Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:44, 8 September 2014

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.

Requesting advice on Will Hayden

Up until the last couple days, Will Hayden was solely notable as a cable reality TV personality on one show, Sons of Guns. Today, TMZ ran an article about an arrest (which has since been added to the article, though with slightly better sourcing), which I believe brings this article within the ambit of WP:BLPCRIME. I had redirected it today, and was reverted by the article creator (who left a note on my user talk). I'm reasonably certain that an AfD would have resulted in redirect prior to the arrest, and I don't think the arrest should change that per BLPCRIME. But since I'd rather not edit war over the redirect, and there's every chance I'm wrong, I'd appreciate some outside input from those more familiar with BLP than me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME relates to people who have articles written about them specifically because of the crime they are suspected of. In other words, the suspected crime is why they're notable. Will Hayden was notable for being the star of Sons of Guns - a national prime time cable TV show. Him having an article is no different than all the people who were on Jersey Shore, Pawn Stars, American Pickers, etc. who have had articles written about them. They all fit WP:BLP standards. It would have been different if Hayden was just some guy off the street who got arrested, and somebody wrote an article about him - then you'd have a case about non-notability. But Hayden had already been established as a TV personality long before he got arrested, and the article had long been written before news of the arrest came out. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is "reasonably certain that an AfD would have resulted in redirect prior to the arrest," then it could go to AFD, but stars of TV shows have often been found to be notable in AFD, since they often have multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. It is not the general practice at Wikipedia to eliminate an existing article just because the subject is charged with a crime, as might be the practice in the UK under their "sub judice" practice. It would be a good idea to monitor both his article and the show article for vandalism and BLP violations. Both articles could be semi-protected if problems arise. A foreseeable problem is how specifically the alleged 11 year old victim can be identified in either article. Edison (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's long been my understanding that going to AfD intending for the outcome to be a redirect is considered inappropriate. If that's changed in recent years, I'd be interested to know. But I'll be the first to admit I could be incorrect about this. In the meantime, I think this article needs more eyes: some of the details of the alleged crime as reported by TMZ and the NY Post have been added to the article, including the probable identity of the alleged victim. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a 'Blank and redirect', and per WP:BLAR, it should be submitted to afd is editors cannot find consensus on whether it's safe to do so. Though I also think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of notability. It's not temporary, as long as the person meets the WP:GNG, an arrest or conviction doesn't simply make them 'non-notable' anymore. Tutelary (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misapprehend: I don't believe this individual has notability that is independent of the TV show. Notability is not inherited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was meaning that if this person was notable in the past, notability doesn't 'dissipate' so to speak, so if you're admitting that they were notable, you're admitting that they -are- notable. Tutelary (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knew who (or what) a Snooki was before Jersey Shore, but does that mean she's not notable? Rick Harrison was just some local pawn shop owner in Las Vegas prior to finding fame on Pawn Stars, but does that mean he's not notable? Will Hayden was just a gunsmith/gun shop owner in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but one hit TV show later (Sons of Guns), he became famous. If he was still just a local gunsmith, the horrible crimes he's accused of doing wouldn't have made the news it has. But because he's a star of a prime time TV show, it's all over the place. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has changed four source article titles to "Hayden Arrested". This sort of lying goes beyond what Wikipedia should do for a living person. Goes to the other extreme of non-neutrality. I've fixed them, and hope they'll stay as they were actually written. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

Will Hayden victim

Will Hayden was arrested on child rape charges. Victim is still a minor. Most respectable journalism articles don't identify child rape victims or use identifying information. Identifying information is not necessary for the charge nor is necessary for the BLP. There was some initial reports that had identifying information with victim rumor. I removed what I saw. Probably should be rev deleted, too. --DHeyward (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added this this earlier as I missed this other section. Made it subheading here. Looks like some has delrev'd versions but more could be done. No source we use should in any way identify victim and no old version should exist that does it either. The paramount BLP issue is minor victim of sex crime. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is bizarre to say that we cannot cite reliable mainstream news sources just because their stories identify the victim in some way. This is an amazing argument and should not be applied in this case. See Trial of Michael Jackson where the alleged minor victim is specifically named. See Roman Polanski sexual abuse case where the 13 year old victim is named. Harvey Milk names his 16 year old sex partner (no prosecution involved). The name of the victim is more likely to appear in all the news coverage if there is a trial. Wikipedia cannot "unring a bell." That said, we need not repeat the specific identification hints pointing to the victim at this point in this case. Edison (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not real bizarre when the reliable sources like AP decided to do it when it was announced that the new charge was rape. AP specifically moved to that stance and removed all identifying language. For Wikipedia, the standard is what value does identifying the victim have in the article? In this case, none. What harm can it cause? Lots. WP will have records long after the news sites have archived theirs. Look at the Discovery Channel website. Purged. But we still have his article and will continue to. The least we can do is not increase the harm already inflicted. AP seems to agree. The article does not suffer by leaving it out and it doesn't gain by adding it in so do the least harm. --DHeyward (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant policy is WP:AVOIDVICTIM as the victim is not notable outside the crime and is not the subject of any articles. The event can be covered without identifying the victim and indeed, most crimes of this nature do not name the victim especially if the are minors. There is no information relevant to the topics covered in WP to name the victim and prolonging victimization through identification is simply wrong. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is potentially likely to resurface with other victim. Noting material has changed though. No new charges and no new developments to the now-cancelled show. --DHeyward (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Avakian

The BLP has strong POV piece based excessive quotes and 90% of text cited to the subject's own memoir and publications. Could use some additional eyes and aggressive clean up in my opinion. My assessment and recommendations for clean up can be seen on the talk page here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has been involved in attempts at making changes regarding this article; I would greatly appreciate some outside veteran editors to come in with a pair of fresh eyes and make some serious changes to get the article to conform to wikipedia standards. - xcuref1endx (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Keithbob, thanks for bringing attention to this matter. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent lack of reliable sources covering most-notable point about an actor's biography

As far as I can tell this person is only notable for a co-starring role in the 15th season of Power Rangers. I'm not a fan of the show, but I am a fan of the internet personality Linkara, who occasionally makes videos about the show. I got from the most recent such video (29:20~30:20) that the only thing that sets the actor in question apart from the dozens of other individuals who have appeared on the show is a rumour that he did something not nice. I came to Wikipedia to find out more and found an article that was basically a promotional page and of course didn't even mention it. The page history doesn't look good, though: it seems a number of users (IPs and SPAs, mostly) tried to add the information but it was removed as BLP-violation.

I can't find a reliable source that either verifies or disproves the rumour. The video I linked to above is from a series that is generally trustworthy, but the sole person responsible for it has occasionally uses Wikipedia as a source. I know the standard modus operandi in these situations is to leave it out, but isn't the standard modus operandi when there are insufficient reliable sources to discuss a topic objectively to delete/merge the article? Can anyone else find any decent sources for this topic? What do people say about merging the content into List of Power Rangers actors or some such?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, the fact that Linkara, who has his own online TV series on a fairly-exclusive website that he gets paid for, does not get his own Wikipedia article while each of about ten leads in a single season of a children's show gets one seems a bit odd. (If "online TV shows" don't get their own articles how does one explain this?) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the article, Hijiri? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is this one, as I indicated in the first line. Several edits from 17 June 2010 have been hidden, and one account was indefinitely blocked for BLP violations, which makes me think there might have been some serious issues with the article that are now hidden. This means, of course, that I can't see what exactly those edits were, but given this and other edits it seems almost certain that the issues involved the same ones I'm talking about. Additionally, this string of edits made the article into essentially a promotional piece. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lawrence

BLP watchers might want to chime in here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so. Tabloid rubbish like that, even if not in a tabloid, does not belong in a BLP. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning has no basis in policy. Wikipedia reports what is covered in reliable sources and the incident has be covered in dozens of international newspapers. TF90 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing isn't the issue. As someone else pointed out in the discussion on the talk page, BLP specifically disallows this kind of material: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist..." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting facts reported in international newspapers is hardly sensationalist. TF90 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the past couple of days it has been mainstreamed, moving from tabloids to The New York Times front page, so it is now notable and I think the BLP issue is moot. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a related manner, I've removed[1] the name of a person accused by Redditors of the breach per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Quinn

Additional eyes from experienced BLP hands would be appreciated here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific as to the problem, here or on the talk page. The last posting on the page is clear as to policy but ambiguous as to the material in the article at issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material in question isn't currently in the article, but has been proposed for inclusion. Several previous versions were revdeleted by administrators based on BLP concerns. It centers on disputed allegations around a person's intimate relationships. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see that it has been deleted. I'll watch the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been fully protected.--Auric talk 20:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Callinan

The controversy section is defamatory: Callinan did not give the advice that resulted in an abuse of process -- it was his instructing solicitors. The trial judge made no adverse findings against Callinan. The trial judge did not "refer the matter to the Attorney-General"(invalid citation). The proposition that the Attorney-General may have decided not proceed with the matter because of Callinan's judicial appointment is defamatory(invalid citation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawandstuff (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT. Giant Snowman 12:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a legal threat. I've read the case citation provided and it doesn't support the assertions made in the controversy section. I'm just highlighting the fact that the material is defamatory and should be changed.--Lawandstuff (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawandstuff: - I agree, that's not a legal threat. Any content that can not be verified in reliable sources can be removed or revised by anyone. Just make sure to leave a detailed edit summary and be prepared to explain your removal on the article talk page if challenged.- Mr X 13:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lloyd Webber

I have emailed the oversight team accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done--ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely brilliant - many thanks for your help DBaK (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Wilton

A grave error in your bio details of Penelope Wilton. True that she was at one time married to Daniel Massey,but Anna Massey is Daniel's sister NOT his daughter,and therefore Ms Wilton's sister-in-law. Both Daniel and Anna (both now deceased) were the children of Raymond Massey. Please correct. Thank you, Michael Sharpe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.220.162 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are looking at but the personal life section of Penelope Wilton just says: "Between 1975 and 1984, Wilton was married to the actor Daniel Massey. They had a daughter, Alice, born in 1977", which appears to be correct per your message.--ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to confirm that all is well in the article and there's no error at the moment. (No mention of the ip's "Anna", only the daughter "Alice").__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Taylor

Could I get some eyes on Roberta Taylor, please? There's a newish editor working there and some of his/her edits have been a bit questionable, but I can't follow up at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So despite me contacting you, instead of engaging with me you've posted here instead? OK. What have you found questionable about my edits? For the small amount of detail I've added, there are multiple refs in place and is also all available in her book Too Many Mothers.

Wronghood (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like trivial tabloid gossip because a cousin didn't like how the family was portrayed in a memoir? If the material is tabloid-gossipy, it's not good for a BLP article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jihadi John

Should we be identifying three humans, by name, as possible candidates? At least two of them definitely aren't John... -- Y not? 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

jeffrey_fenwick

Dear Sir I have read an article posted on Wikepedia about Jeffrey (should be Jeffery) Fenwick in which it states that he has been diagnosed with Cancer at the Mater Dei hospital in Bulawayo. This is not true, he has not been diagnosed with cancer. He underwent an operation which was complicated by a heart condition ans is recuperating at my home in Bulawayo. (He is my father).If you would like more accurate information I will be happy to probvide it. Regards Jeff Fenwick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.237.194.123 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

–

Removed unsourced content. NQ talk 08:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Togadia

The subject is a very popular figure(1,88,000 Google hits). Link to disputed content which was re-inserted three times before any discussion on the talk page was started. It is present in the article as of now. I have never made any edits to this article, but I am involved in Indian politics area. Talk page discussion is here.

1. From WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." 2. "The petition was endorsed by the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in its Editorial." is not present in the provided reference. 3. "according to an analysis in the press" is typical WP:GRAPEVINE. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These claims are a bit hilarious.

AmritasyaPutra is contesting the mention of a petition by Medico Friend Council against Praveen Togadia on the grounds that it is "grapevine". There are three references cited in the article itself: [3], [17] and [18]. The reference [17] is The Hindu, a national newspaper. The reference [18] is the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, a national journal of physicians. If we do a Google search for "Togadia" with "Medico Friend Council", we get 129 hits. If we search for him along with "Medical Council of India", Google brings up even more references. This is by no means a "grapevine". It is public information.
AmritasyaPutra also claims that the endorsement of the petition is "not present" in the journal. I see very clearly the statement "Shouldn't medical associations withdraw the license of Dr Togadia - and all others in the medical profession who have spoken and acted as he has?" which was precisely the content of the petition.
AmritasyaPutra also claims that the so-called "disputed content" was re-inserted three times before any discussion. When? By whom? I have stated on the talk page that I have re-inserted it only once, after the discussion started, after I have produced additional support. To be precise, the talk page issue was opened at 03:43 UTC on 3rd September, and I re-inserted the material at 20:16 UTC along with a reference to substantiate "notability" of the petition along with a response on the talk page Talk:Praveen_Togadia#Non_notable_controversy. No issues to do with BLP were raised on 3rd September.

AmritasyaPutra got involved at 08:49 UTC on 4th September, claimed that it was BLP issue because it supposedly constitutes "grapevine". Frankly, I don't see it. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, You definitely gave a weird interpretation to what I said above.--AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, you still don't seem to be changing the fact that every single news channel or journalist seeks for more drama and news. There is no guarantee that any credibility exists there. So a non notable petition by a school students is a blatant propaganda, violation of BLP.

You should not paste the refuted argument here, keep your explanation short and new. We are here to seek opionion from other editors, not to paste the arguments from talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable newspapers are reliable sources as per WP:RS. If you believe this is just "propaganda", you should be able to find other reliable sources that contradict it. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough reliable sources for claiming that world will end in 2012. Doesn't means we promote such gossips, you have to verify each. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single reliable source that talks about 2012 in its own voice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was never one, even those fringe ones couldn't confirm. That's what I tried to say, representation cannot be that notable as long as it cannot be verified. DY made good opinion below. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 doesn't get the basic that not everything has a contradictory view published in RS. Why don't you interpret it such that no RS has every considered it worth spending their editorial space on such things? If someone says Aeishwarya had an affair with Salman, and may would say that, you are not going to find a RS which specifically says they did NOT have an affair. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The affected persons can issue denials and, if the denials are not printed, they can file defamation suits, which the BJP politicians have gotten rather good at doing, e.g., see [2]. Our policies say multiple reliable secondary sources are needed to report a BLP accusation and we have that in this case. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrix Campbell

I wish to report a problem occurring with the Wikipedia site "Beatrix Campbell". I am not Beatrix Campbell, nor am I a relative or close friend. Like her I am a researcher and writer, and I know and value her work. Last year I noticed defamatory material on the site. I consulted Campbell and made corrections, with her agreement (see Cynthia Cockburn, 2 December 2013). Since then several seriously biased and hostile reinsertions and new material have been made relating to highly contested contemporary debates on the issue of child sexual abuse (4 and 22 August 2014). On 22 August 2014 I wrote to Wikipedia to ask for advice on procedure to protect or remove the entry. Robert Laculus replied helpfully on Aug 22 and this report is in response to his advice.

The entry "Beatrix Campbell" did not originate with Ms Campbell herself. It has from the start contained serious bias, inaccuracies and defamatory material. I can substantiate this in detail as and when appropriate. My question now is how can I deal with a situation in which the Campbell entry appears to be an arena in which certain parties are continually intervening to rehearsing longstanding critiques of evidence of child abuse in Britain.

As recently as yesterday, Sept 3, a long politically interested addition to this effect was made to the site. Much but not all of it was immediately excised - perhaps due to my previous reporting of a BLP problem. I have myself intervened today (sturdytree, Sept 4) to revert to a brief factual rendering that is to the best of my knowledge accurate and unbiased, and has been verified as acceptable to Ms. Campbell.

I understand from the Wikipedia website that there are two possible resources for dealing with such a case - one is called "blocking" and is to prevent further interventions by identified persons. The other is "protection", whereby an administrator may agree to protect or semi-protect pages when convinced that inappropriate material may be added or restored. This seems to me to promise a more satisfactory and enduring solution, since there appear to be not one but a 'community' of parties engaged in combat with Campbell via the site.

I would urgently appreciate advice of administrators as to whether one or both of these steps is appropriate and possible in the present case, and guidance as to how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturdytree (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturdytree: I just took a look, and the first half of what you removed appears to be reliably sourced, and the what was in the article was what was in the source. The portion where it says the team investigating was friend of ... was not in the article at all, and that could be removed, but not the first half. Can you explain why you'd remove the whole paragraph ? KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that sturdytree is interested in expunging unpleasant but well sourced material from the article, against WP:BLP. I don't like where this is going. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this person, and I can't rightly figure out what they're trying to argue here, but Sturdytree's recent edits look fine to me. The fat paragraph they removed contains names that probably shouldn't be mentioned, and accusations of undue influence sourced to tabloids and sustained by innuendo, with the addition of (unacceptable) primary material (court documents). I'd like for a smart person like Newyorkbrad to have a quick look--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, we may have to go back to this version. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely support the removal and redaction of the sep 3rd edit, but I don't understand the suggestion to stubbify the article, as I think that though the source for the recently removed sections (the Mail) is distasteful in itself, it is accurate in the facts used. Campbell was a figure in an unpleasant episode in the recent history of the NE of England, to wipe it away is not what wikipedia should do. The article as it stands shows her notability (OBE anybody?) but is lacking in important detail due to the most recent edits. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Roxy the dog. Just because some media (media that Drmies labels "tabloid") have chosen to cover a story, and others have not, does not mean that the basic facts of that story as related in those media are unsuitable for Wikipedia. Sturdytree has not stated that there is any core untruth in the content that has been deleted, all that editor is saying is that the subject of the article has said that she disagrees with the content. Since when has the content of a blp article required to be "acceptable" to the subject covered? I find the assertion by Sturdytree that this article must be "verified as acceptable to Ms. Campbell" to be very troubling. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy the dog, for the hell of it you should click on the "next diff" link in that early version and check out the sourcing. Or you can go to a more recent version, before Sturdytree got to it, and see what the sources are--one from the Guardian, sure, but then there's court documents (unacceptable in a BLP) and an article from the Daily Mail, also unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, please cite some discussion that places a blanket ban on using the Daily Mail as a source for BLP articles (or Wikipedia articles in general if there is nothing blp specific). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It's a tabloid, a gossip rag. I'm sure John can easily point you to such a discussion, but let's establish first that common sense is of great help here. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds awfully like an "I just don't like it". You are the one wanting to exclude this source as a source, so it is really up to you to back that exclusion opinion up (if you are still holding to it). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, The editor that is responsible for firing my enthusiasm for wikipedia has said that there are three things you need to be successful here. Sources, sources and sources. In this particular article, I'd add a fourth source! The article version after your stub link above is truly terrible, and clearly, court documentation (that doesn't seem to be available) which is the report of a Judicial Enquiry into the biggest child abuse scandal in the UK last century, is an unreliable source. In my own noodling around (I'd hardly call it research) on Google, I have come across the European "right to be forgotten" notification on two different related names. I too would like to know if there is policy or guidelines of some kind which rules out the "Fail" as a source? (forgot to sign, sorry)-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, if I were certain about everything here I would have already nixed the section and deleted it from the history. I'm not that certain about tone and content so I haven't. That the Daily Mail is in general not to be used for BLPs, and especially not when it comes to Horrible Crimes and Suggestive Innuendo, that's, as I said above, common sense. It is a better idea to milk the Guardian article for what it's worth, and I may just do that. In fact, I'll ping a couple of folks with some experience in Brrrritish matters: Sitush, Eric Corbett, if you have a moment, will you please have a look at this discussion and the article? Your help is appreciated. Thanks Roxy, Drmies (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP policy is quite specific about the use of tabloid sources such as the Daily Mail.[3] Eric Corbett 18:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that. The BLP policy talks about "tabloid journalism" - that is, if the source (i.e., the article or commentary or editorial or whatever containing the material) is written in an overly sensationalist "tabloid" style it should not be used if it is the only sourcing. I have not looked at the sources in question so I do not know their content or the journalistic approach. But if it is the August 3, 2002 story titled The Witchfinder we are talking about, except for the typical ott headline and the synopsis-blurb (or whatever that is called), it seems non-tabloid in style. Anyway, I see no blanket ban on stories originating in the Daily Mail, or even in using Daily Mail sources written in a tabloid style as long as there are other sources that consider the same story in a non-sensationalist way. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use the Daily Mail for BLPs or, indeed, any biographical articles. It is often highly sensationalised even when discussing people who by common consent lead fairly mundane lives; when there are suggestions of something out of the ordinary in a life, the DM almost always goes overboard. Sometimes they do it subtly, more often they take a hatchet to it. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The present state of the article is unsatisfactory. It is mostly written from a wholly uncritical perspective. Campbell (like others) badly and publicly burnt her fingers over the Satanic abuse affair, and it should not be expunged from the article because it is now awkward for for fans. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subtopic at issue does not strike me as necessarily off-limits, but it should be given only its due weight, and the most reliable sources available should be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Sturdytree" suggests above that they were previously responsible for this edit as "Cynthia Cockburn." Both IDs are responsible for the removal of a significant paragraph on the BC page, claiming it was "incorrect" and "malicious," yet at no time have they attempted to explain those edits on the article Talk page. As others have noted above, these edits seems to be aimed at removing historical detail that in retrospect may be embarrassing to the subject, though not untruthful, which doesn't seem very surprising, given the editor's acknowledged collusion with the subject. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kakan Hermansson

Swedish press is today reporting about a yet unidentified police officer who has used a computer inside the police head office in Stockholm to edit both the svWiki en EnWiki article about Kakan Hermansson. And I see now that it is true. She wrote some negative article about the police and now some angry policeman is discrediting her. Just giving you all a heads up to watch out if you have her article on your watchlists.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what being a lesbian activist will earn you. I've removed one of the edits and have left a note for the editor who, no doubt, has moved on to a different IP. Let me know if this continues, BabbaQ; if need be we'll semi-protect. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One IP blocked, two edits rev-deleted, semi-protection applied. Yeah, total CENSORSHIP!!! Drmies (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Schweich

An American politician whose article has been fluffed up considerably based on primary sources. I've reverted those changes, but the article could benefit from the eyes of experienced editors. There's a couple of SPAs in the history (no need for me to link them--you'll see them immediately) and I have warned the most recent of them, Bradleyhaberstroh, for non-neutral editing. (See also Google.) Anyway, your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there BLP issues? You may wish to ask for help on a different noticeboard. Choor monster (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Yeah, it's a BLP and it's been fluffed up. He's a politician. This is an election year. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, yes. You mentioned primary sources, sounds like WP:OR problems. You mentioned fluffing up and the like, it sounds like WP:NPOV problems. You mentioned SPAs, could be WP:COI or worse. As for this noticeboard: "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Are these problem editors also editing Schweich's opponent? And up top it also says: "For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Perhaps we need an election-year noticeboard that cuts across issues, but until then, you haven't given any hint of BLP policy specific violations, hence my comment. Seriously. Choor monster (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP articles often have to be protected from friends or supporters making them look to the general reader like ads, fantasies, or resumes. Sometimes BLP subjects will demand changes to an article that, if they received them, are more likely to put them in serious danger of public ridicule. WP:BLP seeks to avoid all situations of avoidable harm, removing material whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. If someone's making a BLP non-compliant with WP:BLP, it doesn't matter if it's friend or foe, it's still an issue regarding a biography of a living person.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Elaqueate. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining the obvious to this other editor; I have 236 edits here and I think I know what this board is for. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant accuser

I have the impression that WP:BLPNAME means his accuser's name is not allowed on WP. There was one editor who apparently was determined to get the name in despite being told repeatedly not to even mention it on the talk page. It's there right now: Talk:Kobe Bryant sexual assault case#Name of accuser, serving no purpose of course. Choor monster (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rojda Aykoç

An editor, "Why should I have a User Name?", has been repeatedly altering text in the article so that it states fairly unequivocally that this singer is a terrorist supporter who was "arrested by a Turkish court for making "propaganda of an illegal organization"", rather than the article having the factual and calmly neutral was "arrested by Turkish authorities who alleged she made "propaganda for an illegal organization"". [4] [5]

The sources considered the arrest and charge as essentially a "put up" job. It was part of an attempt, using legal intimidation, to close down by other means public displays of Kurdish culture in Turkey after existing Turkish laws that made such displays illegal were relaxed due to EU demands. The fact that Aykoç never served a day of the 20-month sentence she got for just singing in public a song in Kurdish indicates that nobody (not even in Turkey) seriously thinks her guilty of a real crime. I should also note that Why should I have a User Name? is trying to have the article deleted. In his AfD, he himself called her prosecution an "absurd court adventure" and her sentence an "absurd court ruling" - but the sensationalist wording he wants added to the article do not suggest an "absurd" prosecution. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what's going on here isn't such a big thing since the quotation marks make it clear that this is a statement made not in Wikipedia's voice. It's an awkward and grammatically challenging sentence, and Tiptoe's version was better, but it's now gone anyway, courtesy of Boleyn. Why should I et cetera, it's probably best if you leave this article alone. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Dahngbay Zuu (Mr. Zuu)

Can someone check out this edit? It says the relatively unknown person "allegedly" was involved in violence, but it's not clear whether the newspaper is reporting what the police allege, or whether it's anonymous. Some of the material about the person is sourced to this which is the comment section of this website.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I checked it again and it looks handled by another editor.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ardian Fullani

There seems to have been a recent controversy in Albania regarding Fullani and there is a sentence at the end regarding it (though WP:BLPCRIME might apply). However the article looks like a press release / advert so needs a clean up and some references if anyone is up to it. I would but I don't have time at the moment. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map of India shown from the OCHA source is biased and government of India doesn't recognize it.

The map of India shown on this site is biased and is not recognized by the government of India. The north most part of India i.e., J&K is a verymuch part of India. The reason being India is having it's control over this area which is not shown as part of India. This needs to be updated with the accurate map released by government of India. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proverbiumworld (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this page is for discussing problems with article concerning living persons, you need to raise it at Talk:India but note this has been covered before with the comment that "The map shows the actual borders and all related claims; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China." MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy vs. WP:BLPCRIME

Article is Indictment of Rick Perry

Afronig wishes to insert the word "allegedly" in the opening sentence. [6] I contend this is incorrect as indictments don't use "allegedly" in their wording (neither does the source). Bringing this here as any decision could affect a multitude of articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compare "X was indicted on the charge of first-degree murder" with "X was indicted for allegedly killing his wife". The second one needs an "allegedly" while the first one is clearly a charge name and does not. It has to be clear whether we're talking about what actions they allegedly did, or clearly talking about the formal legal name of the specific charge they were indicted for. If the phrasing in the article isn't clear it must be made clear.

In your supplied diff, it's being done incorrectly either way. The "allegedly" is being put in weird inappropriate spots. It's clear from sources that the threat of veto and the request that she stand down happened. Those shouldn't have "allegedly"s unless there are sources that put those events in doubt. "Allegedly" could arguably be put in front of "abusing his official capacity" or "coercion of a public servant" unless it is made crystal clear that those are the formal names of the charges, and couldn't be confused as our description that the events were "abuse" or "coercion". If there's still any reasonable chance of misreading, try putting the charge names in quotes or re-writing. It wasn't an "alleged" veto, the formal name of the charge is not alleged, but if we have written the sentence too loosely, it is "alleged" abuse and "alleged" coercion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article said in essence was charged for this for allegedly doing this. Allegedly is used in the correct spot, in my opinion. In the Perry case there are both disputes as to law and to fact. Afronig (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indicted is not the same as "proved". BLPCRIME will prevail, especially as Perry pleaded "not guilty". YES for "alleged". Lindashiers (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the passage in question:

On August 15, 2014, Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) was indicted by a Travis County grand jury, for abusing his official capacity by allegedly threatening to veto $7.5 million in funding for the Public Integrity Unit, a state public corruption prosecutors department, and for coercion of a public servant, in regards to allegedly asking the resignation of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, [2] after she was convicted of drunk driving, and incarcerated.

By the simple fact that an indictment is an accusation (and therefore implicitly alleged), adding allegedly is redundant, and it runs afoul of WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV.- Mr X 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "allegeds" in that passage are wrong, as written. It is not "alleged" that he threatened to veto or asked for a resignation, the sources say he did that. The only thing that could be considered "alleged" is that the threat constituted abuse or should be described as illegal. It's not "alleged" that he was indicted on specific charges.

Here's the difference shown in the Washington Post, where it's written in a way that requires a version of "allegedly": A Travis County grand jury on Friday indicted Gov. Rick Perry on two felony counts, alleging he abused his power by threatening to veto funding[7];

and here's an example in the Dallas News showing how it doesn't need "allegedly" when it's written this way: A Travis County grand jury on Friday charged Perry with two felony counts, abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant, after he vetoed funding for a county office that investigates public corruption.[8] __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think our current wording is awkward. "... Rick Perry (R) was indicted by a Travis County grand jury, for abusing his official capacity... " should probably be edited to read "... Rick Perry (R) was indicted by a Travis County grand jury, on charges of abusing his official capacity... ", or something like that.- Mr X 20:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that works better, or something similar. It's better to be specific about the part that is a specific charge, and call it that.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever gets across that he was 1. indicted on specific charges of "abuse of official capacity" (specific charge, no alleged), or 2. indicted for allegedly abusing his office (non-specific charge, alleged) because of 3. the veto stuff and calling for her resignation, which everyone agrees happened so shouldn't be termed alleged.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on charges of abusing his official capacity... is much better wording, and avoids the need to over-use "allegedly" - Cwobeel (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate

This article desperately needs attention from BLP-minded folks. Lots of pejorative epithets, unfounded accusations and piss-poor sourcing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By Lots of pejorative epithets, he means 'Social Justice Warrior' (no source for it being a ' Lots of pejorative epithets' btw.) By unfounded accusations and piss poor sourcing, he means The Guardian. Tutelary (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, "social justice warrior" is a pejorative epithet, and by "no source" he means this one, or hell, even this one, which, while not a reliable source, is a pretty clear indication of the meaning of the term. Your disingenuous argument that it's not an insult is self-evidently ridiculous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, the article doesn't name anyone to be a "social justice warrior" but instead it's attributed to the discussion around GamerGate - the Guardian discusses the social justice warriors as well. These are opinions from WP:RS and belong to the article. Similarly, the article mentions that the other side is being characterized as "misogynistic" - yet it doesn't name anyone specifically to be one either. It isn't a BLP issue. --Pudeo ' 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good analysis. There are known statements that I could from that say "X is an SJW", but it doesn't make sense to include them, and simply leave it has broad claims made by one group to the other, and vice versa. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right - the current version is acceptable because it explains that the term is an opinionated statement considered to be pejorative. That version hasn't always been there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Social Justice Warrior" is being used as a pejorative by some elements of the online right wing, yes; I've had the epithet hurled at me a time or two myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Paulin

Tom Paulin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article places significant undue weight on one poem that Paulin published in the Observer in 2001. Paulin's entire life and works as highly notable author, lecturer and pundit are poorly summarised in just 370 words, while his opinions on pro-Israel politics and the phrase "Zionist SS" in a poem in 2001 has been given 680 words in the article. This is not what he is most notable for. Could someone look at addressing this imbalance please? --Fæ (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tad past "significant undue weight" indeed. I cut the section in half, but it might be pruned further. Collect (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be careful here. If the notability of this person is predicated in his controversial poems and ideas, then it is not undue weight. We are here to reflect what significant views are reported about a person. If the author has other works that received coverage and were reported in RS, then add these for balance, but don't delete material just because it is controversial in BLPs. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This removal of more that 4,000 characters [9] is totally unnecessary. You can instead attempt to summarize the content rather than delete statements by Paulin and his critics. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- the section fails UNDUE by a mile -- that you seem to think more than half a BLP should basically say "this loon is really anti-Semitic" is not sufficient for Wikipedia to violate the strictures of the WP:NPOV non-negotiable policy and the WP:BLP policy as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 298: / Line 298: @@
 : We need to be careful here. If the notability of this person is predicated in his controversial poems and ideas, then it is not undue weight. We are here to reflect what significant views are reported about a person. If the author has other works that received coverage and were reported in RS, then add these for balance, but don't delete material just because it is controversial in BLPs. -  [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 15:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 : This removal of more that 4,000 characters [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Paulin&diff=624670882&oldid=624657953] is totally unnecessary. You can instead attempt to summarize the content rather than delete statements by Paulin and his critics. -  [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 15:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
+:::Um -- the section fails UNDUE by a mile -- that you seem to think '''more than half a BLP should basically say "this loon is really anti-Semitic"''' is ''not'' sufficient for Wikipedia to violate the strictures of the [[WP:NPOV]] non-negotiable policy and the [[WP:BLP]] policy as well.  Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards