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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:08, 8 March 2018

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.

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)

Someone claiming to be the subject of this article is making edits on the article and talk page. I dont see anything risible per se, but it wouldn't hurt to have some uninvolved editors keep an eye on it, at least for the short term. Thanks Bonewah (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same cast of 3-4 editors has been carrying on a slow-motion conversation with the (presumed) subject of this page over the past couple of years, without any long-term resolution. (The Talk page archive is helpful in this regard.) Perhaps it would help if another, heretofore uninvolved, editor were to review some of the recent discussions and assess whether the article has landed in the right place (IMHO it's an open question), and if so, help the subject understand the limits of his ability to shape the contents of the article. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Auli'i Cravalho‎

Here's a user insisting the subject is not American. I tried reasoning with them that since Hawaii is one of the 50 states, Cravalho‎ is an American citizen, to no avail. Would this edit be considered a BLP violation? Sro23 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! If the reliable source says "American" and it get changed to anything else, it's a BLP violation. К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 13:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a BLP violation, given that the NYTimes,NBC, NPR, and Honolulu Magazine references provided all clearly state either that she is "Hawaiian" or "Native Hawaiian" (with much being made of this fact throughout). To Ebyabe's point on precedent, I would suggest that Barack Obama is not a suitable example of how Native Hawaiians ought to be listed on Wikipedia, given that Obama is not Native Hawaiian. By counterexample there are numerous examples of people born in post-annexation Hawaii who are introduced as Hawaiian rather than American, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and others at Category:Native_Hawaiian_people. Absent the presentation of new sources, I think that this should be resolved in favour of those currently provided in the article. StvnW ^talk 20:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii is part of the United States of America, so yes, you could argue that both should be correct. However, the individual changing Cravalho from "American" to "Hawaiian" is , just as User:Sro23's saying, subtly implying he's not American, and he cites no source, he just puts Hawaiian over American but uses the same source. In BLP's sources matter big time! К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 13:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subtly nothing. No one ever once said she wasn’t American. They simply listed her as Hawaiian, which she is, and which is sourced. I fail to see why American needs to be repeated again as it’s already on the side bar under nationality and said multiple times. Carrot9 (talk) 10:16 28 February 2018 (UTC)

There would have been no need for either of the editors (there were two, BoxRox and an IP) to add any new sources, because there are already eight reliable sources in the article (five in the lead, three in Early life), all of which refer to her as "Hawaiian". On the point of whether this meets the standard for WP:V there can be no challenge; it is more than adequately sourced. Referring to her as "Hawaiian" is neither incorrect, nor a BLP violation. On the other hand, referring to her as "American" is also not wrong, despite the objections. While Hawaiians may not be American but rather Oceanian in the geographic sense, they are nevertheless American in the national sense.

Whether or not it is culturally appropriate or insensitive to call her American (points raised in the edit summaries) is a separate matter. It's a valid debate about which there may be strong feelings, but unfortunately this is not the forum to resolve it.

I think both sides can be satisfied here. At issue here is not whether she "is" Hawaiian or American. Her nationality is American and can be listed in the infobox as such. The question is whether to duplicate her nationality in the lead, or include the context that she is Hawaiian. Neither would be incorrect, but all of the sources refer to her as Hawaiian and the subject herself identifies as Hawaiian. MOS:BLPLEAD provides guidance but is not prescriptive. It does not mandate mention of nationality, and incorporates the idea that the circumstances surrounding how a person became notable are relevant—"The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable." In this case the subject achieved notability as a Native Hawaiian actor, was cast and had her breakthrough specifically because of her Native Hawaiian identity, and voiced a Polynesian character in a film about Polynesian mythology. There can be no question about the assessment of context here. Using the term Hawaiian in the lead would be consistent with the source material, acceptable within the guidance, and would provide balance to the inclusion of her nationality in the infobox. StvnW ^talk 04:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the label of just "Hawaiian" be a tad confusing? This guy, for example was "Hawaiian" despite having no Native Hawaiian ancestry. Sro23 (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. Greater specificity should be preferred since there is a distinction between state residents and those who are Native Hawaiians. StvnW ^talk 04:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Jason Momoa might be a better example, though there have been recent changes back on forth on that article. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No real comment except that I find it very interesting how these words are used so differently in different locations. For example, I'm a native Alaskan, yet I'm not an Alaska Native (a rather big distinction here). A good friend of mine is African-American even though he's white (born and raised in Africa to American parents). Originally, my family descends from England Natives, but no one ever calls them anything except the Welsh. Zaereth (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Andrew

The Wikipedia biography of Neil Andrew DOB 7.6.1944 contains inaccuracy. Neil Andrew did not consider his electorate, Wakefield, unwinnable after a boundary change, nor did he seriously consider challenging Patrick Secker in Barker. This contention is without basis. Neil Andrew retired at the age of 60 having spent some 22 years in federal parliament. His decision to retire predated the electoral boundary change. He worked tirelessly to get the Liberal candidate, David Fawcett, elected to Wakefield in the 2004 election, having always regarded this as achievable. He has served as Chairman of the Murray Darling Basin Authority since 2014. I invite you to correct the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.224.194 (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the claims to which you seem to object, partly as not supported by the cited source and partly because it is very unclear if "Crikey" is a sufficiently reliable source for these claims. It would be useful if more reliable sources could be found to describe what happened towards the end of Andrew's career. You could add these to the article yourself, or, if you have some connection with Andrew, you could add them at Talk:Neil Andrew with an explanation of how the article should be changed. MPS1992 (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've introduced citations for most of the article. I couldn't find anything to support the removed text. Hack (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge I. Domínguez

Subject was disciplined for sexual harassment in 1983; yesterday an exposé was published with new allegations. IPs are showing up to update the article with incautious language, repeating allegations in WikiVoice [1], and to vandalize [2]. Eyes would be appreciated, and WP:SEMI may be necessary. FourViolas (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And editwarriors are seeking to add as much defamatory material as possible on the principle that "if an article says someone made a claim, then we can put that claim to the BLP." This is past what is rational, I fear. I am estopped from making fixes to BLPs, so will someone please tend to this? Collect (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Richard Walter Thomas

Just looking for advice on if the article needs any work before going public as a regular article. Smkolins (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the reference errors.--Auric talk 13:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know what was wrong with the ISSNs, lol... so overall it's good to go? Smkolins (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the article has gone live, contributing edits from interested parties is still welcome! Smkolins (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead in particular is extremely long - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs". Currently the lead is six, very long, paragraphs - at over 1200 words, it is twice the length of the lead of United States of America, which I think most people would agree is a more significant topic. This should be cut down a great deal, to a summary people can read in a minute or two which explains why Thomas is a notable and significant person. The first sentence should also be devoted to his significance - at the moment it only mentions his race, nationality, and birthplace, none of which are relevant to this.

In general, it's a very long article. It's impressively referenced, but I think some of the material may be of dubious relevance - for example, the details of who organised a 'hootenanny' at MSU before Thomas even attended. There are also some very long quotes - the "Joined the Bahá'í Faith" section contains four long paragraphs from the same book, which I think may even be pushing legal copyright limits, as well as not being the best way to communicate the subject.

"Writings and projects" should be cut down to just a list of publications, and placed after the biography. Things like teaching and other projects should be mentioned in the biography, there's no need for a separate list of them here.

In general, I think it would be worth glancing at some similar articles on Wikipedia, such as those in the literature biography featured articles and religion biography featured articles, to get an idea of style; at the moment, this doesn't feel to me very accessible to give an idea of Thomas' notability, largely due to length. TSP (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this back to Draft for now The repeated use of bold and peacock language is a real risk fro G11. The lede needs to be shorter and the tone more neutral ,this reads as a PR piece by Bahá'í. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bold was, at least all through college, the norm of how books are mentioned. "Peacock language" is a misinterpretation. And I replied to the above points on the draft page. I can discuss them here too if need be but it seems salient there. Smkolins (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NSEL case

Jignesh Shah, one of the promoters of NSEL, is being accused of fraud even thou a court is yet to pronounce him guilty violating WP:BLP guidelines.

This recent edit with links to slideshare and scribd reeks of original research. The editor has in the past attacked other editors accusing them of being "Jignesh Shah's men".

I don't want to get into a messy edit war with the said editor but the page needs some serious restructuring inline with wikipedia guidelines. --Xzinger (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as why any court would have any affect on editing here. --Auric talk 16:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hoffman (businessman) - Wikipedia

This article is about me, and it is outdated and incorrect.

Steve Hoffman (businessman) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hoffman_(businessman)

I want to request that it either be updated and corrected, or else please remove it from Wikipedia.

Thank you!

Additional Sources of information:

Press & Media: https://www.foundersspace.com/press/

Amazon Book: https://www.amazon.com/Make-Elephants-Fly-Process-Innovation/dp/0349418837/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520016812&sr=8-1&keywords=make+elephants+fly

Bio: https://www.foundersspace.com/hoffman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhoff (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your open disclosure and providing sources. Sorry to get all bureaucratic on you, but this isn't really the proper place for your concerns, unless there is something egregiously wrong that violates WP:BLP policies.

There are two things you can do: 1.) If you think the article should be deleted, the place to go would be WP:Articles for deletion. Follow the instructions on the page and be very clear about why you think it should be deleted. 2.) If you think it can be corrected with the sources, and would rather go that route, take them to the talk page of the article and request your changes there. Once again, you'll need to be very specific about what needs to be changed, and it is helpful if you can provide page numbers, quotes, or even a link to google books rather than an Amazon link. (We prefer links that aren't trying to sell you something. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous request here--Auric talk 22:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akram Monfared Arya

This person is branded as the First Iranian Woman Pilot in the article. She is not. These 3 were: http://women.ncr-iran.org/famous-women/1831-the-first-women-pilots-in-iran . This article is incorrect and the creator of the article has not provided any substantial evidence to the fact. Please delete and remove the article altogether. I have tried numerous time removing the "First Iranian Woman Pilot" part from the article but the user Chakmehhh keeps reversing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.109 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Branded is a rather strong word, implying some sort of shame. Even so, that isn't a good reason to remove the article.--Auric talk 22:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I notice the three you mention (Effat Tejaratchi, Ina Avshid and Sediqeh Dowlatshahi) don't have their own articles. Have you thought of doing more research and creating them?--Auric talk 22:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bio was created by spa Akrammonfaredarya and the reverts by Chakmehhh also have a single purpose of burnishing the claim of being first iranian woman pilot and promoting the subject. Seems to be a case of marketing and conflict of interest using socks. --Xzinger (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside questions of the subject's notability, there are no English language sources cited in the article (all are Swedish or Farsi). If the article is to include that she holds the distinction of being the first female Iranian pilot, then at minimum a translated section of one of the relevant sources should be provided. Although she appears to be an accomplished female Iranian pilot, her age makes it improbable she was the first. StvnW ^talk 21:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney family

Hello,

On the Disney family page, in the "Family Tree section," please add the following member of the Disney Family. Raymond Arnold Disney and Meredith A. Disney had an adopted son in addition to their son who is Charles Elias Disney (b. 1940.) Please add the adopted sons name of Daniel Harwood Disney (b. 1956) should be indicated in the family tree alongside of Charles Elias Disney. Reference/source: Find a Grave for Raymond Arnold Disney.

THANK YOU!

David Brown 1st cousin of Charles Elias Disney and Daniel Harwood Disney.

Browndevelopers (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we cannot use Find A Grave as a source due to problems with the reliability of the site's information. Do you have any other published source we can rely on? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Randolph OLD INCORRECT info suddenly turning up in search, PLEASE HELP

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988

This is OLD version of my current Wikipedia page. And incorrect birthdate was entered here - I believe by someone who was harassing me online at that time - and again, because it was incorrect with no source to verify it, it was deleted.

However, it is now showing up on iPhones under "Siri Knowledge" when someone begins to search for name on a web browser, i.e. Safari, citing Wikipedia as the source.

Wikipedia is NOT the source though as that info is not on my page anymore because it was incorrect.

Can someone please help me permanently delete this page...? THANKS SO MUCH if you can!

Again, here is the OLD version of the page with the INCORRECT info: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988

Bonnar212 (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt anyone here can fix this. Also, don't use allcaps in your text.★Trekker (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the issue has been resolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bland

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

Needs review of recent additions. Especially concerning privacy issues and not-so-veiled accusations of antisemitism. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have reverted to last good version. Additions included unreliable sources, op-Ed’s used for factual claims, guilt-by-purported-association smears, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from "archive board"?

For some reason, this page with incorrect info is coming up for "Siri Knowledge" and giving out incorrect info.

Is there a way to remove this page from the "archive board" for my page?

Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988

Bonnar212 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bonnar212. As a matter of policy, we retain the complete edit history of every single article on Wikipedia, going back to the first few months of the project in 2001. Wikipedia is not responsible for any errors by Siri Knowledge, Google Knowledge Graph or any search engine or service unaffiliated with Wikipedia. You need to take your complaint to Siri. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the issue has been resolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Pilkington (director)

This is just a mess...Includes a note allegedly from the real James Pilkington disputing accuracy of information, an odd, unsourced line about cheese rolling and Sweet Valley High. To be honest, the whole page can probably be deleted anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.197.97 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an exact copy and paste of the About section at http://jamespilkington.com/ so I've nuked it as a copyright violation. Fish+Karate 15:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Ogden Stiers, recently dead (yesterday) BLP, reliability of sources re coming out.

MASH star Stiers died on March 4th. In 2009 the "gossip boy" blog published an "interview" with Stiers in which "Stiers" came out as gay. This contradicts an earlier interview in which he said he was not gay. The gossip boy interview has subsequently been picked up and cited in many sources including ABC and the NYT obit for Stiers (NYT cites ABC, ABC cites gossip boy). There has been long standing but contentious consensus to exclude this info based on the WP:GRAPEVINE argument, but with Stiers death, the issue has been reopened. The discussion could use additional eyes/voices from experienced editors Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#gay_summary ResultingConstant (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been thoroughly discussed. "Gossip-boy" is a blog on Wordpress. It fails WP:RS utterly and completely, and sources which credit that blog are no more usable than the blog in the first place. That some people use the blog as a reliable source does not mean Wikipedia should do so. In addition, raising the issue here is actually suited WP:RS in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Sandusky

Two new accounts have added "innocence" material to the Jerry Sandusky article. As many know, Jerry Sandusky was convicted of child sexual abuse. The material added by these two ~~new~~ accounts concerns a book and other stuff arguing for Sandusky's supposed possible innocence. Thoughts? I started a discussion section at Talk:Jerry Sandusky#Case for Innocence section. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Only one of the accounts is new. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely need some opinions on this. Collect, any thoughts? I've argued WP:Undue weight. We have Aerkem going on about Mark Pendergrast and how he is "a well-known writer, and a specialist of repressed memory." And we have AmiLynch going on about an additional investigation and research. In my opinion, material on this is not much different than conspiracy theories on matters that are reported as fact. There are those who believe that Darlie Routier and Scott Peterson are innocent as well. When it comes to books for BLP crime cases, we usually simply mention them in the "Further reading" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are way to many "maybes" in that addition, including phrases like "he maybe feared". When anyone starts speculating on what is going on in someone else' mind it makes me suspicious. First, as I interpret it (and others may disagree) BLPCRIME works both ways. We rely on the courts to determine guilt or innocence, we shouldn't be trying to make a case for it either way. (Sure, innocent people get convicted all the time, but this isn't a court room in which to fight those battles.) It's a little more difficult to argue this since the subject is very notable and the case high profile. However, all I see is rank speculation by someone who is apparently (at least as written in the article) a mind-reader. If this was a scientific article I'd classify this as fringe material, definitely, no matter who it is from, because every theory needs facts to back it up. In this we have none, and a theory without facts is just a hypothesis, and Wikipedia doesn't report hypotheses. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest problem? The possibility that this is promotional material for a single book. Actually probability. Collect (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that hit's the nail square on the head. Zaereth (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake, it is not. There are plenty of facts contained in the book, and in reviews in publications like "The Skeptic." The author is well-known in his field. He does not need to be promoted on Wikipedia. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't reviewing the book, only the addition to the article. (I might add that, as someone who is very familiar with neuroscience, especially in cognition and memory, I'm not a strong believer in repressed memories. Very few of us have total recall and even fewer eidetic memories. Most people don't even realize their memories are filtered and stored based on emotional salience (in computer-speak, compressed for easier storage), that memory involves as much imagination as it does cognition, and thus a memory is not a faithful recreation of actual events. However, as written, the addition would read as fringe even if written by Einstein.) Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the book is also being pushed at the Penn State child sex abuse scandal article; see Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal#Where do I mention Pendergrast's book?. Permalink here. Jeff in CA is supporting mention of it there as well. Anyway, it should be clear that I agree with Zaereth on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this edit and other edits by Jeff in CA at that article. Goodness. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: If by 'pushing the book' you mean 'mentioning a relevant and reasonably reliable source', yes I am pushing the book. You wrote that 'When it comes to books for BLP crime cases, we usually simply mention them in the "Further reading" section': would that be appropriate in this case? As a newbie I would appreciate some feedback on my now deleted edit (before AmiLynch's further edit): was it problematic because written under 'Case for innocence' rather than 'Further reading'? or for other reasons? Aerkem (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your newbie status, I have my doubts about that, but that's a different matter. Did you read what Zaereth stated above? Such a section is not typical. It is like the other two editors in particular are trying to make a case for this man's innocence. We don't give WP:Undue weight to books in this way. In BLP cases, when books have gotten a lot of media attention, they are likely to get a section or simply a paragraph in the article, but I'm not aware that this book has gotten a lot of media attention. As for mentioning the book in the "Further reading" section, yes, in my opinion, listing the book there is better. Or a single sentence or two on this matter, but not a whole section for it. Previously, you added a single sentence for it. This can simply fit under the "Imprisonment" section. When you made that material into a section, it was expanded, as very small sections and sections in general often are. AmiLynch's additions were more concerning. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe this book will get a lot of media attention, as it contradicts the narrative of every major media outlet. The media is so homogeneous now, should we really let its coverage determine weight on Wikipedia? AmiLynch (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks for the advice, I have now created that Further reading section. I meant newbie in this corner of Wikipedia, and unused to having long debates about short edits. Aerkem (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lone mention in Skeptic Magazine along with a lot of primary source links to the book. That is pretty much textbook promotional. Also, that table insertion at Penn State child sex abuse scandal is atrocious, an info dump of personal opinions and unsourced assertions about child rape victims. ValarianB (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree substantially with Valerian and Zaereth's comments. While repressed memories are a dubious source of information on past events at best, the replacement notion that Sandusky was railroaded by a conspiracy of law enforcement and therapists requires much better sourcing than one book, no matter how well-respected the author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little digging into the source. I didn't have time to read it all, but skimmed through some of it and looked at reviews. The author is definitely trying to make a point, not that the subject is innocent but that he was convicted on junk psychology. He may very well have a good point, but herein lies the problem. Anyone can create a theory to fit any facts; that's what lawyers are for. It's a common problem in science (and especially junk science), because if you go out trying to prove a theory, you can undoubtedly cherrypick the facts to make them "fit." Show a moon-landing denier all the evidence, the millions of people involved in over 70 countries (I mean, it was the Australians who first spotted them returning) and they can spin those facts all away. (A wise person once said, "A sufficiently paranoid conspiracy theory can never be disproven." --scot) Any good scientist is acutely aware of this human tendency, and is careful to gather all the facts before formulating a theory --especially the ones that don't fit. (Another wise person once said (something like) "There are two possible outcomes: If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery." --Enrico Fermi)

The problem I see with this source is this author is someone who is trying to make a point, using the subject as the sole example (more like an attorney than a scientist). I think he has some good points, and had he taken a more scientific and neutral approach, using many examples, this could have very well turned into a great source and possibly a scholarly reference ... for the repressed memory article maybe. The subject was obviously chosen for his high-profile status (sells more books that way) but in my opinion the author is writing from the point of a personal agenda, that is, to prove a point. If this were a medical article we would require a source like this to be peer-reviewed, and I'm afraid The Skeptic doesn't qualify for that. Since his point is obviously one of psychology, to me that doesn't seem much different.

Then there is the problem of BLPCRIME. Should we set a precedent where a people convicted of a crime can fight for their innocence on Wikipedia? If we do that, then shouldn't we allow the other side to fight for their guilt, just to maintain the guise of neutrality? One of the key factors in deciding if a source is reliable is if it is neutral. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This book is about Jerry Sandusky. The author has already written books separately debunking repressed memory theory (and it is widely debunked, not just by this author, and repressed memories are supposed to be inadmissible in court). AmiLynch (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between being the subject of a book and the point it is driving at. Zaereth (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaereth: The book in question may not be as objective as one would wish, but in this case, can we hope for much better? If I understand correctly, the case for Sandusky's guilt is based on testimonies which came years after the alleged facts, and which may well have been biased by financial incentives. In order to have a balanced approach, your 'good scientist' would have to account for the systematic bias that results from these incentives - although I am unsure whether a good Wikipedian should do so. Aerkem (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the content can be modified in a few places to make it completely objective. I don’t see any factual errors though, as surprising as some of the facts may be. Given that primary sources are unacceptable, this book is one of the few sources we have available (some of you are dismissive of it, but it is extensively sourced and well-cited itself). Other useful sources may exist though. As I wrote on the Jerry Sandusky talk page: Special Agent John Snedden investigated the case for the FBI to evaluate whether former University President Spanier’s Top Secret security clearance should be renewed and found there was no sexual abuse at PSU in this case, nor a cover-up. John Ziegler, another author (he is also a documentary filmmaker and former broadcaster), also did years of research and came to believe Sandusky was innocent. AmiLynch (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is beginning to sound like the fervent activism around Amanda Knox that overtook many discussion boards on the internet years ago. I do not mean that as a positive commentary. TheValeyard (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input.

Everyone knows the majority opinion (and it is an overwhelming majority) about Jerry Sandusky, and it is represented at length on his Wikipedia page. And wikipedia guidelines seems to place undue weight on majority opinion (imho), so maybe it is too soon for this to happen, but I don’t see the harm in having one subsection summarizing the reasons that some somewhat prominent people who have taken a hard look at the case conclude that he is innocent. It would be informative and thought-provoking, yet still be far outweighed by the material on the rest of the page. AmiLynch (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A respected, well-regarded researcher digs into a legal case in which a person was tried and convicted. He reads the transcripts of the trial, pores through written and recorded police records, and interviews victims and other individuals that had a role in case. He is diligent in ascribing attribution. He writes about what he found. He quotes extensively from the transcripts and records. He ends up with a description of the facts in the case that is more comprehensive than what had been publicly described previously. He publishes this material in a book. In the book, he comes to a conclusion based on what he reported. When he is later interviewed in a web broadcast about the material in the book, he predicts that the book will be ignored by all of the media. He states his belief that the media is so heavily invested in its own reporting that no major outlet will ever mention it. What has he done wrong? Jeff in CA (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He (the 'researcher') has done nothing wrong, but Wikipedia is not here to judge or assert or deny his guilt. In these circumstances, the Wikipedia article should mention his conclusions. But no more. And that's it. MPS1992 (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say there are millions of words on Wikipedia from such sources; words that do not mention innocence or guilt, but rather mention facts reported in various books and publications. What is wrong with attributing facts to a source? Jeff in CA (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giulio Meotti

Accusations of plagiarism against journalist based on WP:OR diff, as well as Marc Tracy (presently a college sports writer) writing in a Tablet (magazine)'s WP:NEWSBLOG The Scroll. In addition we have Max Blumenthal writing in 2 blogs/opinion pieces atributing part of his writing to Tracy, and a piece in iMediaEthics which is attributed in whole to Tracy in the Tablet, with the exception of a response by Meotti which they received themselves. No subsequent followup reporting since 2012.Icewhiz (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is a fringe polemicist who was discovered plagiarizing other journalists in 2012 by two colleagues, Marc Tracy and Max Blumenthal. Two newspapers/magazines, Ynet and Commentary (magazine)Commentary then dropped him. Since then he appears to work for a minor Italian newspaper Il Foglio, a West Bank settler news organ and an American rightwing thinktank.

Somehow he got a wiki article, a piece of hype. When I noticed it, recalling his run-in with fellow journalists, I added the details of his plagiarism. It is all duly sourced to professional journalists: Marc Tracy wrote on Jewish issues for the Newe Republic, then the Tablet and now aspecializes in sports reportage for the New York Times. Max Blumenthal is famous. Both provided detailed textual evidence in their pieces, and quoted Meotti's responses. Meotti did not challenge the evidence which anyone can see is serial copy-and-paste journalistic hackwork. He merely said he had been careless, lost his notes, and was being persecuted because he is preo-Zionist. I,e, he was a victim of proxy antisemitism.

What Icewhiz is trying to do is to remove the very sources where Meotti himself appears, is cited, and asked to respond to the evidence. It is not a BLP issue because Meotti himself has never denied the dozen or so cases of him copying other authors verbatim. Read the evidence of the sources carefully, where he is said by Ynet to have 'admitted' to copying and much more, and the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meotti has been employed by Il Foglio since 2003 [3]). It appears that in other outlets he was unpaid and/or regular contributing op-ed. As for "admitting" - his response has admitted only the following but did carelessly fail to attribute a few isolated sentences in my own articles. I will not do so in future. Many others journalists and writers... [4]. Max Blumenthal (who is a diametrically opposed polemicist) to Meotti's writing in opEdNews and in his blog in pro-Hezbollah Al Akhbar (Lebanon) - is not a RS. None of alleged people from whom isolated sentences and fragments are alleged to have been lifted from have commented.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is an admission. Max Blumenthal is citable for his own views in whichever venue he chooses to publish them. The fact that a newspaper may be pro-Hezbollah means nothing: most of the Israeli sources we quote every day are pro-settler, ignore IDF terrorism etc., but not for that do we refrain from using them. People are not 'alleged'. They exist, and, as journalists, comment on the flaws of their peers, as did Tracy, Blumenthal and Smith. They quoted Meotti's responses and admissions, and the two newspapers/magazines who severed their connections with Meotti did so after examining the evidence provided by Trecy and Blumenthal, who are paid for their contributions and widely published, unlike Meotti. So far, you don't have a technical leg to stand on for exclusion, and the objections look like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, regarding material introduced to balance a page which was sheer hype, with no mention of the criticism his peers made of his work. Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rather strong technical leg here is WP:BLPSOURCES - a single NEWSBLOG source + Max Blumenthal's opinion (which may be notable as such, may be not) - is not appropriate sourcing for such an accusation in Wikipedia's voice.Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy you cited: it reads

These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process

As to the second part, Tracy, and Blumenthal's evidence (that of acknowledged professional journalists) was clearly reviewed by the mainstream media that subsequently dropped their arrangements with Meotti. I.e. Ynet has a fact-checking process (In all of his fields Tracy is an evident tracker of how news gets to be news, i.e.this. He is not a sports blogger but has ranged widely on intellectual history, reviewing books such as Berman's which deal precisely with the same ground as Meotti's; or sexual assault on campuses and regional sociology, on Jewishness, which, in one aspect, is what Meotti, a goy, was attacking. The Tablet, the New Republic and the New York Times do not employ him as a blogger. And we recuse blogs if they are opinionizing esp. by minor figures, not when an accomplished mainstream journalist uses a magazine's scroll venue to lay out a carefully documented case for plagiarism by one of his peers, alerting the profession to a neglected problem. Precisely because he noticed with close analysis what Meotti's practice was, did Meotti's employers cancel their connections with him, accepting Tracy's evidence on the issue, in what is effectively an informal peer-review process. Therefore, you are skewing policy to defend Meotti's right to have his record untarnished by facts that have been accepted as true by Meotti, and the journalistic community.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem Meotti continued at his regular day job at Il Foglio, and that he has been picked up by other organizations. A source for "accepted as true by Meotti, and the journalistic community" is lacking here. In fact - there seems to be a distinct lack of coverage of this - in particular lack of WP:SECONDARY coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This got little secondary coverage because Meotti is a very minor figure. He was caught out plagiarizing and since then has no mainstream employment, being acceptable only to extremist organs like Arutz Sheva and Gatestone Institute. The rest of the highly competitive world of serious journalism is too busy to take notice of him, which, contrary to your expectations above, does not translate out as meaning that nothing serious journalists noted about his copy-and-paste hackwork may be alluded to on his wikipage. As to Il Foglio, it has a circulation of 25,000 and is partially funded by a politician and business man undergoing 4 charges for corruption. Meotti was confronted with the evidence, and did not rebut it: he waffled on about being a tad careless, losing his research notes, being persecuted because of his views etc. If Meotti is to have a wiki page, it has to be accepted that exceptions will not be made to whitewash to a glowing positive the facts of his career, but all angles, adequately sourced, will inevitably have to be covered. Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Newman (political geographer)

I came across these edit summaries in the article's history, apparently by the subject himself:

"It is my name which is being slandered here and I would exect you to publish a balanced and accurate account of the story. As I mentioned previously I am willing to let you, or any neutral adjudicator, to have all the official documents to read and reach a decision, on the condition that they would not be published as I do not intend to infringe university regulations of non publication."
"This is an extremely one sided version of events and does not reflect, in any way, the actual rulings of the disciplinary committee. A previous edit (not by me) gave a much more balanced account. The new references do not reflect what is written in the account and it is clearly published, systematically, with the intent of further damaging the reputation of Newman and , as such, I make no apologies for inserting the changes myself. This causing much personal damage. I am happy to let the adjudicator see official copies of the rulings (although it is prohibited from publishing them) for them to make their own decisions. You would then see how innaccurate the latest edit is and how one sided. I respect the right of the public to know but this is part of a personal campaign being waged against me and causing me a great deal of anguish. It distorts the entire entry and I would respectfully ask that it be removed, or an agreed balanced and accurate version be inserted."

Given the sensitive nature of the allegations, I wonder if an experienced volunteer could have a look at the article. Judging by the editing history of Special:Contributions/Newmanthfc, this appears to be an auto-biography, so there's a concern there as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked two of the recent WP:MEAT accounts and semi-protected the page for three months (consistent with the previous protection; there appears to be history of socking at this article). I'll leave scrutinising of the content to somebody else. Alex Shih (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K.e.coffman and Alex Shih. I have trimmed this article in 2009. Isn't user:יניב הורון yet another puppet of the same puppeteer? I see continued edit warring and similar summaries in several entries. Also extensive knowledge for an account opened a week ago. gidonb (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman and Alex Shih, just refreshing tags. Alex, thanks also for the recent DYK! gidonb (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: I agree, but I am not sure which account it is related to. I'll keep a close watch too, thank you for your work on this, and no problem! Alex Shih (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bahar Mustafa

Interested editors may wish to participate in the RfC at Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row#RfC: Police Investigation and Bullying/abuse allegations, which was relisted on 11 February 2018. This is a contentious, multi-part issue that sorely needs attention from cooler heads who are well-versed in BLP questions. Any input is welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Living People Biographies with untrue and manipulative statements

Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement GMG ^talk 13:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint I am referring to you is in relation to the English version of Wikipedia, which contains information about Delyan Peevski. The article is available at ^[1] The article contains many untrue circumstances and manipulative statements, which are not supported by reliable sources (or they refer to sources – Bulgarian media, which constantly generate “fake news”). I will briefly address some of the false statements in the article 1. At the very beginning of the article he is defined as an “oligarch” – as per the definition of the word in Wikipedia this is „a person, who is part of a small group of people holding power in a state“. The reference to the source that is being archived presently neither justifies such a statement nor the statement is credible. 2. False statements are made for his possession of media and property. According to the Bulgarian Commercial registry ^[2] and the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria ^[3] where the Bulgarian government publish the list of newspapers and their owners in Bulgaria he doesn’t own 20 newspapers or magazines. This information is published twice with the same source which is false according to the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria ^[4] Furthermore his mother doesn't own the company cited in this article. This information is old and needs to be updated. 3. The statements in the entire paragraph "Privatization controversies" are also absurd and not supported by any facts. Formally there is no source of information to which this paragraph to refer to and it is marked as “citation needed”, however the contents still stays, not redacted.

4. The next paragraph, "Media and business empire", is again full of false facts and allegations for criminal activity. There are suggestions for large properties associated with him, described as a huge number of media, expressed as figures, without mentioning media names, without reference to an official company register, without citing reliable sources. The citation used is again by contributor, identified only with initials: “Sep 20th 2013 by V.v.B. | SOFIA”.

He is currently a Bulgarian MP in the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria and a living person. The whole article makes suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damages his good name. It creates a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggests that he is a part of criminal activities. The content described is defamatory and untruthful and as such is contrary to the law, to the Internet ethics, to the rules of morality and good faith, as well as to three of the Wikipedia content principles: - Opportunity to verify (against relibale sources); - Neutral point of view; - Encyclopedic style.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgelee78 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Haven't really read into this in detail, but I was wondering if Quickfingers could offer some insights into the situation. Alex Shih (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Alex Shih The complainant, Gorgelee78 is probably someone related to Peevski, or a paid editor. They should be investigated. Back in last December, the main editor of one of his medias, "Monitor" tried to cover up information about him. Check the related COI report for more information.

I note that the article has virtually no English-language sources. Given that inclusionists reject lack of English-language sources as a deletion rationale, we do have an interesting conundrum: how do we ensure BLP (and NPOV generally) when only a tiny proportion of the Wikipedia editor community can read the sources? Guy (Help!) 16:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find an active editor and ask/bribe them to take a look at it. Per policy we dont exclude non-Eng sources, we *can* require a brief translation posted to the talkpage but short of someone with a good grasp of the language actually looking at it - it is a trust-based/agf that the source references the material. What would be helpful would be a list of unreliable tabloid sources for various countries so at least if we see biography with contentious info sourced to X tabloid, we know to get someone to take a much closer look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

though it does not provide direct support for the details, I give considerable weight to the Reporters without Borders source for the overall tone of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y&R ANZ

New editor now blocked for major edit warring over content they object to strenuously as, let's say, "misleading". I'm sometimes blind in these matters, but due diligence requires that I ask for a review of the now removed contentious material. dif is here. Thanks, --Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Pierce

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

I just removed some WP:BLP content that appeared to me to be agenda-driven, and largely not about Pierce. Would appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also !admin, can we get a rev del on BLP grounds as well as the fact that the content appears to be copied and pasted unattributed excerpts from the sources. GMG ^talk 20:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ruckman

Regarding the BLP for Peter Ruckman, apparently his son PS Ruckman Jr. committed suicide right after possibly shooting to death his own two sons in the family home the other day. You can see this information has been added to the Peter Ruckman biography at the tail end of the personal life section (first section in the article). Two questions: 1) Should we be concerned about having that statement before the authorities conclude their murder investigation, and 2) if confirmed, do we keep it permanently in the article? Just so we're clear, my guess is that it's true and he probably did kill his kids, but also keeping in mind that PS Ruckman Jr. is not the main subject of the Peter Ruckman BLP. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

±== Mudar Zahran ==

I'm seeking other editors' opinions. Zahran is a Jordanian-born Palestinian. He was criticized—in very harsh terms—by Caroline Glick, a prominent and influential editorial columnist (and deputy managing editor) for the Jerusalem Post. Under normal circumstances, we would cite her column, attribute her opinion, and call it a day.

The problem is that Glick didn't publish her views in the Jerusalem Post, but on Facebook. Her Facebook post was cited the next day by Elder of Ziyon, a blog. Two weeks later, an opinion columnist in Globes, an Israeli business newspaper, wrote about it. The Globes column was re-published the same day by Glick's paper, the Jerusalem Post.

Can Glick's views be included in Zahran's BLP? Clearly Elder of Ziyon, a blog, cannot be cited. Can Glick's Facebook post? What about the Globes opinion column? Does the fact that the paper where Glick is an editor republished the Globes column give it any added credibility?

If you think this question is better suited for WP:RS/N, please let me know. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Schneider (in this case writing in Globes) is one of Israel's leading political commentators/reporters - possibly more than Glick - and in this case it is not an opinion column, the original Hebrew is [5] (which Jpost probably translated 5 days later, and then this got republished by Globes in English - Globes English being a reprint of a reprint in this case). Some additional news here [6].Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Globes itself (in Hebrew, the English version is very scaled down and lower frequency (weekly?) translation of a small portion of the daily Hebrew) has been Israel's leading business paper for many years. In terms of RSness it would be similar to Haaretz in Hebrew, with the advantage of not having a pronounced political slant. Schneider herself would probably be labelled as mainstream left (i.e. Zionist Union's vicinty) politically.Icewhiz (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ahmet sik

Related article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmet_Şık The following link is not a valid websites and redirects to a porn web site. Please remove it from external sources section.

http://theopinions.info/thearmyoftheimam.htm

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekabeyler (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David McGimpsey

The apparent subject of this article has been edit warring to remove information about about an alleged sexual misconduct that has been reported by the CBC. Given that he is a relatively unknown person, however, I think it is worth reviewing whether the considerations of WP:BLPCRIME come into play and whether mentioning it is giving it undue weight at this point. Bringing it here so uninvolved editors can review. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLPCRIME doesn't come into it. What's being covered here is a university inquiry, and the administrative matter of his teaching assignments. There's no obstacle to including this material, given the quality of the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[John T. Draper]

I am John T. Draper's manager, and have been for over five years.

In the first paragraph of his Wikipedia page and the section about sexual allegations, there contains libelous information about John which violates the biographies of living persons policies.

These statements about sexual advances by John are defamatory because are untrue and supported by nothing but assertions by people that have never met John or those who seek to gain notoriety in the hacker and security communities. These statements concern John and identifying him clearly and have been published to the public through Wikipedia.

John has lost speaking engagements and potential opportunities tied with the film "Ready Player One" where he is mentioned in the riddle for the second key of the book by the same name. These damages are provable by John in a defamation action.

Please consider editing these statements. They are libelous and are causing harm to his reputation.

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

[2] ttps://public.brra.bg/checkups/default.ra?

[3] ttp://mc.government.bg/index.php?l=2

[4] ttp://mc.government.bg/page.php?p=58&s=429&sp=67&t=63&z=436

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards