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.

Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns

The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons.

Samir Kuntar

Can others take a look at 2008 Israel–Hezbollah prisoner swap and its recent editing history? Kuntar was convicted for murders in an Israeli military court, yet edits noting the top-secret nature of his conviction and the lack of forensic evidence for his conviction have been repeatedly silenced by "Rami R." And this is so in an article that makes repeated references to Kuntar's guilt, even to the point of impugning the reception he received in the Arab world ("Mona Charen wrote: 'What can you say about a people who welcome a child murderer as a hero?'"). Such selective editing is not libelous, but incendiary and contributes to cross-cultural misunderstandings, rather than efforts to bridge differences. Slandering Kuntar in a medium in which he cannot respond does not help.

Bernard L. Madoff

Madoff has apparently confessed directly to the FBI to a $50 billion Ponzi scheme. It's clear that both Madoff and many of his victims are Jewish, and I've argued on the talk page that this has a place in this article. However, it's clear that some editors are using this article for anti-semetic propaganda (I can provide diffs if you want). In particular, use of the star of David symbol (✡) is completely out of place here. Could some uninvolved users keep an eye on this article. It's clear that some mention of Judaism is fine but that some users want to abuse the religion and Wikipedia policy. A good deal of judgment is involved.

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted some myself. They seem to come from this IP address, along with more trolling. Can't anything more permanent be done about it? Xasodfuih (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't be around much, but ask an administrator to protect it (or semi-protect if it's just an IP address), if it gets too bad. Smallbones (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I see some IP editors doing useful edits, so semi-protection won't work too well. Can't they just protect the page from that particular IP? Xasodfuih (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some of this anti-semitic stuff go up (always going to expect SOME), but not a whole lot. I wonder if it is going to get out of hand, because there aren't a whole lot of "public" victims, i.e. this is not like Enron where a wide swath of the public got swindled (CFO was Andy Fastow, who is jewish) - the victims here are a very narrow slice of America - mostly jews, and even then mostly the Palm Beach and New York jewish communities - and even many of the hedge fund victims listed are jewish-run, so, really, the victim list is generally a very narrow slice of America. I'd be surprized if the anti-semitic stuff gets out of hand. I mean, it's like that other large fraud that was recently uncovered - the $100 million fraud executed by that Marc Dreier guy - Dreier it turns out is also jewish, but you're not going to see much made of that in his bio because the victims are all institutions - mostly hedge funds - firms like Perella Weinberg Partners.Betathetapi545 (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing BLP dispute at Yip Pin Xiu

There is an ongoing BLP dispute at Yip Pin Xiu. The dispute is about whether the article should include her birth date and Chinese name. I believe that, since she is a minor and non-public figure, BLP mandates that we respect her privacy and exclude both her birth date and Chinese name from the article (though including her Chinese name is not as dangerous as including her birth date). Jacklee believes that since one reliable online reference mentions her birth date and at least three mention her Chinese name, including such information does not violate BLP. Neither of us really understand BLP; in fact, an article he wrote recently received a BLP complaint. Thus we need several editors who are familiar with the BLP policy to give their input and help us resolve the dispute. Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Janet Napolitano

Janet Napolitano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- IP editor 70.160.129.216 keeps adding/restoring unsourced material about hearsay? joke? something about Napolitano's sexual orientation. This continues after several warnings. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Diablo Cody

User:Jason.cinema is attempting to add a biased 'Criticism' section to Diablo Cody's article, as evidenced here, with only a couple of blogs as references. I removed it but he just reinstated it again. Granted, I don't doubt Cody has received a bit of flack for her "honest to blog"s, but considering that her first film had a 93% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and she won "Best Screenplay" in the Oscars, a section with nothing but criticism sourced just by blogs seems a little unwarranted.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Majora Carter

I believe that at least some of Drawn Some's recent edits to Majora Carter constitute a BLP issue. Since I had earlier tried to modify what I considered Drawn Some's inaccurate representation in this article of what a New York Times profile said, and was simply reverted by Drawn Some, I'm bringing the matter here for a third party to look at. Also, I would note that Drawn Some has latched on to (and, in my view exaggerated) just about the only negative in that New York Times profile of Carter, which does not suggest to me a particularly appropriate use of sources.

By the way, also, possibly not a BLP issue, but I also find the removal of the phrase "environmental justice"—the usual name of the movement with which she is identified—from the article, also suggests to me an animus against its subject. - Jmabel | Talk 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I also now see that this same editor earlier made major deletions from the article. Rhere was undoubtedly an excessive listing of awards in the article, but eliminating these completely seems to me equally excessive. It would seem to me that things such as having won a MacArthur fellowship, the Distinguished Alumni Award from her alma mater, and the New York Post Liberty Medal for Lifetime Achievement belong in an encyclopedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

James Toney

Multiple edits to alter nickname and to alter parts of biography in derogatory manner. See recent edit list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.165.172 (talk • contribs)

The page has been semi-protected for a month by CIreland (talk · contribs). Icewedge (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Walsh (bishop)

Opinions offered as fact without the most basic of sources regarding Walsh's liturgical, theological and canonical position. Nonsense comparing his presidency of St. Malachy's Grammar school to 'a totalitarian state', again without any evidence. The unsubstantiated/impossible to quantify claim that his retirement came as a relief to the majority of the diocese's clergy and laity.

In short, potentially libellous. Most certainly offensive and moronic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I removed the unsourced opinion as well as some of the detail of his education. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack Baker (activist)

The article Jack Baker (activist) is currently a single-editor magnum opus written by User:Baker's Friend which appears to be an NPOV-free zone; it also makes numerous statements about other living people which I am concerned may raise WP:BLP issues. Just to give you a flavor of the article, it has subheadings like "Bigotry", "Trickery", "Abuse of Power" and "Justices compete for public flattery".

Although it contains vast numbers of cites, many of them do not directly support the substance of the statements being made, instead only supporting some tangential point. This article is so vast, and so full of contentious statements, that I can't see how to fix it other than more-or-less completely deleting it and starting again. -- The Anome (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've now reverted the article back to a very early version, removing nearly all the content. I will notify the article's author of the BLP policy. -- The Anome (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Current article makes him quite minimally notable at all. Collect (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Craig Roger Gregerson

Is it really appropriate that the redirect page for convicted child molester Craig Roger Gregerson has a category for his religion? His religion is not even mentioned in the article to which the redirect links. - Jmabel | Talk 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Remove that category mercilessly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Janelle Pierzina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a problem with an IP editor who insists on inserting problematic material and linking to a blog as reference. We are not technically in a WP:3RR situation because we are evidently in different time-zones. Also, I do not know if it is related, but we have had problems in the past with aggressive edit-warring from another user with the same 71.200. IP prefix. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have semi protected the page for a few days, but with some hesitation. Rather than revert and get reverted again, please try and explain the user the reasons for not including sources based on blogs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's a fair comment. The article has been subjected to such repeated 'attacks' that I was in defensive mode. The fact that the changes were made by an IP editor didn't help the suspicion that it is a continuation of the previous attacks, although the changes were relatively minor. I used edit summaries to explain, but it obviously is no substitute for proper dialogue. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Muntadhar al Zaidi

Recently, an editor added the following text to the article on journalist Muntadhar al Zaidi, who is currently being held by Iraqi authorities for throwing two of his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush:

According to ABC World News, following the incident, al Zaidi's cameraman stated that just before throwing his shoes, al Zaidi handed him a note reading, "It's glorious to die a martyr."[24]

The reference goes to an ABC news video. Concurrently, a Newsbusters blog carried a transcript of the news story.[1]. Here is the text from this transcript:

The shoe thrower himself hasn't lost any relatives, though his family says he was kidnapped once by militants. His cameraman said that just before he got up he handed him this note saying, "It's glorious to die a martyr." He survived, of course, and his story may live on as well. Jim Sciutto, ABC News, London.

Out of the thousand(s) of news articles on Muntadhar al Zaidi, only one claims that this "note" exists, namely the one above, ABC News. Jim Sciutto makes a strange claim here, making it sound like the source for Zaidi's kidnapping in 2007 was his family, which is bizarre. The 2007 kidnapping claim has nothing to do with his family, and was announced by Iraq's Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (NGO that monitors violations against journalists in Iraq) and covered by major news outlets around the world (including Reuters, Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post, and many others). It was even published in a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I don't understand how ABC News could cast doubt on this claim by attributing it to his "family". Perhaps they made an honest mistake.

When ABC says that the shoe thrower hasn't lost any relatives, they also appear to ignore the fact that many sources mention that his family was arrested during the regime of Saddam Hussein.

To summarize, I am concerned that this note has not been corroborated by any other news sources and about the accuracy of ABC News. To date, no other news agency has reported on it. Unless we have corroborating sources, keeping ABC's unique claim in the article (combined with a distortion about his kidnapping) introduces a bias of some kind that could pose a threat to any fair trial he might receive, or even his safety. Could I get some feedback on this, please? Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight says the following:

Corroboration—Do the conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination. Undisputed corroboration among high-reliability sources can help establish something as a fact rather than an opinion.

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Randal Smith

I just found this languishing in articles to be wikified since July 2007. Subject is a pathologist whose professional work has been called into question by the courts. No references, only some ELs. Will need quite a lot of attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Persondata

• edit

One of the problems with the by-default invisibility of these data is that edits like the above go unnoticed for months. Please be aware of this type of BLP vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Jaclyn Reding

There has been an ongoing BLP dispute with the Jaclyn Reding article since September 2007. Original research ([2]), one dubious foreign language source ([3]), and a blog ([4]) have been the rational for adding the supposed maiden name of the author in addition to a bunch of poorly worded family history. The only English source for the maiden name is Fantastic Fiction which is not reliable and the previously mentioned blog which is still depending on OR to make the connection between the maiden name and the married name. The other info can't be sourced in English that I've found. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 19:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do talk page comments count?

This editor makes inappropriate comments about (living) researchers and professionals with whom the editor personally disagrees about sexuality. The garbage in the articles usually gets cleaned up, but the comments on the talk page, such as today's "Bailey was a sex addict and purposely chose a gay sex bar to do his research on transsexuals because it was where he knew he would find sex and fetishs there" usually don't. The editor appears impervious to subtle hints, persistent in this behavior, and of course I'm not sufficiently dedicated to the Bailey-hating camp for my opinion about rude remarks against him to be of the least value to the editor. Would someone unrelated please take a look from an impartial perspective and consider an appropriate level of education or warning for the user? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not familar with the specific comments in the talk so I can't say whether or not it is a violation but I do know that BLP applies to talk pages. This is an excert fromWP:BLP. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space --70.24.179.138 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are not forums where anything goes. If slanderous/libel material is introduced there, it should be removed. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles, not forums to trash individuals. --Tom 19:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So do you think that calling J. Michael Bailey a sex addict is libelous? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

D. M. Thomas

• D. M. Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Grateful for comment on this diff: [[5]]. The editor who make the change commented on it here [[6]] - please ignore the bit about attacking editors, which was my error in using an incorrect template. The substantial question is over the appropriateness of the edit to D. M. Thomas. // Springnuts (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin D. Weiss

Over at Martin D. Weiss, a newbie editor (from uploads at commons presumably close to the subject) has removed a section about some 'Securities and Exchange Commission' stuff previously added by an anon. (Its also possible that they are the same person, since the pix uploaded on commons were added to the article here by anon).

Could someone please review the insertion / removal and make a call as whether the material should be kept or not? I'm willing to clean it up and do the sources legwork if its decided that the material should be kept in substance. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff address

In reading WP:BLP Privacy of Personal info: "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted."

My question is whether this is an absolute prohibition, i.e should "should not" be read as "may not"?

Bernard Madoff's addresses have been released by reliable sources, eg times online (Times of London). When a major fraud like this is alleged, I think it's important that people know that the alleged perp has some assets, so a general description of them seems reasonable. IMHO the addresses don't add much of anything to the article, except perhaps a very faint smell of a lynch mob. So I looked up the policy, and to my reading, the addresses should be deleted. Several others disagree. Let's follow the noticeboard's advice.

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The neighborhood is appropriate, but not the actual street address or coordinates. If he were a resident in a notable building, like The Dakota, then it might be acceptable to mention that but that's an exception to the rule. (We should probably limit the list of notable occupants to former residents, for privacy, but that's a different topic.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

An editor keeps adding non-notable and probably defamatory accusations to the lede. I have called the BLP policies to his attention on the talk page numerous times now[7], but he keeps re-adding the claims. I would appreciate it if someone could intervene. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the text in question:

• There are sharply contrasting opinions on LaRouche. His supporters regard him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas critics variously see him as a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semite, a fascist or neo-fascist, and the leader of a political cult.

Number OneNineEight has repeatedly deleted the phrase "an anti-Semite, a fascist or neo-fascist". Those assertions are highly notable, having been made by such notable individuals as Senator Patrick Moynihan, writer Mike Royko, and DNC chair Terry McAuliffe, to name just a few. The subject himself has commented on them. The editor above is not assertin that the material is poorly sourced, or taken out of context. BLP does not prohibit reporting well-sourced, commonly made assertions about public figures. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. A selection of sources that support one of those terms is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#"Fascism" citations, and more sources can be found at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive15#Section on anti-semitism is incomprehensible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

With just 6 edits (1 on this page) we have to be careful not to WP:Bite #198. As long as the citations are there WillBB seems to be correct. Smallbones (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ten edits, if we include those before he registered.[8][9][10][11] Whether he is a new user is also open to question, given the facts that almost every new user on that page has turned out to be a sockpuppet of a single editor and that this user seems familiar with policies and noticeboards. But either way I don't think there's anything "bitey" here. If there is I will gladly retract it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I am saying that these claims are being given undue weight by being included in the lede. I am not suggesting that they be excluded from the article generally. They are also claims that were made by some notable figures in the late 70s and early 80s, but are not made by any notable figures today, and the formulation that Will Beback keeps adding creates the false impression that these views are widely held now. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)