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.

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)

@Paora: et al. I removed his birthdate since its source seemed to be WP:SYNTH. Cryer is a semi-public figure and is deserving of a certain amount of privacy. I noticed that NZ libraries don't use his birth year which gives a strong indication it isn't public knowledge. -- haminoon (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hastert

The last paragraph of the lead about Dennis Hastert says this:

“ In June 2015, accusations but not legal charges emerged that Hastert had sexually abused three students (including "Individual A") when he was a teacher.[9][10][11][12][13] In 2006 Hastert denied sexually abusing one student, who died in 1995 and therefore could not have been "Individual A." ”

I honestly don't know what we should do here. The statute of limitations has apparently expired, so he probably won't get a chance to prove his innocence in court. So do we just leave that paragraph there forever? It's well-sourced. On the other hand, maybe we should keep it out of the lead but put it in the body of the Wikipedia article. Any thoughts?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that this high-profile case, which isn't as yet even about alleged abuse, is all over the place and we have a ton of well-verified but awfully NEWSy content--you know what that means on Wikipedia: we'll fill it up to the max. However, that last sentence, I'm going to cut it since it's only about a single statement from a number of years ago and is thus, in my opinion, not leadworthy. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait a sec. I could see getting rid of that whole paragraph or keeping that whole paragraph, but deleting that last sentence strikes me as extremely problematic. When we describe charges we're always supposed to include denials. Per WP:BLP, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.". You really want the accusation to go in the lead while the denial is buried deep in the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

? That makes no sense. He's accused in 2015, and you want to include a statement from 2006 in which he denied having abused a student who could not have been one of the three he's suggested of having abused now? It's a different allegation. If you really think the BLP is served by either removing the paragraph or restoring that tortured logicism that I removed, you made the wrong choice. Just scrap the whole paragraph. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, all of the recent allegations are about very old behavior, when he was a teacher in the 1970s.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but that's not my point. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The student that he denied abusing in 2006 is almost certainly one of the three that he's now alleged to have abused. His name is Steve Rheinboldt.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, the bigger question involves this statement in WP:BLP.... "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Here the statute of limitations has expired, so what do we do?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Sexuality says, "Care should be taken to avoid placing undue weight on aspects of sexuality." I don't think this stuff should be in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course it belongs in the lead. Saying otherwise is naive. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Cwobeel. In the lead, we are supposed to faithfully summarize the article's contents, lending reasonably proportionate weight to each. To omit mention of an important and well-sourced aspect of the article is contrary to policy and would do a disservice to readers. This is particular true when the mention of the allegation is a mere one sentence of the lead.

Moreover, there is absolutely no BLP violation in the article. Re the presumption of innocence discussed above - this seems to be a red herring here. The article does not (and never has) made any comment as to guilt or innocence, truth or untruth - rather, it simply and neutrally reports what the allegation (as reported in reliable sources) is. Neutrality^talk 04:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

All valid points, but the fact remains that this is a very unusual situation where a BLP subject is being publicly accused of sex crimes long after expiration of the statute of limitations. We are supposed to avoid WP:Recentism, presume innocence, and take special care to give sex stuff appropriate weight. Are you folks planning on leaving these unproved accusations of sex crimes at the end of the lead indefinitely? I think it's better to cover it only in the article body. It's very stigmatizing. Of course, if he's guilty, then he deserves stigma, and if guilt is established then we can give it to him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what the presumption of innocence means, though. It means that we can only report these as accusations and that we must be careful to never imply that he's definitely guilty in article text; but it has no bearing on how prominent or how thoroughly those accusations are covered in the article. That's decided based on how the accusations are covered in reliable sources, which I think supports a full summary in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Aquillion, I have already conceded that every last detail can go into the body of the Wikipedia article, and that much of those details can go into the lead. The only thing I dispute at this point is whether the lead needs to say that the alleged abuse was "sexual" and that the lead needs to describe the alleged victims' gender. Putting that stuff in the body of the article seems adequate, many reliable sources do likewise (i.e. not putting it into their headline or first couple paragraphs), and there are many pertinent Wikipedia policies besides presumption of innocence. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist...." "Care should be taken to avoid placing undue weight on aspects of sexuality...." "Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism....." "[N]ews reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news...." No charges have been brought about this. No victim has stepped forward. No admission has been made. The presumption is innocence, and the subject issued a denial in 2006.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

By know, given the numerous comments here and at the RFC, may you want to consider WP:DROPTHESTICK? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't have replied to Aquillion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are replying to all comments with the same failed arguments, that is why I suggest to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Of the four policies/guidelines that I quoted to Aquillion, did I quote any of them previously in this Hastert section?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC at article talk page

There is an RFC at the article talk page. The issue is whether unofficial allegations against Hastert (i.e. no criminal charges) that are described in the lead should say "sexual abuse" or just "abuse".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Did y'all seriously need an RFC to settle this? Given the massive and widespread media coverage (from very reliable sources), pretty much all of which put the nature of the allegations front-and-center, I find it very hard to believe that anyone could argue that the info shouldn't be in the lede. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we do. The source that you cited in the RFC doesn't mention that the alleged abuse was sexual until after the headline, and after the first and second paragraphs. Why should we promote it to the lead? The eighth paragraph of that source says the alleged victim was male. Should we promote that to the lead too? I won't recite the pertinent Wikipedia policies right here, since I have done so in the RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I replied @ the RFC, but: other articles do put the allegations in the headline. I just linked the most recent story. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Somnath Bharti - allegations of domestic violence

Can someone please run their eyes over this section of a BLP. It has been added recently and is well sourced. A change of heading would be A Good Thing but I'm more concerned about how we deal with situations where it is basically one spouse making serious allegations about another. Are we ok to leave this in? - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have just removed the section linked above, partly because of doubts re: balance but mainly because I'm hoping it will stop the ongoing edit war until we arrive at some sort of consensus. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Avera Mengistu

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive223#Avera Mengistu. This is still a blatant BLP violation. Now the subject of the article has been expanded to two possible names - either Avera Mengistu or Abraham Mengistu. This new name comes from yet another non-RS that cites "Israeli media reports" as the source - however, these reports do not exist anywhere and editor who supports this info has not supplied them. This is a pseudo biography that is pushing an agenda and needs to be deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There are still a few days to go on the AfD and despite three "speedy delete" !votes, nobody has provided a reason why the article qualifies for speedy deletion. I think you're going to have to wait until the AfD is closed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles that are clear violations of BLP should not have to wait the full seven days for BLP - THAT is why three people want to speedy delete this atrocity. And I still say there's no evidence this isn't a hoax, considering the questionable motives/honesty of people contributing to it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Cyrus Pallonji Mistry

I wish to bring to the attention of the Admins the page about Cyrus Pallonji Mistry. Mr Mistry is one of the top industrialists in India. He is currently heading the Tata group of companies in India. There is some dispute on his wiki page about his nationality. There is definitely a reference given in his wiki page to a Times of India article which says he is an Irish national. Never the less, considering that he is living and working in India, i think he should be described as an Indo-Irish businessman or an Irish-Indian businessman, and not as an Irish businessman. Characterizing him as an Irish businessmen would only provoke xenophobia among a section of Indians who read his wikipedia biography. Additionally, consider the fact that his father Pallonji Mistry is characterized as an Irish Indian in his wikipedia page. It is surely strange that the father is being characterized as Irish Indian in his wikipedia page while the son is being characterized as Irish in his wikipedia page. Anyways, i would like some kind of ruling on this issue since this is a matter that can come up again and again in the context of other wikipedia biographies of other immigrants. I would like to add that this is a general dispute concerning all immigrants. It is not specific to one individual. Soham321 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no dispute about his nationality. He has self-declared as Irish and even explained why that is so. The rest of this matter is being discussed at the article talk page. If nothing comes out of that then, yes, it may need more eyes. I'd be surprised if nothing does come out of it, though, because it isn't remotely contentious. This looks like forum shopping, bearing in mind the exact same post was made at WP:AN. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no forum shopping. One of the admins at WP:AN suggested that i could take this up either on this forum or in the talk page of the article. I prefer to take this issue up on this forum since this is an issue concerning all immigrants. It is not specific to Cyrus Pallonji Mistry. Consider also the fact that Cyrus's father Pallonji Mistry is being characterized as an Irish Indian in his own wikipedia page. Where is the consistency? Soham321 (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So fix his father's article? Have you even bothered checking Talk:Cyrus Pallonji Mistry? We've got enough problems with Indian nationalists already without creating yet more storms in teacups. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no expectation that a son must have the same nationality as his father. This really is just a matter of what reliable sources say about him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that both the son and the father are Irish citizens who are living in and well settled in India for many years. There is no reason to believe that they will ever go back to settle down in Ireland. We can consider them as immigrants. It is like Indian immigrants to the US being called Indian-Americans. Likewise we can consider the Mistrys to be Irish-Indian or Indo-Irish or something similar. At any rate there is a discrepancy in the wikipedia pages of the son and the father which should be addressed. You cannot describe the father as Irish-Indian and the son as Irish without failing the test of consistency. Soham321 (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC) And this is an interesting reference. Cyrus Mistry and the mammy factor at the heart of TataExtract:"I've talked with Cyrus, and I can tell you that he's neither an Indian nor an Irish nationalist.Although he is an Irish citizen and a permanent resident of India, he sees himself as a global citizen. The colour of his passport is not important."Soham321 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I made a suggestion in this edit and summary. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This is quite reasonable in my opinion.Soham321 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies:, it won't work. We got here because people were stressing "Indian" and I discovered that he was not in fact Indian. They'll be back simply because that is what a lot of Indians like to do: they bask in the reflected glory of those with whom they feel they are associated and they make appropriate associations to enhance that (for the latter, see Sanskritisation). In a sense, it is what underpins the caste system. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

After some reflection, i wish to place on record my objection to the above comment of Sitush. In my opinion, Sitush's comments smack of racism. The comments are racist, insulting towards Indians, and completely unacceptable generalizations. I request Sitush not to repeat such comments.Soham321 (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sitush, you have all of the article to explain this, based on reliable sources--in text, which is much better than a couple of syllables, hyphenated or not... Drmies (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to explain, and you are assuming that drive-bys read articles. I give it a month, tops. - Sitush (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Mitch Caplan (Mitchell H. Caplan)

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

---

[COI Disclaimer: I am employed as a PR professional in an agency setting. Jefferson National (Caplan's current place of business) is a client (this is also noted on the Talk page).]

I'm seeking an editor to consider the suggested factual revisions to Mitch Caplan's page (position has been updated for number of years, etc.) and waited the requisite amount of time before posting here.

As outlined in the CREWE Engagement Flowchart, I have submitted this request on the Talk Page and on the WikiProject Biographies page. Kristen sald (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Tatito Hernández

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

Hi

Someone wrote a biography about me. I don't authorise anyone to write biography about me, the info published is false. I request delete this post about me. That post is inappropriate, Below the link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatito_Hernández

Please delete the entire information and disable this link.

Thanks, I'll be appreciate your attention to this matter.

Rafael Tatito Hernandez Montanez redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatitohernandez (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As you are an elected representative I don't think there is a case for the article to be deleted. As you are a public figure no-one needs to be authorised to write about you. However I noticed there were some serious WP:BLP violations on your page which I have removed. Could you please let us know if there is anything else incorrect in your article. -- haminoon (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed some of the personal information. Although it can be sourced, is not necessary per WP:NPF. As to deletion, that's unlikely. There doesn't seem to be any other problems with the article that I can see. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Just read through the entry and the info seems to mirror similar entries for members of congress/other elected bodies. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Texas pool party incident

Will someone please point out that Eric Casebolt's name has both been "widely disseminated" as well as being "directly involved" with the 2015 Texas pool party incident to those who keep removing his name from the article, claiming WP:BLPNAME as a justification?[1][2][3], etc. Besides which: he was a public servant, not a private citizen. I would hope the noticeboard would frown upon its mission being perverted like this. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly receptive to the "public servant, not private citizen" argument as an absolute. Sure, it holds for congresspersons and the like, but applying it to an ordinary policeman is a bit much. Nevertheless -- referring to Casebolt by name is a horse that has left the barn, bolted across the paddock, and jumped the fence. There's no policy-based case for withholding something that has been reported in numerous high-end reliable sources such as the Washington Post, the Guardian, the new York Times, the BBC, etc etc etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that it necessarily applies here, but the legal standard includes ordinary police officers as public officials as far as libel standards, etc. You have to show actual malice in order to prevail, and I don't think you can show that when almost every publication in the US has printed his name. GregJackP Boomer! 06:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but our BLP policy is intentionally more conservative than US libel law. VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The requirement at WP:BLP is to use "greatest care." Yes, someone with an internet connection can probably find this name, but that is not adequate reason to parrot it here. Using the name adds nothing to a reader's encyclopedic understanding of the event. The person, whose decision to go into hiding indicates a desire to remain low-profile, has received death threats. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

To my reading the page meets all criteria of BLP policy as of this timestamp. Casebolt is mentioned over and over again in thousands of high quality secondary sources. The pedia isn't protecting the subject in any way by omitting his name; neither by mentioning it is Wikipedia indicting the subject for the misbehavior which defines the subject incident and caused his resignation in the interest of "healing". Including the name of the incident's primary actor is hardly "parroting". If the subject is receiving death threats, that's an unfortunate consequence of the wide dissemination of his name in a vast number of reliable secondary sources reporting his confessed misbehavior. If the guy wasn't wearing blue that day he'd be in police custody right now. The incident he provoked may end up costing the city a huge sum in legal fees and settlements. Appropriately including Casebolt's name on the page does nothing to increase or decrease threats against him. BusterD (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. We should not be withholding the name if it has been covered in multiple reliable sources about the incident. Connormah (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If one name is going to be used, then all of the names of the participants should be used. Seems that the article was more regarding the officer than the event. But is the event itself worthy of it's own entry? But that is probably for another discussion. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I see such a discussion is underway. That's the big question here. If the page is kept at AFD, then this discussion becomes operative. If the page is deleted, this discussion is moot. BusterD (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@BusterD: while there usually is no WP:DEADLINE, even ephemeral BLP violations have the potential to do harm. VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And if there were a BLP violation here, we'd be in agreement. But I've seen nothing on the page, even when the name is inserted, that violates BLP policy. This headline (What McKinney police officer Eric Casebolt did wrong) from the unquestionably reliable Washington Post demonstrates that the horse is well out of the barn, and no amount of censoring Wikipedia is going to put it back. The name search on Google this morning gives one million ghits. BusterD (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And yet the name continues to be removed.[4] -- Kendrick7^talk 11:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the benefit to popularizing the name? I see this as a choice in which including the name has zero upside and a very significant downside. Per BLP we should be more caution than news sources. VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom

I've started an RfC about List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom. The article has no sources and includes lots of living people. The RfC hasn't attracted comments from any additional editors, so the input of BLP experts would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Rachel Dolezal

Rachel Dolezal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject is in the news currently and this article is being edited rapidly. Two potential BLP violations are repeatedly being added:

• Her date of birth and full name, which are sourced from a birth certificate posted online.
• A reason for her being a victim of alleged hate crimes [5], which doesn't appear in any references.

This article needs to be watched by more people with a good understanding of the BLP policy over the next few days. -- haminoon (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Could someone clarify this issue raised at Talk:Rachel_Dolezal#birthdate_and_middle_name? The editor appears to be claiming that if a reliable secondary source mentions they've seen and checked a birth certificate then the other details of that birth certificate can be used in the BLP. -- haminoon (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I really don't think these are the issues here. The birth certificate was received by CNN from the parents, and nobody is disputing its authenticity. The main issues, as you can see from the talk page, are the POV-pushing trolls trying to use this to mock transgender acceptance and Caitlyn Jenner, and have fun as part of the #WrongSkin trolling. [6] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Tim Hunt

The Tim Hunt article has been edited over 100 times in the past 5 or so days since he made some controversial comments. A quick glance at the edit history shows many reversals of vandalism or removal of inflammatory content. In the interest of remaining encyclopedic and not turning into a tabloid, I think there should be a hold on the page until the dust settles a bit and the section of the article regarding the comments can be brought up to the Wikipedia standards of being fair neutral and unbiased, reflecting the whole story. SchighSchagh (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This older gentleman, older than me at least, said something wry about men and women which was not politically correct. Perhaps unwise. He also won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Due weight ought to lead us to conclude that we pay far more attention to the second accomplishment than the first teapot tempest. I agree with semi-protection of the page for a while. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that some mention of the controversy is warranted, but I don't think it should be the dominant part of the article. I do think that the phrasing in the article needs to be worked on since this sounds pretty biased: "in which he commented about the problems he has with female scientists". There has to be a better way of putting this. Maybe something like this?

On 9 June 2015, Hunt gave a speech entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?"" at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, delivered at a lunch for female journalists and scientists. During the speech Hunt remarked upon his reputation as a male chauvinist and endorsed gender segregated laboratories. Hunt also commented upon past interactions he has had with female scientists, stating:

“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry."

This isn't perfect but it does somewhat solve the issue with the term "problems". It's sort of an apt description for Hunt but at the same time it's also a fairly loaded word. The rest of the section needs a little tightening since it does read a bit like a newspaper, though. I'd also somewhat endorse a temporary semi-protect, although I'll say that the page isn't really being vandalized as much as say, Rachel Dolezal's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Brayner García

Please include references and more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric staffer1984 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No BLP issues, and they pass WP:NFOOTY.Not an issue for here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Gennady Semigin

Source(s) are incorrectly cited, citations are limited, and information is lacking. Please move this to a draft space before publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric staffer1984 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Farooq Umar

This article has information which is fictitious and many facts are not true regarding the individual. Many parts are inconsistent and not factual. The biography is significantly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.106.233 (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As just one example... RCDS does not offer a PHD, therefore this individual cannot have earned a PHD from there. Please confirm before publishing. There are many other facts which are inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.106.233 (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Mary Anne Waldron

This article, about me, is defamatory. It states that I defended the law school proposal at Trinity Western University "that advoated anti-homosexual admittance policies based on the concept of freedom of religion". In fact, the law school proposal did NOT advocate such policies at all nor did I. The truth is that I defended the right of Trinity Western University to have a law school although, as a religiously-based, private university, they require that all faculty students and staff adhere to a religous definition of marriage (one man and one woman). Hence the issue of freedom of religion. The sentence in the article implies that I and the proposal advocated this policy and I believe this to be defamatory. I supported TWUs legal and constituionally protected right to adhere to their religious beliefs because I believe such freedom is critical in a democratic pluralistic society. In addition, I was not called to the bar in 1969. I am not that old. I believe my call date was 1975.