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.

Paul Frampton again

I strongly object to User:Jonathan A Jones's deletion of my request to address the issues at Talk:Paul Frampton#Strongly object to obvious libel and defamation and refusal to address my questions there. Would some uninvolved editor please opine on whether the article should give equal weight to both the Argentine and US court's opinions (e.g. as in [1]), or whether, as is the case now [2] events which were reversed by the US court, including innuendo, are allowed to stand as if they are fact, along with a summary of the subject's adverse events in the introduction? 67.6.182.89 (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The actions of the Argentine court are fact. The actions of the US court are also fact -- but that doesn't mean that what the Argentine courts did are not. It's really a matter of what is in the reliable sources about this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Why should the event be a full second of two paragraphs in the introduction? Why should the section heading purport an unestablished fact in the view of the American court? 67.6.182.89 (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Those new to this subject might like to know that there have been several relevant discussions on this noticeboard. The most recent discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive234#Paul_Frampton was earlier this month,and that gives indirect links to the original discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive173#Paul_Frampton from 2013 and a helpful 2013 update Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive174#Paul_Frampton from User:FreeRangeFrog. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• The IP editor (Frampton) again seems to think that the actions of an American court have higher standing than the actions of a court in a different country. That's just not how it works here. Again, we can relay what both courts did (as reported in independent secondary sources). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I am the same person as 67.6.182.89 but I am not Frampton. I am in Colorado and Frampton is in England. 75.166.38.5 (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If the other country has a high rate of corruption, that is how it works here; we give more weight to the American court's actions, because it is a more reliable source. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ken Arromdee: so who will edit the article? 75.166.38.5 (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor has been asked repeatedly to present evidence supporting his contentions and has so far simply refused to do so. Indeed he hasn't even defined what he means by "an unestablished fact in the view of the American court". The sources he has referred to have only discussed a US civil court ruling concerning breach of contract by Frampton's university. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Manika Kaur

Hi, I create the page for Manika Kaur, and it has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. It also says the article must adhere to the biographies of the living persons policy. I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first article, so I would be very grateful if I could be pointed in the direction as to what in particular needs improving to bring it in alignment with the policy. Thanks a lot! --Blue Mountain Coffee Beans (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been changed to StartClass and you can find information about article classifications here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Bryan Rich

This article violates the Biographies of living persons policy, as it grossly fails the VERIFIABILITY and NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH criteria. The Subject is very poorly sourced, with very few citations. Links to the citations that do appear in the References section either do not work properly, or do not mention the Subject in any way. Information removed as of 25/1/2016 due to improper or no citation includes:

Rich founded Newsimaging Inc (DBA Global News Intelligence) www.globalni.com that applies analytical models for competitive intelligence, market and reputation analysis and has been used to devise and implement multi-channel global PR campaigns.

This technology marketed as GNI has been deployed extensively to support US national security issues including counter insurgency behavioral analysis and effects-based COIN strategies.

Rich was a teacher of digital journalism at Harvard University's Nieman Foundation

GNI is a unique open source analysis system that has provided services to Publicis and WPP and has been used by major defense contractors in support of effects-based analysis in the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America.

GNI was most recently used by NATO to support its behavioral analysis of Muammar Gaddafi and provide real time behavioral analysis to support NATO in Libya.

and has been featured in the Washington Post, National Public Radio among others. He was the creator of "Our Neighbors Ourselves", a major radio play that rose to international prominence for its popularity in central east Africa, and was written with Maria Louise Sebazuri. Rich appeared on ABC Nightline in 1996 with Ted Koppel for his work with Search for Common Ground supporting independent media following the Rwandan genocide.

he has been featured in The Washington Post [3] for documentary work and obtained unique confessions of genocide with Alexis Sinduhije (Burundian Presidential candidate and Burundian journalist) Chiara Zanni and Bill Gentile, in which the perpetrators exhumed and named their victims on camera.

Rich also worked in the independent movie industry in New York City on award-winning independent movies like Poison (Todd Haynes) and Thousand Pieces of Gold (Nancy Savoka) and Life under Water with Keanu Reeves and Sarah Jessica Parker. --Unsigned comment

It's been tagged for clean up since 2011. I'll take a broom over there and get it cut back to reliably source info only.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Parry Aftab

Is this executive profile at Bloomberg business considered a reliable source? It is so self promotional I can't imagine that it was reviewed or edited, or vetted before publication.

• Dr. Aftab has a long list of honors and companies. She is the most sought-after expert for media on cybersafety and cyber-crime issues, appearing a couple times a week with a major news outlet. She has written the leading books on cybersafety, worldwide, and is frequently asked to speak globally on these issues, in Egypt at the invitation of its First Lady. Dr. Aftab does and has been recognized by the industry as a leader in her field since social networking first became mainstream - MySpace.com in February 2005. She was one of the first lawyers in the world to practice Internet law. Over the years, she has represented many of the leaders from the entertainment, Internet and consumer brand industries. Known for her ability to "think outside of the box," she quickly became a leader in the emerging field of Internet law and policy and helped establish standards within the Internet industry.

What do you think? Is it a reliable source for these claims? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think you're pulling our leg, Keith. The nature of the text alone shows it's pure promotion. I clicked on the tempting link "Request Profile Update" and got a little window where I could put in an "update" (after first proving I was a company representative). The little window does say, also, "All data changes require verification from published sources. Please include the correct value or values and a source where we can verify". I'm guessing that applies, if at all, to data which are figures, and possibly to updates of "Transactions". Clearly updates of "Executives", which this is, aren't reviewed in any way. Because, you know, how are they gonna "verify" claims like she's "known for her ability to think outside of the box," or she "can provide a unique perspective and guidance"? Obviously, whatever the company rep inputs re such matters is published. As a "source", the site is poison. Bishonen | talk 17:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC).

• User:Bishonen. Thanks for taking the time to look at the site carefully. Many would say at first glance that a website with the name Bloomberg would be reliable so I wanted to be sure. I'm working on the BLP with an IP (who is also a SPA), and they want to use these kinds of sources to puff up the article while accusing me of bias against the BLP subject. So this is my way of getting some community feedback and opening up the discussion. Thanks for your patience and participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know, it's funny how anybody who's not prepared to swallow huge helpings of self-praise is always 'biased against the subject' and 'probably has a personal grudge'. Compare another section on this page from a now blocked user. Bishonen | talk 17:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC).

• Ah..."just like Qworty"...nice version of Godwinning! Drmies (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell those profile pages on Bloomberg, or at least the unedited ones, are populated with data scraped from other online sources such as Company website bios. There are similar websites that list lawyers with scraped data. The individual can "claim" the profile and update it. So in short, as a BLP source it's next to useless.--ukexpat (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Manuel Pinho

Article on a Portuguese politician has seen a recent influx of non-neutral edits; there's a half dozen SPAs at work, both for and against the subject. It needs the attention of a few BLP-knowledgeable editors. The usual accusations are found there: it's a hagiography, etc. Certainly the person appears to be somewhat controversial, but the controversy is overplayed and recent major expansions (now reverted) contained UNDUE information and seriously non-neutral working. I have fully protected the article for two weeks, for editors to work things out on the talk page if they are really interested in improving the article. For those who wish to claim I protected the Wrong Version: it's always The Wrong Version. I'll ping some of the recent editors; there's a few IPs as well. Napoleonjosephine, Ginablunt, Arbitratusrex, Ricardo DDT Salgado, Cristianofigo. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made a comment on the talk page encouraging discussion and consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Eric Greitens

Eric Greitens is a candidate for Governor in Missouri. It appears that User:MOpoliticaljunkie is violating Wikipedia's BLP policies in each of his edits. He has been warned on his talk page, User talk:MOpoliticaljunkie.

It would benefit the Wiki community for administrators, editors, research librarians, etc. to rewrite the page using primary sources and reliable secondary sources, as well as block User:MOpoliticaljunkie from further vandalism.

Benchmark.stl (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Jussi Näppilä

Could You erase the whole article Jussi Näppilä finnish footballer. It includes false information. There are no proven data of games played and goals scored. Jussi Näppilä is full-amateur 5th tier football player. This type of articles are not supposed to be in Wikipedia.

Also, im not playing in PP-70 anymore.

Im very concerned about my privacy and I hope that the whole article will be removed immediately.

Best regards, Jussi Näppilä

The page is now up for AfD here. Feel free to respond with your reasoning for why the page should be removed. Meatsgains (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

mitchell pearce

Vandalism on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.203.252.10 (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Cori Yarckin

Cori Yarckin

I don't mean to be obnoxious but how can this biography with only 1 reference/source to an event promotion uphold the living persons policy and other articles with multiple sources, rather mediocre or good be considered stubs and/or removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.244.167 (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Will Morefield

Will Morefield

There have been a slew of malicious and potentially libellous updates regarding this politician after a news article was released today. This politician is not listed in the article used as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonknet (talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted but more eyes please.--ukexpat (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

blake whitney thompson

I am a real estate developer and an investment professional. I do large transactions, like building high rises and large communities all over the eastern USA.

The issue is simple.....

I somehow was in the news enough for someone to make a page on your site.

Blake Whitney Thompson

For years now, people send me birthday cards and reference things off of Wiki.

I am ok with that.

The issue is that someone from my old town - La Jolla CA - that works at the La Jolla Playhouse per their IP address - must know me and have some issue with me personally as they keep putting things on this Wiki site that CAUSE MY BUSINESS INVESTORS to call me.

For example...

166.172.189.243 - changed my title from "Real estate developer and financier" to "Egotist"

I am working on projects that are $100MM and things like this cause investors to wonder where this data is coming from - its LOOKS official. It could cost me every thing if the investor gets the wrong message or if my page turns into a streaming page of back and forth comments like a blog.

This person - 64.206.234.106 - keeps putting nominations for deletion etc. I AM FINE WITH DELETION. What I don't like are all of the banners and allegations next to my name. I don't care if people think I am not a public figure or a business person. Remove me. But if I am going to be up there, lets not make it look like a debate as to whether or not I am a real person.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.49.54 (talk • contribs)

Could you please stop deleting the notice about the deletion discussion? This is currently making a real mess of the page. The likely outcome of the discussion is that the page will be deleted in which case your concerns should be at an end. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Erika Schwartz (natural hormone guru)

More input requested at Articles for deletion/Erika Schwartz. In my opinion based on a reading of WP:BLP, WP:BASIC, and WP:FRINGE, the doctor does not meet WP's notability threshold. There is a paucity of reliable sources that mention her in depth. I think that Mehmet Oz, Andrew Weil, Dana Ullman and Robert O. Young are good examples of fringe-y medical providers who pass GNG. Dr. Schwartz seems to fall short. Delta13C (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone pulled a fast one

On December 10, 2015, a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knapp Schwarzenegger resulted in the page Patrick Knapp Schwarzenegger being deleted for non-notability. Two days later, an editor changed the title of an unrelated existing page [4] to the non-WP:COMMONNAME Patrick Mario Knapp Schwarzenegger as a way to circumvent that decision.

Audacious, right? I only found this out when I created a redirect page for this person's more common name, Patrick Knapp Schwarzenegger. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And they did a copy-paste recreation of B-Movie (disambiguation), the page he moved, to cover their tracks. I have marked that page for Speedy so that the moved page can be moved back, and thus restore the page's edit history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate information at Carly Fiorina

A group of editors is blocking changes to the following statement despite the fact that it is not supported by the sources provided:

"In a September 2015 Republican presidential candidates' debate on CNN, Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization for their involvement in fetal tissue donation."

The discussion is here.CFredkin (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not at all inaccurate: [5] [6] [7]. - MrX 01:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. They confirm that Planned Parenthood did in fact receive payment for the fetal tissue they provided. That's not "donation".CFredkin (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Journalists call them donations in reputable publications, and you call them not-donations on Wikipedia. Fortunately we have content policies that guide us in these situations.- MrX 01:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the snide post. I'm saying that the term "donation" isn't accurate in this instance, and have indicated a willingness to discuss possible alternatives. You, however, seem to be insisting that "donation" is the only possible term that can be used here. Why is that?CFredkin (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As the fetal tissue belonged to the mother, who donated it, it is indeed a donation. It's much like when one donates blood to the Red Cross - they then sell the blood to hospitals that need it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, but does the Red Cross claim to donate the blood to hospitals?CFredkin (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)