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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:08, 20 January 2016

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.

Naveen Naqvi page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naveen_Naqvi

The birthdate on this page ^[1] has been corrected by a user, but it still shows when googled as the incorrect date citing wikipedia. Please help resolve this issue. Thanks in advance. Aphanti (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The birth year (1971) was inserted into the infobox of that BLP one month ago.[1] Today, I have also inserted it into the lead paragraph; we cannot control what Google does, but maybe this will help. I do not know where Google got the wrong birth date from.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naveen_Naqvi

https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%AF%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2

Dear Sir,

I am Bulgarian. This morning I tried to find an article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia about Mr. Yanko Yankov (Янко Янков), a prominent Bulgarian dissident who was thrown by the communists into prison for political activities. I found a disambiguation page about Yanko Yankov (five people), none of whom is the dissident. One of the articles is about a completely unknown football player. I find this a DISGRACE!!!

Mr. Yankov spent several years in prison, to be freed some days before the fall of Todor Zhivkov's regime, 11 November 1989. Mr. Yankov lectured law at Sofia University when he was sentenced. After the establishment of democracy in Bulgaria he was promoted to the position of professor, to be soon dismissed again from his post, for not conforming to the policies of the current academic administration, still controlled by communists.

Dear Sir, I myself do not have the necessary information to be able to write an article about Mr. Yankov. But I find that it must be in the responsibilities of the Bulgarian Wikipedia editors to find someone knowledgeable who can make up for the disgraceful omission described above.

Thank you very much for your attention and have a nice day! (personal info redacted GermanJoe (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.137.139 (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to request an article for the Bulgarian Wikipedia is at the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Also, the first person listed at the disambiguation page is what's called a "red link" and you can add a further red link for the person you refer to, if you think he's really noteworthy; then a Bulgarian Wikipedia editor may write the article you want. Here at English Wikipedia, we do mention a Yanko Yankov who was a Mayor of Elin Pelin shot dead in January 2007, but it is a red link which suggests that no one has yet found enough information to write an article about him in the English Wikipedia.[2] If you tell us about some reliable sources that provide information about this person, then maybe you or someone else can write an English Wikipedia article about him. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rezan

Anna Rezan article is about a significant person as you can see.With various and notable collaborations internationally. She is one of apprx 10 Greek actors and actresses that have real international credits since the 70s. ,and is featured on so many publications in Greece and Internationally. The article has a lot of citations. Not positive notes to this page are not made by admin,because we would correct anything needed but by competitors and etc. If we can improve something please,let us know.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.103.36 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, IPs keep removing the AfD notice from the page. I'm assuming that this is what you're taking about. Basically, FuriouslySerene put the article up for deletion because they felt that the article didn't assert enough notability to warrant inclusion. Offhand I can see their concern, as many of the sources are things like this, which doesn't really come across as something that would be reliable on Wikipedia. For example, the article is insanely short and looks to be based on a press release, which would make it primary. I tried looking for a staff listing but couldn't find anything and their website also came up with several error messages when I tried clicking through it, which is never a good sign. I'd like to ask that you stop removing the AfD notice and that you assume good faith on behalf of the nominator. Just because they nominated it doesn't mean that they're a competitor and it's unlikely that someone who has been on here for as long as they have is someone looking to sabotage the page. Also, your comments come across somewhat like you're trying to assert WP:OWNERSHIP of the page, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Frampton

I am in receipt of an email today from Paul Frampton indicating that he considers this replacement of his deletions defamatory, and asks that the information be removed permanently. He points out that the standard of proof in Argentina where he was convicted is considerably weaker than it would be in the US (analogous to simple preponderance for tourists facing smuggling charges, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt) and that his back pay was restored in part due to this situation. There are indications at [3] that the information was intially inserted as part of a sensationalist "hatchet job," by an editor who was eventually blocked at AN/I, as part of an extensive group of sockpuppets. So I believe the information should be removed and the article should be protected. What is the proper process for this request? 67.6.187.213 (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a difficult BLP. The sources may be OK, but we may have an issue of WP:UNDUE weight.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a complex issue. If you want to get up to speed take a look at the links at Talk:Paul Frampton#Conviction section for some of the high and low points. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit the IP is trying to make simply isn't supported by the source he is using. However link rot is starting to damage some of the other sources the article relies on, so it may be time for an uninvolved experienced editor to take another look. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly tell the later parts of the story including the award of back pay. But the later developments do not add up to a reason to delete the entire story. There seems to be an assumption that American standards (e.g. of criminal trials) are the only ones that can/ought to apply, such that if other standards are used the outcome is unfair -- with the further implication that it can't be related on Wikipedia. That latter implication is the evident root of a misunderstanding here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The weight given is absolutely and utterly UNDUE in any event, and should be greatly reduced in size in the BLP. Collect (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For what it's worth I'm happy with your cut down version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor seems to feel "the more detail the better" alas - even though his interpretation of WP:BLP rather is at odds with my belief that seeking to harm the subject is not a proper aim of any Wikipedia biography. If anyone else feels that the details of the Argentina prosecution's case is important to this biography, please weigh in. Collect (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sonunigam

Please give ful information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.235.207.168 (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you be more specific about your concern? Assuming this post is about Sonu Nigam, you should post suggestions for improvements on the article's talkpage Talk:Sonu Nigam (as the article history shows some back and forth editing in the past). Please make sure to provide reliable sources for suggested changes. The content must also meet the requirements of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy for articles about living persons. GermanJoe (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber

User:Denis.g.rancourt has added Hans Joachim Schellnhuber as an entry in the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. This is based on Schellnhuber's statement that CO2 emissions have postponed the next inception of glaciation and thus constitutes a net positive outcome. It is my view that this is a BLP violation in several regards: First, no credible reading of Schellnhuber's career could support the argument that he "oppos(es) the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming." Second, the view that greenhouse gas emissions may forestall the next glacial period is very much within the mainstream. I'd like to ask others to scan Schellnhuber's bio and give their opinion. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been a discussion of this matter at the talk page under "Hans Joachim Schellnhuber". User Boris has cut that off. Please see the history of the entry on the Talk page.Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Pinho

Manuel Pinho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article received some massive updates[4] in the last week, none of which appears to be intended to be entirely positive, followed by massive whitewashing. I can see several problems with the content, which was removed variously as "highly malicious", "totally false", "impossible", "insulting", etc. For a balanced approach it could use some help from the regulars here - especially Portugese speakers. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any glaring POV issues. If there are, re-add the POV tag and start a discussion in talk.- Cwobeel (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heleen Mees

The article Heleen Mees has been continuously plagued by an editor with a WP:COI, a close personal connection to the subject of the article. (Please see Talk:Heleen Mees/Archive 1 and notes at the talk page Talk:Heleen Mees). Edits that they are restoring violate wikipedia's WP:BLP policy with reference to details of an ongoing litigation [5]. The article has seen a prolific number of sock puppets trying to force this material into the article. New sock puppet appeared tonight Blondmamas1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm for current case and history.

Request uninvolved admin to review and take necessary action. W C M_email 22:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Youguang

Zhou Youguang's birthdate hasn't been verified. Yet there's massive edit warring to claim him as one of the List of oldest living people. His birth date should be removed per WP:V until it has been verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.79 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I see two sources there for his DOB. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel:. Join us at Talk:Zhou Youguang, the argument is whether the GRG has verified his birth date and they claim to be the sole expert on people's birth dates if people live page age 110 so screw all other sources until an "international body that specifically deals in longevity research" or whatever screwy language they come up with supports their point. This argument is actually an extension of the argument at the oldest living people page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Reid

Andy Reid is being repeatedly vandalized, probably because of [6]. (And the vandalism is showing up off Wikipedia, e.g. [7]. Perhaps it could be semi-protected for a day or so? --Jahaza (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done I gave it a couple day semiprotection, which I expect will be enough. --joe decker ^talk 16:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emídio Brasileiro

The article Emídio Brasileiro was recently started again and seems to have all the same problems that it did when I requested it be deleted last year. Essentially it is written as an advertisement for this professor and his ideas. It is also poorly cited, badly translated, and contains a bunch of links in the text to other websites. It is just a mess. I recognize that any further intervention or tagging on my part is likely to devolve into an edit war, since that is what happened before. In the fall of 2015, I tagged the article only to have an unregistered user immediately untag it. I'm not going to get into that again, but I'd appreciate another set of eyes—preferably an admin. ~~It's too bad the prior history is just gone after a deletion. Is there some log of the past fracas?~~ giso6150 (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latest strategy seems to be pushing this article through Google translate (or some other program) and publishing lots of other language versions. It seems to me that this title should be salted. I have read up on the admin permissions to see past deletions, etc. since my first post, so I don't need to be pointed towards that answer; I'll wait for an admin. giso6150 (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it meets GNG, given the sources provided. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I will remove the Notability tag and add a tags to clean up some of the other more egregious problems related to tone and translation issues. giso6150 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Stone

There is no credible source which proves Evan Stone (Pornographic Actor) was born in Ames, IA. This bit of information should probably be deleted from the biography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.49.190 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Woodmansey

I think Woody Woodmansey is not the last surviving member of the Ziggy Stardust lineup as Mike Garson still is alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.70.117 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mattress Performance

Should the page Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) explicitly specify that there were not multiple rape claims? (The three claims mentioned in this article are: one of rape, one of attempted groping, and one of emotional abuse during a long-term relationship, by three separate women.)

I added mention of this in this diff because it appeared to me that the wording of the article might suggest that there were multiple rape claims. It is my view that it is important not to give this false impression, and this warrants explicitly stating that the other two claims did not allege rape.

Note that no one was ever charged with a crime in this case, and WP:BLPCRIME applies to the relatively unknown accused student (whose name nevertheless can easily be googled). --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the wording suggested there were multiple rape claims. I think adding 'but not rape' would be as helpful as adding 'but not murder', and just as silly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it read:

Sulkowicz alleges that she was slapped, choked, and anally raped in her dorm room by another student, on the first day of her second year in August 2012, during what began as a consensual sexual encounter. The student Sulkowicz accused strongly denies the allegation, insisting that the encounter was entirely consensual. In April 2013, 8 months after the encounter, Sulkowicz filed a complaint with the university. Sulkowicz says she filed her complaint after she encountered two other women who said they had been victimized by the same individual. Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, the two other students with whom she was acquainted also filed complaints with the university against the same student.

I'll let others judge whether it's silly to clarify this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here's how that last sentence looked before you reverted me- slightly different to the quote you've got.

Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, the two other students with whom she was acquainted also filed complaints with the university against the same student alleging sexual misconduct.

PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was added after my diff above. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PeterTheFourth—we don't need to list allegations that were not made, only allegations that were made. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there also a complaint filed by a male student? --DHeyward (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's right! These sources [8] [9] say that there were three female complainants and one male complainant. Perhaps the article should be edited to mention this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As does this Article that summarizes in detail what went on with the male complainant, as well as other evidence of conspiracy to go after the accused man. Do we really want to go there?Mattnad (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least clarify that there were no police reports or criminal charges? Both of these accusations were mild and highly equivocal - the one which I described as "attempted groping" for example, actually alleged that he held her arm and motioned as if to kiss her, but did not do so, and did not pursue when she pulled away. It's not clear that either accused the person of criminal conduct at all - they were allegations of school policy violations. On the basis of this, the person has been accused of being a "serial rapist" and subjected to death threats - I think this makes it pertinent to clarify that there was only one rape allegation.

Regarding the fourth allegation, it was made much later and is not necessary to the narrative. It was groping allegation, this time severe and unequivocal. Again, no charges. Previous consensus was to exclude it per WP:BLPCRIME. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that there were no police reports or criminal charges sounds fine to me, assuming that that is supported by sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's false and Sulkowicz filed a police report and they declined to even seek indictment. --DHeyward (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: I was referring to the lack of police reports by the other two women. I can understand why some people are not sympathetic to this guy, but I don't see why it's controversial to mention that the other two accusations weren't of rape. There's no question about that, and clearly a lot of confusion about it, and it requires literally three words. Whether or not we think he's guilty, it's not our place to ensure he "gets what's coming to him" by ensuring the situation sounds damning. It in no way impugns anyone's integrity to make the simple factual observation that there was only one rape accusation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy, is it actually true that there was only one rape accusation? This source indicates that "Natalie" (a pseudonym for the former girlfriend) saw "their sexual relations as non-consensual", and this source says that all three women filed their complaints under "non-consensual sexual intercourse". Are there any sources that indicate that "Natalie"'s complaint did not include allegations of rape? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Natalie" did not allege rape. She alleged "non-consensual" sex according to the school standard, which differs markedly from the legal standard, because she felt like he was not willing to see her unless they had sex. Under the school's standard this can be considered coercion. She also said, as referenced in the Cathy Young piece you just cited, that she did not view the relations as non-consensual at the time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second source I listed above says "The Columbia policy on 'gender-based misconduct' describes what a court might consider criminal activity with muted euphemisms: rape becomes 'non-consensual sexual intercourse.'" This seems to contradict your implication that what the school calls "non-consensual" sex is not rape. Is there a source that says that what Columbia calls "non-consensual sexual intercourse" is not actually rape? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia doesn't call it rape, and the bwog article describes it in enough detail to tell it does not meet the legal definition of rape. I described one of the allegations above (the "umwanted sexual touching" one) and it is clearly not anything like a rape allegation. Natalie's allegation stated that at the time of the sexual intercourse she regarded it as consensual, and she came to regard it as what the university calls "non-consensual sexual intercourse" months after the breakup. (Note that "Sara" in that article is Sulkowicz.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no, "Josie" did not file her complaint under "non-consensual sexual intercourse" - not that it matters. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the bwog article has enough detail for us to determine that Natalie's allegations did not include rape. At best, that sounds like original research. We certainly should not include the words "but not rape" in the article without a clear source saying that the allegations did not include rape. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source you cited above at least says "Actually, only one of the charges against """"""""" was a clear allegation of rape." --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and it's better than nothing, though the use of the word "clear", especially combined with Cathy Young's known biases, makes me somewhat distrustful of it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that all the claims lack the elements of a crime. Any terms that imply criminality (i.e. "rape") should not be in the article at all. Sulkowicz allegations are the most compelling yet lack even an indictable "ham sandwich" infraction so the article should be written in that tone. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Mattnad and User:Cla68 weighed in to agree with Sammy1339 at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). I suggest that we keep discussion of this issue centralized here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article focuses primary on Sulcowicz motivation for the performance art, her motivation is salient, but arguably there's no need to mention the other complaints in the paragraph, particularly since the university did not find him responsible of any misconduct/assault. Right now, we have very limited detail on the other complaints, or how relatively minor they were. As written, they immediately follow Sulcowicz rape accusations which can lead to false impression. Expecting the casual reader to parse the differences between rape, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct in that context and detail level is not realistic or fair in the context of BLP. So we could remove those extraneous accusations, or we could qualify the accusations of the other parties accordingly per Sammy1339's suggestion which is short and simple.Mattnad (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with your suggestion of removing the other two complaints, but I remember a past discussion concluding that we need to mention them in order to explain the reason Sulkowicz gave for waiting eight months to file her complaint. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites used to source sport statistics

I have an RFC running at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS? but it doesn't seem to have gained much traction. Maybe I should have started it a more populated project, but the issue affects a ton of sport articles in general (not just cuesports). It is not unusual to find sport statistics in Wikipedia biography articles (even GA rated ones) sourced to fansites and blogs. While the information is hardly controversial (things like prize money, match results etc) it does directly relate to living people, which at face value contravenes BLPSPS. I can appreciate that people not familiar with the sport wouldn't want to address the more general points posed at the RFC, but it would be great to get some feedback on the specific BLP policy aspect in regards to sport statistics for living people. Betty Logan (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4muses

OK this article is downright dirty and disrespectful.

As a MINE and a concerned netizen who believes in responsible posting in the face of Internet freedom, I ask for the deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4muses because of its satirical, misleading, and vandalized content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ydrenilvan (talk • contribs) 08:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted a CSD tag - obvious spoof of Nine Muses (band) Mike1901 (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Rubio

Two users have restored my deletion of an unsupported sentence from Marco Rubio. [10] [11]. The key phrase is simply false, for reasons I explain in the talk discussion [12]. I would further note that the way it is written appears to violate WP:Synth. CometEncke (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The LA Times says "Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a GOP star and possible 2016 presidential contender, does not believe human activity is causing climate change, he said Sunday." ¶ “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." Those are his own words and they are from a reliable source. Rubio disagrees with scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. - Mr X 16:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out "I do not believe that human activity is causing these changes the way these scientists are portraying it" is not the same as "I do not believe that human activity is causing these changes". The article currently implies, if not outright states, that Rubio is denying any human activity is responsible, when you get down to quotes however, it is clear he gives a politician's answer that is not an outright denial. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is disputing some scientists the same as disputing the scientific understanding as a whole? CometEncke (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless he names specific scientists/research to which he objects, he *is* disputing the scientific consensus as it stands. His own words state that he disputes the extent to which human activity is responsible for climate change (the consensus is that it is significantly responsible). He is not denying human activity outright (see conv with MrX below) however which is why I feel the inclusion of the Polifact (giving their opinion on him) is misleading. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death: Indeed, and I'm fine with rephrasing the sentence to more accurately reflect the words in Rubio's artful equivocation, as I proposed on the talk page. I am not fine with replacing four reliable sources with a single source and a cherry-picked quote that sounds a little too much like campaign rhetoric. - Mr X 16:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest you could just lose "the website polifact" bit as the rest is accurate. Even when you look at the polifact article the sources they use to say 'he denies human activity' are still pretty ambiguous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would be fine omitting that sentence. (last sentence, first paragraph of § Energy and environment- Mr X 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless he names specific scientists/research to which he objects, he *is* disputing the scientific consensus as it stands." -- That is a WP:Synth, and a perfect illustration of why the policy exists. The consensus incorporates a lot of different information, and not all scientists portray it in the same way. Just to pick one example among many, has Rubio disputed that sea level is rising? The fact that it is is certainly part of the scientific consensus, and the linked article says as much. By saying that Rubio disagrees with the scientific consensus, the article give the impression that Rubio disagrees with that statement. CometEncke (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sea level rise has nothing to do with this. The issue at hand is the link between human activity and climate change. Rubio said "I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it..." Aside from this direct quote, the LA Times article makes it abundantly clear that Rubio was referring to the group "most scientists". - Mr X 13:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. X, this is not complicated. By stating that Rubio disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, and linking to that article, the Rubio article states that he disagrees with all of it. That's simply false, and is not in any source. Sheesh. CometEncke (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is apparently a difficult issue, let's break it down a bit -- the scientific consensus consists of multiple statements -- temp. is rising, sea level is rising, the rising temp. humans are causing most of it, and so forth. Rubio to my knowledge has been silent on the sea level question, agrees that temp. is rising, and disagrees that it has been proven that humans are causing most of it -- or possibly even disagrees that humans are causing most of it -- that's unclear to me. If a consensus consists of multiple pieces of information, and someone agrees with some, is silent on others, and disagrees (or partly disagrees) with yet another, it does not follow that they disagree with the whole thing. Clear? CometEncke (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something you're meant to figure out for yourself -- it's a question of what is to be found in reliable sources on the matter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, could you please point out where the sources say that? A direct quote? CometEncke (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

← First of all, let's be clear about the scientific consensus. Scientific opinion holds not just that climate change is occurring, but that it is driven by human activity. Rubio disputes this scientific understanding. There are innumerable sources attesting to Rubio's position; here is a subset:

Dann, Carrie (May 12, 2014). "Rubio: Human Activity Isn't Causing Climate Change". NBC News. The title says it all, but also notes: "Rubio also said that he disputes 'the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what's happening in our climate.'"
Graham, David (February 6, 2013). "Is Marco Rubio a Scientist or Not, Man?". The Atlantic. With global warming... Rubio rejects both environmental policy solutions and the scientific consensus.
Kaplan, Rebecca; Uchimiya, Ellen (September 1, 2015). "Where the 2016 Republican candidates stand on climate change". CBS News. In Rubio's own words: "... what they [scientists] have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that's directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity. I do not agree with that."
Kliegman, Julie (May 14, 2014). "Has Marco Rubio backtracked on climate change?". PolitiFact. Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it.
Gass, Henry (March 9, 2015). "Can Florida prepare for climate change without saying the words?". Christian Science Monitor. Quotes Rubio as saying "that he doesn't 'believe human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate.'"
Lehmann, Evan (September 17, 2015). "Republican Candidates Questioned on Climate Change". Scientific American. Rubio has taken firm positions against blaming people for climbing temperatures as he appeals to conservative voters.
Cho, Renee (October 28, 2015). "Presidential Candidates: Who Believes in Climate Change?". Scientific American. Columbia University. Rubio... believes climate change is happening, but not that it is caused by man.
Harder, Amy; Reinhard, Beth (January 16, 2016). "Republican Presidential Field Tilts Rightward on Climate Change". Wall Street Journal. Describes "a broad consensus among scientists that human activity is increasing the Earth’s temperature, and that action is needed to soften the consequences". In contrast, states that Rubio "questioned whether climate change is man-made, and opposed potential remedies like cap-and-trade".

So not only is this well-sourced—it's probably the best-sourced item in Rubio's entire biography. I don't believe for a second that the original poster here spent any time looking for sources, because this is very well-documented. I don't see the BLP issue here; it looks more like an agenda-driven editor (using a "new" account) tendentiously disputing a well-sourced fact using specious BLP claims. In other words, welcome to election season... MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically, if someone agrees with 99.99% of the scientific consensus but disagrees with .01% then it would not be fair to say simply that he disagrees with the scientific consensus. If you editors stick closely to what the sources say then I'm sure you can get closure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sources are key, which is why irrelevant hypothetical arguments are unproductive. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't see the relevance. It appears to me that Rubio agrees with some aspects of the scientific consensus about climate change, but disagrees with others, and has not expressed any view about still others. So say so. Or be more specific about the aspects that he disagrees with. But do not paint with a broad brush to imply that he disagrees with the whole scientific consensus. Is that non-hypothetical enough?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The modern scientific understanding of climate change is not "Hey, the Earth seems to maybe be getting warmer, but people can't possibly have anything to do with it". The modern scientific understanding of climate change is that it's driven by human activity. Rubio doesn't accept this (see above sources), and thus he disputes the scientific understanding of climate change. There is some debate among climate scientists about the degree of warming that we're likely to experience, but that's not a debate that Rubio is anywhere near. His statements are waaaay outside the parameters of modern scientific understanding on the topic, as the above sources make clear. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for us to follow them in this case. MastCell ^Talk 01:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh

On 13 January, an actor was arrested in India for mimicking him. After that many IPs started editing the article. I was checking the information against the given sources, and made a few things.

I want an uninvolved editor to check if the article has been tag bombed. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Titodutta, the more recent tags were added in this edit. It might be prudent to invite Shrikanthv to this discussion to see what they have to say about the tagging. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Informed him. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page looks like complete PR page , also puts across a one sided personnel refelection of events and him, did see some IP's trying to vandalise the pages. but its horribly linked to websites like youtube, flipkart.. so had tagged it as original sources. it needs some work but I think Tito can do it Shrikanthv (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also it avoids links which are negative to the subject like this ones 1,2, 3 Shrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by a "complete PR page"? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (December 2014) - which contributors? This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (January 2016) - why a duplicate tag? and again which editors? This article possibly contains original research. (January 2016) -- which are original research? This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (January 2016) - which are self-published sources? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

kolten wong

says he lives in yogurt... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:4000:1D20:CB2:5FF6:8AB6:5E83 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done The vandalism was removed. Meatsgains (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Lemelson

This page requires some urgent intervention as it relates to one editor's (Smalljim) dogmatic insistence in adding documentably false information about this subject to the page and removing wholesale content central to the subject's notability. I have communicated my concerns at length on the talk page here: Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson#Significant_concerns_about_Smalljim.27s_edits. The most urgent and major issues of likely libelous content additions by editor Smalljim that I've articulated in point four of this talk page section clearly must be fixed. Secondarily, user Smalljim has completely disregarded efforts for talk page reconciliation regarding his likely libelous additions and other destructive and malicious edits and content removals and he has indicated that he is going to forge ahead with continued such changes, ignoring valid concerns raised on the talk page about both his editorial errors and demeanor.

Request: I am asking that the current, non libelous version of the article that exists ([[13]]) be maintained and that any additional proposed edits, additions or removal of content be restricted (as had been originally proposed and I thought agreed to) to the subject's talk page. Thank you. Orthodox2014 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, Smalljim has been utmostly patient and been willing to discuss and explain their changes/improvements at great length. They have far more patience than me! You asked for comments on the article and several editors (including myself) agreed that the article had major problems and needed improvement. Your solution was to revert all edits back to a sandbox version of your own. So on the one hand we have a number of experienced Wikipedia editors who are trying to improve the article in accordance with Wikipedia good practise and, on the other, a single issue editor with a very evident conflict of interest who seems solely intent on promoting Emmanuel Lemelson and his hedge fund.

For the purposes of this BLP Noticeboard discussion, it would help if you could explain which bits of the article are libelous. A Public perception section (which detailed some criticisms of Lemelson) seems to have been reduced to a single sentence. Sionk (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Sionk, you are a part of the urgent complaint that has been filed regarding these edits and one of the editors I have cited as being solicited by User:Smalljim to support his erroneous changes (I address briefly the history of the collaboration between the two of you and forcing edits together below on other pages). Nearly everything you say above is incorrect:

1.) User:Smalljim has not been willing to discuss or explain anything. He has reverted to his own singularly-developed sandbox version of the page, including inaccurate libelous material, and states pointedly on my talk page on January 5 when this first emerged that he has no intention of discussing with me or considering the significant errors and policy violations in his current version to which he has reverted and insisted remain untouched and unreverted. He again made the point that he has no intention of working with me in fixing his errors as recently as today (see here: [14], saying that he is not considering my points.

2.) You have engaged in this discussion, it appears, exclusively to side with Smalljim (as you have historically in many other work projects and edits through the years) and you clearly have not compared the versions in question that you're citing. This one of December 28, 2015 (before Smalljim's recent involvement): [15] and this one of January 5, 2016 in which his non-controversial edits were fully incorporated and without the inaccurate, libelous material or the removal of important content: [16]. There has been no reversion to "my" page. I don't have a page, and the one that last one that excludes these serious errors is the one referenced.

3.) You and Smalljim continue to try to force these inaccurate edits by insisting that I have a conflict, and Smalljim quickly referred this to COI, where the community agreed there is no conflict (and there isn't). However, I do have conflict concerns that I will address in greater detail about what I see as ongoing mutually supportive edits between the two of you over a long period of time.

4.) There is zero "promotional" content in this last acceptable version: [17].

5.) The inaccurate and likely libelous components (among other serious concerns) are spelled out in detail on the talk page here: [18].

WP:BLP mandates the removal of unreferenced, inaccurate and especially potentially libelous content, which clearly has been added by Smalljim. I am reverting the page to remove that inaccurate and libelous content to the last version without it. Concerns about that page (without the inaccuracies and libel) should be addressed on the talk page. I additionally have raised many questions, pointed out numerous very serious errors that both of you have either added and/or defended that have gone unanswered. I also have requested the input of subject experts from the relative Wikiprojects, which I think can be helpful.

Urgent request: I am asking that the last version without the inaccuracies and libel available here and to which I am reverting now [19] be preserved and that proposed additions and edits be discussed and deliberated upon before they are added. The removal of the inaccuracies and libel, not necessarily my defense of this page (though it is vastly preferable in many ways) requires this reversion. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any BLP violations (not on any of the edits you said they were on Orthodox2014 ). Smalljim seems to have been very careful about how the article was worded as well, and he's been communicating with you on your talk page very respectfully. I think it may be time for you to drop this and move on to a different article. You seem very attached to this article and it's bordering on ownership. I'm also wondering if you have a COI in this article. KoshVorlon 17:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look as well, I was expecting all sorts of shenanigans given the post above, but I couldnt even find the article slanted towards a POV, let alone anything coming close to a BLP violation. Or 'libelous content'. Perhaps Orthodox can point us at exactly what they find objectionable? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I did not want to duplicate the detailed entry about the inaccurate and likely libelous information here since I included a link to it right above, which I had urged be reviewed. But let me transfer the concerns here, and I encourage full review of the talk page discussion on the page.

And to try to simplify this a bit, let me focus first on the urgent (inaccurate, unreferenced, likely libelous content) and set aside the important but less urgent (wholesale removal of content central to the page, the addition of descriptions that are imprecise or inaccurate and other generally destructive edits, and the editorial demeanor of User:Smalljim.

To focus exclusively on the urgent in ascending order of urgency and complexity:

1.) In the lede sentence, Smalljim describes the subject as a "businessman" and "social commentator," neither of which are supported by any source at all anywhere. This was pointed out to him in talk discussion. But even after acknowledging that a source was needed for a vocational description, Smalljim just plowed ahead and inserted the inaccurate, unreferenced vocational descriptions anyway. He also has reworded section headers to reflect these verifiably inaccurate labels (again disregarding concerns raised on this page and disregarding also his own proclamation that every vocational label required reliable secondary sources).

2.) Smalljim has taken the liberty of inventing yet another fictional description of the subject, writing that: "His investment research and analysis has been published in national media." Again, this is totally untrue and unreferenced but it is conveniently used to support his other inaccurate statement that the subject in involved in "advertising." While it is not uncommon for mutual and hedge funds to advertise, in my 18 months of research on this subject I was unable to locate even one such advertisement. Smalljim is likely also aware of this, but (consistent with his biases and agenda to diminish the subject), he's presenting legitimate major national media coverage of the subject as paid media advertising, which it clearly isn't (Fox Business News interviews, USA Today articles multiple times, The Wall Street Journal documentary and article, New York Post multiple articles, The Street article, etc.). The vast coverage of the subject and his activist investment efforts by major media outlets (literally dozens of such articles), of course, is objective media, not paid advertising.

3.) Smalljim (either because he does not have even a rudimentary understanding of the alternative investment industry or because of his strong biases against the subject referenced above, or both) has added a severely inaccurate and deceptive paragraph that misdefines and misapplies a complex U.S. regulatory policy (JOBS Act) that defines disclosure rules guiding whether and in what ways a hedge fund can disclose its performance results (defined as the quantifiable rate of return of the respective hedge fund). It has zero applicability to the subject's media coverage that's referenced. Also in the series of these serious errors, he has used the phrase "total return," which is inaccurate and replaced my correct definition of the returns as "net returns" (big difference).

Proposed short term step: There exists a January 6 version here [20] before the addition of the inaccurate/libelous content to which the article can be quickly reverted. I'm asking that this be done (nothing in this version includes any fact that is in contention). While it's actually a very good version (in my view), I'm not defending that version as being without opportunity for improvement. To this end, I have solicited more expert editor input in several work groups with editors likely to have at least some base knowledge of the alternative investing field. This is important because I have been reverting egregious errors by the two or so other editors engaged on the page right now, who have written paragraphs about the subject owning a stock that the reference indicated he clearly had shorted, misapplying terms, and miscommunicating returns, etc. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guthrie vs. Elliott

This is a BLP subject complaint that I was contacted with. I've been keeping right away from anything even slightly Gamergate controversy-related on Wikipedia myself (I'm active on RationalWiki on the subject and have been subject to doxxing attacks and threats from GG advocates myself), but considered a BLP subject complaint should be passed on for other experienced eyes.

The complaint is that it appears to be an article documenting a legal case backed with many RSes, but is actually an attack piece on Guthrie, considerably ginned-up. Guthrie has been subjected to threats and harassment over the case. The subject's article complaints are:

The title is not the name of the case, but a synthesis bringing the name of the subject into the title: the case name is R. v. Gregory Alan Elliott, and Guthrie vs. Elliott is nowhere the official name. This makes it appear as though Guthrie personally decided to take legal action against the defendant. Only the official citation should be there.
The sources are from news outlets, but a lot of the claims are opinion pieces being used to make claims of facts.
"Wanting to cause real-life consequences for Spurr's online activity, she contacted news organizations and potential employers in his hometown." The latter part of this sentence is false; Guthrie did not contact potential employers. A piece by Sarah Ratchford (referenced later in the article) points this out.
"However it has been confirmed by both Guthrie and the investigating officer that "there’s no allegation that Elliott ever made sexual comments to Guthrie or the other two complainants in the case, or that he even threatened any of them" - neither sexual comments nor threats are a requirement to prosecute someone for criminal harassment, yet this statement insinuates that a lack of sexual comments and threats somehow supports Elliott's side of the case.
"After Guthrie blocked him on Twitter, he continued tweeting both political criticism and has been accused of making personal insults towards her and other local feminists." - Why is the political criticism framed as 100% verified fact but the personal insults are framed as an "accusation"? This seems like bias. All of Elliott's tweets to Guthrie are publicly available and verifiable.
"Guthrie and some of her associates" - The use of a term like "associates" implies some sort of conspiracy on Guthrie's part.

As I said I'm leaving this alone past passing on the complaint, so have no further useful detail to add - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Fernandez

Defamatory content has been added today to the Wikipedia biography of Ariel Fernandez as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=700461175&oldid=694589588

This highly controversial information had already been deemed inappropriate for a BLP and rejected on numerous occassions (see Ariel Fernandez talk page). The edits were ferociously spearheaded by editor Molevol1234 who has written more than 70 contributions to Wikipedia, all directed at destroying the subject and also revaling a serious COI (see Talk page). Molevol1234 is a person already identified and obsessed with destroying the reputation of the subject, as per latest discussions in Talk page. Furthermore, THIS EDIT PROPOSAL HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED SEVERAL TIMES, as shown in the Talk page and its archives. Yet, this time around it has been incorporated WITHOUT EVEN REACHING ANY CONSENSUS.

Not only this action is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policies and bylaws on BLPs, but the content of the addition is completely non notable, referring to three papers challenged years ago, while in fact no paper by the subject has ever been rejected based on proven wrongdoing or invalid data. No source to justify notability was ever provided.

Adding the Wikipedia imprimatur to such nonsense by publishing this material constitutes defamation as it suggests wrogdoing on behalf of the subject or a serious iaaue that has never been proven or established.

This addition is also ilegal as per the rules and policies of Wikipedia BLP:SPS, since the secondary source for the accusations is the self published blog Retraction Watch. The blog is published by A Marcus and I Oransky who also contribute to the blog and allow any contributor to say whatever they want. It is well known that such self published sources are strictly forbidden in BLPs.

[redacted]

190.195.2.239 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI related to this article makes for some very interesting reading... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- You keep pulling this all the time to avoid addressing the issues at stake here. You had the temerity to defame the subject, including controversial matter without consensus, violating Wikipedia policy and includig a proposal already rejected by Wikipedia numerous times. 190.195.2.239 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Allthefoxes:: As you have rightly noted, the last paragraph in Career section of this BLP needs to be removed due to lack of consensus. In addition the paragraph violates Wikipedia policy for the following reasons: a) The years-old challenges to research papers (expressions of concern) is not proven to be a notable topic and there is no valid secondary source that would justify their inclusion. All papers by Ariel Fernandez remain perfectly valid unless someone proves that they contain invalid data. There has never been evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of Fernandez or his group that would invalidate any of his papers or lead to retraction. b) Inclusion of a paragraph derogatory to a subject of a BLP requires extensive consensus. This was never reached. c) The use of self published sources like the self-published blog Retraction Watch is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policy on BLPs as per BLP:SPS. This blog is evidently self-published because it is published by A Marcus and I Oransky, who also contribute to the blog, claiming to be retraction experts. d) The person who spearheaded this deprecation has a COI with the subject as extensively discussed in the Talk page and archives. e) The proposal to include the derogatory paragraph has been rejected 4 (FOUR) times already as noted in TALK page. Thanks much for your attention. S&T Natl Res Council.201.254.123.189 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, please do not pull me into drama. I simply declined the SPER since there did not seem to be any amount of consensus on the edit. I apprciate your passion on the issue, but I have no definite interest in helping resolve this dispute at the time. This seems to be a content dispute more than anything else. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that there is some serious possible SOCKing going on here. Not cool. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some issues with balance and consensus in the article, which mainly persist because of proliferation of socks. Retraction Watch, the highest profile information source in the area is used, but never as the single source for a fact. We continue to be open to new reliable sources on the subject from the socks or anyone else. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction Watch is no high profile nothing. It is an indiscriminate blog run by nobodies and losers seeking recognition by taking shots at working scientists while cowardly hiding and talking about things they know nothing about. As a self published source IT IS A STRICTLY FORBIDDEN SOURCE AT WIKIPEDIA AS PER BLP:SPS.186.138.183.140 (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Scott case

Appears to be a BLP. The following edit seems a bit troublesome in my opinion:

[21] Not a BLP issue. CAN is not a living person. Restoring a reversion to false statements not supported by the most detailed RSs

As the case involves a living person, and the "CAN" in this article is described as being primarily Rick Alan Ross elsewhere, it might appear that the claims about CAN here also are (as they pertain to a specific named individual elsewhere in this BLP) also pertain here to a specific individual. Do they do so? Collect (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this -- CAN was a corporation. ROSS is not CAN. Ross was not founder, officer, employee, nor shareholder of CAN. Ross is a deprogramming contractor who was co-defendant with CAN in the Jason Scott case. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes clear the problem - and alas I do not specialize in Scientology connections. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that means, but it might imply that collect (talk · contribs) is abandoning the issue he/she raised? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The people specifically involved as anyone reading the article can tell are specific living persons - including Jason Scott, Ted Patrick, Patricia Ryan, Mike Farrell and Rick Alan Ross. Are you somehow saying that this "Jason Scott case" is not covered by the policy and that WP:BLP does not apply? I further note the claim that CAN deliberately squandered its insurance monies and thus became bankrupt is SYNTH as well - perhaps Sfarney does not know who those living persons are? "Handbook states that exit counsellors or deprogrammers either made donations themselves, or had client families make donations to the "Old CAN", " clearly links Ross as a living person to the "old CAN" so there is a direct connection. Note the "church of Scientology" was directly involved in all aspects of the litigation and the bankruptcy proceedings - and was the primary opponent of reorganization, possibly so that it could acquire the organization assets and website for little or no cost. David Miscavige is quoted as saying ". I think if you interviewed a neo-Nazi and asked them to talk about the Jews, you would get a similar result to what you have here." and I rather think the CoS maintains that position to this day. Sorry Sfarney - I fear that the CoS specific interest in presenting the "old CAN" is the worst possible light is in conflict with the non-negotiable WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. I find Rick Alan Ross has a tendency to post too often, but he does not merit this sort of response either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that CAN used the insurance money on the appeal rather than paying the judgment is directly from the James R. Lewis source, and the source is on line for anyone to see. Apparently, you accuse me of SYNTH without reading the source. Miscavich has little to do with this discussion, and your quote is not in the article or the argument -- it's just irrelevant. Let's please return to the article and the sources at hand. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in favor of Cult Awareness Netword and Deprogrammers

In the last 24 hours, two of my careful edits to the Cult Awareness Network and Rick Alan Ross pages have been reverted, allegedly on BLP grounds. Both edits are supported by RS. In the CAN case, the edits have nothing to do with living persons, yet BLP is the reason given for the reversions. Uncomfortable truth is still truth, the meat and potatoes of Wikipedia when well supported with RS. These are the two edits: Rick Alan Ross and Cult Awareness Network. I seek here a wider circle of opinion than the 3 or 4 regulars on those pages, who object to the inconvenient truth on those subjects. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is discussion between the editors on the edits: [22] and [23]. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not specialize in Scientology connected articles. Collect (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Jones

The article is currently POV-tagged (since 10-Jan-2016), and either the whole article or various sections have been POV-tagged for the better part of the last three months, through a series of removals after a period, and replacement. No specific, actionable details have been given to my satisfaction, in edit summaries or in Talk.

The edit summary for the current tag reads: "no consensus for most of content, in violation of BLP", and there is no discussion follow-up (requests for specifics were made in Talk).

Please give the article and references a look - it's not lengthy - and comment on any apparent neutrality issues, general or BLP-specific, that you may find. Thanks! --Tsavage (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ongoing dispute from October: The problem is that poor, promotional sources have been used to pad the article. Most of the talk page is about the problems.

The DRN discussions were closed as failed Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_127#Talk:David_L._Jones and the resultant RfC has yet to be closed Talk:David_L._Jones#RFC:_Inclusion_of_draft_sections. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz: Please allow outside editors to take a clean look: a fresh perspective is often the best way to resolve a dispute, as opposed to importing it wholesale. The DRN discussion and four simultaneous current RfCs (over 30 days with little participation) do not mention or address neutrality and the POV tag.

For previous discussion/background, there are several dedicated sections, like "Reason for the Neutrality tag?," on the Talk page beginning last Oct, [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], none of which give more explanation than, essentially, "violates BLP." However, I think a fresh look would be the most helpful. --Tsavage (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you now want others to be involved.

I provided some pertinent background. Sorry you don't like that.

You misrepresent the situation. That's inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digitalism (band)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Digitalism (band)#Unsourced material. An editor is repeatedly adding unsourced and poorly sourced material to the Digitalism (band) article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Ryssdal

Hey --

Can someone tell me how to get my *actual headshot on this article, instead of this random picture that someone put there?

Thanks.

Kai— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.217.65 (talk • contribs)

If you own the copyright to the image that you would like to be used in the article please see WP:DCM.--ukexpat (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Raschke & Swarming New User Accounts

Hey folks. Our Carl Raschke has been swarming with new user accounts intent on turning the article into a puff piece and deleting material relating to what Raschke is by far best known for, his role in capitalizing on and fueling the Satanic ritual abuse moral panic of the late 1980s and 1990s (his work notably influencing convictions such as the now free West Memphis Three). I'll copy and paste from these talk pages about these accounts here to give you an idea of what's going on:

Carlraschke (talk · contribs)—who has repeatedly claimed to be Raschke ([31], as an example)
LH Chicago (talk · contribs)—aggressively deleted reference to an interview with Raschke because the above user claimed he never gave it ([32]), Gateofhorn claims is a friend of Raschke's ([33])
Gateofhorn (talk · contribs)—claims to be a friend of LH Chicago ([34])
Melatha (talk · contribs)
Duikelmaan (talk · contribs)—who has repeatedly outright deleted anything perceived as critical of Raschke ([35], [36], [37]), behavior encouraged by Melatha ([38]), editor subsequently went on to vandalize my user page ([39], [40], before being blocked for 48 hours for harassment ([41])
User6915 (talk · contribs)
Scholarbyday (talk · contribs)

Almost every user here has resorted to personal attacks against those involved in the article and they seem to tag teem removing less than flattering information about Raschke and the Satanic panic. What can be done about this swarm of new users apparently connected to the subject? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A request for page protection has been made. That should help with the SPAs. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check the Talk pages and edit history. Everything bloodofox says above is pretty much a lie. For example, "Almost every user has resorted to personal attacks against those involved in the article." FACT: one user, LH_Chicago, got involved in personal attacks, and the other user Gateofhorn seems to have responded to personal attacks on her, which he is now calling personal attacks on him. Second example.bloodofox writes that user Melatha "encouraged" bad behavior of another user. Her is what Melatha actually said: I presume you are a new user. A bot reverted most of your last edit because you took out a whole section which it identified as "vandalism". You can always revert what the bot did in the View History of this page. You need to post your objections on the Talk Page for the article in question. You can also visit the Contact page to complain about the obvious bias and violation of policy by bloodofox, since many others have also complained. That is advice on how to edit properly, not encourage "bad behavior." bloodofox states that I helped put in jail an innocent person caught up in a moral panic. That is a libel and a lie. I did not testify in the West Memphis trial, nor was I ever asked or consulted about it. I see no evidence that even my published views on the actual topic of satanism were actually used to convict anyone. I have always been in court as a defense witness, and those cases were prior to the publication of PAINTED BLACK, which I was asked by the publisher to write in order to bring a scholarly perspective on an already heated controversy. I therefore request that Bloodofox be banned from editing my page and that my work and statements be given the proper weight, not the disproportionate and exaggerated weight and distorted representations Bloodofox is employing to conduct this "smear" against me. If you check the edits, he has reverted every single edit on the satanist controversy, even mildly clarifying ones (which he now calls "flattering", from a variety of edits and then claiming that they have been vandalizing his work or are involved in conflicts of interest. This is like the proverbial kid who shoots his parents, then claims leniency because he is an orphan. It is clear that he is ruthlessly and relentlessly misusing Wikipedia's policies to promote a single agenda, and Wikipedia seems to go along with everything he does or claims. I do not reject the claim that the reception of Painted Black was largely negative among certain scholars, but he is claiming that is what I am primarily known for, which is absurd, and even there he is allowed to make that claim without evidence. Carlraschke (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke. BTW I am who I say I am. You can verify that at my email address which is on my website at www.carlraschke.com Carlraschke (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke.[reply]

BTW, I myself was the one who put in the request for page protection -- against the edits of Bloodofox, which was not done. Carlraschke (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke[reply]

Franklin Graham

I have noted this problem on the "Talk Page" to the article, but am posting it here as well as I am uncertain of how one best proceeds in such matters,

The article on Franklin Graham states: "In the August 30, 2010 issue of the Time magazine, "Does America Hate Islam?" Graham reportedly [sic] said that Islam..."

Shouldn't there be an actual citation instead of a second-hand source here (making Wikipedia into a third-hand source)? How can anyone check to see if this quotation is (a) accurate and (b) recounted in its proper context?

I raise this issue because Wikipedia's own guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons that is ... poorly sourced must be removed immediately."

NicholasNotabene (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding how to address LPs with controversial views

I was just reading our Bill Maher article, and I noticed that it cites his opinions of various religions he has never studied in a formal capacity matter-of-factly, without mentioning that other people disagree. This seems problematic to me -- is there some reason for it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naveen_Naqvi

[1]

@@ Line 387: / Line 387: @@
 You need to check the Talk pages and edit history.  Everything [[bloodofox]] says above is pretty much a lie.  For example, "Almost every user has resorted to personal attacks against those involved in the article."  FACT:  one user, [[LH_Chicago]], got involved in personal attacks, and the other user [[Gateofhorn]] seems to have responded to personal attacks on her, which he is now calling personal attacks on him.  Second example.[[bloodofox]] writes that user [[Melatha]] "encouraged" bad behavior of another user.  Her is what [[Melatha]] actually said: ''I presume you are a new user. A bot reverted most of your last edit because you took out a whole section which it identified as "vandalism". You can always revert what the bot did in the View History of this page. You need to post your objections on the Talk Page for the article in question. You can also visit the Contact page to complain about the obvious bias and violation of policy by bloodofox, since many others have also complained.'' That is advice on how to edit properly, not encourage "bad behavior."  [[bloodofox]] states that I helped put in jail an innocent person caught up in a moral panic.  That is a libel and a lie.  I did not testify in the West Memphis trial, nor was I ever asked or consulted about it.  I see no evidence that even my published views on the actual topic of satanism were actually used to convict anyone.  I have always been in court as a defense witness, and those cases were prior to the publication of PAINTED BLACK, which I was asked by the publisher to write in order to bring a scholarly perspective on an already heated controversy.  I therefore request that Bloodofox be banned from editing my page and that my work and statements be given the proper weight, not the disproportionate and exaggerated weight and distorted representations Bloodofox is employing to conduct this "smear" against me.  If you check the edits, he has reverted every single edit on the satanist controversy, even mildly clarifying ones (which he now calls "flattering", from a variety of edits and then claiming that they have been vandalizing his work or are involved in conflicts of interest.  This is like the proverbial kid who shoots his parents, then claims leniency because he is an orphan.  It is clear that he is ruthlessly and relentlessly misusing Wikipedia's policies to promote a single agenda, and Wikipedia seems to go along with everything he does or claims.  I do not reject the claim that the reception of Painted Black was largely negative among certain scholars, but he is claiming that is what I am primarily known for, which is absurd, and even there he is allowed to make that claim without evidence. [[User:Carlraschke|Carlraschke]] ([[User talk:Carlraschke|talk]]) 05:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke.  BTW I am who I say I am. You can verify that at my email address which is on my website at www.carlraschke.com   [[User:Carlraschke|Carlraschke]] ([[User talk:Carlraschke|talk]]) 05:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke.
+BTW, I myself was the one who put in the request for page protection -- against the edits of Bloodofox, which was not done. [[User:Carlraschke|Carlraschke]] ([[User talk:Carlraschke|talk]]) 05:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke
 == Franklin Graham ==

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