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.

Iftikhar Ahmed (Swiss lawmaker)

Iftikhar Ahmed (Swiss lawmaker)

This person is NOT a swiss "lawmaker" since he is NOT member of Parliament, which holds the legislative power.

This person is ONLY a Town Council member (Conseil communal in French).

I have already added some modifications in the "Life" section and thoroughy referenced them.

Please CHANGE THE TITLE in order to STOP this MISinformation, on the basis of my modifications and its sources/references/citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger Geneva (talk • contribs)

You are disputing the disambiguating description "lawmaker"? What would you propose as a disambiguator? --ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

How about we move the page to Iftikhar Ahmed (Swiss politician)? Psychotic Spartan 123 05:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

David Irving

The wording on the David Irving article is particularly troublesome as it stands; it blatantly says he is an 'English Holocaust Denier', without additional qualification, but a source. It doesn't go further to explain what exactly he denies, what it is he denies, just that he is an "English Holocaust Denier", as if that is the most notable thing about his career (which it isn't, if you've followed it throughout).

I have tried to re-word this so it reads "David Irving is an English author on WWII books...and is most recently notable for his views which minimise/deny the Holocaust" or something akin to that.

1.) David Irving is still alive, so this is a huge WP:BLP concern;

2.) We don't go around calling Stalin or Trotsky "killer of millions" in his biographical open; Why shouldn't David Irving's article be afforded the same courtesy, especially since he is still living? ;

3.) much of the page consists of original research

Is there any way to get it changed so it doesn't direct BLP so blatantly? 10-year old arbitrations are being referenced in an attempt to silence the debate, yet as David Irving is still alive, I can't help but see how the opening sentence is anything but blatant violation of BLP

(And I know that a lot of people here hate Holocaust negationists, revisionists and outright deniers, so please try not to think about that as you edit his article, for the good of wikipedia and for the good of neutrality everywhere).

Solntsa90 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, he is an author who is primarily known for his holocaust denial.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

One user (of which another user has ungraciously accused me of being a sockpuppet of) has put it better than I ever could, copy and pasted below for your perusal:

*  *  *

To compare: *We don't call Adolf Hitler an "Austrian Holocauster" or "German genocider", or a "World War 2 starter" for that matter. We call him "an Austrian-born German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) ... [and] effectively dictator of Nazi Germany, and [he] was at the centre of World War II in Europe and the Holocaust."

• We don't call Lee Harvey Oswald a "President killer" or "Kennedy shooter", we call him "an American sniper who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963."
• We don't call Judas Iscariot a "Jesus-betrayer" etc.

Even though all of the previously given examples are known primarily for one thing, it's just awkward to use a designation that in no way relates to a profession or occupation. It crosses WP:BLP1E. Anyhow, I don't plan on changing it myself. Just trying to help. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

*  *  *

It is in that spirit that I wish to see the David Irving article better reflect encyclopedic standards. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Waste. Of. Time. [1]. Not a BLP violation. See discussion talk as well. Here, the two users are just repeating what they said on talk... except this time Solntsa90 has managed to refrain from characterizing Holocaust denial as "heterodox views on the Holocaust".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has been discussed lots of times in the past (including, from memory, in a formal RFC) and the consensus has been that 1) Irving is commonly described as a "Holocaust denier" in both academic/specialist works and the general media (there have been significant searches of references in the past) and 2) as a result, it's the appropriate term for Wikipedia to use to describe him. This topic gets raised about once a month or so, with the consensus on the talk page consistently being that the description remains appropriate. WP:BLP doesn't mean that we shouldn't describe people in a negative way if that's how they're commonly described. I agree that Solntsa90 seems to have an axe to grind here (as well as the above, "Irving didn't spend his life being 'Holocaust Denier', he spent his life as a historian and an academic, who later on, held views that some would label Holocaust Denial (at least, in the always funny European Courts they did)"). Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like a second opinion from a less biased administrator who hasn't unsuccessfully accused me of being a sockpuppet before. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one who asked you if Prisgezine was your sockpuppet or vice versa, seeing as how the two of youse showed up together at two unrelated controversial articles, pushing the same edits. Nick just suggested an SPI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What opinion would you like? The lead of articles should reflect the content. In biographies this will mean that people who have high profile controversies associated with their views/actions, may end up with negative statements. Irving's views are well known and publicised and there are numerous reliable sources that describe him as a holocaust denier - which is accurately reflected in the body of the article. Given its a highly controversial viewpoint I would expect it to be mentioned in the lead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A second opinion is all I wanted (as I don't trust the other administrator very much), and I'll accept your assessment at face value, and refrain from further attempts to change the lede. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas Schorsch

Nicholas Schorsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The wikipedia article seems to include everything up to June 2014, when in October 29, 2014, his company American Realty Capital, reported accounting errors that had been previously covered up in q2 2014 10-q. His company has since fractured, he has been rumored to be investigated by the FBI, the SEC and the State of Massachusetts for everything regarding the accounting scandal to allegations concerning proxy voter manipulation. He had a lot of his other non work related positions tarnished, and has had to close down his business. This article only shows the Nick Schorsch everyone in the industry knew of before the bombshells dropped. Its a less extreme example of only writing a wikipedia article on Bernie Madoff that only goes up to June 2008.

Jamie Leigh Jones

A floating IP at Jamie Leigh Jones is really invested in adding claims that Jones has various personality disorders. They eventually produced a source which said this, rather than one that just said that her court opponent claimed it, but even if that claim is to be kept, I don't agree that it's appropriate to put her in the categories for people with these various personality disorders. The other members of those categories 1) were actually examined by doctors and 2) are criminals, and I don't think that this is strongly supported enough to justify the categorization even with (one) source in the text - the doctor in this case didn't actually examine her. What does BLPN think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We wouldnt use court records/transcripts to source claims as they are primary sources, but since there are reliable secondary sources that have reported on it thats not a problem. The information is relevant in context given the reason she was in court and why her accusations were rejected. So essentially your argument boils down to Original Research as to the quality of the diagnosis of her mental condition. Thats not something we do. Now I am the last person to encourage categorising people (my views on jew-tagging here are well known) however this is a bit tricky. The categories are named and the information that causes the subject to be listed in them is present and reliably sourced in the article. While it may not be nice, sadly the wikipedia category system does not allow us to differentiate between positive/negative categories in that manner. Her not being a criminal is irrelevant unless the category was named "Criminals with X". I suppose there is an argument that it places undue weight on the diagnosis. Personally if I wanted to make an argument against it, I would point out the category is named as "People with <mental illness>'" not "People diagnosed with". A past diagnosis of illness is not a reliable source that they currently still have the condition. Sure its a bit weaselly but it certainly serves the spirit of BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Any statement that "sadly, Wikipedia policy requires ___" should fall under WP:IAR and the policy should be ignored. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well quite. However to justify IAR you need to make a good case that ignoring the rules improves the encyclopedia. Thats a bit difficult to make against background/administration edits - categories by their nature are to enable navigation of wikipedia and so are almost always technically an improvement from a functional point of view. Just not necessarily a moral/ethical one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In general th urge to use court records or other primary sources tends to occur when editors are seeking to go beyond secondary sources and add their own research. In the light of the large number of disputes that categories cause I would like to see good evidence that they were in fact used by readers.Martinlc (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparent POV edits to Gerald Ronson

I'd like some extra eyes please on the slew of recent edits to Gerald Ronson, all of which seem to be with the intention of extending the coverage we already had of his criminal conviction. --Dweller (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fix attempted. I hope this works. Collect (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Very well. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

sam chachoua

Hello I am working with Dr. Sam Chachoua's team to create a relevant and factual wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Chachoua

The page that is up now is incorrect and has multiple libleous citings on it that we request removal of.

The descriptive owrds used in his current "biography" are highly negative in the terminology and it is a labelous action on the part of whoever is posting that content.

let me know what I need to do.

I have submitted a picture.

I have all the links and information we would like to put up.

I am new to wikipedia and have not used it.

I do not know how to "cite" the information- I cant find an easy way to attach a reference site to the content.

If anyone can help me understand how to create this page, I would be most appreciative of your time!!

Sean— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maritmemaine (talk • contribs)

Before you do anything else, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID.--ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the quack who claimed to have cured Charlie Sheen of HIV, despite the fact that he still tests positive, right? I have news for you: Wikipedia is not interested in promoting these kinds of practitioners. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy, that is an unwarranted personal attack on a newbie. Please reconsider your comments.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no personal attack, only unequivocal words. Delta13C (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You gotta wonder, who'd want a biography like that up on Wikipedia? I mean, can't the team figure out how we work, and that the article would not resemble something like this for long? Drmies (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Re "libleous", I refer you to Wikipedia:No legal threats --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am concerned that this article does not even meet GNG, per living subjects notable only for one event. Please discuss on article's talk page. Delta13C (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be right. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Abhay Sharma

• The article Abhay Sharma is about an Indian former first-class cricketer. It was started on 20:17, 19 January 2016‎ by Dee03. At 01:02, 2 February 2016‎ it was {{db-g7}} tagged for "speedy deletion by author request", but not by Dee03 but by AbhaySharmaCric "I requested deletion of this page as it speaks about me.", who claims to be the subject of the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the inappropriate speedy tag, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Mitchell

• Jonathan Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject is an autism "cure" advocate, and unsurprisingly the article majors on how wrong he is and how much the autism community hate him for it. Much of it is he-said-she-said style recounting of spats with other autistic people. I think the article would be twice as good if it was half as long. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Darren Wilson (police officer)

I attempted to edit the article that contained skewed and incorrect information by editing the following paragraph.

"On August 9, 2014, Wilson shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, which sparked considerable unrest in the town, as well as protests nationwide.[5][6] Wilson was named as the officer who killed Brown on August 15.[7] In March 2015, a report by the Justice Department corroborated Wilson's claims that Brown reached into Wilson's car and struck Wilson.[8] Wilson has said that this shooting made him "unemployable" and that he was turned down from a Ferguson Police Department job after being cleared by a grand jury.[9]"

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) intervened and removed the accurate edits.

The edits including quoted information about the sequence of events as told by several news sources. The article as it currently reads is libelous and is subject to being flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.116.224 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Stephanie Seneff

Stephanie Seneff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There has been some back-and-forth editing to remove, and then restore, lots of negative content about Seneff's research sourced in large part to blogs. See for example this edit in which some of this content previously removed on NPOV and BLPSPS grounds [2] was restored because the sources that content was cited to were "appropriate...for a a fringe BLP in line with BLP policy." I would like to know what other editors think about whether or not this content violates any BLP related guidelines. Everymorning (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Es Devlin

Es Devlin has been the subject of a load of promotional editing by people who don't understand WP. I did a bunch of cleanup, but if there are any theatre-lovers who watch this board, it could use some attention. It is a shame our article on someone like this is so crappy. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

There is an open RfC at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Request for comments -- religion in infobox which proposes to call Bernie Sanders Jewish. This is supposed to be done only for religious Jews, and only if they publicly identify as such. Sanders does not. Consequently, only one outcome would not be a clear BLP violation and the RfC needs to be closed. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

you do realize that his press kit states "religion: Jewish?" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I realize that when explicitly asked about his religion two weeks ago he said some vague humanistic things followed by "This is not Judaism."[3] --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please be aware of the consensus established at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and note that "Jewish" is explicitly listed as a special case. Many commenters in the RfC do not seem to be aware of the standards. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I will comment briefly about this controversy, which I am keeping at arm's length these days. Sammy, if you have not read this article in the Washington Post, please do, because it is a very in-depth report about this stuff. Additionally, I will only say that it is extremely perplexing why so many Wikipedia editors are glad to parenthetically mention denomination in infoboxes, and to mention conversion dates parenthetically, and to mention previous religions parenthetically, but when it comes time to say "Jewish (inactive)" or "Jewish (secular)" or "Jewish (non-observant)" then that is some great offense in their estimation. I have already made clear that I support such a parenthetical in this instance. If such a parenthetical is not included, then saying "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox would be highly misleading and contrary to the subject's own caveats --- and thus an obvious BLP violation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I just read it. It does not identify Sanders as of the Jewish religion, quotes him demurring on the subject, and quotes his brother as saying he is not of the Jewish religion. Note there is confusion between Jewish ethnicity an Jewish religion. The RfC result said "Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother. This is not one we should leave to democracy. The discussion should be closed. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And @Anythingyouwant: it is not a "great offense", but forgive me for thinking we should not be misstating a major US Presidential candidate's religion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that we should not misstate it. If you haven't studied WP:Primary yet, it may be worth a look, since the press kit is a primary source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sammy1339, please be aware that (a) the RfC at Template talk:Infobox to which you link explicitly says The determination if something is a religion or a non-religion should be based on reliable sources and not on the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, per WP:No original research. (b) in his his press kit, Sanders describes himself as "Religion: Jewish" (c) the Washington Post article to which you link says "Sanders would be our first Jewish president." (d) yet absurdly, you try to argue that "Sanders does not identify publicly as Jewish." What the hell are you smoking? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: You are misreading that RfC result. It is about whether Judaism is a religion, and "Jewish" is explicitly mentioned as a special case. The guideline for whether someone can be categorized in a religion is WP:BLPCAT: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The statement that "Sanders would be our first Jewish president" is equivocal as to the sense of "Jewish" (culturally vs. ethnically vs. religiously). The press kit is a primary source and therefore of questionable utility by itself (we don't even treat a secondary source in isolation from other relevant sources).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if he clarified this tonight or, for our purposes, made it more confusing, but he seems to be differentiating between practicing a formal religion, and practicing spirituality:

[Sanders] delivered some of his most candid remarks on religion and spirituality at the CNN Democratic Presidential Town Hall on Wednesday evening, saying that his "very strong" Jewish faith underpinned his belief in social justice...It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely, it is. Everybody practices religion in a different way. To me, I would not be here tonight, I would not be running for president of the United States if I did not have very strong religious and spiritual feelings...So my spirituality is that we are all in this together and that when children go hungry, when veterans sleep out on the street, it impacts me. That's my very strong spiritual feelings."[4]

Will that fit in an infobox? petrarchan47คุก 05:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Petrarchan, that source also says: "By winning even a single delegate in Iowa, Sanders, a secular Jew of Polish ancestry, has now won more delegates than any non-Christian presidential candidate in history." The word "secular" would fit nicely in parentheses, in the infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 Watch the video. The secondary source editorializes it as "his Jewish faith" but he never says anything of the kind, referring instead to "my spirituality" with no mention of Judaism or God. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. You're right Sammy, I watched the video. The question mentioned Judaism, but the answer didn't. Oy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: what do you have to say to Sanders' explicit statement that what he believes "is not Judaism"? Do you propose to ignore RSes that don't conform to your opinion? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we really treating passing comments made on the Jimmy Kimmel Show and taken out of context as reliable for the purposes of WP:BLP now? -- Kendrick7^talk 07:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you challenging the reliability of the source (The Washington Post)? Nobody's suggesting calling him "agnostic"—we're suggesting leaving the parameter blank because the answer is obviously not black-and-white. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• We do need to fix this issue of people who are culturally Jewish but are not religious. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support closing RfC as a BLP violation and also per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome, which says

"The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue."

As far as I can tell, all but a couple of the support !votes are based on the affirming the consequent fallacy:

1. If Bernie Sanders is a member of the Jewish religion (Judaism), then Bernie Sanders is Jewish.
2. Bernie Sanders is Jewish.
3. Therefore, Bernie Sanders is a member of the Jewish religion (Judaism).

The fallacy consists of assuming that being a member of the Jewish religion (Judaism) is the only way to be Jewish. Other ways of being Jewish include but are not limited to::

• Members of an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East. See Jews.
• Through matrilineal descent as defined by Halakha. See Who is a Jew?#Jewish by birth.
• Descendants from a population bottleneck of 350 individuals who lived about 600-800 years ago. See Genetic studies of Jewish origins and Medical genetics of Jews.
• Those who have the right to live in Israel and to gain Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.
• Various definitions used by racist groups for the purpose of targeting Jews for persecution or discrimination. While these definitions are generally considered invalid, they are vaid for the specific purpose of prosecuting members of such groups for Hate Crimes.
• Those who either share, or are only one step removed from, a pattern of values for 6 Y-STR markers, named the Cohen Modal Haplotype and thus are claimed to be/may be descended from Aaron, brother of Moses, in the direct lineage from Levi according to the tradition codified in the Tanakh. See Y-chromosomal Aaron.

After discarding the support !votes that are logically fallacious, pretty much all that is left are arguments that a press packet is a reliable secondary source and several outright refusals to even read WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I still don't get your point, Bernie Sanders is Jewish because his mother is Jewish, does that make things clearer for you in any way? He also identifies as jewish, as per BLPCAT. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here is an example of Sir Joseph engaging in the exact logical fallacy I list above: "If someone is Jewish, their religion is Jewish"[5] In my opinion, this is a clear BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? If someone is Jewish, their religion is Jewish. If someone is Muslim, their religion is Islam. If someone is Christian,their religion is Christianity. See how it works? You can try to be pedantic, semantic, academic, and all the other ics in the world, but when someone says, "I am Jewish" they mean to say, "The religion I wish Guy Macon to associate me with is the Jewish religion on Wikipedia, for my religion is Judaism/Jewish and I am a Jew." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ever heard of ethnicity? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That is irrelevant considering that Sanders is Jewish, for what all consider Jewish to mean. All the other points are red herrings for the topic of Sanders' infobox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that isnt necessarily true. A person can both identify as ethnically Jewish, as in I am a Jew, and not a follower of Judaism, as in I am an atheist. And absent the Washington Post specifying Jewish by ethnicity or by religion I dont think that source quite cuts it for saying his religion is Jewish. But I think the people arguing the press packet isnt "a reliable secondary source" are missing a more important point. I was under the impression that we go by self-identification in such matters, if a person says their religion is "Jewish", or "Christian", or "Rastafarian" then we say the same. The press packet on his Senate page is I think a straight-forward self-identification of religion as Jewish. nableezy - 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bernie Sanders BLP now establishes clearly that Sanders is a "secular Jew". He's also now in Category:Secular Jews. I suggest that people take a look at who else is listed in that category, and see what their infoboxes say. Just for perspective.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Three relevant wikilinks:

1. List of Jewish atheists and agnostics
2. Category:Jewish atheists
3. Jewish atheism

If people can be classified as Jewish atheists, then Bernie Sanders can be classified as "Jewish" without having a clear fill-in-the-blank answer for "Religion" in his infobox. Infoboxes are places exclusively reserved for clear, fill-in-the-blank facts. Mr. Sanders' religious identify is not such a fact. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Who said he's an atheist? He identifies as Jewish and for infoboxes and BLPFACT that is all that is needed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

He says he believes in God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#cite_note-Sellers-217 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I see where I did not make my meaning clear enough. I am not saying that Bernie Sanders is an atheist. Instead, I am establishing the broader point that precedent on Wikipedia seems to be that a person can be "Jewish" while not at all identifying with the religion Judaism. If Woody Allen can be both Jewish and an atheist, then it's certainly true that Bernie Sanders can be both Jewish and not have a clear fill-in-the-blank for "Religion" in his infobox. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Joseph and others insist that if a religion can be established—in the broadest meaning of the word—then the infobox field should be filled in. Objections are varied, my own being that that both misleads the reader and, in the particualr case of Sanders, is a violation of WP:WEIGHT by highlighting an aspect of his life that he has downplayed and apparently plays a small role in his life. Joseph et al seem to believe that Infobox fields fall outside the scope of the WP:WEIGHT policy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just for the fun of it, someone should actually read the first sentence of the ethnoreligious article, it clearly states that those members of an ethnoreligious group share a common religion. "An ethnoreligious group (or ethno-religious group) is an ethnic group whose members are also unified by a common religious background." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If the dispute were over whether Sanders were Jewish or not. Which it's not. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Guy Macon seems to think it is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Really? @Guy Macon: Do you believe Bernie Sanders is not a Jew? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Of course not. I have told Sir Joseph this multiple times, but he insists on stuffing words in my mouth. Any time that you read a comment by Sir Joseph that claims that Guy Macon holds a particular position or made a particular statement, just assume that it is a bald-faced lie and ignore it. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
          • No one is arguing that Sanders is not Jewish. Everyone agrees that he is of Jewish descent, that both his parents were Jews, that he went to Hebrew school, had a bar mitzvah, spent some time volunteering at an Israeli kibbutz, that he frequently invokes Hitler and the Holocaust as inspirations for his social activism, and so on. He is indisputably ethnically and culturally Jewish. The issue is whether he is religiously Jewish. The counterargument is that he says he is not involved in "organized religion", that he calls himself a "secular Jew", that he has praised Pope Francis and said that some of the things he likes about the pope are not Jewish. Those are all points worthy of discussion. In response, I point out that in matters of religion and sexual preference, we insist on overt self-identification. Sanders self identifies in his press packet as "Religion: Jewish" and that is powerful. Attempts to dismiss this as an unacceptable use of a primary source are weak, since this is a perfect example of a case where a primary source is acceptable or even preferred, especially when it is confirmed by an abundance of secondary sources, and contested by none. Sanders says he believes in God although he has his own definition of the deity which is in no way incompatible with the range of Jewish religious thought. That puts to bed all theories that he is an agnostic or atheist. Yes, many sources discuss various aspects of his Jewish identity with varying degrees of skepticism, but not a single solitary reliable source says that he is not a member of the Jewish religion. Some editors have argued, forcefully and repeatedly, that he cannot be a member of the Jewish religion because he is not an active partipant in organized religion, which in Judaism, is the world of ritual observance, denominations, and synagogues. This ignores the fact that modern Judaism is not a hierarchical religion like Roman Catholicism, that it has no mandatory creed and does not excommunicate people for failing to carry out old rituals, go to a synagogue or immerse themselves in denominational disputes. The term "secular Jew" cannot be construed as a complete rejection of a Jewish religious identity, since another interpretation that religion is private and public policy discussion should be framed in secular terms is just as reasonable. Those who interpret his praise of the stances that Pope Francis has taken on social justice, economic inequality and human caused climate change as a rejection of a Jewish religious identity are seriously mistaken. He is not endorsing the divinity of Jesus or the virgin birth. Finding new ideas and common cause on sociopolitical issues with leaders of other religions is by no means a rejection of the Jewish religion, but rather a long and well established part of that religious tradition. In conclusion, I do not see any doubt that Sanders is a member of the Jewish religion. Given that he is one of 535 members of the US Congress, and as far as I know, every other such biography includes religious identity in the infobox, I believe that it is a mistake to exclude this information from the Sanders biography infobox. It is wrong and unencyclopedic, in my view, and the potential for negative press attention pointing out perceived unfair treatment of Sanders on Wikipedia is very great. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
            • Give that man a standing ovation! Someone gets it. Guy Macon, I suggest you read what he says. We really need to put this to bed because it doesn't pass the smell test to me. What is good for 534 other members of the US Congress is good for Bernie Sanders the Jewish Senator from Vermont. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
              • The same issue I identify below about the press kit likely applies to the Congressional website (as well as Sanders' own pages) - they beg the question of "self-identification" since the information was more than likely filled out by aides of Sanders' or his PR agents to appeal to voters and put him in the best possible light without lying. There is clearly a means to say "Sanders is Jewish", but for WP, and specifically the "religion" field of the infobox, this is not a precise enough statement to work from knowing that it is not necessary self-identification and that Sanders has say, from his own mouth, a more nuanced take that "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox does not adequately capture. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
                • That's just plain stupid. Taking information from someone's personal government website, is selfidentification. Why do you feel the need to WP:OR as to why he would put Religion:Jewish? He said he's Jewish, that should be all that is necessary. Do you go to the religious communities in the middle of the US and verify that the Christian elected officials are thoroughly Christian enough or are they just pandering to their constituents? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
                  • It's not an OR issue. As stated below, if the only place where Sanders' religion was on his Congressional website, then that's good enough for BLP. But it's not. Editors have shown interviews/comments directly from Sanders that shows that he self-identifies his religion in a different way than what simply "Religion: Jewish" would imply. It's a contradiction, and thus it makes sense to avoid the issue in the infobox and explain in prose: "Sander's Congressional website and his campaign press kit identify him as having Jewish faith, but Sanders has explained in interviews that...". Which all can be sources (avoids OR), provides the two different stances (avoids NPOV), and makes sure we're getting the exact wording from the person of interest directly (avoids BLP). --MASEM (t) 16:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in that quote or interview takes away the BLP or selfidentify that Sanders is Jewish, his interview is just how Sanders practices his Jewish faith. In addition, why don't we do the same for the more than 20+ Congresscritters in middle America catering to the religious right who are obviously lying about their religion, so we should not put their religion in their infobox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• The key difference here is that the word "Jewish" has many possible meanings, and of importance here, one that relates to faith, and one that relates to ethnicity. In contrast, for Catholics or Christians, that's strictly a meaning of faith so there's no nuances there. Further, your counter-example is absolutely wrong to take in BLP: we cannot judge if people are lying if they make self-identifyng statements claiming one thing and there's no published counter-statements to challenge that. If a Congressman has self-stated they are Catholic, but "everyone" knows, in an undocumented manner, they never go to church or practice that faith, BLP still requires us to say they are Catholic. Here, no one is saying that Sanders is lying, or that his PR is lying, just that there is conflict between what he has said personally, what his PR team has published, and the nuances of the word "Jewish" that we should avoid over-simplification of the issue in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We have a problem here

Consider the following series of diffs:[6][7][8][9][10]

The first problem is that we have an editor who thinks that "saying 'he is Jewish' has exactly the same meaning as saying 'his religion is Judaism,' and likewise saying 'his religion is Judaism' has exactly the same meaning as saying 'he is Jewish.'"

The second problem is that several other editors agree with the above, they all are heavily involved in editing various pages about Jews and Judaism, and they have all gathered at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Request for comments -- religion in infobox. It doesn't look like sockpuppetry, and meatpuppetry seems unlikely, but it is really odd that multiple editors would {A] come up with that oddly specific opinion and [B] strongly resist even looking at any source that disagrees. I suspect that they all got the idea from the same online blog or discussion group. As long as they hold on to this fundamental error regarding what the word "Jewish" means, they will regard any source that claims that someone is Jewish as being identical to a source that claims that their religion is Judaism.

The third problem is that well meaning editors stumble upon the resulting conversation, announce to all that they are wrong to offer personal opinions (about what the word "Jewish" means) and should simply follow the sources. They don't realize that the fundamental error regarding what the word "Jewish" means leads to a systemic misinterpretation of the sources. You can't quote sources that prove that most crows are black and few are white to someone who thinks that "black" and "white" are identical. They will simply see every "crows are usually black" citation as support for inserting "all crows are white" into Wikipedia articles. Alas, these editors are focused on BLP articles... --Guy Macon (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In this specific case, the BLP subject, Bernie Sanders explicitly self-identifies as,"Religion: Jewish", says he believes in God, and talks about how religion and spirituality influences his work for social justice. And yet you deny that he is a member of the Jewish religion when no reliable source denies that he is a member of that religion. That is the core problem here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, he self-identifies as a "secular Jew" who is "not actively involved in organized religion". That self-identification appears in reliable secondary sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, Jew-tagging season again. Can you link the specific sources they are using to support 'religion jew' please someone? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Only in death, here's the link you requested. And please be more careful about ascribing motives. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah thats no good for an infobox statement-as-fact. Its directly contradictory to other primary source statements. It could be included in the prose 'Bernie has stated his religion as Jewish (PR pack source) but when asked stated he did practice his religion (interview source). And so on. Prose has the ability to explain inconsistancies, infoboxs (and categories) are just flat 'This person is X' facts so they need to be 100% accurate on a BLP. No comment on motives, except when you have seen people Jew-labelled during elections as many times as I have, its hard to not suspect an ulterior motive. Whats worse is it happens from both sides, Jewish people want to claim one of 'theirs' and opponents want to label them in order to influence the voters who harbour anti-semitism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The statement Religion:Jew is a statement of fact, nowhere does it say how he practices and how much he practices. It just identifies, as per his presspack, selfidentify is valid and this should end this discussion. We don't go to all 534 other members of congress and verify their practice of their religion. We just identify the religion. Bernie identified his religion, he said I am a Jew. That is all that is needed to say Religion:Jewish. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Except he has given interviews where he directly seems to contradict this. Per BLP where contradictory or contested information, we dont use it, or we present both sides. Its not possible to explore this in an infobox, so it doesnt go in the infobox. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Has he? Has he once given an interview where he said his religion is not Jewish? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"This is not Judaism."[11] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I find the term "Jew-tagging season" highly offensive and ask you reword that. Secondly, Bernie identifies as a Jew, his press kit identifies himself as a Jew. It is common knowledge that his religion is Jewish. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

'Common knowledge' is not a standard by which we make statements of fact on a BLP. You can make that argument on the BLP noticeboard and I gurantee you wont get far when it comes to contentious issues like religion or sexuality. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Is the press kit really "self-identification"? Remember that we're talking about a work composed by people in his hire to make him look good for the campaign, so whomever wrote that may be looking to put Sanders' religion/ethnicity in the best possible light to get the most voters, and I think its reasonably evident that making Sanders appear to identify as "Jewish" as opposed to "secular Jew" is clearly the best angle to be taken, even if it is a stretch of the truth (that is, it's not "wrong" per se, but it creates the problem of exactness/precision that this dispute seems to be over). The amount of weight in the claim that the press kit is "self-identification" in the climate of the US election is a bit troubling. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Its been used in the past. It depends on how and why. Self-published material is considered generally reliable for the purposes of non-contentious/contested claims about the subject. Press Releases and other PR-related material released by the subject come under self-publishes sources. Unless there is contradictory information or obviously wrong info in them. In this case there would appear to be contradictory info - statements by the subject indicate he is not religious, so I wouldnt accept a press release as evidence of something that is very contentious (as religion, and Jewishness in particular is). Its just a no per the BLP policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the way I see it. It's not self-published by Sanders, it's self-published by the campaign of "Sanders for President 2016", which is not the same entity as Sanders himself. They are marketing him to look attractive to voters. There's a filter on that information that makes it very questionable to call it as self-id for the person specifically. They're not lying or being obtusely false, but they are spinning information that as stated conflicts with stated that are self-identified by Sanders himself, and in this type of case, the latter should take priority. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Absent any other information or anything contradictory I would probably see little problem with using the press kit. Its at least something he would have to sign off on. However he has given interviews and made statements (the washington post and lifezette ones) in interviews that can be read as directly contradictory, so I would use nothing in the infobox (we dont have to fill it in) and if necessary explain in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. If we only had the press kit and no further statements, it's fine to go from the press kit. But we have conflict between what Sanders has said and what his press kit says, and that begs analysis of how self-identified the press kit is, and as such, it's best to omit or leave for prose to discuss in depth. --MASEM (t)

The press kit should be enough for self-identification. Furthermore, that is not the only source to say he is Jewish. I am really just at my wits end here trying to post that Bernie's religion is Jewish. I imagine in a few weeks time, CNN reporting "Wikipedia shows why they will never replace a real encyclopedia, when they refuse to identify that Sanders is a Jew." It is WP:COMMON that his Religion:Jewish, his ethnoreligion is Jewish, his identity is Jewish, his culture is Jewish, I'm not sure what else we need. He's from Brooklyn, I'm sure he drinks borscht for all I know. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If there were a field in the infobox for ethnoreligion or culture then I would say go ahead and simply insert "Jewish" without elaboration. But we're talking about a different field.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If there are contradictory sources then the information should not be in the infobox which is for clear cut information. If it need explaining then it belongs in prose only. In my opinion. HighInBC 16:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no contradictory sources. That is the issue. People are confusing religion and practice of religion. He is Jewish, he may not practice his religion the same way some other Jews do. Same way Trump or 534 other members of Congress don't practice their respective religions. We don't ask each member of Congress how they practice their religion, we just identify their religion, and put it in the infobox. That is all. In the article we mention the nuance of his religious beliefs. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to assume that because Sanders is ethnically Jewish, whatever religion he practices is some degree of Judaism. If he believes god was birthed from a golden egg or born to the Christian's Mary, that would not be Judaism. Religion is not genetically inherited. Aside from the press kit I haven't seen any evidence he practices Judaism. D.Creish (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He said he's Jewish, so that should be enough. In this article, which is a RS, it says he's Jewish, so that is in addition to the press kit, plus Sanders is quoted as saying "I'm proud to be Jewish" ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/bernie-sanders-jewish-new-hampshire-primary/index.html ) This has really gone on far enough. You have no evidence he practices Judaism? Good for you, that's not what the infobox is all about. Are you going to go investigate the practices of the 534 other members of Congress and see how they practice religion? The infobox is again, not how they practice, it is a box for info, to identify the religion, in this case, it is Judaism. If you want to say if he practices, add another line in the box and fill that one out, but just to identify, Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Please keep in mind as you read and respond to the above that Sir Joseph thinks that saying "he is Jewish" has exactly the same meaning as saying "his religion is Judaism," and likewise that saying "his religion is Judaism" has exactly the same meaning as saying "he is Jewish."[12][13] You can't quote sources that show that water is wet to someone who thinks that "wet" and "dry" are identical. They will simply see every "water is wet" citation as support for inserting "water is dry" into Wikipedia articles, claiming all along that "there is no contradictory source." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Stephanie Seneff

The article has 7 references. One is a primary source for her employment details. The remainder are non-notable blogs criticizing her glyphosate study (note that glyphosate is the base for Monsanto's main product, RoundUp herbicide). The final reference, from Keith Kloor for Discover is perhaps not as reliable as it may appear, given that recent FOIA records landed him in this article: Journalists Failed to Disclose Sources’ Funding from Monsanto.

I bought this to AfD, and at her talk page, asked Sarah SV to weigh in on PAGs. She said:

"No self-published material is allowed in BLPs, even if written by an expert in the field, unless the author is the subject of the BLP". And: "See WP:BLPSPS, which is policy: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs."

"BLP is a strongly supported policy, and that part of it is very clear, so anyone can remove an SPS from a BLP. If someone restores it report it to an uninvolved admin or WP:BLPN."

Based on this advice, I removed the following blog posts in this edit: [14]

• https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/seneff-claims-gmos-cause-concussions/#more-38833

• https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

• http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/31/oh-no-gmos-are-going-to-make-everyone-autistic/

• http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/04/26/when-media-uncritically-cover-pseudoscience/#.VrLfLsdH2V5 (Keith Kloor)

My work was reverted by Kingofaces43, with the edit summary:

"Partial restore per WP:PARITY, WP:FRINGEBLP and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance. Edit caused undue weight and removed appropriate sources for a a fringe BLP in line with BLP policy."

Thanks in advance for any help with properly applying PAGs, petrarchan47คุก 05:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not commenting at all on the content or the underlying dispute, but Discover is a reliable source and I don't think a blog post including this Discover author in passing amongst a long list of journalists criticized for an omission only tangentially related to this article is sufficient to cast doubt on its reliability in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Do check out the article, though, would you? I'm not sure she's notable. And her page is now an attack page. There is no underlying dispute - this is a matter of blogs used to attack someone whose page looks to have been created for this express purpose. I cannot keep the blogs out of the article with King et al around, but someone should do so. One day someone is going to take action against this website if it continues to host attack pages like this one. petrarchan47คุก 06:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll reiterate my post at AfD, but the article is appropriately sourced for a WP:FRINGEBLP. We can't violate WP:BLP and remove the fact that most of the subject's notability comes from controversial publications without the appropriate critcism of the fringe views. Sources such as blogs.discovermagazine.com are not truly self-published sources even though they have the term blog in the name. They are selected contributors for the website as opposed to an open blog anyone can post. www.sciencebasedmedicine.org is a recognized reputable source for dealing with fringe subjects and is also appropriate per WP:BLPSPS. BLPSPS does mention,""Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." We're basically looking at open blogs not being reliable, but sources that are considered professionals in some fashion, experts in the field, etc. that don't allow just anything to be posted in line with the policy. Both BLP and WP:PSCI policies are at play here, so editors need to take care in upholding both.

As a note for anyone else, the article is under GMO discretionary sanctions, along with a 1RR restriction that also includes some warning against trying to edit war once the WP:BRD process has begun. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything in WP:FRINGEBLP that allows substandard sources to be used to override WP:BLPSPS; just the opposite, it advises removing the fringe views of living persons outright. There are also a large number of editors who, disturbingly, see no difference between "fringe" views and minority scientific views, and grossly misapply WP:FRINGE because of that. Regarding SBM, I'm copying my own comment from the AfD:

There is a vocal group of editors who are in love with this blog, and insist it has editorial standards. I have never found any evidence of the sort; it seems like the "editors" are simply blog authors. The site also accepts outside submissions from absolutely anyone, and reviews those, which apparently has given rise to idea that its main authors are subject to editorial oversight. The submission guidelines for outside authors are here. I have never heard anyone argue that this site meets the standards of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which it clearly does not. In extensive conversation wherein I've brought up this issue, editors repeatedly affirmed that it is "good" without saying how it is a scientific RS. In the context of a libel case against it, the Washington Post described it as "a nonprofit opinionated education and advocacy group".[15]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Swapnil Pathre

Not sure if the User:Swapnil Pathre has a question but I have removed a dump of the article placed here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Brian Martin

Brian Martin (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking at this article I found one example where the statements in the article reflected the source content inaccurately, to the denigration of the professionality of the subject. I deleted and started a section on the talk page. Diff 1 Then I found another. Diff 2 And now I've found 2 more. "He has been (xxxxxcenscored) for his support of Michael Primero, whose PhD thesis alleged the Rockefeller Foundation had declared a war on consciousness through the imposition of musical tuning standards,[3] his defence of Andrew Wakefield, who lost his medical license due to research fraud and ethical violations[4]" Both of these statements are not supported by the sources cited.

I have not checked the rest of the article. Nor have I ID'd the editor/s involved.

I AGF however am aware that the subject of the article is a professor with a recent anti-vaccination PhD student. He describes some of the attacks in "Mobbing of a PhD student: lessons and responsibilities"

I would go DE but do not have access to a acceptable account. I am out of time. Inaccurate and negative statements are currently in the BLP article. 124.171.109.96 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

References

I've been watching things unfold with the Brian Martin (professor) article, and wrote this a day or two ago, and hope it helps...

This article is quite derogatory about Martin himself, and his work, yet this is not based on strong evidence. It seems to be mainly based on slanted views of a WP:SPA editor. I would think the article, and Talk page, contravene WP:BLP.

More clarification and context on Martin's publishing record is needed to better examine this situation, but details of Martin's key publications have been removed from the page several times: [16], [17].

Despite what is being said in this WP article, Martin has published many peer-reviewed journal articles. But, yes, he does publish widely in a diverse range of publication outlets, as many academics do. The article is portraying Martin as an activist, but to me he is just an "interdisciplinary academic" working in the area of "science and technology studies (STS)." He is a full professor employed full-time at a major university.

There is an amazing amount of criticism of Martin in the second paragraph of the article, relating to Michael Primero, Andrew Wakefield, and Judith Wilyman. Yet, material about Martins' STS professorial colleagues, Mark Diesendorf, Ian Lowe and Jim Falk has been removed from the article with little discussion. Johnfos (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not that amazing. An academic going into bat for Wakefield is sticking his neck out big time, given that Wakefield's fraudulent studies with their concealed conflicts of interest and unethical unapproved tests on children caused a resurgence in a deadly and highly infectious disease. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Negative, yes, but not inaccurate. He has a history of misidentifying cranks as whistleblowers, and his supervision of the Wilyman PhD calls into question his fitness to supervise further PhDs, as that document used confirmation bias and conspiracist thinking in place of actual evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

kareem kandalayam

kareem kandalayam S/o Abdul kader, Dharmmathadka kasaragod kerala india. studied SDPHS dharmathadka, and worked ind dubai, eranakulam and saudi arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummick (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

umer challangayam

ummer kader kandalayam dharmathadka kasaragod kerala india studied plus two, ITI electrical kanhangad, neleshwar. worked in india Bangalore, saudi arabia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummick (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Mikael Ljungman

There is some serious whitewashing going on at Mikael Ljungman, exemplified by this diff. Ljungman is described by Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet as Sweden's "most well-known financial criminal", with various convictions ranging from multi-million dollar fraud to arson. Yet Tore N Johansson has written a feel-good lead that does not appropriately summarize the article and does not even mention the reasons Ljungman is notable in the first place. The content of the article has been bloated with trivia such as campaign donations he made while living in the US or his patent applications, all without third-party sources. That violates WP:UNDUE, according to which his (former) tech companies and his crimes should be the focus of our coverage. My attempts to explain our guidelines on the talk page were countered by "all information about a person is interesting", which is not based in policy and - rather obviously - is a recipe for just this kind of feel-good fluff. I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look and explain why Tore N Johansson's changes are not acceptable. Huon (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There is some problematic black-washing going on the living person biography "Mikael Ljungman". Mikael Ljungman are convicted for serious crimes and its well documented by reliable sources. He is released from jail. This article is about a living person why the article should be balanced and not a portrait for mudslinging. Huon want to focus the entire article on tech companies and crimes but are reluctant to include information about Mikael Ljungmans patent applications related to tech activities. There is two interesting and notable aspects of this contradiction between criminal and inventor. And the facts are published in reliable sources and edited by other contributors. If a person have been released from prison its portrayed by Huon as a feel-good lead. When a convicted criminal such Mikael Ljungman appears as a parliament candidate its a notable fact in it self. His earlier and recent political contributions and activities could not be described as trivia. Even if Mikael Ljungman first was notable for criminal activities he is also notable for his political activities and for his patent applications. His recent political activities, education in political science are supported by third-party sources. Mikael Ljungmans political activities are also events that have taken place after Mikael Ljungmans convictions why it does appropriately summarize the article. Huon shows bias when he express that the content of the article has been bloated with trivia such as campaign donations and patent applications. To exclude such information violates WP:UNDUE, according to which his (former) tech companies and his crimes should be in focus together with political activities, patent applications, political activities on social media. My attempts to explain our guidelines on the talk page were countered by if you once becomes notable as a criminal the person will always be ported as just a criminal on wikipedia, which is not based in policy. Its a recipe for black-wash and mudslinging. I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look and explain why Huons changes are not acceptable.Tore N Johansson (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tore N Johansson has made literally no edits outside Mikael Ljungman and its talkpage (excepting only the post above). It seems safe to call him an extreme SPA and to ask him on his page to disclose any conflict of interest he may have. He was asked politely in April 2015 to read WP:PSCOI, but did not comment. I'm going to ask him more directly if he has a conflict of interest, and inform him of the terms of use with regard to paid editing. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC).

The idea that patent applications sourced to the applications themselves need to be included for the inclusion of his much-covered crimes not to be WP:UNDUE is a fundamental misunderstanding of weight in Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Setting aside possible (and likely) COI, this is my opinion of the article itself: the only third-party sources about Mikael Ljungman that I can find are some Danish newspaper articles about some of his crimes, and Swedish newspaper articles about his criminal record in relation to his candidacy for the Christian Democrats in the 2014 Swedish parliamentary election. (Apparently he didn't get in.) Most of the latter articles are from 15 June 2014, when the news about the candidacy broke. So the criminal record, especially in relation to the parliamentary candidacy, is the only thing about the subject that's possibly notable. It's what the article should focus on — if we're to have an article. Myself, I don't think we should; let's delete it. I call out, as typical tabloid exaggeration for effect, Aftonbladet's claim that he's such a well-known financial criminal. Aftonbladet tends to be sensationalist. Now, my personal impressions aren't a reliable source, but just for ambiance: I live in Sweden, I follow the news, and I had never heard of him. Note also that the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't have an article about him. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC).