’s now defunct Independent Labour Group that she did nothing to support the Tamil community when demonstrations were taking place outside Parliament to raise awareness of human rights violations by the Sri Lankan Government nor to support their complaints about discrimination against Tamils in the Labour Party.[7] KUmaran later wrote to the editor of iharrow asking that the article be removed because it contained slanderous accusations and false allegations and had been used as a way of setting up a wikipedia page to continue false rumours and divisive politics along ethnic lines. She said the article was "simply the personal vendetta of a member of the ‘ILG’ and is deeply damaging and completely untrue." The post was removed The source given is iharrow should this be removed from the article Uma Kumaran which is a WP:BLP .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed. The material was sourced to a non-reliable source. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bernard Marshall Gordon[edit]

Bernard Marshall Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An unsourced puff piece, filled with praise and editorializing, apparently in this form since at least 2007. Would profit from cutting and major rewrite; the current and longtime state is unacceptable. Thanks. (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • "As of January, 2007, the book of Bernie's earthly life is still open. Consequently there are no scholarly sources on his life and works." LOL-ROG-LMFAO This is so bad, and has so few actual sources for the included content, that I'm not even sure where to start. It would almost be easier to write a new article from scratch. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I know; it made my teeth hurt just to scan it superficially. I think it does require drastic surgery, especially if the edit history doesn't yield a more acceptable sourced version. Better to start anew with a paragraph or two, well referenced, than to let articles like this sit for the better part of a decade. (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Stubified. If sources are forthcoming the article can be re-built. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme[edit]

Vermin Supreme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article suffers from NPOV, Verifiability, and original research issues. Requires attention from a veteran editor. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw a fair amount of stuff, which I've dealt with. Did I miss anything? --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There are a few things that strike me, however, I may be not be the best judge of it hence why I am looking for outside eyes. There are things like this "He also campaigned in 2012 on a platform of zombie apocalypse awareness (and zombie-based energy plan) and time travel research,[9] and he promises a free pony for every American" which seem to be unencyclopedic. The bullets in 2012 political campaign seem to be excessive as well. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The statements that he campaigned in 2012 on a platform of zombie apocalypse awareness and time travel research and that he promised a free pony to every American are properly sourced. It would be unencyclopedic to report something else. The Wikipedia editors didn't make them up; the subject of the article made them up, and that is notable when done on the public forum of an alternative campaign for the Presidency. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Leidig[edit]

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

Hi All,

While I think the subject appears notable, I just wanted to check that the lack of citations and apparent original research mean it would be best to gut it down to some verifiable facts. Almost all the citations that do exist on it just link to pages that don't mention the subject. He's got a LinkedIn profile for the rest of it, after all. --gilgongo (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed the unsourced material. Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert L. Gordon IV[edit]

I have no idea why Bldfire is building a resume for this person in mainspace but can others have a look? --NeilN talk to me 00:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to look it through and fix it up a tad. Clearly messy.Soklassik (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Brady J. Deaton[edit]

Brady J. Deaton lacks in-text citations for the first three subsections and includes grammatical errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sama Raena Alshaibi[edit]

Sama Raena Alshaibi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biography has undergone a recent expansion, much of which was blatantly promotional, and likely involved COI accounts. It has been cleaned up, but needs further work, and is prone to continued addition of promotional text. More copy editing, more eyes, and watchlisting this will be appreciated. 2602:302:D88:E9B9:A53E:478:C58B:2E69 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lynda bird Johnson Robb[edit]

Paragraph one states that she is the oldest living child of a US President. Even discounting the current president's children Malia and Sasha Obama, what about Chelsea Clinton? Statement should be amended or deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Lynda Bird Johnson Robb is 71, much older than Chelsea Clinton and the Obama children.--ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)