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.

John A. Shaw

Hello, regulars at this noticeboard may recall that I recently came here to ask for eyes on an attack page aimed at John A. Shaw, about a report on post-invasion Iraq he had written for the U.S. government. I'm now back to ask editors to look at the article focused on Shaw himself, specifically, the Corruption and criminal investigation of Shaw section of the article. This section makes some extremely damaging claims against Shaw but sourcing is extremely narrow. In fact, much of the section relies on the same journalist's reporting that was the basis of the deleted attack article.

In my view, the content of this section violates WP:NPOV, and there are distinct issues of tone and balance. For instance, the insertion of extraordinary claims against Shaw, alleging his corruption and that he was the subject of a criminal investigation, are written in a manner that is neither cautious nor understated. Even the section heading "Corruption and criminal investigation" is itself non-neutral and appears intended to persuade readers immediately that Shaw is guilty of corruption. Additionally, sourcing of this section is limited, mainly drawing from the reporting of one individual. On this basis, I wonder if the information should even be included. I'm thinking about WP:WELLKNOWN here, which states, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

To sum up, from a BLP perspective, my overarching concern is that this section of the article is presenting a non-neutral, damaging account of Shaw's work in Iraq, with a paucity of sources to back it up. I would very much appreciate someone with a strong understanding of BLP guidelines taking a look and deciding what would be best to do here.

As I've mentioned here before, I am working on behalf of Jack Shaw, so I won't be making any edits to the article. I hope editors from this noticeboard will be interested to discuss how best to approach the issues in the Corruption... section. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed somewhat, and will finish up later today unless someone else gets to it first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty much done with this for now. If someone else would like to take a look, that might be a good idea since there are a lot of complicated criminal accusations involved. Also, I'd be glad to make further revisions in response to any valid criticisms from User:WWB Too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Anythingyouwant, I really appreciate the time you spent looking into this and reworking the page. Overall, a vast improvement. That said, I've left a detailed note on the article's Talk page outlining a few remaining issues. I am still concerned about how this section is presented, especially how much detail is given to allegations against Shaw, although no charges were filed, and nearly all of the reporting coming from a single investigative journalist. I'd be interested to hear whether editors here think that the section could be summarized or, if it is better to include more detail, to clarify some of the issues I've raised in the Talk page note. In particular, I wonder if FreeRangeFrog and MrX would mind taking a quick look, since they're familiar with the topic from my previous request here about a related article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks better thanks to Anythingyouwant's impeccable editing. It does strike me as still a little too detailed based on the amount of coverage in reliable sources that I was able to glean with a couple of quick searches. WP:UNDUE would seem to apply, especially given the reliance on primary sources.- MrX 17:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I will comment over at the article talk page as needed or wanted. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made some edits, including shortening that section.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Our article on Michael Collins Piper declares him dead with no reliable source

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

The article itself has no source. There is this revisionist site mentioned on the talk page, and [2] which might be an RS but doesn't name the dead body (although comments do). Doug Weller (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It may be true, but his Wikipedia bio should absolutely not state that he's dead unless there is a reliable source that says so. Something should surface in the news in the next few days or weeks if it's true.- MrX 13:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Chris Algieri

The article states that Algieri lost to both Pacquiao and Khan by way of KO. This is nonsense - both were Unanimous Decision victories for the respective other guy. I am no expert on Algieri so it is possible that more is wrong. Someone should take a look at this.

What I just said is also reflected in: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manny_Pacquiao_vs._Chris_Algieri - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Khan_%28boxer%29#Khan_vs._Algieri

Whoever wrote those sections on this article was drunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.22.135 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Avera Mengistu

רדיומן aka blogger Richard Silverstein aka Richards1052 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richards1052) has created a WP:BLP on an Ethiopian named Avera Mengistu. Silverstein is the SOLE source for the information on this page, that Avera Mengistu is being held for ransom and has been left for dead by the Israeli government ("Israeli Government Abandons Ethiopian-Israeli Reportedly Held Captive In Gaza").

• The post that is the sole source for this article states that Mengistu is "allegedly" mentally ill. The "report" is not any kind of neutral coverage but is written in an opinion-style piece ("This secrecy serves the interests of the Israeli government, but not the interests of the victim. If the public knew about this, they might demand the state do all in its power to free him — which would certainly include the exchange of Palestinian prisoners.... The IDF would rather murder its own soldiers than have to give up 1,000 Palestinian prisoners to secure the return of a single live Israeli.").
• Silverstein's "research" into this matter consists of 1) anonymous commenter leaves a message on his blog saying Avera Mengistu is being held captive. 2) Silverstein asks commenter to "interview" Avera Mengistu's family for him. 3) Silverstein oddly makes no mention of any verification he did.
• There is no confirmation from any reliable source that this has occurred. A similiarly political blog in Hebrew appears to be the only coverage of Silverstein's theory at all, and includes a comment ("courage!") left by Silverstein himself and another comment that Silverstein is now writing for Wikipedia. The blog also describes Avera Mengistu as "imaginary."
• On the talk page Talk:Avera Mengistu, Richard Silverstein argues the article should stay because of free speech: "Further, it is important that this article remain precisely in order to uphold principles of freedom of the press and transparency, which are in danger in Israel."
• On a forum, Silverstein promotes his article and ASKS PEOPLE TO GIVE HIM MONEY. ("Don’t forget too that the research and reporting takes hard work that deserves your financial support. Tip the jar via a tax-deductible donation or via Paypal in the sidebar.")

This article has been appropriately tagged for deletion by Kigelim. This entire thing appears to be wholly invented by the editor, who has a large WP:COI considering he is promoting his own political blog in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. I tagged this for speedy deletion as such. MShabazz declined the speedy with the claim that it is "not invented" but did not provide ANY information to support this. Notably, this administrator also defended Silverstein in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richards1052, even though his second account is used to edit information on articles in which the primary account has declared a COI.

According to Wikipedia's standards, this article cannot exist as WP:BLP until reliable sources report this information. (By the way I am truly a neutral editor; unlike Silverstein and MShabazz, I do not regularly edit anything related to Israel/Palestine/Judaism/Islam. I saw this on AfD and was horrified.) —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You can be as horrified as you'd like, but the article doesn't qualify for an A11 speedy deletion. It isn't "obviously invented" and there is a credible assertion of significance. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What information do you have that it is not invented? Which reliable sources support a "credible assertion of significance"? Please share. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:CCOS. Speedy deletion is a very low bar, and it doesn't require reliable sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is however obviously BLP1E at best. And if there are doubts about whether the sources support the assertions in the article, these should be removed individually. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There is only one source supporting the article's assertion, and it's not reliable, so the whole article should be deleted ASAP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sujit Lalwani

Sujit Lalwani

It is highly likely that the article has been written as a means of self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyke123 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

entry on Larry Mendte

Larry Mendte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This Philadelphia media person or someone who supports him has scrubbed his entry of any mention of his firing for sexual harassment of Alycia Lane, mentioning only his guilty plea in the case, and that only in the context of proclaiming his innocence. The information is easily found at other web sites.

Al Mascitti Hockessin, Del. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.45.206 (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Content was removed by a very experienced editor User:Mrschimpf with the comment (rv (POV removals)) in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Mendte&diff=631334243&oldid=631327154 Govindaharihari (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what was said; I found the added source unacceptable and the addition of the line in the lede "Larry is most famous for his involvement with fellow news anchor..." to be prejudicial (most know him outside the Philadelphia area for his early Access Hollywood hosting and Tribune station editorials, not the scandal which was mainly noted only by the Philadelphia and niche news industry press), along with the cut of the Murrow award of his Eternal Flame coverage without reason. I'm the first to admit this article is a BLP balancing act (I'm not local to Philly and only had interest in Mendte because of my interest in the news industry; I have absolutely no connections to the subject), but cutting out content and replacing it with a tabloid mention in the lede is unacceptable for a BLP, and the scandal is mentioned in short form within the body of the article in acceptable terms. And of course, there's nobody stopping another editor from adding the information if it's acceptably sourced and balanced. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Max Cryer

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

I represent the author. Various people using different names in recent weeks continue to change this entry against his wishes and to include inaccurate information. Using different names, these people make exactly the same changes. I have once again changed it back. Nigel2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel2014 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nigel2014: If you indeed represent the author, you need to go read this. Once you do, you'll understand that you need to create an edit request in the talk page, which will be evaluated and answered by other editors. This article is not your property, nor Mr. Cryer's. In articles we say what the sources about the subjects say, nothing more and nothing less. You've attempted to turn this article into an advertisement for the subject, while removing sourced material and information. The process is you suggest changes, someone else makes them. If you continue to edit the article the way you've edited it so far, your account can and will be blocked. We welcome improvements, but please familiarize yourself with our guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The "other" sexual assault allegations at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Mattress Performance case involves four allegations of criminal conduct by an individual I will refer to as "the accused." None of the allegations are supported by any form of evidence, none have resulted in prosecution, and all are against an individual who is non-notable outside the context of the case. All complainants spoke to each other prior to making the allegations, and the accused asserts they are the result of collusion. The allegation of rape by Emma Sulkowicz is central to the article's topic and probably has to stay, in spite of WP:BLPCRIME. I argue that the others should be omitted from the article. They are as follows.

• "Natalie" is the accused's ex-girlfriend. She alleges that months after their relationship ended, she came to see the accused's conduct as having been abusive, and some of their sexual interactions as having been non-consensual, even though she did not perceive this at the time. Her hearing resulted in a finding of "not responsible" after she failed to cooperate with the investigation.
• "Josie" is a former friend of the accused. She alleges that once, at a party, the accused kissed her and groped her without her permission. The accused denied this. He was initially found "responsible" by the university, but the decision was overturned on appeal partly because she did not testify.
• "Adam" more recently alleged that the accused touched him inappropriately. The accused was found "not responsible" in this case as well.

Troublingly, these have all been described as "sexual assault" allegations in the article. This is highly inappropriate language, for obvious reasons. None of them resulted in criminal prosecution, and it is extremely problematic to talk about the results of college disciplinary hearings, which lack the rigor of courts of law, and require only a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than proof, in relation to such extreme allegations. WP:BLPCRIME tells us to try to exclude information implying that persons who are not independently notable are accused of a crime. Accordingly, the accusations should not be in this article unless they are necessary, like the one by Sulkowicz.

An editor on the talk page made the case that the other allegations are relevant for the following reasons.

• When the story initially broke, three of the accusers were interviewed. I argue that the details of how the story broke are largely irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about the performance and controversy.
• The accusers claim that meeting eachother and talking about the accused was what led them to file complaints, and this explains the long delay between the alleged events and the complaints. I argue that this is only the accusers' explanation, and including it requires us to also mention the accused's version. Neither version can be substantiated by facts, and this leads into tabloid territory, with the article describing competing stories that cannot be reliably sourced. I argue that including such non-fact-based stories would only detract from the article, and lead to further BLP violations.
• The other accusers are co-plaintiffs with Emma Sulkowicz in a civil suit against Columbia University and Barnard College. I argue that, as that case involves 28 plaintiffs, the fact that three of them have this in common is unimportant.

On the whole, I do not find a compelling reason to include mention of these other accusations against the recommendation of WP:BLPCRIME. As the accused has been the subject of what may be interpreted as death threats, BLP issues in this article must not be taken lightly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The allegations is what is being reported, and these were very well covered. I don't think the article contains BLP violations, as we merely report what reliable sources have said about the subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations are BLP violations no matter how many reliable sources cover them. It's a BLP issue, not a WP:V issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment- There seem to be some inaccuracies above. According to the sources, the male alleging sexual assault has not talked to the other alleged victims and filed a complaint much later, saying he was motivated by the publicity related to the Mattress Performance art project. Sulkowicz says she decided to file her complaint alleging rape, after talking to a woman who alleged "intimate partner violence" against the accused. A third woman, who alleged groping, said she was told by friends who knew of her alleged groping that the accused "raped someone" and then decided to file a complaint. The sources do not support that all four sat down and together decided to file, but they all reportedly either talked to or heard about each other. They are also all apparently part of a Title IX complaint against Columbia University, alleging the university mishandled their sexual assault complaints.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: None of this is different in any way from what I wrote above, except for the contention that "Adam" did not talk to the other accusers. Here is a source which states that he at least talked to "Natalie," who alleged intimate partner violence: [3]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: Also this source: [4], written by "Josie," confirms she was friendly with Sulkowicz prior to the accusation. So it's true that all four talked to other accusers prior to the accusation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, it's odd that you would interpret that source that way, when it makes the opposite point. Josie writes:

There is a narrative spreading that pins me as “Friend of Mattress Girl,” filing a sexual assault complaint as part of a weird collusion among girlfriends. This narrative is entirely false. At the time, Emma and I were friendly; however, we were never friends. We had never hung out one-on-one and I’d never had her number in my phone. I also never knew the identity of Paul’s ex-girlfriend, who also filed a complaint against him, until two separate reporters let her name slip while interviewing me—assuming, maybe, that I knew her. But I didn’t. I still don’t even know what she looks like or what her last name is.

There are five living persons involved in this, and BLP applies to all. Only one (Sulkowicz) is mentioned in the article, but the other names are known, except for one. The article has to be written without implying that any of them are liars or don't matter. It's difficult to do that, but I think the version before you removed several of their accounts achieved it to some extent. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy has twice removed text [5][6][7] that has been in the article, in some form, since early in its existence. The article is about a work of performance art created after three women at Columbia filed sexual-assault complaints with the university in 2013 against another student. The university found the accused not responsible in two cases, and responsible in a third that was overturned on appeal. (There was a fourth complaint later from a male student; the accused was found "not responsible" there too.) In protest, one of the women, Emma Sulkowicz, a visual arts major, created Mattress Performance. This is the text that is being removed:

Mattress Performance was inspired by allegations of campus sexual assault at Columbia. ... [The article then discusses Sulkowicz's complaint.]

After hearing about Sulkowicz's allegations, three other students (two women and a man) filed complaints against the same student; in the first, the accused's former girlfriend alleged "intimate partner violence," while the second and third were allegations of unwanted grabbing and touching. The accused said the complaints were the result of collusion. The university found him "not responsible" in relation to the first and third, and in the second a verdict of "responsible" was overturned on appeal.

The case attracted wider interest when the three women gave interviews to the New York Post, which broke the story on 11 December 2013 without naming those involved. ...

The other complaints are a key part of what happened. An early New York Times article said: "Ms. Sulkowicz was one of a group of women, identified then only by pseudonyms — she had not yet decided to go fully public — who became the talk of Columbia this past winter, when an article in a student magazine, The Blue and White, described in detail their accounts of being sexually assaulted, and their frustrated searches for aid and justice from the university."

The other complaints are covered by numerous secondary sources, and were part of what led to a federal Title IX complaint against Columbia, which the Department of Education is investigating. In addition, our article doesn't name the accused. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Comment- Testimonies are forms of evidence, so one might argue there is/will be evidence. Nowhere do I see on the sexual assault page that it needs to be reported or prosecuted to count as sexual assault, so I think it's fine to call what happened that. In WP:BLPCrime, it is the name of the accused, not the accuser that should not be listed. I think these details are important, insofar it is often speaking to others which encourages victims to come forward, and of course the intent of protecting others from being raped by this person. Meanwhile, I am concerned that this page is listed as a redirect from the accused name.Frederika Eilers (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the accused's name redirects there. I will bring this up at RfD. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, I am going to restore the material about the other allegations. This was never only about Sulkowicz. No one here has agreed that it's a BLP violation, it's an essential part of the story, and has been in the article (in some form) since early in its creation. If you want to remove it, please gain consensus on talk, perhaps via an RfC. (But if you do post an RfC, please make the question short and very neutral, e.g. "should this (quote it) be in the article?") Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

When including this material about the other allegations, please be sure to clarify that this is Sulcowikz' acount of the motivation behind the performance art. It also calls for a short statement about the accused's version, as also reported in secondary sources. Thanks. Minor4th 19:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I would prefer you wait for clear consensus before restoring the disputed material. If there is such a consensus, we can then talk about what details to include in order to maintain neutrality and the presumption of innocence. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it. Please observe BRD and dispute resolution, and gain consensus to remove it. Sammy, you have exceptionally strong views about this article, and you've said that if you're being unjust to the women, you "don't care," because you're prioritizing the accused's position. [8] This is making things harder than they need to be. Good writing will solve the problems at that article, and you're a good writer. Please work with me on it, not against me. That means acknowledging (a) that we don't know what happened; and (b) that we owe a duty of care to all five people. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're taking that out of context. I said that I don't care if the presumption of innocence is unjust to people who make criminal accusations. I don't, because it's policy under WP:BLPCRIME, and my purpose is not to determine justice.

The duty of care we have to three of those people would be best served by not mentioning them at all. If we do mention them, we have an obligation to mention the accused's defense, which, by your very reasoning, may become problematic for them. "Good writing" will never solve the problem of airing unproven criminal accusations. Not airing them is a great way to solve that problem, and says nothing either way about the accusers. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

[Yul Anderson]

Yul_Anderson

I wish to report Yul Anderson's wikipedia page, as it violates the biographies of living persons policy in several ways. It states that Anderson has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, however the source do not validate this claim. Secondly, it states that John Malkovich has used Anderson's cover version of Bob Dylan's All Along the Watchtower in his movie, The Dancer Upstairs. However, the source does not validate this claim once again. There is an overall lack of credible sources. Therefore the page should be reviewed by an administrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamann2008 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Tommy Coster

Tommy Coster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone who has the time please take a look at this article. For some reason that I can't put my finger on (apart from its length), it doesn't look quite right to me. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

John Cryan

User:78.52.12.153 reverting the edits about the place of birth of that personality. He has been advised not to revert or getting blocked. Cruks (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Reuven Rivlin

Following the publication of a deeply stupid Israeli news article complaining that Wikipedia's article on Reuven Rivlin lists him as being born in Mandatory Palestine rather than Israel - which didn't exist at the time of his birth - the article has unfortunately had a series of IP editors trying repeatedly to "correct" it. It was semi-protected for a while but the problem has resumed. A further period of semi-protection would be appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Gender identity matter at Chris Crocker article

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

At "22:07, 9 June 2015," Gwenhope came in changing Crocker's name to a feminine name, began using feminine pronouns for Crocker, and added File:Christine Crocker.png (an image where Crocker is presenting as a woman), based on Facebook posts that Crocker made. I reverted at "01:45, 10 June 2015," stating, "Revert per WP:BLP; you need better sources for this material. Crocker is always changing between genders. Do not revert. I am taking this matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard." With the Caitlyn Jenner/Bruce Jenner matter going on, and how heated that is, and with the Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning matter having been very heated, etc., more eyes are needed on this Cris Crocker matter. This is especially complicated because, like I noted, Crocker is always changing gender expression; see what is stated in Crocker's Wikipedia article about that, and the transgender, genderqueer, gender bender articles and MOS:Identity guideline for more on what this topic concerns. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Also see this 2014 "Being a Non-Transitioned Transgender Person" video and this 2015 "Thank You, Bruce" video from the official Chris Crocker YouTube channel, and this latest video ("The Full Truth") from that channel...where Crocker seems to be finally transitioning to a female identity for good (this is the video that Gwenhope based the article changes on). Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Something else that needs consideration when rewording if we start using female pronouns throughout the article is that the wording needs to be coherent; for example, Crocker identified as a gay male for years. It is therefore challenging to use female pronouns regarding some of the sexual orientation content. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)