Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Justine Tunney

This article appears to give undue weight to 2 articles, one from Valleywag and one from The Daily Beast, as the basis as a hit piece against this person. Valleywag in particular is a tabloid. I think the claims about this person, such as them being a fascist and they support slavery, obviously violate BLP and I question whether they represent a mainstream view supported by other sources. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justine_Tunney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.93.231 (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, pretty clear WP:BLPSOURCES violation - we don't cite admitted gossip rags for highly controversial information about living persons. Valleywag is a tabloid, and the Daily Beast piece is an opinion piece, and Tunney herself writes that she does not hold those views. I'd prefer not to be the one to zap it myself (never met her, but distantly work together), but will, per WP:IAR, if no one else will. --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What you're missing is that Valleywag is not the only source - Valleywag is merely quoting and commenting on Tunney's own words, so Tunney's own words are also a source for the article. Please desist from further editing of the article due to your obvious COI - it is not acceptable to edit an article about a coworker.--greenrd (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Twitter is not a WP:Reliable source either to my knowledge. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You're seriously arguing that Twitter cannot be used as a source for what someone said on Twitter? You may want to run that argument past yourself one more time - and then read Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources.--greenrd (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would "seriously argue" that using Twitter is rarely proper in BLPs at best. It can only be used per WP:BLP for an extremely narrow range of claims which are not contentious. One major problem is the one of "lack of context" which can easily creep in the 140 character snippets. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFSOURCE, Twitter can be used if its use meets the five specified conditions. The IP from 72.89 was incorrect in stating that it doesn't meet WP:RS in general. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If you read the material, the claims did not fall under the very limited exceptions allowed. I had thought this was clear to everyone here. Collect (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP mess at best, and hit piece at worst. I removed some of the worst parts (I note McInnes is covered by BLP and the claims about McInnes are poorly sourced for their contentious claims). Collect (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Chris Alexander (editor)

Chris Alexander (editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm trying to remove some unsourced information about so called pen names that Chris Alexander uses. There is no evidence to support this (outside of Chris getting caught using the Ben Cortman name to promote his own movie in Fangoria. He then posted that sentence on his own wiki page to make it seem people knew he used that particular name all along to minimize the damage that was done) and it seems Chris himself keeps undoing my edits. It gets to the point where the page gets locked (conveniently right after Chris gets the last edit in). It was suggested to me to post on the talk page but since Chris' friends Tokyogirl79 and Ninjarobotpirate are the only ones to post there I know it will be a kangaroo court which is why I'm posting here to be more fair. The wikipedia states that unsourced information may be challenged or removed which is what I'm doing. But it seems Chris undoes my edit and then his friend ninjarobotprate asks for the page to be locked after Chris gets the last edit in. I always thought the wikipedia was about sourced and cited information not unsourced sentences posted by the particular individual himself as a PR move.64.230.233.209 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected, and will add to my watchlist. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy (2)

There is a new dispute over this proposed addition to the page, which has been contested under BLP due to the language used in the sources but at present not on Wikipedia itself. The sources cited are TechCrunch and SpinMedia's Death and Taxes. This is, from what I have gathered in arguing with editors on the talk page, due to the negative coverage received by one party in the event and the interpretation of what was called a "bribe" in the Death and Taxes source as an accusation of criminal conduct. Discussion on the article's talk page can be found at Talk:Gamergate controversy#Anil Dash-Cernovich paragraph.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Unproven criminal allegations against somebody or saying that they 'bullied' someone else is absolutely a BLP violation, full stop. Note that Ryulong, North, myself, TDA, TarainDC, Tarc, The Red Pen, Maseam are all involved in this and what we're looking for is uninvolved thoughts on it. I will try to keep my responses to a minimal. Tutelary (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And my response to this is that there are no criminal allegations being made (describing something as a "bribe" is not alleging criminal misconduct) and "bullying" is used by the sources in question.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Though Bribing is described as a crime in many jurisdictions and the fact that only a single person casting another allegation at another single person is making the article is unacceptable for BLP. 'Bullying' is also designated as a crime against someone in some US states, and is a negative connotation overall for such few sources discussing it. (Again, trying to be minimal, I'd rather uninvolved editors comment about this.) Tutelary (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a vast stretch and you know it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There's simply no argument for calling a very public offer to make a donation in return for a statement of support a 'bribe' in the criminal sense. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like clear libel/slander regardless if "bribes" are actually illegal or not. Those pieces are extremely mean and not really something that would be found in a truly reliable source. Also, how can someone describe a donation to domestic violence prevention charities as a "bribe"? Those sources violate all journalistic integrity and posting them on Wikipedia violate all of our behavioral rules. This is shameful behavior. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"deathandtaxes" is own by SpinMedia, a self-professed blog network and is not a reliable source. That TechCrunch piece is also published in a blog format without editorial control and is not a reliable source. No wonder they contain such hateful and nasty allegations that could get people sued. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You are the one making strong allegations here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It is clear from the talk page discussion that you were in the minority and in violation of our behavioral policy. Then you went here and got the same response. I asked that someone bring you up at ANI so you can be blocked. You crossed the line and your attempt to remove my post is an admittance that you know you are in the wrong. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The talk page discussion is split down the middle which is why it's being brought up here for discussion from uninvolved parties. And I'm not sure who you are to be making these claims. Log in with your account instead of "hiding" while logged out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Harassing other people until they agree with you is more proof that you need a time out from this site. You are clearly wrong and no amount of attacking those who point that out will change it. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Death and Taxes is not a self-published source: [1]. WP:BLPCRIME is irrelevant as the source is not accusing anybody of criminal conduct in the sense of anything actionable in a court of law. Andreas JN466 20:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In the first source (TechCrunch) Mike Cernovich is not even mentioned in any case. And I thought I saw a single mention in a link to another article (storify) but is not on the site but does explicitly mention Mike. But it's self published unambiguously. (Storify is, not TechCrunch) So that's original research from to connect him to it in TechCrunch because he's not mentioned explicitly in their article, and the scrutiny of BLP is absolutely not in favor of using that source that doesn't even make mention of him explicitly a violation of BLP. Then we're down to one source. Death and Taxes Magazine. I decided to dig a bit further to the 'about' sections which redirected to SpinMedia attempting to find editorial control, so I just read their terms instead. What it states The site which you linked from (the “Site”) provides a photo and video hosting/blogging service, amongst other things, to you (the “Service(s)”), subject to the following Terms of Service (“TOS”), which may be updated from time to time without notice to you. They blatantly also state they don't control the content. We do not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, do not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. (under user conduct) So Death and Taxes is self published and is in effect not a reliable source. Combine this with the fact that Bullying is a crime in several states, Harassment is in all 50, and Bribery is a crime when only one self published source describes anything about it is a full triple whammy in terms of BLP violations. It's not acceptable. - This is verbatim what I posted in order to prove that Death and Taxes is a self published source. When their own ToS says they don't control content, that's 100% an indicator of them being a self published source. Tutelary (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You're conflating Spin's terms of use at a different URL with those of DT, which is run by its own LLC company. Andreas JN466 21:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

When the main site tells you that they don't have any control of content, that's not a good sign. 'About' of Death and Taxes just is full of promotional aspects whereas the ToS of the major operating entity telling you they don't control content applies dual heartedly to Death and Taxes, since they're an active member of SpinMedia. Tutelary (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

SpinMedia giving up liability to blogs on its service does not say anything about one particular blog.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"Death and Taxes is a member of Spin Music, a division of SpinMedia" It is not run by itself but is a division. There are only 4 bloggers on that site. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That's very easily demonstrated to be false. The http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/ front page alone currently shows articles by 1. Alex Moore, 2. Robyn Pennacchia, 3. Joe Veix, 4. Maggie Serota, 5. Brian Abrams, 6. Ethan Fixell, 7. Joel Freimark. Andreas JN466 01:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

[2] Is "BusinessInsider" a person now? They copied articles on other sites but they have 4 in house people according to their contact page. A simple scroll through the "news" feed shows that this site is no legitimate newspaper. 173.153.11.123 (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I count BusinessInsider? No. So you're not making any point here. The fact that Death and Taxes Media, LLC is a subsidiary of SpinMedia makes no difference to the fact that it is its own company with its own liability. You can sue them. Andreas JN466 02:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Death and taxes is still a blog on a blog site, which is talked about on BLP. Others see it as accusing people of a crime. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Those people might be wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

DT actually used to be a print magazine that converted to online only. It's run by a limited liability media company with paid staff, and thus is not a self-published source. That's all. Andreas JN466 20:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You must be confused. "Death and Taxes is a member of Spin Music, a division of SpinMedia". Tutelary already showed that they are a blog. 21:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Death and Taxes is a former print magazine that is now hosted by SpinMedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If that was true, it would be on their site. It is not. [3] Notice the lack of "news" in that site. [4] The site is owned by SpinMedia's current CEO. It was his pet blog. [5] This one calls it a lifestyle site. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any of this actually discredits D+T as you think it does.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid the confusion is all yours: [6] Death and Taxes is leading website for new music, politics and popular culture, as well as a lifestyle and events marketing firm. Originally founded as a print magazine in 2008, Death and Taxes relaunched on the web in 2010 and draws over 1.5 million unique readers every month. There's a write-up of the print magazine here. Note the proprietary logo used both on the print mag and the website. Andreas JN466 01:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• This needs attention by editors uninvolved with Gamergate controversy. Dreadstar ☥ 18:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This topic is far too convoluted to follow. As best I can figure out, some guy got pissed at his ex-girlfriend, posted some sh*t about her online , and now there's this huge flame war. After that, things get really confusing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I just tried to upvote the last comment but I realized I'm on the wrong website. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I can't figure out what the whole Gamergate controversy is, but I did some quick research on this, and I've reviewed the proposed text and sources. First, I think there are some serious WP:WEIGHT and tone issues including this much material about Mike Cernovich's dubious behavior here. The claim seems to be fairly true, Cernovich made some ridiculous demands of Anil Dash and has in general been acting like a jerk over Gamergate, which seems to fit into a pattern of his making ridiculous and offensive public statements in social media. But the most substantial source, Techcrunch, sees the whole incident as worth only a short paragraph, without mentioning Cernovich by name. In fact, there are no major mentions of Cernovich to speak of in the sources, he is a more or less completely non-notable person outside of social media flame sites. It would be weird if Wikipedia devoted more verbiage to this relatively minor incident than all of the major sources put together. At best, it's worth a sentence or so mentioning that Anil Dash got dragged into the controversy by somebody demanding that he take a side. No need to mention this one particular character unless additional sources come up to demonstrate its importance. Technically, what he demanded is not a bribe, nor is the accusation that it was a significant enough issue to repeat. I don't see that Cernovich has a plausible BLP interest in denying his behavior, if he's going to send out offensive tweets, and sources call him on it, but for one thing: we're escalating a very minor fact about a non-notable person into article content. Even if the claim is solidly sourced to reliable sources here, I do see a slight BLP concern (and to the extent it is a concern, it solidly suggests not mentioning him by name). - Wikidemon (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  So it might be okay to say Dash was involved after being harassed on social media for no identifiable reason (and perhaps attributing the involvement to Internet trolling taking over GamerGate) but not mentioning who was bothering him by name? This rings similarly to the prior dispute on BLP on the page where Wikipedia did not refer to people by name (or even their online pseudonyms) but BLP was still claimed for the content's removal. What is your thought on that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jian_Ghomeshi

Jian Ghomeshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am Suanne Kelman, former Interim Chair of the School of Journalism at Ryerson University, now retired. The photo was taken on January 27, 2010, when I interviewed Mr. Ghomeshi for a lecture series sponsored by the Dean of the Faculty of Communication and Design. I do not think that publishing it connects me to the scandal -- it is clearly an interview in a public forum. So please relax, guys. I am not losing sleep over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suanne Kelman (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. Kelman. I linked this section from what seems to be the appropriate section of that talk page, they should be aware now. --GRuban (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Terry Buck

Terry Buck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Terry Buck was an icon of Australian swimming as a former Olympian and a long-time coach of a string of successful Aussie swimmers in international competition. The current article is dominated by allegations of sexual molestation, never proven, but publicly made by one named accuser. The present article text has been stable for over a year. The present text regarding the allegations strikes me as disproportionate -- I would be grateful if several WP:BLP participants would review the present article text in light of our BLP policy and guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Text removed by Cwobeel.--Auric talk 20:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark Udall

Mark Udall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Factchecker atyourservice and CFredkin are re-inserting this text in the BLP for Mark Udall:

In February 2014, Udall's campaign received a lien from the state of Colorado for failure to pay unemployment insurance.

References

The source is reporting this:

Republicans had a field day today with news that U.S. Sen. Mark Udall’s campaign was hit with a tax lien for failing to pay unemployment insurance to the state of Colorado. The Denver Business Journal reported that Mark Udall for Colorado Inc. owed $458. The lien was filed on Feb. 4, recorded on Feb. 10 and lifted on Valentine’s Day [ed. February 14], according to the campaign/

I have asked them to leave removed per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, as I believe this material is irrelevant/UNDUE to Udall’s bio, to no avail. I’d appreciate comments from uninvolved editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I restored the material exactly once after seeing it removed on a seemingly inapt policy rationale. You never mentioned anything about DUE; that explanation was supplied by another editor after the fact. That other editor removed the material again and I didn't revert, so perhaps this filing is just a teensy bit premature? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Cwobeel, including or excluding this is clearly an editorial judgment call: while the $458 tax lien strikes me as trivia, it is also factually accurate and supported by a reliable source. This is an ordinary content dispute (and a pretty darn minor one at that), and invoking BLP policy and BLPREQUESTRESTORE to remove it is swatting gnats with a pneumatic sledgehammer. I would gladly express my opinion that this is a trivial matter unworthy of inclusion, and leave it to an ordinary article talk page consensus to determine. If, contrary to my personal judgment, however, this has received significant coverage in Colorado or national media, I would change my position and defer to its apparent significance in the media. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I will keep swatting gnats with a pneumatic sledgehammer as one darn good metaphor. Sometime things get silly in silly season :) - Cwobeel (talk)

Jean McSorley

Jean McSorley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I stumbled across a misplaced complaint apparently signed by the subject of this article. I've moved the complaint to the talk page, but haven't attempted to answer it. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've responded. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson

JamesMLane has re-added material which is a BLP violation. He is using Crooks and Liars as a source to basically claim that Attkisson is a liar. Arzel (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the information. Clearly not reliable sources for those claims. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Another manufactured controversy! I am so surprised! Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Arzel (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

nik wallenda

Nik Wallenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are comments on Nik's character that are pure opinion and potential libelous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.4.10.37 (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed such stuff as names of minor children and excess infobox detail Collect (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

jojo binay

You would see in this page Jejomar Binay

Content has always been maliciously edited for example entering

"Jesus Christ Darth Vader Binay" word like "Roman Catholic Ejaculation"

These and other words has constantly ben inputed in the page to destroy the character of the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES.

I in my personal capacity will now try to remedy these misrepresentations.

Please consider.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpjojobinay (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Done: Vandalizing edits have been reversed by other users and the user responsible has been blocked by Edgar181.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• On a side note, I have blocked this user for having a username identical to the Vice President himself but I am fully willing to unblock him if he agrees to change his username. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Pictures for Sad Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP user repeatedly re-instating a self-published source and asserting otherwise unverified and potentially contentious information about the author of the comic. Special:diff/632091627 - 1Rabid Monkey (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Done: Reverted the edit, notified the IP user and added the page to my watchlist. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeon-mi Park

I was just approached via e-mail by a concerned editor about the article for Yeon-mi Park, who defected from North Korea. The concerns were basically that the article's criticism section is mainly concerned with who is listed as criticizing Park in the section, as few of the sources would be considered reliable sources. Only two, an article by The Diplomat and an article in The Korea Observer are even remotely usable. The others largely don't mention Park at all and are pretty much used to back up soapboxing and OR. The only other links that mention here are by a SPS, The Peace Wager. Basically what the editor stated to me is that they can't see where the criticisms section even really needs to exist in the article and I'm inclined to agree with them. Unless there are other RS out there, I think that this could probably be a 1-2 sentence statement somewhere in the article but not a whole section.

The reason I'm bringing it here is because I'm somewhat expecting an edit war over this and I'd like to have some people who are deeply familiar with the whole BLP thing watching the article, editing it, and contributing to any discussion over it on the article's talk page. It just seems that whenever we have a page about a defector from North Korea or China, there tends to be edit warring over the article to some degree and deep concerns over potential BLP issues, in this case one person using it as a soapbox for his viewpoints. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This whole article has so many issues with it I'm not even sure where to begin with the editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• This edit seems to be usable and has some decent enough sources that I notice were pretty heavily removed by later edits by an IP. If no one objects, I'm going to semi protect the page to prevent IPs and very new accounts from editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I've reverted it, but even then this still needs editing because it's still non neutral, only this time to be Park positive rather than negative. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm writing to say that it looks like there is still great cause for concern on the article, as we're getting accusations of censorship thrown around because we aren't including a specific person's work. I have school and it's getting busy so I can't give it the surveillance it needs now- plus I'm not as BLP savvy as others. I can check in occasionally but it REALLY needs constant monitoring from someone who is familiar with overall BLP issues and such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Ian Moulvi

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

---

Christopher Ian Moulvi (born 1993) is a British Entrepreneur & Businessman.

Born in Hastings, East Sussex he is the only son of Mark Munir Moulvi a Multimillion pound UK businessman and property developer.

Christopher is the Founder & CEO of Moulvi Industries Founded in 2014, is a forwarding thinking and robust Software Development & Marketing Company.

Founded to help B2B & B2C be able to have a presence on the World Wide Web and to also help them marketing themselves via today’s modern standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.46.122 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Andrew P. Thomas, Prosecutor

Andrew_Thomas_(prosecutor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the subject of this Wikipedia entry. My repeated efforts to resolve these disputes with the apparent lead editor, FearofReprisal, have been unsuccessful. My request for mediation was denied, and I have been referred to this page. I am a novice and am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's procedures, and so have done my best throughout this process to file complaints and seek redress. While the article has been improved from the state in which I found it, it remains replete with bias. In my communications with him on the Talk page, FearofReprisal has admitted bias, and the article and his comments on the Talk page reflect this. The article as it now stands violates Wikipedia's policies against bias, the combating of which I understand to be a high priority of Wikipedia and its executive director.

The bias falls into two main categories: (1) suppression of any and all information that challenges the legitimacy of the actions taken against my law license, even though many independent and reputable parties, including some of my critics, questioned those events (I have provided related citations); and (2) Wikipedia's disparate treatment of my disbarment and related issues and the same events in the life of President William J. Clinton. The bias appears to be both personal and political in nature.

The Talk page on my Wikipedia article lays out 39 specific disputes over content and bias. FearofReprisal refuses to address substantively my proposed changes and concerns relating to bias, and gives no timetable for addressing them.

As throughout this process, I would appreciate guidance and assistance in resolving these matters. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait -- you want to be treated the same way as a US president?? Also: when you post criticism of another editor, you're supposed to let them know. So: @Fearofreprisal:. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion in talk page was for Andrew Thomas to identify the top five issues that he wants assessed for NPOV, as we will be hard pressed to respond to the thirty-nine edit requests he has made. Five at a time may be doable and allow editors interested to participate. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Royalslongbeach1 didn't mention that it was I who actually referred him here.
• Royalslongbeach1 (AKA Thomas is a politician), and his motives here are, by all appearances, political. It's not bad - it's just something to be aware of.
• So far, I've made 26 article edits in response to his requests, none of which he has complained about (but none of which he gives me credit for here.)
• Of his "39 specific disputes over content and bias," only 4 seemed to be about actual inaccuracies in existing article content -- and I've already dealt with those. The rest seem to be largely where he doesn't like what the article (and the citations) say.
• Because of the mass of his requests, I've offered to deal with each one at a time: "I'm willing to discuss inaccuracies, one at a time. As soon as you say all the inaccuracies are dealt with, I'm willing to discuss bias issues, one at a time." I think this is the only way to be sure that each and every concern of his gets a fair hearing, and proper consideration. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The main real issue appears to be one of undue weight - like far too many BLPs, this one would be vastly improved by reducing its length by half or more - the current version is unreadable, repetitive, and contains trivia where broader statements properly sourced would create a much better biography of a living person. Collect (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. My goal was to *first* correct any inaccuracies and bias problems, before tackling the task of tightening up the article. But, if someone else wants to do it now, I'm all for it. The thing is -- it actually takes some careful research and thought to do right. What do you include or exclude? MACE, Court Tower, RICO, DOJ? The list goes on and on. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree for the need to reduce the length of the article. If you take the time to read it, you will see that the material covered is wide ranging given his profile and the actions he undertook. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually found the article very informative and quite readable. Of course, there is always room for improvement. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel - thanks for cleaning up some of the article content, and adding a bit of rigor to the talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Side issue: shouldn't the article be moved to Andrew Thomas (politician)? --ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I'll move the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As I stated above, please note I'm a novice and am trying to navigate this process in Wikipedia, which for outsiders is not easy. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point other than to try to respond to some of the comments made above.

Unlike President Clinton, I was not, of course, twice elected president of the United States. However, I was twice elected to run the fourth largest prosecutor's office in the country. In that position, I arguably had more impact on national policy (i.e., immigration) than any other elected district attorney, before or since. The current entry is very one-sided, especially when compared to Wikipedia's very favorable treatment of President Clinton and his two terms in office. He spent his second term embroiled in scandals (the fairness of which I set aside). He had many fights with the Republican-led Congress, was impeached, and ultimately was disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court and all-but-disbarred by the Arkansas Supreme Court. These are not irrelevant points. President Clinton is a Yale Law graduate; his first job was as a law professor in Arkansas; his first elected office was attorney general of Arkansas, the first step on his eventual rise to the White House.

On the Talk page, FearofReprisal at one point acknowledged Clinton's disbarment, like mine, was a "footnote" to his legacy. Wikipedia treats Clinton's disbarment that way but not mine.

I have not seen any response to my other central point. Any and all information about the fairness of the proceedings surrounding my disbarment--a highly politicized and unusual process which was criticized by many independent and reputable authorities, including my political detractors at the Arizona Republic--has been systematically and completely omitted from the entry. That is like failing to mention the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives was controlled by Republicans when its majority impeached President Clinton.

Regarding inaccuracies, the remaining disputes I have regarding my entry are either based on bias or claims inextricably intertwined with bias. Particularly when contrasted with the Clinton entry, the bias is self-evident and in conflict with Wikipedia's policies. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done All your edits requests have been evaluated and responded in talk page. Please respond there as there are still a few edit requests that require your input. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to add a critical section of him into this article by starting with this text: "The philosopher Stephen Law debated William Lane Craig in 2011 and was suggesting that one can use parallel versions of Craig's arguments to prove the existence of an evil God. In a follow up debate, Law alleges that Craig repeatedly misrepresented Law's position by suggesting that Law's objection relies on a presumption that Christians conclude God's perfect goodness is obvious from evidence in the world when Law's argument only relies on the theist accepting that God is good, not necessarily perfectly good, and that theists conclude God's goodness from facts about the world, not that they conclude his perfect goodness from those facts. Law states that Craig has repeatedly misrepresented numerous parts of his argument." With source http://stephenlaw.blogspot.kr/2011/11/craigs-website-response-re-our-debate.html . I know that's only a blog, but I think it's acceptable because it is clear that this is Stephen Law's blog and when that's the only source where he expressed critisim of Craig that should be ok as reference. There is absolutly no critism in Crag's article and if the only critisism is made in the blogs of the people he debated, then how in the world could anyone have a neutral point of view and incorporate some critisism? What if Einstein had posted his theories in his blog? Would that also not count as a source? It's ridiculous if you can only use none blog sources if the content you need is only expressed in blogs. Otherwise I could write a critic section with this source http://infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html by the Internet InfidelsBut I'm not sure the "owners" of the article will accept it and revert every edit I make.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you notify other parties, such as @TheRedPenOfDoom:, @Bill the Cat 7:, and @TMDrew: when you started this BLP/N? Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not really a part of the discussion, but I don't see any reason why a BLP MUST have a "Criticism" section in order to be neutral. Most BLPs I've encountered don't have such sections. Based on what he has said on the Talk Page, it seems to me that Lexikon-Duff is an angry atheist who really just wants to say that WLC is simply a jerk. And in many blogs, that's exactly what you'll find (except more colorful language is used). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If the only criticism is in the blogs of people he debated, then why should we consider that criticism significant? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

While a good article will put a thinker's thoughts in context of what others have thought of them (how is that for language mangling!), we certainly do not go to blogs to find such context, particularly in an article about a living person. Since posting here, the OP has suggested RELIGIOUS STUDIES in 1992 (Volume 28, pp. 347-350), on the Craig article talk page and such a source is a much better platform to begin discussing how to put Craig's thoughts into the context of modern religious belief. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Because the critisism is from people like Stephen Law (and not some random guy) for example, @Bill the Cat: It seems like you are an angry theist who really just wants to block critisism of Craig.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Just in case you will miss it, I'll repeat it here: Here is another source which was published: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html in Journal of Higher Criticism 8:2 (Fall 2001), pp. 251-93. Here is another source http://infidels.org/library/modern/arnold_guminski/kalam.html published in the Fall-Winter 2002 issue of Philo (Vol. 5, pp. 196-215) Here is one: http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/reply.html Published in "Reply To Professor Craig", Sophia 34, 2, December 1995, pp.15-29] I bet there are others, I will gather them. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to seperate this from the other comments I gathered all the critical and published sources that were referred to on this infidel site:

• Why I Am Not a Christian (2000), Keith M. Parsons, Atlanta Freethought Society in 2000. [1]
• Two Ways to Prove Atheism (1996), Quentin Smith, Atheist Alliance convention in Minneapolis, MN on April 6, 1996[2]
• Review of Reasonable Faith (2007), Chris Hallquist, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 350 pp[3]
• Reply To Professor Craig (1995), Graham Oppy, Sophia 34, 2, December 1995, pp.15-29[4]
• Quantum Cosmology's Implication of Atheism (1997), Quentin Smith, Analysis 57.4, October 1997, pp. 295-304[5]
• The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The Question of the Metaphysical Possibility of an Infinite Set of Real Entities (2002)

(Revised 2014), Arnold T. Guminski, Philo (Vol. 5, pp. 196-215)[6]

• Inverse Operations With Transfinite Numbers And The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1995), Graham Oppy, International Philosophical Quarterly, 35, 2, pp.219-221[7]
• Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story, A Reply to William Lane Craig, Jeffery Jay Lowder, Journal of Higher Criticism 8:2 (Fall 2001), pp. 251-93[8]
• God (1997), Jan Narveson, Reason Papers, #22 - Fall 97, pp. 109-118[9]
• The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the Disconfirmation of Theism (1992), Quentin Smith, Religious Studies (journal) in 1992 (Volume 28, pp. 347-350)[10]

These are all critical papers--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ned Colletti

Baseball-loving BLP watchers, I'd appreciate your attention to this article, where we have an SPA, Abner.Doubleday2, turning this article into a hagiography. I've reverted their massive and massively positive edits twice already (and cut some of the usual "Charity and community work" fluff), but not having all that much experience with that sport it would be nice if an expert or two could come along to work on that article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Laverne Cox

User NeilN is engaged in an edit war to keep reinserting the male birth name of transgender actress/Emmy nominee/advocate/icon Laverne Cox. His only two sources appear to be THEMSELVES using Wikipedia as their main source for this information, since their wording is very similar to the NeilN's Wikipedia language about Laverne's birth name. This qualifies as Original Research, since Wikipedia is now the main source for Laverne's birth name -- it is Wikipedia citing Wikipedia as a source in a feedback loop of nastiness. Laverne has publicly said that she does not want to ever discuss her birth name, since that was never her real name.

I find NeilN to be morally reprehensible, but I don't have time to get into an edit war over this nasty, transphobic defamation. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources for Cox's birth name. You have no evidence other than your own guess that this is WP:CIRCULAR and multiple reliable sources have now been presented. Categorizing this as defamation is a dilution of the term. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• First time her birth name was added was August 3, 2014 in this edit. It cites an article from June 19, 2014. That article was edited on September 04, 2014 in which her birth name was removed. However, an archived version from the Wayback Machine can be found here with her birth name mentioned. WP:CIRCULAR, the crux of Aroundthewayboy's argument, is impossible here as her birth name had not been added to the article prior to this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia: "Cox was born in Mobile, Alabama as Roderick Leverne Cox."

Source 1, nationalpost.com: "Born a twin, Roderick Laverne Cox grew up in Mobile, Ala. under the constant scrutiny of bullies."

Source 2, USA Today: "And none of it is lost on the Mobile, Alabama, native, who was born Roderick Leverne Cox."

You're right, Aroundthewayboy, they do all mention the same name and city, as well as using the word "born". Good eye, I would have missed that. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aroundthewayboy: Before you start tossing out accusations and attacks, I suggest you carefully look through my edits on the article and talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Marisela

• Marisela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A stubborn very new user keeps adding unsourced material and fan cruft to this article. I should have left a message on their talk page when I first reverted them, but I didn't. In my last revert, I did, but the editor doesn't seem to care much. The article has few page watchers, so no one else is paying much attention to it. I've already reverted more than I should.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose

The British Raj, though never seriously threatened by the INA, was to try 300 INA officers for treason in the INA trials, but was to eventually backtrack in the face of its own end.[26]..The British Raj, though never seriously threatened by the INA, was to try 300 INA officers for treason in the INA trials, but was to eventually backtrack in the face of its own end.[26].. .....this information your website is totally wrong SIR...even in a recent poll regarded it The Kohima war between British army and AJADHIND FAUJ is most toughest one...also there is in an interesting info the BRITISH PRIME MINISTER CLEMENT ATTLEE SAID THE MOVEMENT OF GANDHI END IN 1942... SO YOUR INFORMATION ABOUT THE MOVEMENT ASA FUTILE ONE WAS COMPLETELY MISGUIDING... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.160.174 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever the merits or negative consequences of Bose's INA movement might be, Bose has been dead since 1945 -- 69 years ago. This is a noticeboard for dealing with problems related to the biographies of living persons per our WP:BLP policy and guidelines. The correct place to initiate a discussion regarding the long-dead Bose and his movement will be the article talk page here: Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose. Good luck. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I am the author of the first academic biography ever done on Maj. Gen. William "Bull" Nelson. I recently discovered the Wiki page I did no him had been grossly tampered with by persons who have an agenda to make Jefferson C. Davis standout in the article. There were also other issues I will not bore you with. For the past three days, I have been working on a rewrite of the piece that includes detailed documentation. Today was devoted to the final sections and all of that work. When I attempted to post it late this evening there was notice that someone else had done a new edit while I was doing mine. All of my work was lost! It would require days to recreate the documented entry. It is now obvious to me why people think Wiki is a bad source.I no longer feel obliged to try and set record straight in a place where "history buffs" indulge writing history as they want to see it rather than rely on diligently researched interpretation that has been carefully reviewed by academic peers.

In short I feel like a fool for having believed in Wikipedia. I also realize one fool is not going to change anything. Quarterdeckgeneral (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had this experience. It seems that you experienced an WP:EDITCONFLICT. It's an unfortunate consequence of contributing to an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are ways to work around potential edit conflicts that most of us eventually learn to avoid what you went through. I hope you won't give up on editing. We can use more editors such as yourself!- MrX 02:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand correctly. You are unhappy at Wikipedia because it lost your work before you posted? Isn't that something any word processor program could have done? They're notorious for it, in fact. People tend to work around that by either posting often, in small steps, or by saving a copy either offline or in their user space, where others are unlikely to edit, until the work is complete and ready to post; so if the post fails, there is a copy elsewhere to try again with. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafiz Mujeeb Rahman

Could this page for a non-notable musician possibly be salted? SPAs seem hellbent on recreating it, was deleted 2 days ago, and 2 days before that. Cannolis (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've indeffed the latest sock and extended the master's block to 1 week. I figured he deserved a final chance, but we'll see. If it gets recreated again we'll salt it. Sometimes it's easier to keep it in the watchlist and get wind of it being created again. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Another Touré query

Hello again, I'm back with a second request for assistance on the biographical article about the journalist Touré, this time for input on some material currently included in the Television section. The concern I have with this section is that more than two thirds of the text focuses on a few small "controversies". While the individual events each did receive some news coverage, albeit primarily in online sources that cover the minutiae of personalities in the media, even here the coverage was very short-lived. I wouldn't argue they deserve no mention, but I would make the case that it is unambiguously WP:UNDUE weight. This is why I am proposing that the details be reduced to a one or two sentence summary and would like editors here to take a look to see if this suggestion is reasonable. My full request is on the article's Talk page. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Emily Schooley

Emily Schooley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could use some extra eyes. Just reverted replacement of lede image with a partial nude photo and some unsourced content about self cutting. Apparently she is somehow targeted by something gamergate-ish on Twitter. VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr. K. Loganathan

Some IP editors are repeatedly adding a few sentences that call this person a "crackpot" and a "lunatic". I've reverted the addition for now, but extra eyes on the page would be helpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I hate semi'ing an article at AFD when the majority of contributors are IPs or not autoconfirmed, but those edits were really problematic so I did protect it. Please keep it in your watchlist and we'll see if anyone makes an edit request, since we're potentially preventing it from being rescued. I also left a note in the talk page of the one other non-IP/non-autoconfirmed contributor. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Gelb

Several IPs have been repeatedly attempting to add these inappropriate categories to the article [7], [8]. Even for the second category addition, there is zero material in the article to support it. Background: the Metropolitan Opera, of which he is the general manager, has recently performed the controversial 1991 opera Death of Klinghoffer. The article needs more eyes. I'm at my second revert in 24 hours. Voceditenore (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I can semi-protect the page for a short period of time and see if that deters them. I'll only do it for 24 hours though, since the page didn't receive enough additions to entirely warrant it for longer. Yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tokyogirl79. The opera is running for 3 more performances, November 8, 11, and 15. I imagine they will keep it up until the end of the run at least, but as long as more editors have Peter Gelb on their watchlists, it may be enough once semi-protection expires. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Erika Jensen-Jarolim

I recently stumbled upon Erika Jensen-Jarolim almost entirely written by Jensen-Jarolim. If looking like the user at the very least has a close connection to this person if not being that person themselves. I haven't talked to the user yet, so I'm not sure if they are aware of WP:BLP, but I practically never deal with BLP type articles, so just looking for some guidance here. Given that most of the article is just a list of the subject's publications, would it normally just be nominated for deletion? Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Loretta E. Lynch

Loretta Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The inclusion of connections with Al Shartopn on this page seems to have a political motivation, since Al Sharpton is a polarizing figure. The inclusion as a headline suggests connections with a notorious person. This is not included with other similar pages. There are also no headline sections of connections with other persons, including people who might be less polarizing or who are moderate or conservative on the political spectrum. Finally, the language in this text saying that Al Sharpton helped pick the AG is absolutely not supported by the link provided and should immediately be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.210.129 (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed the pure speculation - we can wait until we reach the WP:DEADLINE here. Collect (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Photograph of naked, pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina

Opinions are needed on a potential BLP concern on the Lina Medina article regarding a photograph of naked, pregnant five-year-old Medina. BLP concerns raised here: [[9]] and other relevant discussion can be found on talk:Lina Medina --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Bobo and I are involved in this article so I'll try to keep responses minimal to allow uninvolved editors to see the overall situation and comment. I aver that it's an encyclopedic benefit to see the only mother at 5 years old (ever) and that it's a first in documented medical history to view such an image. Bobo I believe avers however that it's a BLP violation considering that the subject never consented to such an image displaying on the article. That's why it's at this noticeboard--at least that's what I've gleaned. Tutelary (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP concerns here trump any encyclopedic value the image has. The child, whose face is identifiable in the image, could not have consented to the image at the time and there's no record to her consent now. Unlike other medical images of children, there is no effort to protect her identity. Image is violation of WP:AVOIDVICTIM EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop speculating. The photo is 80 years old, from a country, time, legal structure and culture most of us know little about. The photo exists. It's a medical photo, not child pornography, as another editor unethically suggested on the article's talk page. It has been published elsewhere. We cannot possibly guess at its legal status. We really have no idea about how (or whether) permission was granted for the original photograph. So please, no more speculation. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The laws of the country of origin don't matter. WP is bound by US law. Regardless, WP:AVOIDVICTIM still applies here. The encyclopedic value does not outweigh the fact that it's a nude picture of a child with no attempt at protecting her identity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I came here to ask the child pornography question. Is there a situation in which we're allowed to host images of naked minors? Ivanvector (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

n/m, the legality issue seems to have been addressed on the talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See Nevermind, and see also http://www.amazon.com/Nevermind-Limited-Bonus-Tracks-B-Sides/dp/B005PXXDP6. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP and the rights of the subject must always be above the perceived historical importance of the image, or the value it adds to the article. I have no problem with it being removed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)