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.

Hannah Holborn Gray

Hanna Holborn Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the body of the article about Hannah you mention that she was at Northwestern University, Evanston campus, however in the chronological listing you don't mention Northwestern Unversity!!!!!She was also Dean of Woman at NU. Please contact her office or Northwestern University and correct this omission. Much appreciated.......Quecumquae sunt veritas!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b02b:848e:f936:e48c:c029:4e95 (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017‎

Glenn R. Simpson

• Glenn R. Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"However the Republican donor soon dropped out of what Simpson and Fusion GPS were doing. The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign for president picked up the deal with Fusion GPS and funded the remaining political assignation of Donald Trump before he was elected the 45th President of the United States"

There are so sources. This Fusion GPS ordeal is conspiratorial so keeping the pages as informative and perhaps unassuming seems important. Currently, the article does not source and does not seem to provide a verifiable, neutral point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:901:6570:79dc:deea:ae1e:8a5e (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

'cosmo jarvis' wiki page

• Cosmo Jarvis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

The information presented here on Cosmo Jarvis is not up to date and ignores many developments in recent years. Especially in '2010 to present' section - here there are many informations which are lacking or which, if included while others are not, creates an article which requires more detail and overall context to shed light on his recent works (especially as an actor in theatre, TV and FILM)

(see here) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4008605/

His involvement with 'Hawke the movie' while correct information should not be featured at the expense of other, more notable, widely distributed and arguable more significant works.

I am suggesting the need for a revision/update on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.215.89 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Lacrim

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

I don't speak French, but I enjoy French music. I was looking at Lacrim's Wikipedia page to see his discography, but I stumbled across its biography. It does not make a great deal of sense to me (which might be just because I am moderately incompetent), so it may need review in that respect. It says he was "pretty much homeless," kicked out of school, and, from what I understand, was in jail for four years. It does not have any sources, and the claim that he was in jail for four years may be interpreted as libelous.

I don't often edit Wikipedia, so I may be entirely wrong here. I just thought I would bring it to attention in case it is a problem.

HarryOtter (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced contentious claims now removed unless someone re-adds them. Collect (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Lots of poorly sourced claims re-added, using what might be construed as non-neutral language. I am possibly barred from making any further edits there per ArbCom, - so would some person fix this trash? Collect (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The claims are definitely written in a very French syntax. I removed the info that was not found in the cited source. I fixed a little, but not all of the syntax to sound more neutral in English.

I don't really speak French, but (etymologically speaking) it's nearly identical to English, so it's easy to parse through. I left the info that was in the cited source. However, I'm not sure about the reliability of that source (Purepeople.com). It looks very well-written and composed in really good journalistic style, and looks more like the French version of People magazine than some tabloid. Someone who speaks French fluently should evaluate it further. Likewise, the video sources are useless to me because I can't parse through spoken French.

I do question the balance that this info provides. The source describes his arrest as being due to his fingerprints being found on a weapon, which he says he borrowed to use in a rap video. It seems to me we shouldn't mention it at all without giving all sides of the story. Then there's the balance of the entire article, because the rest of the biography consists of one sentence, making it seem like the arrest is what he is notable for. In my opinion, it should all probably be deleted on those grounds until the bio contains enough info to properly balance this, but I wanted to get others' opinions before going any farther. Zaereth (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Adnan Gabeljić

Adnan Gabeljić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Rolejaran (talk · contribs) who claims to be the subject of this article has tried nominaing it for deletion twice [1], and [2]. The nominations are both malformed and I directed him to this board but seems he doesn't understand. In the latest AfDing attempt he he made this claim, so I think this should be brought here for OTRS verification of his identity and appropriate next action. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added the things that he did not.--Auric talk 17:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, he may not know that, but do you think that's the way of handling issues like this? What if people vote keep?, The BLP policy seems to be crafted in strong and clear-cut tone in dealing with isues with BLPs but this noticeboard is not lively to offer help. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A keep vote seems unlikely at this point.--Auric talk 00:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've closed this delete. I think the case for closure under SNOW is stronger than the case for holding on to the AfD a few more hours. --joe decker^talk 19:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Jennell Jaquays

Jennell Jaquays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors are repeatedly deadnaming the subject of the article in the lede, and including unsourced claims about her birth name. The article already contains more than adequate information to identify her as the author of works written under her previous name, including an article redirect for that name. Pawsplay (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Jennell Jaquays linked for convenience, first. Second, I don't know. She did have some notability within the gaming circles under her former name, and was on the main page of the Wikipedia under that name 8 years ago, Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2009/December#8_December_2009. Could we compromise and make the first mentin in the "Early life and education" section? TheValeyard (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do we feel the need to delve so much into her early life? Is the mention in her works section not sufficient for encyclopedic purposes for a biography of a living person? Pawsplay (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the deadnaming concern, but she was known for something under her previous name, in fact it appears that the bulk of her most known work was done in the past. It seems unwieldy to not mention the name at all in the body of the article. Right ow it is just in the Works section, and as the title of several citations. Caitlyn Jenner was a prominent athlete under her previous name, for example. TheValeyard (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

An editor made the change again, despite not sourcing the subject's name at birth. I have again removed the unsourced statements. Pawsplay (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

My sympathy here is starting to wane. Are you now asserting that this person was not born "Paul Jaquays" ? TheValeyard (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you asserting they are? If someone wishes to assert this person was born under a certain name, that is a factual claim, and must be sourced. For all you know they were born Samuel Clemens. Pawsplay (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Pawsplay is risking WP:BOOMERANG at this point, as they have been edit-warring rather than trying to find a consensus in the talk page discussions. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:2DED:4B2B:9D14:7218 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when there's 25-30 years of sources that cover this individual's work, work performed a different name, that means something. We have to have a balance here between respecting a trans person's identity and accurately covering past events. TheValeyard (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Maximum: put it in the "early life" section, but not in the lead or the infobox. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggested that above but was rebuffed. TheValeyard (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that she objects to it? I'd be sympathetic to that. If not, then it could be a reasonable compromise. Anyone who wants to go further could encourage her to make her views known via OTRS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the subject of this article does object to the deadnaming in the lede and mentioned it recently on Facebook. In any case, BLP quite clearly says that information must be clearly sourced, and there is no source given for the subject's birth name. Further, while public information can be used, BLP is also quite clear that editors should not go mining and otherwise engage in original research to publish biographic information that is not widely published. Edit-warring implies some kind of contention about the content of the article. There is already a consensus that unsourced information cannot be used in a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure how the concept of compromise applies to simply inserting assertions into an article because, first of all, you don't respect the privacy of a living person, and second of all, you don't care if the information is true. I don't know for a fact what her birth name was, and if you do, I'm asking you to show your sources. I feel like there is some kind of agenda here, like some people feel it's very important to deadname this individual, to the extent they are completely willing to ignore Wikipedia's fundamental commitment to sourcing information. This is ridiculous. Further, someone keeps removing the listed previous name from Works, which I can only describe as vandalism. While I don't have a crystal ball, it seems difficult not to infer that the usefulness of the article is being deliberately compromised in order to bolster the case for deadnaming the subject in the lede and in Early Life. I have been completely transparent about the process here, and active both on this page and on the article's talk page. If anyone should be sanctioned for edit-warring, it should be the editors who continue to restore unsourced statements about a living person to the article. Pawsplay (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me also note there is a section on the talk page titled Complaint of excessive focus on former gender by subject of this article dating from 2014. There is no question at all that the subject of this article's privacy and personal wishes are being disregarded, and have been for some time. Sangrolu reverted edits at that time and has done so again recently. I don't understand why exactly but there is a clear, longstanding agenda to deadname the subject of this article. Pawsplay (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please encourage her to make contact via WP:OTRS. That's the only way to put this issue to bed. I personally will support respecting her preferences, but this is the way to have a proper record of her preferences. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Even if this happened, the fact we can readily document her original name as part of the reason why they are notable would seem to prevent us from wiping that name together. We have had plenty of past BLPs that have asked for some type of well-documented "negative" information removed from their article that we have refused to act on because that information is a fundamental part of their biography and/or notability; I can't see how this type of issue would be any different. I agree minimizing the use of the name is critical to respect the wishes and our own policy on such transitions, but we cannot outright eliminate it. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't advocated completely removing the information. I'm not sure why you are raising such a point. I personally added the previously used name to the Works section. The issue I am focused on is the inclusion of the previous name in the infobox, lede, and early life, despite the lack of any source, of any quality specifying the subject's birth name. Of course that may be hard to obtain, but BLP specifically says that only widely, publicly available information should be included, so I don't see the objection. Pawsplay (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• It is common for us to include the "deadname" (god I hate that term, everything offends everybody, everytime, everywhere) of a person who is known famously under the former name. We do so for Caitlyn Jenner, and we should to for Jennell because there are still hundreds of publications and titles that this person contributed to and was credited with under the name "Paul". We are a factual encyclopedia, not GLAAD - the opinion of the subject is irrelevant. The solution to pawsplay's non-concern goal-post moving is to have the lede say "(formerly Paul Jaquays)," as we do with Jenner. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that view, and I don't think it should get in the way of encouraging her to use OTRS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

As you have stated you hate the term deadname, and by implication you don't accept that basic private personal concern, I have a concern you may struggle to maintain a neutral viewpoint and I am going to suggest you refrain from editing this article any further. Pawsplay (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If having a strong opinion on a topic is grounds for recusal, then you would be out the door as well, if I may be blunt. This person was born Paul Jaquays, and your pedantic meanderings to the contrary do not affect that. I am fully appreciative of the fact that Jennell Jaquays felt that that name and persona was a false front that she had to maintain back in the day due to societal norms, but that cannot send 2 decades of gaming work an accreditation down the memory hole. Keep in mind that this person was deemed notable by the Wikipedia before transitioning, not after; this is the state of the article in January 2012. If we don't want it in the opening, that's fine, but it should appear somewhere. At present, it does not appear until the "Works" section. TheValeyard (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about strong opinions. The issue is hate. In any case, your frustration with my so-called pedantry does not change the fact that you may not insert unsourced information into a Wikipedia article, all the moreso in light of BLP. As for the Works section, I was the one who added it there, it is others who keep removing it. Pawsplay (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the subject's previous name of any great encyclopedic value other than as a name of their previously published works, for which she is notable? I'm just curious why the previous name needs to be mentioned in any other context, unless you think this really is a famous biography. This isn't Bob Dylan, after all. Pawsplay (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Because a change doesn't erase history. I dobn't care about the GLAAD guidelines, I care about our policies. Yes, she is now Jennell, yes, I will use female pronouns, NO, I will not disavow of the 55 odd years that this person became famous and was known by another name, which still exists on numerous publications. The name is factual, the change is personal. We stick with facts, not personal opinions. Paul Jaquays should be mentioned right off the hop, if not in the infobox as well. We make it clear this is a formal name, and we do not insinuate that this person continues to use that name, but we include that name. If this is hate, then call me a bigot and I will wear it as a badge of honour. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

So if you believe in policy, then I assume you are ready to agree that listing a birth name requires a source that lists it as a birth name and not just a previously used name. Pawsplay (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

: The page has now been protected by an admin, and the present version includes mentions of birth name that do not meet WP:V.Pawsplay (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is under discretionary sanctions, so users should be warned to avoid active edit wars on live space or find themselves blocked for editing behavior, not for their positions. The state of the article under protection may not agree with Pawsplay's view, but this and the talk page discussions are ongoing to find a consensus which honors policy and best practice. I have every confidence that participants in these discussions are here to improve the pedia, and these discussions will soon conclude. BusterD (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

We may actually not have 100% WP:V sourcing on the birth name, but we do know that she transitioned into her current name and what that prior name was, by reliable sources. Heck her website mentions it. ----Masem (t) 07:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

On the merits, I have to side with User:Pawsplay to the extent we need a source for "birth name". That's not unreasonable at all; IMHO we shouldn't calculate or infer birthname. Either we can source it, or we can choose not to assert it. And there's no deadline. However, like several editors commenting above, I feel we have an obligation to tell the whole story, no matter what the subject wishes. Some of the content is sourced through Jaquays' own writing (number 6 is Jaquays' Classmates page!), and that isn't an ideal situation. The subject has a different interest than ours: she'd prefer us to present her biography as she desires. Thusfar the subject has been respectful of the pedia, not editing the page herself or directly instructing minions to do so. As wikipedians, we wish to create the best online encyclopedia, using multiple reliable sources independent of the BLP subject. The vast majority of the sources, particularly those which assert the notablity of the subject, use the previous name. It's poor encyclopedic writing not to mention this in a significant way. If I wasn't already aware of the Jaquays story, and began my enquiry by reading the Pawsplay versions, I would find the article very confusing ("Why didn't they say this before?"). I believe we have a need to make the article more clear and factual with some reasonable use of the former name (which is well documented and not disputed). What are our options? BusterD (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

An admin removed the name "Paul" entirely from the article, and asked us to discuss the suitability of the following references in establishing the birth name of the subject.

• "Jennell Jaquays: The Reinvented Girl". Jaquays.com. Retrieved March 22, 2012.
• "Paul Jaquays: What's the Story?". Jaquays.com. Archived from the original on October 10, 2009. Retrieved March 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Those sources, both written by (or at least attributed to) the subject of this article, claim many of the same things as each other, and therefore from my reading they appear to establish that "Paul Jaquays" and "Jennell Jaquays" are at least the same person. On the other hand, the admin removed the name Paul from the body of the article entirely, so unless we can accept that these two links establish them as the same person, how can we know that they actually are the same person? If we can't establish that Jennell used to be Paul, then we should remove everything from the article that can only be attributed to Paul, which is nearly everything in the article.

If the question is, do either of those sources establish Paul as the "birth name", then my question is, how do we actually establish what someone's birth name actually is? Do we need a birth certificate? Should we remove the birth name from all BLP articles that have not somehow established that through a reliable source? Should we not assume that the name a person has gone from my their childhood into their adulthood is not a name they were born with? Does a subject have to prove one way or another that the name they use is their actual name? Does the subject of this article actually dispute that her parents chose the name "Paul" for her when she was born? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that we have no RS-based confirmation on the birthname. We do have confirmation that this person, presently known as Jennell Jaquays, had previously been known and published as "Paul Jaquays" from those sources and other RSes we see. We're making an improper assumption (though an easy mistake) that "Paul" might have been the birth name; there's nothing clear from before "Paul" was notable what the person's background was, so there could have been another name change we don't know about. So we should not say "Paul" is the birthname, but that Jennell was known as Paul before. Also, he's another RS [3] - it is going off a person (Ed Greenwood) who is an expert within the tabletop/computer RPG and would be considered an expert on Jaquays' contribution to the RPG field. --Masem (t) 17:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to assert in the person life section that she was previously known as Paul Jaquays as she was notable as Paul Jaquays. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

For my part, I'd prefer to use reliable sources independent of the subject. IMHO, the Varney interview is one such source. I'm good with the Greenwood quote as well. Since the subject's notability is almost entirely accrued prior to the name change, I'd prefer, in the lede "previously known as" or "previously published as" or perhaps "using Paul Jaquays as a pen name" although that last is a stretch. The mention should not appear in the Early life section; the name change didn't occur until 2012. At the very least the name change should be mentioned and explained under the LGBT advocacy section, where the documentation is strong. BusterD (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly omething like that. The lede sentence could include the statement "(previously published as Paul Jaquays)" (since that redirects here). The body, for all purposes should stay to "Jaquays" and use her/she pronouns. Only then in the Personal life section, we should state something like "Around 2012, she changed her name from Paul Jaquays to Jennell Jaquays", after the statement about her gender identification, using the mentioned sources. That way, outside of references, "Paul" is only used twice but sufficiently to establish that anyone researching this person further knows where to look for sources before 2012. We don't make any claim it is a birth name, simple that Jennell was known as Paul before. --Masem (t)

Seems reasonable enough. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty satisfied with Masem's wording. It's what I've suggested since the get-go. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm finding it a little frustrating, to be honest. This article was under one name until around 2012, there was no question raised at the time as to that name being the person's name at birth. Thousands of BLP articles will have the same presumption unless noted otherwise; the person's name is "John Doe" because they were born "John Doe", thus that is the article name. Now it is and issue because of gender transition, and someone suddenly insists that the birth name must be sourced? Again, I'm all for moving everything to a person's preferred pronouns and minimizing the deadnaming, but I'm concerned that history is being obliterated in the name of political correctness. TheValeyard (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a problem with a loooongstanding presumption on WP that if no source mentions a change of name at any point in a person's life, that we have assumed that the earliest name we can find with a person is their birthname. That's a reasonable fair presumption - outside of marriage, very few people change their name - but the presumption is a sticking point when we talk a situation like "deadnaming" like here. That means its not so much this article being the problem, but the rest of our BLPs when we incorrectly make that presumption. --Masem (t) 23:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Most articles don't list a "birth name" they just list one name, unless the subject changed their name, when a verifiable source will be used. The content of this article is only a problem because when it went from being a one-name article to being a two-name article, someone inserted the phrase "born as" without actually sourcing that claim. Pawsplay (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm good with Masem's wording, it's what Floydian has been suggesting all along. BusterD (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

So if we have an acceptable wording, can someone add that to the article? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I challenge whether any mention of a previous name should be in the lede. Per BLP I think it's invasive, irrespective of whether it was previously a notable name. My suggestion is that it appear under Works as "previously written under" and it may be appropriate to mention it under Personal Life using the subject's page to identify a date at which she started using her new name. I reject the claim there is any difficulty in identifying who this is. Either a Wiki reader knows her by her current (notable) name, is searching under her previous name and will find the article, or is searching for her works and will still find this information (and more easily if the name is included as a previous professional name). A redirect is already in place, a mention under Personal Life will solve any lingering questions of legitimate biographic concern, and listing her previous name under Works will not only help address this issue but provide clarify what name goes with this body of work for all readers. Pawsplay (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So are you the only person still challenging the notion that the previous name this person wrote almost all their works under should be more than a footnote tacked on to the end of the article as an "oh yeah, by the way"? Because I don't think you have anything resembling consensus on your side for that one. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:C48C:8D96:5762:C40A (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I hope I am not the only person concerned about the harm and disrespect aimed at this person, and for so little benefit to anyone. If BLP doesn't cover throwing someone's deadname in your face in the lede, for someone who is notable in only a narrow way, then I would like to see BLP amended to cover this situation. Pawsplay (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In fairness, Pawsplay, the best place to try to make changes to policies like BLP is on the policy page. If it came down to pass from there that transfolk should only be mentioned under their current name, then this discussion here would not have even been necessary. But you may find that a very uphill battle, but only you can decide if that is one worth fighting. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:A142:1567:FA7D:846F (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid moving any mountains, but I have decided to test the waters on BLP on the talk page, as you seem to be suggesting. Pawsplay (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

C. Christine Fair

C. Christine Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Needs more watchers, someone keeps trying to add some rather contentious/silly stuff based (I think?) on a comment she made on facebook. Can't be sourced to a RS and quite unencyclopedic. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I note that Samsara has applied pending changes protection. --joe decker^talk 19:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Admin help at Al Franken

Seems to me this edit summary is a BLP violation and the edit/summary should be revdel'd. Could editors/Admins please have a look? [4] SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a BLP violation, no. Might not be accurate, but I don't think it rises to the level of needing WP:CFRD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

We now have the same editor repeatedly adding derogatory Categories to the page. The categories are not verified by RS and do not appear in the article text to describe Franken. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries don't usually fall under WP:BLP. Usually, edit summaries which involve contentious language about other editors are valid concerns.

Moreover, this particular edit summary says:

"(Added Template:Current ahead of potential resignation.)"

Sen. Franken has, as reported in The New York Times, announced on 7 Dec 2017 he is resigning. WP:BLP requires that any biographical statement about a living person be drawn from a reliable source. So, this edit summary, in the doubtful case it ever was actionable under WP:BLP, no longer is. There were plenty of reports in reliable sources before 7 Dec 2017 that the Senator was considering resignation, and that he'd been urged to do so by members of the congressional Democratic leadership. Thus, "potential resignation" was also covered in reliable sources.

Any issue you may have about "derogatory categories" added to our article Al Franken should be supported by diffs showing what you're talking about. I don't see that now, nor do I see evidence that a WP:BLP issue ever existed with this editor's work on Al Franken. As the complainant, you're obliged to supply diffs/cites showing us what's wrong. Please do so. loupgarous (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to point out that firstly WP:BLP applies to "adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Edit summaries are included in this, and have been rev-del numerous times previously when found to be a violation. Secondly regarding categories: This is certainly a BLP violation without a conviction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, and the example of the conduct under discussion, Only in death does duty end, and apologies, SPECIFICO.

However, the user summary you reproduced isn't terribly controversial; many usually reliable sources, including the New York Times have confirmed the "sexual harassment" part of the user summary comments, and Franken has publicly admitted to some acts of sexual harassment. The comments that Franken was also accused of sexual assault may be constructively WP:THETRUTH but I can't find anything in the reflist of Al Franken specifically calling his conduct "sexual assault". THAT part of the user summary and placing the article in the sexual assault category is probably WP:SYNTH. Any unwanted personal contact is an "assault" legally, but in wikipedia we need a good secondary source calling it that. loupgarous (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, however there is still no credible or widely vetted use of the term "sexual harassment", which in the USA refers to acts in the context of employment. I agree with your view as to "sexual assault" which, similarly, is a defined term. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Me Too (hashtag)

There is currently a request for comment open in relation to the inclusion or exclusion of a list of public figures who have been named in sexual harassment/sexual assault allegations in connection with the #MeToo campaign. There is a lack of consensus as to whether the list meets the BLP requirements, and also as to whether it is a result of WP:SYNTH. There is currently a limited diversity of views amongst editors on the article's talk page, so some other opinions would be appreciated. Kb.au (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who knows me around here has heard my thoughts on this matter in general. Rather than repeat myself, I'll use someone else' words about the evils inherent in categorizing people and reducing them to mere groups or lists. From the book Psychology by David G Myers, from the chapter titled Cognitive Roots on Prejudice: "In categorizing people into groups, however, we often stereotype them. Stereotypes may contain a germ of truth, but they bias our perceptions." From The Communicated Stereotype: From Celebrity Vilification to Everyday Talk by Anastacia Kurylo: "Tajfel (1969) explains that people who are not prejudiced can become prejudiced if categorization is promoted in a particular circumstance, such as what occurred in Nazi Germany."

I could list source after source. The point is that categorization of people leads to prejudice (a term that means "prejudgment", or irrational conclusions based on the smallest of facts). For this reason I believe we should be very careful about making lists or categories of people, especially based on factors like race, religion, or even unproven allegations. People, their lives, and situations are far more complicated than any list or category can reveal, and therefore they are inherently biased and off-balance. It's one thing if talking about people convicted in a court of law, but something entirely different when convicting them in the court of public opinion. Categorization always seems innocent until it happens to you. Zaereth (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed that list, despite the article being protected. There are massive inherent and unavoidable BLP issues in Wikipedians synthesizing a laundry list of perceived sexual offenders from a multitude of disparate sources. The RFC is heading in the direction of removal anyway, but if consensus does a 180° then the list can be reinstated, I guess. I would suggest that while discussing whether or not content violates BLP, it is always better to remove the offending content and potentially reinstate it if the RFC discussion reaches the conclusion that the content is acceptable. fish&karate 11:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

While I'm aware of the pitfalls of unsupported allegations about living persons, #metoo lists appear in sources we usually consider WP:RS. NBC News deserves credit for publishing a list containing two high-profile former employees, Matt Lauer and Mark Halperin.

The existence of #metoo accusations is, itself, a notable event - the #metoo accusers were, collectively, named Time's Person of the Year for 2017.

This is a case where notoriety and notability (documented in reliable sources) overlap for our purposes. I plan to take part in the request for comment, because the reasons I'm seeing so far here to take our #metoo list down, apart from the always valid one of removing a potentially defamatory article about a living person, are WP:OR. Thanks, fish, for being proactive. Better safe than sorry. loupgarous (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Peftiev

Vladimir Peftiev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

One of the editors of the article placed numerous pieces of possibly bias and detractive information, supported only by links to tabloid newspapers, some of which are not even written in English language. Statements of issue was marked by "unreliable source" template. One statement is exeptionally defamatory and was marked by "citation needed" template.

Due to the rules of living persons biography, those edits must be removed and editor's ability to edit pages must be limited, due to violation of mentioned rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.84.29.220 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:American people who have committed sexual harassment

This probably need some type of public evaluation, so I'm posting it here. Looks like today @JimmyJoe87: created this category and then added about two dozen BLPs to it, with most likely varying degrees of applicability. Round about a half dozen were contested, and it's unclear how many of the uncontested additions have been thoroughly evaluated for accuracy. Needless to say, this is a contentious label and needs to be applied carefully re BLP.

Also pinging involved editors @Objective3000: @Galobtter: GMG^talk 15:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggest listing at MfD where I'd !vote speedy delete. I'd argue it's a non-notable intersection ("Gosh, aren't a lot of Americans known for having committed sexual harassment?" said nobody, ever) and with the BLP concerns... it's potentially even a G10. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I see someone has removed the Cat listings in the actual BLPs, which is good work. Still, it's impossible to police a Category like this, as Watchlisting it won't show you that an article has been tagged to appear in it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

For anyone interested: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 7 GMG^talk 15:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I already proposed a CSD as an empty category. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph Don't work like that. WP:C1 requires a cat to be depopulated for seven days and doesn't apply for cats that have already been nominated for a deletion discussion. GMG^talk 15:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I removed all of those as clear BLP vios. Mass rollback comes in handy :). Only one I saw had someone convicted, even then the conviction was being contested; others it was only allegations. I was going to nominate it for CfD; good to see it has been. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:ASSASSINOFYOUTH/sandbox

User:ASSASSINOFYOUTH/sandbox I’m just not sure about this. BLP applies everywhere, do others think this complies? Doug Weller talk 20:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Well... there's this. GMG^talk 20:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about many of the sources. I don't have time to go through them and see how reliable they are, or how accurate the info is, but I'd check first for possible copyvios. The individual writing-style, verb usage, etc., changes dramatically from one paragraph to the next, so that seems suspicious coming from a single user. However, most of it seems to be nearly a direct copy (or way too-close paraphrasing) of this from Pitchfork.com (who I would not consider reliable.) Perhaps someone more familiar with copyright (like perhaps Moonriddengirl) should take a look.

Lacking that, the information itself seems relevant to the subject, but I'd say requires some good sources. As written, it contains way too much commentary --in the second-person-- and rather gratuitous graphic-imagery. A simple summary of the disputes is sufficient; we don't need a blow-by-blow account, and it's not censorship to provide the information using a more clinical approach. Zaereth (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, do you see a copyright issue? I agree with Zaereth on how to describe the dispute. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. If we have solid sources describing the dispute we can use them, but not soundbytes. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked at this content when he added it to Oasis (band). It's a collection of quotations, not copyvio per se. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining in which way Pitchfork is unreliable or not a legit source? It's an online music magazine/newspaper that has been operating for more than twenty years. The interviews aren't soundbytes, these are interviews hosted by music journalists for their respective magazines/newspapers/journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASSASSINOFYOUTH (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

When assessing the reliability of a source there are several factors to look at, such as does the information agree with other sources? Is it written in a professional manner? Does it contain commentary or opinions of the author? Is the style persuasive, narrative, descriptive or expository? Do they have editorial oversight? All these factors and more come into play when determining the reliability of a source. It's not just a simple matter of saying 'these are well-respected people.'

For example, even respected news outlets like the NY Times or CNN have their opinion pieces (op/ed pieces, or persuasive writing) along with their real news stories (expository writing). The opinion pieces are not reliable sources, even though the actual news stories from the same sources are.

I only had time to look at the one source I linked above. There is a lot of commentary and opinions of the author, which makes it appear much more like an opinion piece than an actual news story. I didn't say Pitchfork.com is unreliable as a whole, but rather that I didn't check them out enough to be sure (hoping someone else would). I wouldn't consider that particular article from them to be. Zaereth (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I see what you mean. However, the article, although written with a humorous tone, doesn't seem to suggest the author's opinion on the subject other than the fact that he/she finds it comical. It's pretty much a list or a record of the Gallaghers' boyfight. Let me know your thoughts when you get to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASSASSINOFYOUTH (talk • contribs) 06:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The description of the Gallagher brothers' conduct in your sandbox isn't encyclopedic. Encyclopedic articles use short paraphrases describing what is presented in greater detail elsewhere, describing the Gallaghers and what they do which is notable (appear on stage at concerts and insult each other creatively, hit each other now and then, for example). That information ought to come from reliable secondary sources. Our article on Pitchfork, where most of your information seems to originate, refers to controversy about their journalistic standards. More and better sources for information regarding the Gallagher brothers would be very helpful in establishing a consensus in the press regarding their antics. While the Pitchfork article was entertaining, if I were writing that article, I'd want other sources of information. loupgarous (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

dennis toeppen article

Dennis Toeppen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

blp violations have been reintroduced to this page after a ~18 month hiatus, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.161.18 (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Augustus Sol Invictus

We have a BLP problem at Augustus Sol Invictus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). New accounts and an IP are edit-warring UNDUE, SYNTH allegations into the article. More eyes needed asap. Thank you. Dr. K. 14:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Calvin Cheng

Hi can some non-Singaporean editors look at this page and improve it? Please look at Talk Page and history too.

I have stopped editing it as I am a pro-establishment Singaporean. However this has not stopped anti-establishment editors from IMHO deviating from BLP policies and I don’t wish to engage in edit warring. I think both pro and anti Government editors have a COI, not only pro.

Historicalchild (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your former username "Juicebaby" (Calvin Cheng is the director of Juice magazine) and your pattern of editing reveals you are either Calvin Cheng himself or someone closely related to him. Conflict of interest on your part is clear. I am not sure what you mean by COI for other editors, who are not in anyway related to him. To assert COI on other editors and using politics as a bogeyman to prevent edits on a BLP is carrying it way too far. I wasn't even interested in the subject until some anonymous IP canvass for assistance on my talk page. Jane Dawson (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Because my former name has Juice in it, and Calvin Cheng is the director of Juice, I must be him or related to him? That’s too convenient isn’t it? You have a COI because you are anti PAP and your editing history shows so. Historicalchild (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have offered a few suggestions for improvement in the Talk page. -- Bistropha (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Alice Walton

Alice Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I’d like to address the Automobile incidents portion of Alice Walton by bringing to your attention three points: 1) It details two car accidents that never resulted in charges, so I question their appropriateness in an encyclopedia; 2) The language used convicts Ms. Walton of a crime for which she was never charged nor convicted (and in fact, the arrest was expunged); and 3) It includes speculation.

For the sake of brevity here, more detail can be found at this edit request. I'm bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard as I believe this issue may fall under BLP guidelines, and I'm eager to get input from editors who are experienced in this area.

I will not direct edit the article because I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; I work with the Walton family office, as I disclosed on my user page and Talk:Alice Walton. Thanks, Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 22:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Kianoush Rostami

• Kianoush Rostami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mobabansos (talk · contribs)

Persistent mention of ethnicity in opening. I've asked that the user--whose primary interest here is to add Kurdish identification to biographical ledes--be blocked. And I don't want to edit war over this. Page protection is probably necessary, as it has been in the past. Thanks, JNW (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

JNW Probably should just report to ANI to be blocked as NOTHERE. AIV is not really appropriate for this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going through some of his older contributions and fixing problems. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Galobtter. I see he's been blocked as a self-proclaimed sockpuppet. JNW (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Dashni Morad may need some reversion, because the impetus there, too, has been to remove mention of Iraqui and Dutch ties in favor of Kurdish. JNW (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falen

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Falen supercar is a 2008 design that can be viewed on Google images, [Falen "Concept 17.1"].  No cars were produced as of 2017.  In 2017, a sports writer called the designers' phone number and reported that one of the designers was upstairs in a bedroom, and that the woman who answered the phone was middle aged.

The deleted article had a link to a WayBack business webpage for the designers, who identified themselves as a "design consultancy".

This AfD page includes an uncited charge that the design consultancy was really a kid or kids who pranked sports writers in 2008 for the purpose of having a laugh.  There are also repeated uncited claims of a hoax.

I have already made one BLP removal from this page.  I have stated, "AfD does not create license for BLP violations, as talk page claims about living people require citations, and AfD is a talk page."  This was my last edit to the page before the AfD was closed, whereafter the statement was made, "I don't know where all this nonsense about BLP violations preventing us from identifying a hoax came from but it is as I described it...nonsense."  What is the point of having a BLP policy if editors can call it nonsense with impunity?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a hoax. The fact that after an initial press release, nothing has happened over 9 years (and no evidence that a firm with the ability to produce cars was ever behind it) is enough to say it's a hoax. HOAX HOAX HOAX. There's no BLP violation in that. I doubt that summarizing an article published in a magazine would rise to the level of a BLP violation in a situation where no persons are named. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment  The design consultancy was called Dowdeswell and Hardie.  Regarding whether small businesses are covered by the BLP policy, note, "A harmful statement about a small...organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment  Further research shows that the sources from 2008 understood that this was a computer design and needed funding, and that credibility for the continuity of the project was a topic of interest for readers.

1. Kilt not included "Not bad for first-timers"
2. Scotland gets in on the supercar game with 800 hp Falen "At least it will be, once the vehicle gets off the computer screen and onto the road."
3. Falen Supercar By Dowdeswell and Hardie – A Scottish First "That is, if it goes into production."
4. Scottish Supercar - The Falen "Currently existing in SolidWorks, a limited run of 4 models are to built (funding dependent)"
5. Scotland’s supercar. Ultra-exclusive Falen to get 800bhp V10 "...but before you go thinking this is another pie-in-the-sky creation that will never make the leap from CAD drawing to road-going reality, it’s worth pointing out that respected engine builder Judd is already on board with the project."

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Disputed statements: 

1. "it's something a kid, or kids, made up one day and pulled the wool over peoples' eyes with for a lark" [5]
2. "I don't know where all this nonsense about BLP violations preventing us from identifying a hoax came from but it is as I described it...nonsense." [6]
3. "HOAX HOAX HOAX. There's no BLP violation in that." [7]

Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Who are the individuals that make up the group? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• The design consultancy was called Dowdeswell and Hardie, who still have a working phone number as of February 2017.  The above quote states that "respected engine builder Judd [was] on board with the project".  That appears to be Judd (engine).  Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but who are the individuals who make up the group, do they have names? And is there any evidence beyond the defunct website and the press releases churned by the media that the business ever existed? (I have searched Company House) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It is central to the discussion at the AfD that a sportswriter from Top Gear called the company and talked to one of the principles before February 2017.  A webpage for the sportswriter is [8] if you want to contact the sportswriter.  The 2008 business webpage address is at the Glenruthven Mill business park in Austerarder, Perthshire, Scotland. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the burden of those making defamatory statements to provide citations.  The Top Gear article's English title uses the words "almost made it" not "hoax", and the design remains visible on Google images.  AfD participants are told that AfD is a public-facing forum.  I have no reason to doubt that these are the responsible rural folk that they claim to be.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not sure whether Unscintillating is disputing the close, or accusing me of a BLP violation. Disputing an AfD close should be done at WP:DRV, and I am exceptionally confident that my calling this a hoax project is not a BLP violation. Part of the reason it's clearly a hoax is that there are no living persons who appear to be publicly associated with this at any time over the ten years since there was the (hoax) announcement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Giancarlo Stanton

Persistent addition of trade reports, before official confirmation. The article is already protected, so more eyes are needed here. JNW (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Rick Tocchet

Rick Tocchet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Would like eyes on the weight attached to Rick Tocchet's 2007 conviction for involvement in a gambling ring - lengthy section on charges that led to probation, and an IP has added a mention of it to the lead, which seems additionally undue. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Alan_Dennis_Clark

This article seems not objective, since it presents a person as a researcher, despite the fact that this person as no research formation (no PhD) no rresearch position and there is no material from this researcher published on peer review journals or similar, so no approval at all from the scientific community. There is only one book with comments as "The book "Physics in 5 Dimensions" describes in detail an objective view of physics." or " Compared to classical physics, "Physics in 5 Dimensions" is a physically objective and significantly more unified theory of physics and the extensive results make a good case for replacing the "Big Bang Theory" with the "Theory of Physics in 5 dimensions" as the model of the development of the universe." while there is absolutely no objective proofs of those assessment. In fact, this article looks more like a kind of advertisement of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.65.155 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear that the subject meets the notability criteria in WP:PERSON. Perhaps a proposal for deletion is in order per WP:DELPRO. Also, please note that much of the editing has been done by someone named Clark. It may be necessary to contact the user through her user talk page to check for any possible conflict of interest per WP:COI -- Bistropha (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Simon R. Taylor

Simon R. Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Much of this article appears to be based on sources which are not credible, or do not appear to exist. Per BLP I think it should all be removed. On that basis, is the author notable? No mainstream media appears to have ever covered him. Given the history, this may be a (malicious) prank.

• http://simontaylorbooks.co.uk/about-simon/4538819698 - his own website, now defunct
• OutPost: The story of Monday Morning Post|work=BBC Radio 4|publisher=BBC|date=23 July 2011 - this does not appear to exist
• Monday: Impossible - The Encyclopedia|date=2014|publisher=The Phoenix Media Estate - Self-authored book about his own work, also cannot trace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afriendlyeditor (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a WP:PROD on it now, citing lack of notability, so let's see where that goes. I believe he's not notable - I can't find anything other than routine coverage of him. If the PROD gets removed, the article should probably go to AFD. Neiltonks (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Perry Marshall

I created an RfC a while ago and am putting it also here, in the hope that I may get your thoughts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Copywriter12/sandbox/Perry_Marshall

I have NCOI status, relating to a friend whose BLP has been flagged. The editor who flagged it listed a bunch of issues, which I addressed point-by-point in a sandbox version (so I don't violate NCOI rules). That editor is now not responding to repeated requests over months to view the modifications, so we're stuck in limbo. I would very much appreciate your thoughts about this RfC. Thanks. Copywriter12 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

jessa

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

I do not believe that this auto-biographical article should be included on wikipedia at all since it does not meet the standard of "notable person" This person has not won a widely recognized award in their field. The article does not even include the last name of this person which is confusing. This person is also under age 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.144.16 (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit WP:TOOSOON, I would tend to agree. The statement in the lead "She has performed alongside Kris Kristofferson, Lucinda Williams, John Hiatt, Shawn Colvin etc." probably suffices as a credible claim of significance in order to pass CSD-A7, so I would take it to AFD. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Julio E. Rubio

• Julio E. Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tagged for notability since its creation, virtually all of the article was written by a single author who has minimal other contributions. The article has referenciness, but I just found a known predatory journal in there. Can someone with the correct language and subject matter knowledge have a look at this please? Guy (Help!) 10:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Naomi Oreskes

I think a few more eyes (and opinions) would be useful at Naomi Oreskes. There is a short exchange at Talk:Naomi Oreskes that summarises the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Asaad Al Eidani

Asaad Al Eidani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All important references are in Arabic, and cannot verify key information.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Don't they cover the material, are they unreliable sources, or is it just that you (and I ;-) cannot read the language? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability is satisfied as long as someone can read and access the source, not everyone. We have always allowed non-English sources. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with above; will remove tag.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Richard Wolstencroft

• Richard Wolstencroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This site has been hacked and filled with defamatory and libelous material and removes large swathes of biography.

Mr Wolstencroft was involved in a Free Speech issue and controversy that attracted the ire of the New Left SJW and Antifa - who have created a slanderous profile.

Resort to pre October profile - after that it is often libelous. I know his true life and story and can create a balanced and fair portrait with fair links to controversies.

Wolstencroft's new film The Debt Collector is a bout a guy who FIGHTS and kills Nazis - not a guy who sympathizers with them - for just glaring one eg recently added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎RichardMasterson (talk • contribs)

I don't see a problem with the material on the David Irving film; the sources check out. Certainly nothing defamatory. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

also known as Richard Masters "RichardMasterson"..hmmm Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm more surprised that someone who directs films for a living can't string together a coherent English sentence. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you have never seen Night of the Lepus.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

We now have administrators such User:Oshwah inserting libelous and unreferenced material here all while falsely declaring that his "ADDITION" is the removal of unreferenced material. Michael Ronson (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Explanation has been provided here. No need to panic; I wasn't trying to "insert libelous and unreferenced material" anywhere :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Tobias Huber

The arcticle has templates on it which assert or suggest that Tobias Huber is involved in the process of undisclosed paid editing. It is true that the article's author was involved with (and got blocked for) undisclosed paid editing. However there is no proof that this is the case with all his articles. Where there are specific quality problems, it is of course appropriate to point this out. Author and subjects of his articles origin from Germany, and in de:wp we descided to concentrate on concrete quality-issues after some of the persons depicted in the articles complained in OTRS, they had never paid for articles nor did they even know the author. As the templates I mentioned don't have manuals or rules (they don't exist in de:wp) I don't know if they're placed correctly in that way, but I know they can do harm to people when there's no proof they're involved in paid editing. So my suggestion would be to replace them by appropriate templates pointing out quality problems (NOPV, Citation, ...) if they exist. --Superbass (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Michael J. Saylor

As I've just posted at Talk:Michael J. Saylor, a very large edit was recently made to the Michael J. Saylor biography by an account with no prior history. It's duplicative of a controversy already mentioned on the article (as well as the article about his company, MicroStrategy), also contains some non-RS sourcing, and I believe should be reverted. MicroStrategy is a client of my firm, so I won't do it myself. Is anyone here willing to take a look and exercise their own judgment? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Not AFD --NeilN talk to me 03:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Carmen Elena Figueroa Not a celebrity. She only participated in the Miss Universe contest 40 years ago. And didn't even win the title of Miss Universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Irma Dimas This person is not a celebrity. Shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for notorios people, for real celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Alba Delgado This person is not a celebrity. Shouldn't be on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Patricia Murillo She doesn't meet the criteria of a celebrity or notorious person. Shouldn't be on Wikipedia Idubina Rivas This person is not notorious and doesn't meet the criteria of a celebrity. Should not have a page on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Elena Tedesco Not a celebrity. Should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Larissa Vega Larissa Vega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This person doesn't meet the celebrity criteria. Should be deleted from Wikipedia Sonia Cruz Sonia Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This person is not a celebrity or notorious person. Submitted for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC) ana yancy clavel This person is not a celebrity. Not notorious. I am submitting it for deletion because it doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for a celebrity status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Stefania Incandela Submitting article for deletion. It doesn't meet the criteria of a notorious person or celebrity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:D0AB:5F74:1E6F:8421 (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ana Yancy Clavel

Delete. I am submitting this article for deletion. I do not believe this article should be included on Wikipedia at all, since this person does not meet the standards04:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)04:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)04:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)~PRÇELEBṚİTY of a notable person.