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:

Investigative Project on Terrorism[edit]

A combination of WP:NOR, and WP:Defamation at the Investigative Project on Terrorism and Steven Emerson. I have repeatedly tried to delete the violating statement, but User:Serialjoepsycho keeps reverting it. See the following diff Also, the article itself is inaccurate, and I have initiated a proposal to merge in an attempt to provide accurate information about the actual entity, The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, rather than perpetuating all the confusion involving Steven Emerson as an individual, and/or as an individual heading up a think-tank called The Investigative Project. Editors appear to be confused over the identity of the non-profit foundation which was formed in 2006, and Steven Emerson, and Steven Emerson's work under The Investigative Project think-tank. Since it is not an actual BLP, but still violates BLP policy, I thought it best to bring it here for potential action. You can see the OR here in the info box where the editor attempted to combine all three entities into one. [1] Perhaps some editors feel they have more freedom to violate BLP when the information is under an entity, and not an actual BLP. Finally, the statement misquotes, and/or misintreprets what the sources actually said, and what Steven Emerson actually said. AtsmeConsult 17:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I as well as Sepsis II have reverted it. We have both stated the position that we do not feel there is a BLP violation. I suggested multiple times that Atsme use some form of dispute resolution, including suggesting BLPN if they disagreed. This is on the IPT talk page. Any other charge above unrelated to BLP I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Policy states that in the event of a BLP violation, the offending statement should be deleted immediately, which I did only to have it reverted. As noted above by Serialjoepsycho, he and Sepsis don't consider it a BLP violation. Perhaps the reason they don't is because they don't understand the IPT article itself is ambiguous, misleading, and involves 3 separate entities as stated in the merge rationale. The diffs point to a blatant violation of BLP because the statement in the article includes the editor's own POV which differs from what the sources actually state. Serialjoepsycho's response; i.e., "no need to respond" - is the attitude that caused me to bring the offending diffs here. He refuses to acknowledge there is a BLP violation, much less the Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis_of_published_material violations that have been committed by the existence of the article itself which is nothing more than a combination of information from different sources conglomerated to create the IPT article which creates the WP:BLP violation. AtsmeConsult 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Two editors have commented that this was not a BLP. Atsme the only other editor to comment has undertaken a pervasive effort to whitewash the page. Two editors disagreed with his claim. I recommended he come here if disagreed. Noting the response above I'll go ahead and comment what I've already commented in the merge discussion. There is no reason to merge. He uses Cherry picked sources to make a case for merger. His sources do not differentiate IPT pre-incorporation from IPT post-incorporation. IPT as well as a number of other sources make the claim that IPT was founded in 1995. His case is solely original research. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The disputed diff[2] cites two sources. The first source[3] doesn't mention anything about the Oklahoma bombing and the second cited source[4] is a press release and therefore not a reliable source. Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be a pretty clear WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Since neither cited source supported the content, I've (temporarily) removed it[5] until consensus can be established. A Quest For Knowledge from the article. (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)<br /

After spending a little more time reading the article, it doesn't appear to be particularly well-written or well-sourced[6] and may contain copyright violations.[7] This might be one of those articles that's easier to fix by rewriting from scratch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This actually does mention the Oklahoma City bombing. In about the middle of the page. "Emerson is unapologetic. But he has made mistakes in the past. In an interview after the Oklahoma City bombing, Steve Emerson confidently pointed his finger at the wrong culprits at Muslim terrorists. As everyone now knows the bombing was the work of an American Methodist, Tim McVeigh."Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
As to the copyvio issue. I agree. I went to the youtube video in question no indication they had rights. I also note that the rights they released it under Standard YouTube License. I'm unsure of the specific copyright holder but even if it was released under some type of copyleft license it would be inappropriate for someone else to release it under the Standard Youtube license. I went ahead and removed it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge: as pointed out above does in fact mention the OKC bombing. Your argument above is based off it making no mention so I would have to ask for further response.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho: Yes, you are correct. The CBS article does mention the Oklahoma City bombing. My bad. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge:I don't wish to misinterpret you. Are you indicating that you have no BLP objection to the use of that source for the part of the statement that it validates?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho: It's a partial withdrawal. I was clearly wrong when I stated that the CBS news article didn't mention the Oklahoma City bombing. But we shouldn't be using press releases as sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge: I concede to your point in this case on the use of a press release. However I disagree with your statement that press releases can't be used as a reliable source. Of note would be that public corporations may use press releases from groups like to PR Newswire to meet SEC Regulation Fair Disclosure requirements. Determination of wp:rs standards should probably made case by case.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I did a partial revert on the page based solely on the 48 hours source that includes only the information that source validated.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho: Thanks for your partial revert. Just to clarify something, press releases undergo no editorial supervision and are treated as self-published sources. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
In this particular case, the press release is not being used in an article about the organization that made the press release (or its activities) and even if it was, it fails conditions 1 and especially 2. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It is case by case that these rules should be applied and very likely in most BLP cases that these sources would be unreliable. In this case as I said above I completely agree.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Other sources include, Cair, Nashville Scene, Media Matters, Media Monitor Neywork, FAIR, and the list can really just keep on going.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, WP:POV. Emerson never "pointed his finger", and never said the words, "Muslim terrorists" as was incorrectly stated in the IPT article. WP:BLP specifically states: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  • Verifiability (V)
  • No original research (NOR)
We must get the article right.
Scroll midway down the following archived article in American Journalism Review to the paragraph directly under the header, "CBS officials did not return calls".[8]. After reading that paragraph, please note that there was no actual "finger pointing" by Emerson, and no use of the word "Muslim". WP:BLP specifically states Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives;. And now Serialjoepyscho has again violated WP:BLP by adding the same contentious, sensationalized statement here. Emerson's actual statement as quoted by reliable sources was a likeness, or comparison using the following words, "Middle Eastern trait". If editors are following BLP policy, they are not supposed to use inaccurate information, and "must take particular care". Emerson never actually said what the referenced source claimed he said. Furthermore, Emerson was not associated with IPT(F) at the time because IPT did not exist which further adds WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources to the WP:BLP violation. Deleting the statement from the IPT article was the proper action, especially considering Emerson was a freelance writer and producer at that time, 11 years prior the organization of The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation in 2006. AtsmeConsult 14:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
To put it simply, there is only one IPT. Your case for differentiation is original research. It doesn't matter where you post or how many times you post it because that does not change it from synthesis. Your position depends on your conjecture as much as if not more than the sources. If your comments were to be deleted your case would disappear. To put it in simpler terms, your argument can't stand on sources alone. Regarding my so called original research, I don't work for CBS nor have I been on 48 hours. The rules on original research don't apply to sources. They apply to editors. I'm unsure if members of CBS or 48 hours have edited wikipedia but there is no indication they have edited this source. 48 hours is not a primary source or a tabloid. Contenious statement? Which one? Are you saying that me quoting 48 hours, "Emerson is unapologetic. But he has made mistakes in the past. In an interview after the Oklahoma City bombing, Steve Emerson confidently pointed his finger at the wrong culprits at Muslim terrorists. As everyone now knows the bombing was the work of an American Methodist, Tim McVeigh." Is contentious and a violation of the BLP? I disagree. But I notice you are the only one who has suggested this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Serialjoepsycho is simply trying to shift the focus away from his BLP violation onto me with his false allegations. His behavior is very disruptive. The IPT article has major issues, but the focus needs to stay on the issue that was initially presented here - a WP:BLP violation. As I stated above, I attempted to delete it, but was reverted by User:Serialjoepsycho, and User_talk:Sepsis_II, the latter of whom I thought was blocked from editing, so I don't understand how he was able to revert. See the diffs here: [9] [10] BLP violations do not require consensus. They require immediate removal. Serialjoepsycho refuses to acknowledge the violation, and has twice posted the same violating statement on this noticeboard. AtsmeConsult 07:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
He wasn't blocked at the time and that is how he reverted. Why? I've had one user other than you to comment on it. They gave a different reason than you. As noted above one of the reasons they gave was incorrect. As noted above I did request that person comment further. I don't see that as a violating statement. No experienced editor has commented on it yet. But allow me to direct you to WP:BLPTALK Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. I question if this poorly sourced being from 48 hours. I also don't agree that is a BLP violation. Here's a good place to answer that question. You know they may have created BPLN just for that. The quote in question is about making a content choice. I'm sure @Sepsis II: might have a response when he gets back.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
In response to Serialjoepsycho's question, "Why?" - because he was involved in a dispute that resulted in his being blocked the day after he reverted the BLP violations at IPT. According to his Talk page, he has been blocked on more than one occasion, so I consider it rather odd that he would make yet another disruptive edit in light of it being a BLP violation. I don't consider his edits at IPT to have been made in good faith, and the fact that he supports Serialjoepsycho's position speaks volumes, not to mention their combined efforts in "taunting" me for proposing a merge as evidenced in the following diff: [11].
With all the taunting and bullying aside, my primary concern is maintaining accuracy, and respecting policies when editing Wikipedia articles. Verifiability, and exercising extra caution cannot be over-emphasized when writing about living persons, yet based on Serialjoepsycho's earlier comments wherein he stated, I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard, I am inclined to believe there is a serious lack of concern. Perhaps he believes that citing a single source without verifying accuracy is ok, which may explain why he and Sepsis II reverted my edits. Such disruptive behavior in light of the BLP violation I brought to their attention is why I believe this is a serious issue, and why I decided to bring it here for discussion. The information that was added about the Oklahoma City bombing is not relevant to the IPT article because it involved an interview with Steven Emerson as an independent reporter, long before the IPT Foundation was organized. If the statement does not violate WP:BLP, why wasn't it added to Steven Emerson where it belongs? It actually does violate WP:BLP which I've verified because of my concern over keeping Wiki articles accurate. The verifiability of the statement that was made according to the source that was cited has been challenged, and for good reason. Reliable sources verify that Emerson did not make the comment(s) as stated in the IPT article, with the exception of a few words he used during one interview with CBS. There is no validation for an editor to take an out of context statement even further out of context, and include it an article where it doesn't belong. The results are violations of the following policies - WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Instead of collaborating in an effort to fix the problem, Serialjoepsycho dug his heels in deeper, countered with false allegations against me, antagonized, bullied, baited, and dared me, and is still holding onto the belief that Emerson made the alleged statement, further refusing to accept the fact he violated WP:BLP policy. If that isn't bad enough, his only support in this debate has been from an editor who was blocked for disruptive editing on a different article the day after he reverted my edit. AtsmeConsult 21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sepsis II block was unrelated to this situation here. He was blocked for a 1RR violation under WP:ARBPIA He can comment further later. Your intention to diminish his standing over that is ridiculous. The comments that I felt no need to respond to were your entire case about Pre-incorporation and post-incorporation IPT being separate. You provide no reliable sources to show that they do and follow your conjecture would require ignoring reliable sources that suggest they are the same. Further you left an important part of that quote. Let's go with the full quote shall we? Any other charge above unrelated to BLP I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard. That confers different meaning than your POVpushing attempt at paraphrasing. Both I and Sepsis II agreed that it was relevant to the IPT article. At further complaint it was suggested that you take it here. The offending statement has been removed from the article pending further comment here. I'm waiting for further comment here from the one editor who has commented other than you. The alleged statement is commented that OKC bombing had a "middle eastern" trait. The meaning of that as interpreted by reliable secondary sources is that was commenting on Muslim Terrorists. It may not be his or your choice interpretation of Islamic Extremists but it's a fair interpretation. I'm not interested in collaborating with you to whitewash an article. I'm not interested in Collaborating with anyone to whitewash a page. Your previous effort to whitewash IPT is still documented on the IPT talk page. Your recent tenditious edit on the IPT article reinforces the thought that you are trying to whitewash the article. Removing the template that was discussed in depth against the consensus. You drop it on March and then comeback to it in June. Who are you trying to play here?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not interested in collaborating with you to whitewash an article. I'm not interested in Collaborating with anyone to whitewash a page. Your previous effort to whitewash IPT is still documented on the IPT talk page. -- You are propagandizing this noticeboard with more of the same rhetoric, and it needs to stop. If you think it is appropriate to skirt BLP policy by using IPT to defame Emerson using "interpretations" from biased sources that point back to the CBS report, you might want to rethink your position. The statement you keep including is a BLP violation because it is an interpretation which you just admitted. It was not a statement made by Emerson. It is a BLP violation to include it because it is inaccurate, defames Emerson, and does not belong in the IPT article which is nothing more than a stub about a non-existent organization wherein you violated WP:NOR to make it appear as a non-profit organization that was founded in 1995. Worse yet, you opened an Rfc before this issue was resolved. AtsmeConsult 03:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not propaganda. I'm also curious to know how I'm trying to skirt by the BLP policy. I did after all send you to the BLP noticeboard. I find 48 hours to be a reliable source. And yes interpretation but sans the scare quote. This is a secondary source. I don't find the truth to be defamatory. And IPT was founded in 1995. IPT makes this claim. There is nothing controversial about this claim. The sources you provide do not disprove this claim. IPT has not been the only source to comment on their 1995 founding. Your case is nothing more than original research. It's completely subordinate to your commentary. I'm not going to whitewash the page on your commentary. You have already made your ulterior motives clear. This conversation between us is over. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The BLP violation has not been properly addressed, and feedback from one editor does not constitute consensus, or validation for closure of this incident. There is a clear violation of WP:BLP, and blatant misuse of original and self-published sources including the CBS 48 Hours report in the IPT article. See the information under the heading "Unusual arrangement" at [12] wherein it states Emerson incorporated his for-profit company, SAE Productions, in Delaware in 1995. He launched the nonprofit Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation in Washington, D.C., in 2006. But he doesn't make that distinction on his website, [], which describes the Investigative Project on Terrorism as "a non-profit research group founded by Steven Emerson in 1995." And today, the two groups share the same Washington street address, which is published on Emerson's personal website. Other sources also validate the fact IPT was non-existent in 1995, and that the statement CBS took out of context was made by Steven Emerson as an individual terrorism expert/reporter, and not as a representative of IPTF. The following links validate IPT's non-existence in 1995: [13] [14]. It is also evident at the bottom of the following article at the self-published website [15] with the following closing credit stating the name, "The Investigative Project, a think-tank, not a legally formed foundation as is the IPT Foundation that was formed in 2006: Matthew Epstein is an attorney and senior terrorism analyst at the Investigative Project, a Washington, D.C.-based counterterrorism think tank established in 1995. Ben Schmidt is a terrorism analyst for the Investigative Project. The aforementioned further substantiates WP:BLP and WP:NOR violations, and also WP:Undue against Emerson in the IPT article, not to mention the fact it was improperly quoted showing a clear bias. In closing, WP:SYNTH is also at work here with the attempt to include Emerson as an individual terrorism expert, The Investigative Project think-tank, and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation into one misaligned, inaccurate, improperly sourced, questionable stub which is what IPT represents. AtsmeConsult 16:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
No you misunderstand. This case isn't closed. The conversation between me and you is over. I've already read your original research. I've already responded to it. You only have one actual claim here and I'm waiting for further response. CBS 48 Hours self published? This being just one of the reasons that the conversation is over between us.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Unbelievable - now you are blaming me for misunderstanding what you misunderstood, which may explain some of your disruptive behavior. I had already resolved to the fact that you had no defense, therefore no reason to respond. The self-published source I was referring to is not CBS 48 Hours which is the "original source" you cited. Read my statement again - misuse of original AND self-published sources - plural. Surely you understand WP policy enough to know that CBS is considered the original source - they conducted the interview, and published the transcript from their POV, including taking things Emerson said out of context - and that is the self-published source you cited for your inaccurate, unverifiable information regarding the founding of the Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION which ultimately created your WP:SYNTH violation on top of everything else. The WP:BLP violation still needs to be addressed, but considering your disruptive behavior, I was forced to take this incident to ANI. Hopefully it will be resolved at ANI once and for all considering only one other editor has responded here. AtsmeConsult 23:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I have plenty to say but you have used many words to say nothing. There's no point in saying anything else. Your a POV pusher. The record shows this. You want to whitewash wikipedia of anything related to Islamophobia. The record shows this. What more do I actually need to say? Let's quit wasting peoples time bickering back and forth here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Tim Blixseth[edit]

Tim Blixseth needs attention for NPOV issues, in particular the lead. I've cleaned it up several times over the past year but CinagroErunam (talk · contribs) keeps coming back with cherry picked details that again create WP:UNDUE emphasis on negative issues. I'm tired of the back and forth so I'll leave it to others at this venue to attend to it as needed. Best,-- KeithbobTalk 14:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a primary source and thus unacceptable. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually almost half of the article had citations to primary sources, which the BLP chainsaw has now excised. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for giving it some attention. -- KeithbobTalk 21:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ari Teman[edit]

A number of accounts and IPs, which appear based on action and language to be the same person (KLetters, ArtTenak, Demenac234 ( )) have accused falsely Mr. Teman of acting in porn, stealing from charity, not graduating college, inserting false cofounders of companies, etc. One look at the ArtTenak user history and it's clear this is some psychotic stalker dedicated to defame Mr. Teman. They contribute on no other article, and visit Mr. Teman's page multiple times daily to remove positive information and add false negative information. I'm asking (1) that ArtTenak be banned (and ArtTenak's IP address). (2) That the article be reverted to before ArtTenak (3) and that it be fully protected for only accepted administrators to edit. NYClay770 (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:ArtTenak have been repeatedly deleted for vandalism, uncited sources, biased language, removing positive accomplishments, and defamation. ArtTenak exists solely to damage the reputation of Ari Teman and that is its sole action. I'm asking user ArtTenak be banned and the article be reverted to pre-ArtTenak. NYClay770 (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul Singer (businessman)[edit]

I am not here to report a BLP violation, but rather to raise for discussion material that is being improperly deleted from a BLP using an incorrect interpretation of the BLP policy. The article in question is Paul Singer (businessman). Mr. Singer is most notable for being the proprietor of a hedge fund called NML Capital, which is widely described in reliable sources as a Vulture fund, and is in the middle of the present controversy over vulture funds and Argentina (see Argentine debt restructuring#NML Capital.)

User:Meatsgains has repeatedly deleted references to NML Capital being described as a "vulture fund" from the article (diff,) arguing that any material that could put the subject in a negative light is a BLP violation. On the talk page, I called his attention to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which says 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." I also provided a partial list of reliable sources which apply the term "vulture fund" to NML Capital, and discuss Singer's involvement, including his dislike for the term:

New York Times
The Guardian
Financial Times
Huffington Post
The Hindu
USA Today

I also rewrote the section with what I consider to be unchallengeable sourcing. Meatsgains reverted again today(diff), so I am bringing the matter to this board to solicit input from uninvolved editors. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason I removed the content is because Singer's "hedge fund" is being mislabeled with the misleading term "vulture fund," which is a pejorative and is slang. Words or phrases such as these are in violation of WP:TONE. An article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon.
Not once did I argue, "any material that could put the subject in a negative light is a BLP violation," so I'm not sure where Joe Bodacious got that from...
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act isn't referred to as Obamacare throughout the article. Isn't this the the same situation? I'd like to hear what other editors have to say. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
You say "mislabeled" and "misleading" -- but those words seem to emerge from your own views on NML. What matters is that the term is used by numerous reliable sources. The fact that there's an entire article on Vulture funds also reinforces the case for using the term where sources describe a particular fund as such. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources describe the term "vulture fund" as "mislabeled" and "misleading," not me.
  • Financial Post and Huffington Post Although the creditors are often referred to as “vultures,” the pejorative is highly misleading.
  • Panam Post These creditors have been mislabeled “vulture funds,” a pejorative nickname that the defaulting debtor uses to qualify those who justly and legitimately demand what is rightfully theirs.
What is your response to the ACA vs. Obamacare example I posted above? I don't see how the pre-existing Vulture fund article reinforces the use of the term on Singer's personal page. Meatsgains (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Those sources fail WP:NEWSORG for this purpose. I note that you are choosing to edit-war over this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I also added to the article sourced material indicating that there are objections to the use of term, including from Singer himself. NPOV means that all notable viewpoints are included. Edit warring to remove any reference to vulture funds is a violation of NPOV. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, you stated that because there's an entire article on Vulture funds, the case for using the term "vulture fund" is reinforced on Singer's page, yet in the article for vulture fund, the last sentence of the lead paragraph reads: "The term is used to criticize the fund for strategically profiting off of debtors that are in financial distress." It is not a descriptive term and does not improve the BLP. It's a derogatory term.
WP:BRD states that to break deadlocks, editors must "discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit" (which we are currently doing). "Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made." Joe Bodacious was the first to make the bold edit by adding questionable material to Singer's BLP. The content should be removed first and discussed. I am removing the information to return the page to status quo ante, not engaging in an edit war as Nomoskedasticity posted on my talk page. Nor did I violate the three-revert rule. I did not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Meatsgains (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
But on the other hand, you are refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion of policy. You are simply stating your personal dislike for the term, which you call "negative" or "derogatory," but as has been pointed out numerous times to you now, this is covered very specifically in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikipedia policy is very, very clear on these matters, and you are trying to evade the rather obvious points being made, so your continued reverts do constitute edit warring. And the NPOV-based argument for using the term is getting stronger by the hour. Here are major news stories that have appeared in the past week on Singer and vulture funds -- it is his claim to fame:
New York Post
Buenos Aires Herald
Lebanon Daily News
Global Post
Epoch Times
Huffington Post
Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused on how this is not considered a meaningful discussion of policy. We are both communicating civilly to reach consensus on an issue.
I am not stating my opinion on the term vulture fund. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. The following links define "vulture fund" as a "derogatory" and "negative" term: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Even the Wikipedia article on vulture fund describes it as a term "used to criticize". A criticism is "negative", an opinion, and clear POV. We want to "avoid stating opinions as facts" as per WP:YESPOV.
We both can agree that vulture fund is a pejorative, which means sources that use the term as opinion fail WP:BLP. Assigning a pejorative to hedge funds, or any entity for that matter, does not improve or benefit Wikipedia.
As stated before, we are currently engaged in discussion. WP:BRD states that we must "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made." That is indisputable and does not constitute edit warring. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Please, Meatsgains, I am beginning to think that you are being deliberately obtuse. There is absolutely nothing in the BLP policy that forbids the use of "pejorative", "derogatory" or "negative" terms. I have asked you about 5 times now to read WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is the relevant section of BLP. Have you read it? Also, the article as it presently stands does not "state opinions as facts" -- it refers to the "so-called 'vulture fund'", which makes it abundantly clear that we are discussing an opinion. We could provide a list of reliable sources that use the term in the way of attribution, but it is so widely used now that it would dominate the section. The fact that some commentators regard the term as inappropriate, while others do not, simply means that both viewpoints should be covered in the article, as in fact they are. That's NPOV. You are arguing that the viewpoint you don't like ought to be exclude, which contravenes NPOV. Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
To be more precise, Meatsgains, if you think that "sources that use the term as opinion fail WP:BLP" then you should be able to point at the precise section of WP:BLP which they fail and quote the relevant words from policy. Your current argument is too nebulous. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Vulture fund" is part of a bigger problem, several articles about the Argentice economy pick carefully from sources to make the Argentine government look much better at economic management, and pretend that people who lent to the Argentine government and didn't get repaid are actually the bad guys. ''Sitta kah'' (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The point you make may or may not be valid, but it's off-topic either way. And for the record, the vulture funds never lent money to Argentina. They bought bonds, at a fraction of face value, from someone who did actually lend money. I don't think anyone is making the actual lenders out to be bad guys. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova[edit]

Subject doesn't know who cricketeer is and it "effected billions of people". Confused? Read this. Experienced editors have been replying on the talk page but more eyes would be welcomed as offwiki canvassing is happening. [21] --NeilN talk to me 00:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That is so bizarre. The dogged determination to add utter trivialities to celebrity biographies really amazes me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Woodrow Chambliss[edit]

Good evening.

This is not a complaint or error notification. In the biography for Woody Chambliss, it would be nice to include the fact that he also played cousin Zadok Walton on The Waltons. It was a memorable performance.

Janet — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Jai Prakash Menon[edit]

Jai Prakash Menon (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Dear Administrators

  • The article [[[Jai Prakash Menon]]] violates the 3 core content policies of BLP:Biographies of living persons
  • 1) Neutral point of view (NPOV) - 1 author trying to control the content of article, which is written solely basis public news paper articles.
  • 2) Verifiability (V) - No statement on record, no company statement by Airtel, no legal law-suit in court of law
  • 3) No original research (NOR) - factually incorrect information (Jai Menon developed model for outsourcing network, which in incorrect)
  • I have been raising the above issues, however Thomas.W is not ready to discuss anything on rational basis.
  • Article Jai Prakash Menon is factually incorrect. e.g. It states He developed "the model of outsourcing network" used by Bharti and other companies in the industry. However, multiple sources confirm that He developed model for S1 IT outsourcing. REferences below. The author don't even know whether he was in IT function or Network.

  • WallStreet Journal/Mint is not considered a credible source, but others are single handidly considered a credible source.
  • As junior editor in one of the most prestigious news organization globally, We have performed our primary research on the topic and failed to substantiate 2 facts:
  • 1. there is no named statement on record confirming the rumors or allegations
  • 2. No statement on record by Airtel (even after repeated requests by us, the mails were unanswered)
  • 3. No legal law-suit in the court of law.

I requested Thomas.W to provide either of the 3, however he has failed to produce in any forum. However, in turn he is deleting any attempt to factually improve the article, which puts a question mark on his motives. (Please refer my edits on June 2, 2014 to improve the article)

  • Look forward to a rational hearing from all assuming that Wikipedia is not a collection of unanimous news paper articles.
  • Request for BLP Administrators: I have started my professional career in journalism and editorial recently, and may not be able to adhere to all WikiPedia editing guidelines in past due to limited knowledge. This shall not be linked with the intent to improvise.

User:theamigosinc9:51, 5 July, 2014 (IST)

  • This is just a repeat of previous session here at BLPN: nothing has happened since then, other than repeated disruption from Theamigosinc. The two refs above, particularly the first one, might seem connected to the controversy in the article, Menon's departure from Bharti Airtel, but aren't, since they're dated two and four years before that departure, and so have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Thomas.W talk 06:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear Thomas.W - the references are provided to prove that article is factually incorrect, and is not linked to Menon's departure from Airtel
  • Your comments are testament of the fact that you are refraining from discussion with neutrality.
  • You are deleting sourced content from the Article with valid references, as you have done on 2 June, 2014 deleting my edits containing sourced information.
  • This article violates all the rules of BLP, which I have been raising repeatedly. e.g. which clearly states that:
News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.
  • However, you are trying to sensationalize a newsworthy event and has given undue weitage in the article.

User:theamigosinc9:51, 6 July, 2014 (IST) — Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • We've been through that too, the circumstances surrounding Mr Menon's departure from Airtel have NOT been given undue weight. The article is well sourced, factual and well balanced, so stop your disruption. Disruption that includes taking the article, which hasn't changed since it was last discussed on BLPN, with no support for your views, to BLPN again. Thomas.W talk 10:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux[edit]

Two users have been altering the lead sentence of this article, trying to implement something which is not sourced. Even though WP:BLPREMOVE reverts for unsourced statements don't violate 3RR, I'd rather not risk it and prefer if others got involved.

The contentious item is the phrase "host of Freedomain Radio", which is the name of a podcast and YouTube channel operated by the subject. The name of the show, and his role as host, is well-sourced within the article. This phrasing has been quite stable in the last few months.

There is a supplemental website, and the two users are trying to imply that Molyneux "hosts" this website (which is something only computer servers do), as opposed to the actual name of the show as documented in sources (their edit summaries imply there is some confusion that could arise because people might think Freedomain Radio is an actual broadcast radio show). No sources say he is "presenter of", so this is both incorrect and unsourced material. Thanks for taking a look. --Netoholic @ 20:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The text "and host of the Freedomain Radio online broadcasts." was added here on May 15th. (I do not know when the modifier of "online broadcasts" was removed.) This description suits me fine. We do not imply that we can dial up FDR in our car or via Sirius XM Radio. The only way to listen to FDR is via the website. The recent edits which OP complains about have been an effort to find compromise and consensus. Nothing more. – S. Rich (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
S. Rich I think you offer a moot point. Unless otherwise stated there is no implication that you can tune in via Sirius xm or radio frequency. Though is not to suggest that there is an issue with mentioning that's distributed online. Netoholic could perhaps provide a diff that shows your BLP complaint?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho: The original (status quo) version is "host of Freedomain Radio". Here are the diffs: Specifico changes it to "host of the Freedomain Radio website", Srich32977 changes it to "he hosts the Freedomain Radio website show", Specifico changes it to "is the presenter of and adds Alexa ratings that are not noteworthy in any secondary source, and so are misuse of a primary source. None of these edits conform to how any sources describe the show or Molyneux role as host. "host of Freedomain Radio" is accurate and compact for the lead. The show is detailed in its own section - Stefan Molyneux#Freedomain Radio - where details are expanded upon and make it clear this is not easily confused at all with a "Sirius XM" or anything like that. These edits are meant to defame and detract, not based on any sources. --Netoholic @ 04:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
So I looked and find the change was made 5 days later here. "Quite stable in the last few months" should read "Quite stable in the last 45 days." The Rush Limbaugh Show is clearly described as a broadcast radio show. For 5 days we had clarity on the point. – S. Rich (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC) And I have suggested that "host of the Freedomain Radio online broadcasts" be accepted. – S. Rich (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd say this matter doesn't really belong here. Y'all should take it to dispute resolution. While no source says he is the presenter of, I do expect they are meaning that he is the host of said podcast. That is not well written, but I'd really have to let someone else comment if that is a BLP issue. As far as Rush Limbaugh and clarity goes, that's a separate article. To me is trivial to list or not list that information. What is the consensus on that matter? If there is no consensus at the moment consider opening an RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
You are quite right. (And I shuda' looked at the intro above that says "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.") Also, we have a recent edit that should resolve OP's concern. I suggest you close this thread. – S. Rich (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The edits are defamatory in this case because they completely misrepresent the show as being called "" when the sources all say "Freedomain Radio". The website (like many, many others related to other shows) is supplemental/archives/community. When you are taking away the name of his main brand/project, you are being defamatory. Also, the Alexa stats were added to defame the website, because it itself is not high traffic. No source mentions any significance to the site rankings of, so this is misuse of a primary source in order to defame the site. --Netoholic @ 04:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that as defamatory to Stefan. I don't see a BLP issue. I don't see any indication that the stats were added to defame the website. I personally don't feel is suited for the BLP board. Have you considered dispute resolution?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This is defamatory because it removed the primary name of his show from the lead sentence. It'd be exactly like going to Stephen Colbert and changing "host of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report" to "host of". Its ridiculous. --Netoholic @ 05:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree with that. But here's what I would like to do. I'd like to go to the talk page and see if I can find both sides of the issue and see if we can come to a compromise that meets both sides desired outcome. You can just leave this open and perhaps another may see your BLP violation. Maybe before then we can actual work this out. You really don't have anything to lose. I've already commented there.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The statements are not defamatory. They do not harm the reputation of Molyneux. Nor does describing the internet website as an "online broadcast." – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User involved in this dispute pushes the envelope even further in this edit removing the title of the website from the External Links section. While some websites like use their url as the brand name, this is not the case with Freedomain Radio. It is refered by its title/brand almost universally, both on the site itself and extensively in the sources used in the article. Edits to remove the title/brand name of the website from the article are bordering now on vandalism, especially because this editor knows this change is being discussed here and is continue to push this. --Netoholic @ 05:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Pushing the envelope is putting it on a little thick. They offered a reasonable explanation for the change. WP:BRD is a good idea sometimes. Did you ask them why they made this change by chance?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
If BRD applies, then the version of the lead sentence should be revert to the status quo from before they made the changes. They explained "why" in their edit summaries, they haven't given any rationale though. Their edits disagree with the sources, so I think its just that they don't have a rationale that fits any policy. --Netoholic @ 06:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
BRD is an accepted practice. Take a minute til you are less annoyed and take that to the talk page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I tried twice already to revert it to the status quo version, and they reverted back, which is why I'm on this page in the first place to ask for assistance. --Netoholic @ 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Again I don't see this as a BLP issue. That BLP revert exemption only applies if you are right. Do be careful. Consider using some other form of dispute resolution such as an RFC. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether its a BLP issue or a BRD issue, the article should be reverted to the status quo version ("host of Freedomain Radio"). I think its BLP, since the change is unsourced and obviously contentious. --Netoholic @ 07:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Gonzalo Lira[edit]

Anonymous IP address keeps inserting a one-sided, possibly libelous claim about a business dispute involving Lira. IP address is

The business dispute does not involve either civil or criminal courts, and appears to be a private affair. Nevertheless, the anonymous IP user keeps reinserting the disputed material. The anonymous IP address might be the person Lira is in dispute with, as they mentioned information in the dispute resolution that I opened that is not publicly available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MILH (talkcontribs) 15:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right that the material being inserted is wholly inappropriate, although it was probably a bad idea to open a mediation case over it... reporting it here would have been enough. Nevertheless, the IP has now been blocked for 72 hours. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I cannot find any secondary coverage over this. Yet. I suspect there may be some from other blogs in a couple of days which still mostly likely won't meet RS requirements. Ravensfire (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ravensfire, This dispute started in May 2013, and from what I researched, it's a dead-letter. @FreeRangeFrog, sorry, you are right, I should have reported it here, rather than open a mediation. Thank you. MILH (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

James Frenkel[edit]

Talk page discussion: Talk:James_Frenkel#.22Rumor_of_Sexual_Harassment_28_June_2013.22

There are previous discussions of this in the archive: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive180#James_Frenkel Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive181#James_Frenkel

On June 30th, Wiscon released official statements which were reviewed by lawyer, confirming that an official complaint against James Frenkel was made. I made changes to the article which were reverted without explanation as to why these were not acceptable sources.

A previous article, published on i09, was also removed. BLP says that articles with editorial review comply, but this was reverted with the complaint it was a not a primary source.

Given that we now have a primary source stating that an official report of allegations were made, which was reviewed by an attorney- greatly reducing the risk that this would fall under "libel"- in addition to a secondary source that meets the qualification an article under editorial review, I believe that the weak statement that an official complaint was made against him at the conference complies with BLP. Thanks. Lepidoptera (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, please see WP:BLPPRIMARY. And while you're there, WP:BLPCRIME will be useful too. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I did think secondary sources were preferable, but that was the reason given for why the i09 article needed to be removed.
Sexual harassment additionally is considered to be a crime in many jurisdictions, so I think that WP:BLPCRIME would inevitably be invoked to omit the content. Unless he's been convicted of it, then we can conclude it. I went through this with a similar subject, you can see it at 'Skylor Page' section. Tutelary (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The statements made don't mention sexual harassment, and as you can see I only said "a complaint" was made, and not the nature of it. Lepidoptera (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Similar notions of anything 'sexual X' whether sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct are all crimes in many jurisdictions, we should err on the side of caution to exclude in this case. Unless he's been convicted in a court of law, we can't accuse or say there were 'allegations that he did a crime' and what not. Tutelary (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, no. First, not all sexual harassment necessarily rises to the level of a criminal offense, depending on both the nature of the misconduct and the jurisdiction in which it occurred. In this particular instance, the behavior had a number of witnesses who have commented publicly; so this particular case doesn't even get stuck in the usual quagmire of he-said/she-said. Second, we regularly mention sexual harassment even when it doesn't lead to criminal charges when that misconduct leads to significant effects on an individual's life and career. (See, for instance, Anthony Wiener.)
The difference between this figure and Anthony Weiner is that Anthony Weiner is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, more specifically, a politician, and specifically excludes WP:BLPCRIME for mentioning allegations. However, BLPCRIME is a good standard to follow in this regard. I am not saying that it had risen to the degree of a crime, but WP:BLPCRIME is unambiguous on whether to state any person had been suspected of comitting a crime, sexual harassment is a crime, so we can't state that unless there's been a conviction. Tutelary (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The (self published) source cited does not state that " an official complaint against James Frenkel was made". Lepidoptera's edits have clearly also violated WP:SYN in connecting such allegations with Frenkel leaving Tor. And regardless of sourcing, per WP:BLP policy, we should not include unsubstantiated allegations in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
We can remove the connecting statement as per WP:SYN. However, the source does in fact state that an official complaint to the wiscon organizers was made. "Everyone in WisCon Safety and WisCon leadership from WisCon 37 through WisCon 39 understands that Elise made a formal report; this has never been in doubt. Her report was treated with extreme seriousness at the time, including follow-ups by Co-Chairs with both Elise and with Jim Frenkel. " Lepidoptera (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That isn't even a statement that Elise's report was about Frenkel. Not that it matters, since WP:BLP policy precludes inclusions of unsubstantiated allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. James Frenkel is a living person and a science fiction editor. The question here is whether the article about him should contain material to the effect that he left his last place of employment because of allegations of sexual harrassment that were made against him. An article by Charlie Anders on io9 states that "On a day when an editor at the U.S. version of Tor, James Frenkel, has left the company over issues involving alleged sexual harrassment (...)" Io9 is an online science fiction publication that, per its article, is professionally edited. I am therefore of the view that it is a reliable source for BLP purposes. The removal by an IP of material added by me and cited to the io9 article was therefore mistaken. I am of the view that WP:BLPCRIME does not apply because the alleged conduct at issue does not appear to have risen to the level of a criminal offense.

But the material added by Lepidoptera was correctly removed, because, apart from concerns about its reliability (being published on Livejournal and Twitter), it does not directly associate Frenkel with the harassment allegations at issue, and therefore cannot support article text to that effect.  Sandstein  20:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I would have to suggest that a comment made in passing on io9 is questionable as a source for what is a serious allegation, whether of a criminal offence or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not a comment made in passing, it's part of a normal article. It's just not the focus of the article, but that's not required.  Sandstein  21:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This is one of those cases where really 'big-name' sources are going to be hard to come by. Frankel isn't a U.S. senator or major league baseball player or Hollywood actor; CNN isn't going to pick this up. Frankel isn't even an author—fairly or not, outside the relatively close-knit world of SFF publishing and its most-devoted fans, editors like Frankel just don't get talked about. It's inside baseball. (Look at the sources for our biography of him—there's just one news column that's actually about Frankel and his work instead of mentioning him in passing, and it's from 1984. Three decades in the biz later, and he hasn't gotten another mainstream media mention.)
Given the paucity of sources, it could be argued that we shouldn't have an article about him at all, since we can't find enough independent coverage to build a proper biography. However, if we do have an article, then we have to be willing to accept material from knowledgeable people and sources from within his field, where his actions are going to be covered. If we're only going to print stuff that comes from the New York Times...then we're not actually going to be covering the topic, and we shouldn't be pretending that we do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

FGS, rumours and allegations are exceedingly rarely of encyclopedic value - whether or not they refer to a "crime" per se. Collect (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But did you want to comment on whether or not this is one of those 'exceedingly rare' situations? Stating a rule of thumb is all well and good, but have you examined this particular instance to see if it applies? This was a case with a major career impact – Frankel's long-term employment ended – and Frankel himself was a major name in his field. There's a very public complaint, and his publisher parts ways with him two weeks later; io9 connected the dots explicitly, and lots of others did so implicitly. (See, for instance, Mary Robinette Kowal's comments: Why Am I Afraid to Name the Editor? She describes the circumstances of the case, names the editor, and links to the tweets from Tor editor Patrick Nielsen Hayden indicating that Frankel was no longer employed with them. For context, MRK is a past vice-president of SFWA; she doesn't have any personal axes to grind, and would be expected to be more-than-usually aware of goings-on in the SFF community.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
So far, I do not think any case that he is one of the "exceeding rare" situations has been made. Editors get fired for many reasons -- IIRC, Tor is owned by MacMillan, and many imprints from many publishers have had changes in the past few years. And, AFAICT, that an employer fires someone does not mean there is any strong basis to the actual complaint - at most it means the publisher does not want any remotely negative publicity. Collect (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that allegations are often not of encyclopedic value, but an article subject being fired from their job is - and then we should be able to name the reasons for that if they are reliably sourced. Whether or to which extent the allegations have any basis in fact is beside the point, that has nothing to do with whether or not they should be mentioned in the article. Compare also the case of Marion Zimmer Bradley#Child sex abuse allegations, where allegations against a now-deceased SF author are relatively prominently featured in the article because of the publicity they received.

Apart from this, the argument that James Frenkel may not even be notable enough for an article appears reasonable, and this should maybe be tested by way of an AfD.  Sandstein  15:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Slender Man[edit]

The Slender Man article includes the names of two 12 year old girls who are accused of severely stabbing another child in an effort to honor the "Slender Man" internet meme. WP:BLPCRIME suggests giving "serious consideration" to not giving the names of otherwise unknown persons who have not been convicted of a crime, and in the case of accused children it is surprising that their names are so prominently given, as opposed to just mentioning that "two 12 year old girls" are so accused. Edison (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the names should be removed.  Sandstein  20:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I removed the names and commented on the talk page there. Editors who work on fictional topics may not be familiar with the importance of BLP policy, so other comments there may be useful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Some fans of fictional topics that crawl from the bottom of the Internet may simply enjoy violating the rules because they're there. If you meet a troll, careful not to put anything up its nose.
In my opinion, once you stab someone to death ("allegedly" or not), your "But I'm just a kid!" card should be revoked. Still innocent until proven guilty (or somewhere in between), but subject to the same "serious consideration" adult living persons get around here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME covers the general population (not just minors) meaning the policy would have called for removal of the the names if the accused were adults. The I'm just a kid card has nothing to do with this.-- (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so, either. But the way Edison said " the case of accused children it is surprising..." suggested he might think they're special. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, July 10, 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, even if that were the case the policy in question does not specifically deal with minors so whether or not Edison believed that is irrelevant in this case-- (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC).
Irrelevant to the policy itself. But the logical application of policies is often complicated when we think of the children. If we're omitting the names purely because they're unconvicted, that's good. If it's akin to how death tolls sometimes end in "including x children", that's bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
To avoid any confusion are you talking in general or are you suggesting that in this case that you view that Edison made a think of the children argument somehow means that BLP (which treats adults the same way) no longer applies? I would strongly disagree with the second idea because even if we acknowledge that this particular aspect of Edison's arguement was weak the policy sited supports the removal even if the think of the children argument is disregard.-- (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
In general. The "serious consideration" certainly applies here, regardless of motivation. If I have two neighbours cooking equal amounts of meth, and rat out only the one with the unlikably cut jib, she's still guilty. I'm not calling any procedural error nonsense, or attacking Edison in particular. Just a reminder to anyone reading that adults (even ones plastered on tabloids) can be precisely as innocent as anyone else. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

"Religion:none" and "Religion:atheism"[edit]

Forgive me if this issue has been discussed before (I suspect it has but can't track down specifics), but I am having a problem with new User:SocialistDemocrat100, who is insisting on changing wording in BLP infoboxes from 'Religion: none (atheist)' - or similar - to 'Religion: Atheism'. This has arisen at Heinz Fischer, Demetris Christofias, and elsewhere. My strong view is that atheism, agnosticism, etc., are not religions, and that 'Religion: none' is the appropriate wording in such cases. "The off switch on the TV is not a different channel." If I'm right, I need help in convincing the new editor, who has not responded on his talk page and keeps making the same edits (with irritatingly inaccurate edit summaries). If I'm wrong, let me know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think we should leave that parameter blank rather than "none" - "none" isn't a religion either.--ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
How some articles do it is that they put 'None (atheist) in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be delighted if the parameter were left blank. The point at issue is that the other editor is repeatedly changing 'Religion: None (atheist)' - which is OK with me - to 'Religion: Atheism' - which, to me, is patently wrong. If the consensus is that the other editor is in the wrong, I'd better take it to WP:AN/I. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Atheism is defined as denying the existence of deities, higher beings and whatnot, so you could argue that this is a religious belief of its own. "Religion: none" implies, however, that the person does not care about any sort of religion at all. So we'd better keep these two entries separated. If in doubt, leave it blank. De728631 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Any text in that field needs a solid source. The question is thus reduced to what does the source say? Unless there is a source, leave it empty. If the source says something that we don't think is a religion, the source wins. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't get to opine that people are atheists in the absence of positive information to that effect. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if a person is an atheist, that parameter should be empty (and possibly removed per Two kinds of pork below).--ukexpat (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Like any religion - Wikipedia is best served by using self-identification in any such cases. If no such self identification is made, we well ought to use the "blank" as the default. Collect (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd go one step more and remove the field when the value is blank.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
"Religion: Atheist" implies the person congregates with other atheists for the purpose of discussing atheism, which has a slightly different context than "Religion: none (atheist)" Kind of like in politics when someone says they're independent vs. in the American Independent Party. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Given that there's no such thing as a reliable source for what goes on in X's head, the only meaning that can be reasonably ascribed is that of congregation or outwardly stated beliefs. To my thinking only direct statements of the "I think Z" type should suffice, but I doubt that will find consensus. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
We must do what sources tell us, but it is very unlikely that a source will tell us somebody's religion is atheism.
There may be a field in the infobox, but we don't always have to fill every field. Shabratha (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll take the words out at Heinz Fischer and elsewhere, see what happens, and report back.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There is the slight issue that "religion: none" by itself could include non-religious theism or deism. With just "religion: none," Ben Franklin and Richard Dawkins would be classified as the same irreligion despite having completely opposite views towards religion and theism. Theism =/= religion, as evidenced by Buddhism, Jainism, and Raëlism. Atheism =/= irreligion.
Religion fields should not be incorporated unless there are good sources documenting a particular label. "I have no religion" would be "religion: none," while "I am an atheist" would indeed be "religion: atheism." "Beliefs about religion" would be a more accurate title for the field, but it's also too long for such a field. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Atheism is not a religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
But irreligion is not inherently atheism, and atheism is not always irreligious. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, atheism is not a religion, making your earlier suggestion that "I am an atheist" would justify "religion: atheism" in the infobox incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine, how about "Religion: none (atheist)"...? Or do you have an actual solution? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"Religion: none" is more than sufficient. GiantSnowman 19:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This line of arguing suggests that we should change "Religion" in the infobox to "Belief system:" or something that "atheism" would fit into, and where "none" (in which the people has specifically stated they do not hold any beliefs) would fit as well. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We go with that the RS say, as always. GiantSnowman 19:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:CAT/R, we go by self-identification alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
As sort of indicated above, some religions can be described as atheistic, which can complicate things here. New Atheism, Strong agnosticism; and Weak agnosticism complicates things even further. Personally, in these cases, I think it makes sense to leave it blank or "none declared" without an unambiguous declaration from the subject. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The other, seemingly undiscussed issue is whether a subject's religion, or lack thereof, is relevant to why that person has an article. In the vast majority of cases, it's no more relevant than the colour of their eyes, and should be omitted. HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Its undiscussed because because that is idiotic. I am a deletionist, minimalist, but any well written bio would include mention of how a person was "raised" and religious affliations, ect. We are not saying that their religion is why they are notable unless that is the case. --Malerooster (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, for better or worse, up until the last 150 years or so, it was in many or most areas a topic related to sometimes extreme divisionsin society. And didn't end there. In Nazi Germany, Cristero War Mexico, the Soviet Union, and elsewhere, one's religius beliefs and affiliations had major impact, although, admittedly not so much in the West since WW II. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That's true Johne. Maybe my "vast majority" descriptor was a bit off beam. Unfortunately however, our recentism problem means that we have a huge number of articles on recent sports stars and filme and media personalities. Religion is irrelevant for most of them. In my country, Australia, religion is irrelevant for most people. And Malerooster, while religion may be part of a bio for a lot of (but certainly not all) people, where it's not a major factor in why we have an article on them, it shouldn't be in the Infobox. That's for important stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, I would say that in 99%+ of bios, religion in NOT the reason for having an article or the reason for the subject's notability. That said, we still include it in most well written bios because it does have biographical relevance unlike eye color as the example you used, especially for, say, US Presidents. Should famous tennis players or actors have it included? I would defer to editors or writers of biograpghys. A certain editor, not to be named, has "jammed" the factoid that subjects are Jewish, into every bio of Jewish athletes. Its done in a really, awkward, no context fasion, and is quite annoying, but it continues. In those cases, I agree that it shouldn't be include, since it seems gratuitous(sp). Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm from Australia. Religion here is now a pretty low key thing for most people, even for most of the claimed 7% who attend church regularly. I understand about US Presidents. The claims of Obama being an evil Muslim even reach here. And that our present PM once trained for the Catholic priesthood does get brought up. But most Australians wouldn't be able to tell you the religions of our past several PMs. Yes, religion goes in a good biography if it was a big part of a person growing up, but rarely in the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Adrian Rollins[edit]

Good day, I hope that this finds you well.

My name is Adrian Rollins (the actual Adrian Rollins who is referenced in this page!) and I was very disappointed to find out from a friend that my Wiki page has been tampered with by a "Faren Price". I have now re-edited the article and have made the adjustments that actually match who I am. On my page it said that: 1. I died yesterday; 2. I am know by an alias (Big Faz). The concern is if one of my family members had seen this (I do not live close to my family and present and such information appearing on Wikipedia could cause major distress).

Please can you not allow ANYBODY to edit this page apart from me? I do not feel that it is fair or just to put misinformation on a website, particularly regarding my mortality!

All the best

Adrian Rollins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianrollins (talkcontribs) 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Just silly vandalism unfortunately, I have warned the user and if they continue they will be blocked from editing. Unfortunately we cannot protect the article so that only you can edit it. GiantSnowman 17:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Craig Wolff[edit]

I am the author and journalist, Craig Wolff.

My age, as it shows up in the Wiki bio box when my name is Googled, is wrong. Can my age be corrected, or better, deleted? I've noticed that many other author pages and the like do not provide an age.

Thank you. Craig Wolff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonahrosa (talkcontribs) 22:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't now where Google got the year from, but it wasn't us. The year on Google doesn't appear to have ever been in the article Craig Wolff. I notice that article has been edited by the accounts Jonahrosa5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Jrosa9501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who have similar names to your current account. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol move vote.svg Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong.--ukexpat (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted the DOB since A) it is unsourced and B) the request made here is a reasonable one, and I see no reason not to AGF that the requester is the BLP subject.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Avigdor Lieberman[edit]

I would like to direct the attention of editors to Talk:Avigdor Lieberman#Allegations of Anti-Arabism section for a discussion about a section in subject's bio with some BLP concerns. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Adam Kuhn (politician) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Request review of whether GNG is met for (primarily) one event / negative coverage. Dru of Id (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a clear WP:BLP1E to me, even calling him a "politician" looks dubious. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kuhn (politician).--ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


POOR AND RUDE EDIT ABOUT EVA MENDES BOYFRIEND AND ABOUT HER PREGNANCY — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like relatively ordinary (alas) vandalism at Eva Mendes. I've rolled back to an earlier version. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Wayne[edit]

A user on the talk page of this article claims to be the subject and that there is incorrect information. How should we proceed? (ping to George Ho) Magog the Ogre (t c) 01:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If this counts as a reliable source, it confirms the year and birthplace. I've trusted the talk page poster on the birthday, just for completeness. It could be wrong, but doesn't seem like a major error, if it is at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Korotangi Paki[edit]

Korotangi Paki, the non-notable teenage son of Tuheitia Paki, has recently been taken to Court for allegedly being, basically, a teenage arsehole, and was discharged without conviction. A number of editors have been trying to insert more or less slanted commentary about the alleged incident into various articles (sample here [22]) including Tuheitia Paki and Māori King Movement. There have been discussions here [23] and here [24] about this matter, with at least a majority of users not supporting mention of this alleged incident, but eyes of experienced outside editors would be welcomed. Thanks. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I would argue that this definitely merits inclusion, since the defense argued that a conviction would make it difficult for the guy to succeed his daddy. Now of course the way the material by IPs and SPAs was added was completely inappropriate, but that doesn't mean it should not be included. I'd say it's very much relevant. Not sure what other BLPN regulars think. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Or come to think of it, it would be much more very relevant at Māori King Movement. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Succession in this line is by consensus at the tangi (multi-day funeral event). Historically succession has been from among the incumbents children. It's unclear how much weight a QC's voice will have in this matter. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi the page is messed up.

Seth Rollins

Looks like half the page is missing compares to the previous version

the ladder match earlier that night. Jacobs announced that the three had formed a stable called The Age of the Fall. The angle was so controversial that ROH decided to rem Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).

I dont want to edit it as it seems there have been problems there so better I let you know.

You didn't even have to tell us, a machine already dealt with it. Welcome to tomorrow, eh?
These things happen now and then. Maybe vandals, maybe just human error. If you see anything like it again, check the history and undo whichever crazy large red number you see. Should clear it up, if the robo-maid hasn't gotten to it first. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Norman Golb[edit]

Norman Golb (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Certain academics, one of whom was involved in the prosecution of Norman Golb's son in New York (and the charges pertaining to that individual have now been dismissed by an appellate court), have been repeatedly inserting a biased description of this case into the article, the visible aim being to smear Norman Golb.

Editors should note that there is no proof Professor Golb knew his son had "impersonated" any academics. They should also note that the other contributors are either friends or sockpuppets of the academic who originally inserted the paragraph.

The junk that is being repeatedly inserted relies on suppositions about the intent of Norman Golb's son and on a previous smear campaign purveyed in certain newspapers. It should be removed from this article ASAP.

I repeat, it was originally inserted by one of the parties involved in the Raphael Golb prosecution. The appeal of the case, incidentally, is still pending, as can be seen from the documentation posted at the website devoted to it.[25]

The moral consequences for Wikipedia are enormous, particularly should the remaining charges ultimately be dismissed by a higher appellate court (and, just my opinion: judging from the appellate briefs, there is no reason to believe they will not be dismissed).

In view of the paragraph's repeated insertion into the article, I have done my best to make it more neutral, but it should be deleted in its entirety and the article should be blocked in a form without it. If Norman Golb's adversaries wish to use his son's legal problems to smear the father on Wikipedia, they should simply create a Wikipedia page on the Raphael Golb prosecution.

On the George W. Bush page, for example, there is not a single word about the arrest of the former president's daughter. If the policy of these contributors is followed, biographical articles will regularly become weapons in smear campaigns. No encyclopedia would follow such a policy, and Wikipedia should take steps to ensure it is not followed in this instance. Polo244 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, Polo244, and have removed the two paragraphs about his son's legal problems. I encourage other editors to put this BLP on their watch lists. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Cullen I don't think that removal of the entire text is warranted. It seems that Golb's son did what he did in connection with a dispute that Golb had with other historians, so a short mention of this should be included. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I see total take down from the life story as a good action - I removed Cwobeel's story - I really do not agree with his use of a fifteen month old legal doc primary pdf to add content to the story here Mosfetfaser (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Skorek[edit]

This article, Adam Skorek, needs attention. NPOV is not respected. Despite the number of sources, most of them are misused, not linking directly to appropriate content and some of them are questionnable (mostly primary sources), greatly reducing verifiability. It seems its french counterpart was deleted a few years ago for the same reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a little copy editing, but needs much more help than I can provide. Maybe others can help. Thank you for the heads up. --Malerooster (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Charles Ryskamp - Notable people from XXX[edit]

Do we have guidance for determining who gets listed in the Notable People sections of articles about locations?

My question is motivated by a small dispute over Charles Ryskamp. Should he be listed in East Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he was born, or in List of people from Grand Rapids, Michigan where he may have lived much of his life, or both?

Does living in a town because you attended college there count? (E,g, Wayne Huizenga)

Do we have any guidance on how long someone has to live somewhere to count as having lived there?

The Grand Rapids list specifically cites "born or lived in Grand Rapids". If the criteria is silent, as it is in East Grand Rapids, Michigan, do we presume only born there, or can a person be included if they lived there?

In cases where the presumption is that one should be in a list if they are born there, how literally do we mean it? In my personal case, not that I have any chance of being notable, I was born in a different town and state than I grew up, simply because the town where I grew up was too small to have a hospital. I think it should be OK to use the parents hometown, even if the hospital is elsewhere, but even that might be an issue if, for example, someone were pregnant, unable to get home, and had a child far from "home". I'm sure this has come up before, do we have guidance?

(I am aware the subject of this article is dead, so technically, I'm in the wrong place, but I bet this is the group of people that know the answers.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm always in favour of using the birthplace, just because it's constant. A guy born in Kalamazoo can travel the world, laying his head on many pillows and influencing many people. When all these people start claiming he's from there, the mayor of Kalamazoo can say he merely went there from here. You can't say that about Kalamazoo, without knowing the mysteries of life before birth. And if you knew those, you wouldn't be wondering about this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, July 11, 2014 (UTC)