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.

Anita Krajnc Case

Anita Krajnc case The truck driver's comment-swearing at Anita- should be removed as this may encourage people to socially shame the driver, make threats, personal attacks, affect his livelihood etc.

The sentence regarding the pig farmer being charged and being fined is not related to Anita's Case, and creates an attack page.

●"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. "

●"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

●"Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should . . ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.152.86.13 (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be possible to replace every occurrence of the truck driver's name with "the truck driver", and every occurrence of the farmer's name with "the farmer" or something like that. Whether this is appropriate when the farmer is responsible for filing the case that the article is about, and the truck driver is absolutely central to the incident concerned, and both of them are named by dozens of reliable sources, I am not sure. MPS1992 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

agree. I replaced his name with 'truck driver' --he is not famous and is named multiple times to disparage him. Rjensen (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Fior the record I disagree. CBC News names the guy - who is not just incidental to the "Anita Krajnc case" - and Wikipedians come along to scrub out any mention of his name because of what we imagine he wants. We are here to inform and serve our readers not provide value added services to the subjects of our articles.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree. This was reported in the media and it exists all over. Wikipedia is not the whole universe, or even its center. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a risk that it was added to Wikipedia to facilitate harassing the driver. Rjensen (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That's an exceedingly broad justification for removing reliably sourced material. At issue here is how much harder it would be to "harass the driver" but for Wikipedia and I'd say hardly any difference given that the name wasn't uncovered by a Wikipedian sleuthing obscure sources. CBC News is one of the country's biggest media outlets if not the biggest. What does it do to Wikipedia's neutrality reputation if Wikipedia is notorious for removing info about persons who want "disparaging" or "harassing" info removed?--Brian Dell (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

In this case highly motivated activists selected his truck as a target and brought along cameras and PR people in order to make a national political statement. That is deliberate politicized targetted harassment desired 100% for publicity of a non-celebrity and Wikipedia should not assist it.Rjensen (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"desired 100% for publicity of a non-celebrity"? You are not going to assign even 1% for animal rights activism? You aren't the least bothered that Wikipedia suppresses stories the media does not because Wikipedia tries to tamp down negative "publicity"?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Animal rights activists indeed staged a publicity event, complete with photographers and news men. They targeted a completely private individual who was driving the truck that they just happened to choose. The driver's role in history is too minimal for us to invade his privacy any further. Rjensen (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

So CBC News is complicit in this "targeting"? We're not invading his privacy by providing the same established facts that the media did. You think it's appropriate to substitute their editorial judgment for yours? Is Wikipedia this guy's public relations manager? If this guy's role is truly minimal then why did you have to anonymize his name in the article not once but several times?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

the demonstrators wanted maximum publicity and they also are warning away their "enemies" (who drive trucks carrying animals) with hostile publicity. The driver does not have PR staff but the demonstrators did--looks like one person with a bottle of water and a team of PR people. Wikipedia is permanent and is the #6 most visited website in the world, so the PR team scored big. Rjensen (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy (Eron Gjoni)

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

---

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A slow-motion edit war has broken out over the past few days over the inclusion of the these lines concerning a living person, Eron Gjoni. I think they are inappropriate for inclusion in the article for the following reasons:

1. This characterization is an accusation of malice against Gjoni, and the existing discussion about it proves that it is at the very least "contentious" within the meaning of BLP.
2. This accusation of malice appears in only one source of the many that have written about these events and seems to be the opinion of that source alone.
3. Gjoni explicitly denies that this statement about his intent is true, and editors have resisted attempts to include this denial in the article.
4. Gjoni is in any case notable only for his connection to this particular event (his name redirects to Gamergate controversy), and so a non-trivial argument could be made for excluding his name entirely on BLP1E grounds. It would seem I am mistaken here. Thanks to Dumuzid and Strongjam.
5. Gjoni's intent, malicious or otherwise, is not relevant to the facts of the controversy and the well-documented instances of harassment that followed.

Frankly we (wikipedia) appear to be dragging this living person through the mud for no real encyclopedic purpose. I would like for us not to do that. Apologies for any technical or formal deficiencies in this report-- I haven't posted to this noticeboard before. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion here, for details. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure WP:BLP1E is really only applicable to article subjects. Having said that, I think removing Mr. Gjoni entirely (as I have suggested) makes sense simply for parsimony's sake. Given the allegation and the sourcing here, I don't think the material is a BLP violation, though I do tend to think the article is better off without it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Dumuzid is correct WP:BLP1E does not apply here. WP:BLPNAME is the more directly applicable policy. However, his name has been widely printed even in scholarly articles so the conditions of that policy seem to be met. As for the quote as it was, I think it was over sensationalist, and his intent is not really relevant anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that the alternative to using this source is not to simply pass over the matter in silence, but to substitute a scholarly source[1] that describes the factual aspects of Gjoni's actions without ascribing malice. Rhoark (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Like where the scholarly article says this? "According to this chat log, Gjoni also posted on 4chan, and the stories he had been telling in his blog The Zoe Post were refined and used to fuel the anger of these different forums. This log also indicates previous disagreements between Quinn and members of another image board..." Maybe some tweaking to the article wording is necessary, but the source you cited actually supports the essence of the material in question. It does seem this source is willing to assign some element of agency to Gjoni, especially considering the same forum had already been used to discuss Quinn negatively. Lizzius (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That, to me, says that Gjoni posted the Zoe Post (not in dispute as far as I know), that he also posted to 4chan (not in dispute as far as I know), but not that he posted the Zoe Post to 4chan (not supported by any source anywhere as far as I know), nor that he did so intentionally to incite attacks (which is the thrust of the statement in dispute here). -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Given the quote I provided isn't in the full context of the paper, I could see your reasoning. Given the context from the material that immediately precedes this, however, I must disagree. Are you able to view it? I'm not sure how much of it I can safely post without incurring the wrath of the copyright deities. Lizzius (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Gonji is pretty much a public figure these days best known for kicking off GamerGate, so excluding him from the GamerGate article would make little sense. Other than that I am in agreement with Drumuzid that this is not a BLP issue. Artw (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Artw, who said anything about excluding him? The diff that Starke Hathaway gives is only a part of a paragraph that mentions him. And it is that part which is in dispute. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: Point #4 is about excluding his name entirely. I'm not sure if Starke Hathaway is asking if that should happen or is just suggesting it as a possibility. — Strongjam (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit ambiguous, I admit. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In case my own point needs clarification: I am not convinced by any of the arguments for removing that portion of the paragraph, including the ones suggesting it is a BLP violation, and believe it should remain. Artw (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The material seems weak/weasly and it's basically just a quote from one guy. Is he considered an expert on Gamergate? Why would his opinion matter so much? Just exclude it and move on. Or use the alternate sourcing that User:Rhoark provided. This seems like a no brainer. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no question that Gjoni's name should be included, and that he did publish the "Gjoni post" to the Internet (it's well sourced, and he has not denied that he published what he put out). It's well established that the post was excessively critical, ended up getting posted in forums (if not by Gjoni) that would react angrily and with harassment, and included language that would spark the accusations of ethical questions that formed the core of GG. The problem is that the statement of dispute in WP's article comes from a Boston Magazine reporter making claims on Gjoni's intentions with the post (the only place where this assertion is made), that he purposely posted it to incite gamers. Gjoni has later said this was not his intent with the Gjoni post, and had wanted to avoid the harassment that came from it and carefully chose where to post it. Keeping the Boston Magazine's reporter's language about Gjoni's intent, even in the absence of Gjoni's counter-statement, is absolutely a BLP violation as written, as it implies this is factually the case when no such evidence from Gjoni himself exists of this intent. At best, the statement can be flipped around to be a claim by the Boston Magazine writer about Gjoni's intent, but at that point, it is one person's POV among an article that continues many many many POVs, and would be UNDUE as well as touching on the BLP as rumormongering. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Just exclude it and move on. Well, several of us (including me) tried to do just that, but so far we've all been reverted with instructions to take it up at BLPN. So, here we are. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You were asked to take the matter of whether or not it was a BLP violation here, yes. Re-litigating the entire debate outside of BLP issues here is not really required for that though. Artw (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Masem let me try to clarify - I believe the material should be excluded. The line won't make or break the article (it seems quite broken already), and if there are concerns with one sentence that doesn't add much value, just get rid of it. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops, looks like an intendation issue. Was not necessary replying to you but to the topic. I agree your statement matches what I've said, that the statement should not (ETA) be included. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exclude it and move on. Attributing motive (criminal motive at that), is problematic. --DHeyward (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

And which crime is that, DHeyward? Dumuzid (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If you read the diff, you would see that the implication of the quote is that Gjoni posted a message deliberately intended to resonate with a group of people predisposed to violence. This reads to me that Gjoni intended to incite violence. I'm surprised you need that spelled out for you. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That is just overreaching. Intent to incite violence is an very narrowly defined crime, requiring the speaker to incite violence that is both likely and imminent. Yes, the quote should be excluded, but not because of any contains any criminal accusations. — Strongjam (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a very surprising fellow, if I do say so myself! Dumuzid (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If you parse the text, you end with - Zachary Jason said Gjoni deliberately crafted the post to resonate with members of the gaming community passionately predisposed to attacking women in the industry. The only thing that can be verified is that Jason said that. That any of those other points are true are BLP violations because they explicitly attribute motive to Gjoni's actions that can't be verified. Is that an overreach? Mr Ernie (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No, but that's not a crime or an accusation of a crime. As I said, it should be excluded but the attempts to say this reaches WP:BLPCRIME levels is silly. — Strongjam (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It sounds an awful lot like this one person is saying Gjoni did this. --DHeyward (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? One posting sounds to you like "a course of conduct or series of acts"? Fascinating. Dumuzid (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone actually need to point out that people have actually been prosecuted simply using a hashtag like #killallwhitemen, exactly because it's an incitement? The "likely and imminent" requirement you claim, is not the bright line as you seem to think. The charges against her was later dropped because it could not be established that she was serious, which unlike the likely and imminent requirement, is a very bright line. So the claim in question, is VERY much a claim of Gjoni committing a crime. 84.219.225.109 (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Read the article here that is being used as the single reporter source. Quite frankly, that article shouldn't be a source for anything in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The name shouldn't be removed, but one writer's opinion, and not even by one that is an expert in the field on someone's motive doesn't satisfy the strong sourcing that BLP demands. There is also no consensus in the talk page to restore the BLP material. The whole section should be removed unless better sourcing is provided. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why this was brought to BLPN, and then the people on the talk page are continuing their discussion here. The aim of bringing this stuff to the page here is to get outside opinion. The text is not an egregious or perfectly clear-cut BLP vio, so it's unlikely that an admin will force the matter. All we have is the possibility of some outside comment to clarify the issue. Perhaps someone who doesn't mind wading into this cesspool can care to comment here or on the talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll just post this here again:

It's a pure rumor supported by just one source of countless and the source quotes these pieces as its evidence:

"He was keenly aware of attracting an impressionable readership. “If I can target people who are in the mood to read stories about exes and horrible breakups,” he says now, “I will have an audience.”"

"One of the keys to how Gjoni justified the cruelty of “The Zoe Post” to its intended audience was his claim that Quinn slept with five men during and after their brief romance."

As I wrote before:

It boggles the mind how he links reveal-all gossip about exes and breakups as "passionately predisposed to attacking women in the industry". Where did he find the gender here? Are breakup gossipers known to be predisposed to attacking women in the industry? Is TMZ known for being predisposed to attacking women in the industry? Judging by their latest coverage of Jay-Z, I'd say gossip hurts everyone equally. We are covering one vague apparently-evidenceless rumor from a single — seemingly just one of those publications of an opinion which are distanced by the publishers from regular, more fact-checked reporting — of a source, and all without letting an RS interview have a counterword. Let me list some Wikipedia policies: "Avoid gossip", "Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources" and "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: 1. is unsourced or poorly sourced 4. relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards" amongst others — not to mention the ones which name fair coverage of both sides of the story. The bit breaches upon all these rules. It's even stated that WP:3RR doesn't apply if you're trying to remove libel. I could revert the bit 5 times and be within my rights.

This is how the post is referred to by another source:

"Despite its length, Gjoni’s post amounts to little more than the kind of nasty, post-breakup gripes spurned partners lament about with close friends. But thanks to a number of key factors, his allegations have turned into a hot-button issue for a certain sector of the gaming community, which has twisted Gjoni’s dirty laundry into a narrative of industry corruption—a tale that is not based on provable fact." and "Gjoni’s post never makes either allegation."

Sources describe the post as nothing more than a nasty post-breakup gripe from a spurned lover and that it was twisted by a certain sector of the gaming community. Are you going against sources, to quote a rumor? I see zero logical counter-arguments here, especially as some people mind-bogglingly don't even want a response from Gjoni if the rumor is kept.

And someone tried to push some "Dr. Jane" source, but Starke deconstructed that source to pretty much nothing:

Binksternet's argument for retaining the Boston Mag quote on the basis that the article in which it appears was cited in Continuum is a non-starter. The statement in the Continuum article for which Boston Mag is cited is After accumulating

16 gigabytes of abuse (Jason 2015). Nothing about Gjoni's intent, and in any event a mere citation wouldn't strengthen the sourcing for that attribution of malice anyway.

If someone tries to push it off here as well, this already stands here as counter-argument.

It's clearly WP:BLPCRIME because the action would constitute as a crime. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Exclude and delete the entire article while you're at it. Why does that whiny handful of manbabies even have an article in the first place? I've been told that Mayors and political party leaders aren't notable enough for Wikipedia - so why a kindergarten for adult boys? Daveosaurus (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Seconded Daveosaurus's remark. This article is a playground for a bunch of fanatics and obsessives and single purpose accounts who have been partying there, arguing over a meaningless internet flamewar and creating problems for Wikipedia for literally two years now. It is quite plausible that Gamergate would be over and forgotten long ago if it hadn't been for the SPAs who think they are righting great wrongs by arguing on the Internet about a he said-she said relationship spat. And yet, nobody seems to have the guts to shut it down. Maybe it's time for Wikipedia's admins to find their guts and close this unending embarassment for good. (That said, if said guts are not available I suppose you guys could at least enforce the BLP policy you claim to care so much about, and hit a few of the SPAs with sanctions while you're at it.) 2601:602:9802:99B2:68B6:5AC6:1A04:304 (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just wanted to check in and make it known I support excluding the offending text, as it is too a weak source to support such a strong claim about Gjoni's motives. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Andrei Marga

Andrei Marga, a Romanian politician who has a clean WP:NPOL pass as a past holder of a position in the national cabinet, recently nominated his own article for WP:AFD on the grounds that he didn't want one. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Marga.) Needless to say, he didn't succeed as WP:BIODEL only applies to low-profile individuals whose notability is debatable rather than unequivocal — but I still want to request a check for WP:BLP compliance nonetheless (I'm particularly unimpressed by the bullet-pointed and unsourced lists of awards, but I'm not enough of an expert in Romanian politics — nor can I read the Romanian language sources to determine whether they properly verify the content — to judge whether there are also BLP problems in the actual body prose as well.) Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Stressing his early Communist Party membership and activity is about as useless as starting an article about someone born in Germany before 1940 by stressing their Nazi party membership and activity. Perhaps this is worth trimming or removing. MPS1992 (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone born in Germany before 1940 was a Nazi. Just ask Pope Benedict.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Being foreign minister and minister of education meetsnotability of politicians. And peoples' early political identification is always important. Benedict btw was too young to join the Nazi Party but joined the Hitler youth. The parallel is not that valid. Membership in the Nazi Party technically disqualified people from attaining positions in government, universities, etc., while membership in Communist or affiliated parties did not. 33% of the working population in Romania were members of the CP, while only 7% of Germans joined the Nazi Party. While it was difficult to join the Nazi Party, it was practically mandatory to join the Communist Party. TFD (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What percent of the working population are former leaders of their alma mater's Communist Students Union? I'm looking at this bio's lede and wondering what the problem is... sounds like an impressive guy.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, you can be President (and founder) of the League of Women Voters (an organization of massive importance for women's rights) for an entire U.S. state, during the era of the most significance of the organization, and still be challenged for notability. Go have fun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Foulke Morrisson while also keeping WP:OTHERSTUFF in mind. MPS1992 (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Well you cannot be U.S. Secretary of State and Secretary of Education and not be notable. And surely had Hillary Clinton founded a state league for women voters, it would be in her article. TFD (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I would think so. MPS1992 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Lauren Hutton

Lauren Hutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good lord, I don't know where to start. I guess the first place is a BLP where the article states that het partner "squandered" $13M of her money, sourced to an apparent auto biography of Hutton's. There is a ridiculous "Quotes" section which I removed, however I suspect it will be added back. Even if those quotes were sourced, they don't belong in the article with that format. This BLP needs some TLC.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The partner (Williamson) died in the 1990s, so he doesn't fall under WP:BLP. Still, I agree we should try to get it right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

faye resnick

Faye Resnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article mentions that Ronald Goldman was Nicole Brown's boyfriend. I know of no evidence to verify that statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.78.141 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither one of them is a living person, indicating this discussion belongs on the article talk page, not here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Julio A. Cabral-Corrada

• Julio A. Cabral-Corrada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, was directed over here from help desk (Wikipedia:Help_desk#Harm.2Fdue_weight_in_BLP_with_limited_sourcing.3F); I'm actually not sure there's a "violation" but I'd be grateful for input on whether this would be one/how best to handle.

At Talk:Julio_A._Cabral-Corrada#Campaign_finance_issue we're discussing a potential harm issue in a BLP with limited sourcing. AfD closed as no consensus (full disclosure, I was a delete ivoter), but the search for sources turned up a U.S. Congressional campaign finance issue not previously included in the entry. Now we have four reliable secondary sources on campaign finance issue, and only six on all the rest of the subject's life, three of which come from the same outlet (and all ten are pretty limited coverage, nothing truly in-depth). Another editor has since added the campaign finance thing to the entry; entry's creator deleted those edits. I'm at a loss, concerned about harm to the subject (I don't think we have enough other coverage to give properly limited weight to the campaign finance thing) but also about the risk of misleading readers and harming the encyclopedia with an entry that excludes 40% of the available sources and includes (cherrypicks?) only the favorable ones.

Thanks for any advice (particularly from anyone who can read both the Spanish and English sources, although advice on policy very welcome too!) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Melanie_Chandra

Melanie_Chandra

Erroneous birth year of 1986 CONTINUOUSLY inserted. CONTINUOUS deletion of IMDB citing.

Correct birth year is 1984.

IMDB Biographical Information is based on PUBLIC RECORDS, PRINTED PUBLICATION or OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.

BillieReed (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Thomas Woods

Thomas Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stubb05 is again removing content with multiple reliable primary and secondary sources from the article. In these last days there was a discussion in the talk page, and the edits on the article were blocked, waiting for constructive suggestions and proposals from that particular user, and others who opposed my edits. No constuctive suggestion was made on the talk page, except for one source, which I removed. I re-added the sourced content again, after waiting 2-3 days. The user mentioned above is removing it again without giving specific reasons for removing entire paragraphs with reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Woods&action=history

This is the content I'm trying to add with the respective sources:

My edits

intended as part of the first section of the article Woods was a co-founder and member of pro-secession neo-confederate League of the South and he wrote different articles for the Southern Patriot (the official magazine of the LoS). Woods has also contributed articles for the Chronicles (publication of the Rockford Institute) and the Southern Partisan called by the SPLC "arguably the most important neo-Confederate periodical". [...] Views Abolitionists In an essay for the Southern Patriot (the League of the South's journal) Woods characterizes nineteenth-century abolitionists as "utterly reprehensible agitators who put metaphysical abstractions ahead of prudence, charity, and rationality". Bill of Rights In an article for the Southern Partisan magazine in 1997 Woods writes: "The Bill of Rights, moreover, erroneously invoked by modern Civil Libertarians, was never intended to protect individuals from the state governments. Jefferson is far from alone in insisting that only the federal government is restricted from regulating the press, church-state relations, and so forth. The states may do as they wish in these areas." Jake Jacobs, a conservative author and historian critical of his view writes: "Dr. Woods a passionate defender of States' Rights and Secession ironically treats States' Rights as if it were an object of religious veneration-a form of Southern state worship that is bizarre and creepy and in the end not a true representation of classic consistent libertarianism but a discombobulated cacophony of orchestrated academic chicanery that under the guise of limited government advances the tyranny of The STATE over the glory of liberty from Government control". References

--GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Users who might be interested: @Dsprc:, @Srich32977: , @SPECIFICO: , @The Four Deuces: . --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This does not appear to involve any interpretation of WP:BLP policy as such, and belongs nly on the article talk page unless such a policy argument arises otherwise. I commend you to read WP:CONSENSUS in the meantime. Collect (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thnx for the response. A user opened a discussion in the talk page because two users opposed one source. I removed the source from the contet I was adding. 2-3 days passed and no other proposal and/or suggestion was made. What does that mean? Can I re-add the sourced content, whithout being reverted from a user who doesnt want secondary sources displayed in that article? --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: The user mentioned above contends that those sources I'm using are non RS. This is the policy--GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC) issue.

The noticeboard for actual discussions about sources is WP:RS/N. I note that one must carefully separate a person's actual current views from his discussions of views held in the past being presented in an essay - though I have not read enough of the journal to opine on this. I read enough of the Jacobs article/diatribe to suggest that it is not a reliable source for anything more than Mr. Jacobs' personal opinions about Woods, for example. Checking further, opinion sources such as AlterNet are not usable for claims of fact made in opinion columns either. Please be careful in using opinion sources. Collect (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Edward J. Zajac

Someone take a look at Edward J. Zajac. ThomasNDT blanked the page and tried to explain a privacy violation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward J. Zajac. I am not sure if page protection, editor blocking or a speedy deletion is appropriate. I have restored the content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Might be worth opening up another AfD? Meatsgains (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Berzin (scholar)

A copyright violation notice was recently put on this WP article Alexander_Berzin_(scholar) and nearly all of the text deleted since it was allegedly largely based on the subject's own professional website's biography. The subject has since added the following notice to the foot of his website's biography:

"The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

This may be viewed here: http://studybuddhism.com/en/who-is-alexander-berzin

The copyright violation allegation is thus invalidated and the issue resolved. The pending deletion notice may therefore please be removed urgently since it may be prejudicing the subject's professional activities.

The deleted text may also please be reinstated for further improvement and being made to read less like an advertisement, as has also been alleged. Many thanks. MacPraughan (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)