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.

Nationality cited to source that is probably not talking about nationality?

Florence Faivre's lead describes her as "a French-Thai actress and model", and this is attributed to this review of a film she was in. The problem is, Thailand only apparently recognizes dual citizenship for those under 18 and in some cases divorcées and widows, so I suspect they were just referring to her as "ethnically Thai" (because it's relevant to the character she played?) or even just to her place of birth, even though she is actually just French. Maybe she had dual citizenship until she turned 18 and the source describes her by her former status for whatever reason. (Note that I don't actually know: she may reside in France but have Thai citizenship, and the source is just sloppy.)

I guess in this particular case a better source than some random film review could probably be located that just describes her as one or the other and it could be subbed out. My normal strategy for non-BLPs would just be to tag it and give the above problem in the reason parameter and just walk away since it's not a big issue for non-BLPs. But what's the "optimal" way to deal with situations like this?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing much reliable on the WWW, a couple of varying reports as well. You could ask her on twitter, she has a verified account. https://twitter.com/Florence_Faivre I can't find a reliable source that confirms she is either French or Thai. I'd say without confirmation of either you should take both out for now. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the material for now. --Malerooster (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just to update, the content and the village voice supporting it has been replaced [link] by Sandstein. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Well, yes, we're just echoing Village Voice by saying that she's "French-Thai". We don't know whether this refers to nationality or her heritage, and we don't say either. As long as we don't have a specific reason to doubt that Village Voice is a reliable source, I don't see a need to omit what they write, particularly not based on our own original research about Thai nationality law. Sandstein 06:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Looking over the article, in the Infobox we do state both French and Thai for nationality. The Village Voice may be reliable, but given the strong likelihood that they're discussing parentage, not nationality, this isn't particularly strong sourcing. The birthplace also looks unsourced, and is contradicted by the entries on fr.Wiki & de.Wiki. I've done some searching for sources for either nationality or birthplace, but sources on the article subject are remarkably thin on the ground; to the point where we probably don't have enough to establish notability. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Ben Swann

Ben Swann

The following statement in the opening paragraph of Ben Swann's wiki seems to violate the Neutral Point of View policy and needs to be revised.

"he began producing a fact-checking series entitled Reality Check that has garnered media attention for presenting conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and scientifically-discredited claims of a link between vaccines and autism."

Specifically the use of "presenting conspiracy theories." The very use of the word "conspiracy theory" implies a clear bias on whatever subject it's applied to, which violates wikipedia policy. The term is only used to discredit certain viewpoints. And the "presenting" part isn't accurate. He covers some of these things, but does not endorse the theories. For example, in his Pizzagate piece he repeated that there was no evidence of child sex trafficking throughout the segment.

It also just seems like an unnecessary dig on Ben Swann, especially being placed in the opening paragraph. Seems like it belongs in a "Criticism" section if anywhere.

People go to Wikipedia to get raw information on something or someone, not to hear about the media's opinion of somebody. But not only is it unnecessary and shows bias, but it's factually incorrect as well. For example, the Sandy hook segment he did wasn't even a part of his Reality Check series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

“Presented” doesn’t mean “endorsed”. Actually, “presented” is mild as he has questioned why there wasn’t a police investigation of Pizzagate, and has questioned CDC actions and other statements by authorities. Presumably, the sentence is in the lede as this is what resulted in Ben Swann gaining national coverage. In any case, we just follow WP:RS, and they are the sources of the term “conspiracy theories”. BTW, you really should go to article talk first. Although this has been discussed there in the past. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Asking questions is not "presenting" conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theory, according to Wikipedia, means "an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy." The sources cited for the statement also do not support the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It could be worded a bit better, but I don't think its a gross violation. "Swann produces 'Reality Check', a series that covers the veracity of various fringe and conspiracy theories." --Masem (t) 18:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen Reality Check. He regularly leaves the listener with the impression that something suspicious is going on and there's a government cover up. O3000 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is appropriate criticism of Reality Check but not necessarily of Swann himself, unless outside the show he acts the same way. --Masem (t) 18:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, I see what is a point here that RC is pretty much his show being a news segment rather than a produced show. That ties what the segment presents closer to what he likely believes, etc. I still think that the way the lede is presented is a bit odd. Not wrong/against BLP, but odd. --Masem (t) 19:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it was his show. When cancelled, he moved it to his YouTube channel, which was eventually pulled down after a great deal of backlash. Most of the content came from Russia Today and InfoWars. O3000 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right but for the wrong reasons. "Presented" conspiracy theories is not the right wording (it's WP:WEASEL). The correct wording should be "promoted" conspiracy theories. And it should definitely be in the lede, because it's what Swann is most known for and what he's covered for in RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

He was careful to not say he believed in such. But, he used “When did you stop beating your wife” kind of wording. I agree he promoted. But, I think we have to settle with the compromise. Sometimes the weasel wins. O3000 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's a necessary component of conspiracy peddling. It's a common tactic in conspiracy theory promotion to "just ask questions" and uncritically repeat false and misleading information. When someone presents false, unsubstantiated and misleading fringe content without correcting it, they're promoting the conspiracy theories. For example, if someone uncritically repeats and gives a platform to falsehoods that others are pushing about Obama not being a US citizen, when readily available info debunks Obama birther conspiracies, then they are promoting the birther conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. But, we'd need lots of RS to avoid constant arguments. RS tend to say he "focused on conspiracy theories" or "veered into conspiracy theories" or "was conspiracy-minded". O3000 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Within the lede it is completely reasonable to be simple, "He produced Reality Check, a news segment and later YouTube show that often focused on conspiracy theories that drew media attention", and then in the body discuss how he approached them (with both a mix of skepticism for some and promotion for others). --Masem (t) 22:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he was skeptical of any of them and was fired for airing them. He also appeared on Russia Today and Infowars. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Was able to get the error addressed that mentioned his "Reality Check" segment on Sandy Hook that never existed, but it still reads like a hit piece to me. Perhaps we could mention his Edward R. Murrow Award or Emmy's to balance it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.159.155 (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

David Matthews information on the Pippa Middleton page

Special:Diff/840880719/840891488

I have checked the BLP page and believe the recent edit with information about David Mattews complies.

However, there has been some reversions to the edit, hence this post to the BLP Noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.20.170 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

My reasons for removal are stated on the talk page, but to repeat here - the removed topic is not about Pippa Middleton - it's not even about the fellow she's married, but it's about the father of the fellow she's married. That's three steps removed from the article subject, and while it's ok to point out who the father is (which the article does) it's not necessary to discuss BLP topics about the father in an article about somebody else - who doesn't warrant an article themselves. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Billy Brewer

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

When updating the page to reflect his dead, I accidentally wrote Billy Brewer was age 83 instead of age 82 (diff). Before I could correct my mistake, the incorrect date was picked up by the AP [1]. (Sorry if I’m posting at the wrong noticeboard) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Tove Lill Løyte

Hei,

My name is tove lill loyte bjelland and I am writing to you because I need help with stop people putting false facts or delete facts about me. This can seriously hurt my career. Will you please help me blocking it from public writing? I would prefer to write it myself or give you the correct information. Please contact me on tovelill@live.com.

Best regards Tove Lill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:3984:4900:5D5C:C61D:AF4D:C8A6 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any particular problems with Tove Lill Løyte, although I find the "measurements" a little unusual but apparently that is a standard part of the infobox. We will need more information. Following up with email out of courtesy. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Kristin Kreuk

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

Hi, several accounts keep adding her current boyfriend to her personal life section which I have been removing because I was under the impression that partners should only be included if it is a significant relationship? She only off-handedly mentions the boyfriend in the source and I don't believe she has mentioned him elsewhere (no other sources have been provided, anyway). When I have removed it and cited WP:BLP they have just reincluded him, sometimes without providing a reason and at one point writing in their edit summary that it is a significant relationship (without providing a source). Also, some of the re-inclusions have named him – which she does not do in the source they use (she only mentions her current boyfriend being a writer on her show) so I have also been removing that due to it not being sourced. But it has gone back and forth a few times of me removing the information only for two different users and an IP address to reinclude it, and I guess that is edit warring and I wasn't sure what to do next. —Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

wp:BLPNAME is the appropriate policy. The questions to ask are: 1)is there a good source? 2)a is the boyfriend a famous public figure or well-known in some context? and 3)does the inclusion add significant context to a portion of the article?.

• ”The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.”
• its very strongly recommended at wp:burden that parties working to restore omitted info to a BLP provide justification for their addition. WP:BRD is the first port of call. A request for comments may be the next Edaham (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

just had a look at the article. The current version doesn’t actually name him. Personally I don’t feel strongly about removing or including the mere reference that she has a boyfriend. It seems sourced, but is also fairly trivial and disconnected. You could be more active in following BRD rather than reverting each time. Try making mention of the subject on the talk page before taking further action. Edaham (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yale Student Abortion Art Controversy

Hello,

I'm a researcher and art historian who's been invited to write on Aliza Shvarts's practice. I'd like to propose changing Yale Student Abortion Art Controversy to a BLP page for Aliza Shvarts. Much of this page was written and contested in 2008, during the event’s emergence onto the stage of notability. It’s now been ten years since Shvarts came to notability as a BLP1E (the title of which was highly contested on the talk page, and the page was shortly thereafter reviewed and recast as an Event) and underwent a deletion review, and seven years since a user blanked the article’s content in its entirety, and it was restored. In the decade since the scandal, scholars and critics have written about the "controversy" not as a controversy, but as a controversial artwork, part of Aliza's larger critical and artistic practice. Because of this, I believe the page should be reclassified as a BLP, in which the controversy surrounding the artwork figures as one (substantiative) section.

Thoughts? Vera Syuzhet (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's a... special topic. Asking here will hopefully give you some helpful input, consider asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Please centralize discussion in the same location: Talk:Yale student abortion art controversy#Requested move 14 May 2018 czar 01:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Arif Akhundov

Not a relevent person to this encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor.andrei1t (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Per our guidelines for what makes a track athlete qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia (viewable at WP:NTRACK), Akhundov definitely qualifies. He competed at the Olympics; despite your edit, making it to the heat at the Olympics themselves s indeed being in the competition, however poorly they may have fared. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Clive Wilkins

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

Could somebody take a look at this article it is a real mess of primary sources and commercial links. I am loathe to tackle it because I went to college with him many years ago. As it stands it wouldn't survive an afd and it's creator almost certainly has an undeclared conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's getting worse! Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Prejudicial assignment of guilt at Never Again MSD

At Never Again MSD, I've tried to add "allegdly" to a claim that a living person killed seventeen people. This person is awaiting trial on seventeen murder charges and that's no coincidence. BLPCRIME is clear: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." Yet this was undone because encylopedia is not a court trial. So I tried omitting the name and that was undone because Wikipedia is not a courtroom. I finally tried explaining that I do not mean Wikipedia is a courtroom, a trial, a conviction or living person accused of a crime; these are just words in a rule about an encyclopedia (ours). This was undone by a third editor, because there is no question that he did it.

I get that this guy is unlikable and quite probably guilty as charged. But there's no exception in policy for people like that. As long as he lives, Wikipedia must (theoretically) be mindful about influencing decisions directly affecting his likely death. Especially as it adds little to understanding Never Again's gripe; it could've been any loony teenager with easy access to cheap and hyped guns and their story would stay the same. So there's no need to throw a living person under the bus, even if it wasn't against the rules.

I don't want anyone banned, blocked, warned or apologizing. I just want this noticeboard to notice (in principle, at least) there's a 3-1 consensus among rational and generally well-meaning editors for clearly and plainly violating BLPCRIME by outright stating Nikolas Cruz killed the 17 people prosecutors allege he murdered. There is a difference between killing someone and murdering someone, of course, but Wikipedia is strongly suggesting to potential jurors that the criteria needed for the state of Florida to lawfully execute a living person have been met 17 times over, when they have not, even once. The trial date hasn't been set yet, nevermind a verdict. This is shady business, and a slippy precedent for prejudice toward less-universally reviled defendants and genuinely bad living people alike. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, May 15, 2018 (UTC)

How about removing "later identified as Nikolas Cruz" from the lead since he's not mentioned anywhere in the rest of the article? Or add "self-confessed" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

He did indeed confess to the crime, if that makes a difference. However I agree that mentioning the name is probably not necessary in this article, as the alleged perpetrator is discussed more thoroughly at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Shritwod (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the lead of that article makes IH's point, it doesn't say "did it" the same way. Slightly of topic, I think the mention of AR-15 in the lead of Never Again MSD is a little off, but at least it is mentioned again below lead (and I know AR-15/WP is a hot topic on and off WP). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The gun's a bit more pertinent, I find. The general idea of Never Again is to keep these battle-oriented types of guns from these batshit-oriented types of kids, rather than ridding schools of those types of kids. They've repeatedly stressed it's not about taking the sort of moderately powerful guns America is promised to protect itself from deer, burglars and time-travelling Loyalists. That said, I'm not married to the idea of keeping the weapon, it simply remained when I took the person out. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, May 17, 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jessica Valenti

Talk:Jessica Valenti (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

There's some dispute over the inclusion of an anonymous claim on this talk page that Valenti somehow "gets her Twitter followers to alter her Wikipedia page to her specifications", based on a tweet where she asked for help with a statement on her bio about the Clinton campaign. Seems like a clear BLP vio to make this assertion without a source. Any input here is welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Fumihito, Prince Akishino

Fumihito, Prince Akishino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

False information: Empress Michiko was not a follower of the Roman Catholic Religion (she attended Roman Catholic schools). Therefore, she cannot be a "convert to Shinto" since she never was Roman Catholic to begin with. This falsehood can be found under the heading "Early Life and Education", third sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.100.189.199 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the information mentioned, since it was unsourced. Anyone is encouraged to add information about Empress Michiko's religion, if the information can be cited to a reliable independent source. MPS1992 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy

Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy is facing a case of Disproportionate Assets but has been not convicted there are claims of political vendatta against him and a edit war is going on this section in the article on whether to have a section on the case.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Of course there should be a section, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. There are 100s of sources on it over years; he went to jail for 16 months over it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• There is no issue that it is mentioned in the article but over 60 % of the article including the lead deal with the case related allegations which is not proven and this has been reverted by numerous editors and raised in talk numerous times and ORTS have got over 40 tickets about the subject as per this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• I've dealt with tickets on this as well, and it does seem to be a whitewashing case - yes, the article needs improving and expanding, but I don't think this needs removing - maybe cutting down is appropriate, but as far as I can see there are no BLP issues here. The personal vendetta claims are by POV pushers (potential COI issues here as well from my past correspondence...) Mdann52 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

2009 Roman Polanski support petition - is mention appropriate?

Lee Brush (talk · contribs) has added actors' support of Roman Polanski in a 2009 petition to numerous articles today. As many people who are not actors have also spoken in Polanski's defense, is it appropriate to add this to the actors' articles?

The editor has also, more often than not, marked the article changes as minor; I have advised Lee that doing so is inappropriate. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Houseago

At Thomas Houseago an SPA keeps removing the name of his wife (or perhaps now ex-wife) Amy Bessone – info sourced to this article in the Los Angeles Times. Is there any good reason why we should not include this information in the page (not that it's particularly important to me or anything)? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Rick Scott

A "Mostly True" Article by Politifact isn't FACT. Rick Scott is being defamed by a source that is not accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott OSHAGUY (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• The situation at Columbia/HCA is well-sourced in the rest of the article, as far as I can see. At no point does it accuse Scott of fraud, only indicating that Scott was CEO whilst the fraud took place. There are actually a number of reliable sources out there that do link the two things, but our article is neutral. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@OSHAGUY: What part of this do you dispute as not verifiable? Have you actually looked for other sources, like this one or this one?- MrX 🖋 22:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Joe Carollo

Joe Carollo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Someone likely related to the biography of a living person, a politician - former Mayor of Miami - and rolled back a major update that contained significant information solely sourced from The Economist, the Miami Herald, the Miami Times, the Orlando Sentinel and the New York Times.

They didn't use the talk page.

This listing needs to be locked for at least 90 days to prevent an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spelunkingmerica (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Spelunkingmerica:, you have actually been violating multiple policies in regards to this article. You have been blatantly edit warring for quite some time to add information that clearly violates both the Neutral Point of View policy and the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Also, if you are also the person behind the various IP addresses who have been adding similar information since December, you are possibly violating the sock puppet policy. I have reverted it to a stub that predates these additions as the last version of the article that fully complies with the Core Content Policies. Do not re-add these allegations and poorly-sourced claims without gaining consensus on the talk page for them, or you may find yourself blocked. I hope this helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the editors involved, I do agree that as written the material is poorly presented for a BLP, and some of the details either need stronger sourcing to keep in or should be outright removed (eg the random claim of being racist from one person) Most of the other details are factual, but written seemingly favorably(?) towards Carollo, and needs a strong rewrite to keep to the facts. --Masem (t) 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Candace Owens

I reverted an edit on Candace Owens that I felt was poorly sourced as she was the CEO and apparent founder of an online website (although not the editor) that had some articles that were anti-Trump (the editor especially noted an article (not written by Owens) regarding Trump's penis size and the editor believes that this is somehow important to Owens page. The author of the article at Buzzfeed has even been criticized by Vox for not doing sufficient research before posting an article. I reverted and perhaps violated the 3RR so if you have to lock me out I accept that.Patapsco913 (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News[2] (a RS) reported that Owens (who is now a diehard Trump supporter) founded a website in 2015 that frequently posted anti-conservative and anti-Trump content. Owens herself undeniably authored anti-conservative content[3] and it's undeniable that anti-Trump content appeared on the website.[4] The Hill[5] (a RS) ran a story about Owens' website, citing Buzzfeed News. Patapsco claims that the reporter behind the Buzzfeed News is unreliable and can't be trusted to get his facts right because a Vox article supposedly criticized him for poor research - this is an absurd misreading of the Vox article[6]. Furthermore, it's irrelevant given that the facts of the Buzzfeed News source have been verified beyond doubt. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping that someone could take a look at this one for me.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Rosmah Mansor

This woman, the wife of the just-defeated Prime Minister of Malaysia, is the target of some deep hate and fury from her country’s people. A few days ago, before the page was protected and just after the election that defeated her husband, there were several vituperative comments and nicknames inserted into the article — in Malay, of course, so they fly under the radar of English-only vandal fighters. (Google Translate is your friend!) A very nasty picture was linked to as well. There have been a few revdels already.

To complicate matters, we have copyright violations as well as the vandalism. I have asked for revdels on a substantial number of edits. Until those can happen, and especially after page protection ends in a day and a half, I hope people here will help keep an eye on the article. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Souad Faress - False Rape Accusation removed from Wikipedia

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

Souad Faress - False Rape Accusation edited out from Wikipedia

Her False rape accusation is well documented....Why was it REMOVED from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C2:470A:1D00:6CEE:B0E7:8A82:658C (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, on first glance, the "reliable" (?) source does not seem to back the very strong content claim within the article. One needs substantial, hardcore proof to write: "... she had in fact just made the whole thing up." This is not encyclopedic writing; but tabloid fodder. Maineartists (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Sznajder

Someone seems to be interested in posting not news articles (perhaps this is not even covered by any media), but primary source court warrants and the like against this person?! Despite other editors deleting the original source, non-media postings as inappropriate. Multiple times now. On the article of Andrew Sznajder.

Smells bad. Who would even have access to these documents? This doesn't look like media being used as a source. More like COI.

Can someone please address? Maybe block out the old posts? And keep the article Andrew Sznajder on a watch list? Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:E02F:5FEE:FB8B:1C75 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above concern -- not that I needed to view the Google drive documents to do so. Specifically, please could an administrator consider applying WP:REVDEL to edits like this one. MPS1992 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Mike Lester

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

Since at least 2010, various IPs and new editors have been trying to add/delete material regarding an alleged arrest, and a cartoon Mike Lester created about Barack Obama[7]. In the past I've removed them as BLP violations, but an experienced editor has now restored the edits, so I thought it would be better to bring the issue here. I know nothing of Lester or the veracity of claims being made, and would prefer to take the article off my watchlist if possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Campaign Against Antisemitism / Adrian Davies

My user page Alison Chabloz describes several previous BLP violations regards my person which were resolved after I and an administrator intervened.

Today, similar BLP violations were published on two separate pages. I submitted edit requests to both. Please see:

Talk:Adrian_Davies and Talk:Campaign_Against_Antisemitism

My trial is still ongoing. Today's edits are libellous and should be rectified immediately, irrespective of links to moronic mainstream press reports.

Replies to my request on Adrian Davies' Talk page are unnecessarily rude. I am the living person being discussed here. The edits made in my regards are clearly not neutral but are intended to make me look bad before the judge in my case has even reached a verdict!

As noted by the administrator DGG who removed content previously when the CAA page was nominated for deletion:

"BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. It applies not only to all articles, even those not primarily about a person, but all talk pages and WP space pages. The section on the individual mentioned above is a gross BLP violation, and has been deleted. According to policy, it may not be restored with discussion and consensus. I am amazed it was ever added; I am puzzled it was not noticed sooner. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)" [8] Alison Chabloz (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it does not. You dislike the fact that sources such as the BBC characterise you as an antisemitic blogger. You should take this up with them, not us.

Note to other Wikipedians: A verdict on the private prosecution of Ms. Chabloz is expected May 24. Her friend Jeremy Bedford-Turner was sentenced to prison two days ago. This is on the BBC, the Independent, Court News (which reports her characterisation of Auschwitz as "a theme park for fools") The Times and many other sources. Reliable sources tend to describe her as an antisemitic blogger (e.g. "Blogger Alison Chabloz sings along to antisemitic song (((Survivors))) in court, The Times).

Not our problem to solve. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I watched some of the material on YouTube (the whining about free speech on privately-owned platforms, about the Jewish media, and some of that singing) and I'm going to have a shower now. Anyway, "antisemitic blogger" seems well-verified. What's funny is that respondents on those talk pages are so polite, when they were dealing with someone who thinks the internet is there for her to spew antisemitic filth. And I see now that I have also dealt with this editor in what I hope was a polite and policy-guided edit, this one, following a comment here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign Against Antisemitism. Brrr. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

So much for WP:NPOV. Clearly, no such thing exists!Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Drmies removed content about you from Quenelle_(gesture). You need to learn to accept the consensus view that antisemitism and holocaust denial are shitty. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy Simply a case of you and Drmies expressing an opinion.Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, a "thank you" would be appreciated. Now don't you start throwing policies around that you clearly don't understand: the only reason you are here is to try and clean up your image a bit. I'm perfectly happy to protect the BLP and will do so even for Holocaust deniers, but if you start throwing any more accusations around you will outlive your welcome quickly, and a block per NOTHERE might follow. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus view of the most reliable media sources in the UK - the BBC, The Times and such - is that you're an antisemitic blogger, it's not really our job to fix that. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy, I was under oath in a court of law. I refer to you to (WP:BLPCRIME) which applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.

That's a very confusing statement. Are you saying that under oath you will admit to being an antisemite and a holocaust denier, but when trying to whitewash your reputation on the internet you'll deny it? That is how it reads, but I am sure you would not be so cynical. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I told the court under oath that I was professionally trained as a musician. I also disputed the cross-examination's claim regards both 'anti-Semitism' and 'Holocaust' 'denial. Again, this brings us back to BLP and unknown persons accused of committing a crime. If by this time next week I've been convicted, you will be able to gloat - at least until my appeal is heard. If not, then you're going to have some difficulty aguing that you were right whereas the court was wrong. (PS Why are you splitting up my edits - to make things more difficult for readers?) Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So am I WP:WELLKNOWN or not? Alison Chabloz (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The name was restored to the article, I have removed it, saying "you need explicit consensus to restore the name...� It might be easier to get this consensus after the verdict, which if I understand correctly is schedule for next week." DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. The same issue arises on the page dedicated to my barrister Adrian Davies where I have also posted an edit request. BLP guidelines are quite clear regards unknown persons accused of a crime. It is incoherent for editors on the one hand to demand independent reliable sources and to claim that I would not be sufficiently well-known to warrant a dedicated page whilst, on the other hand, disregarding WP:BLPCRIME. Alison Chabloz (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Rfc at Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism § Rfc since this is now spread across multiple pages. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not 100% convinced that Adrian Davies actually passes notability guidelines. Although the case David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is enormously significant when it comes to the Holocaust in UK law, Davies was only involved in the appeal which does not appear to be significant. His defence of a rag-tag group of far-right individuals may also not be enough to infer notability. The inclusion of Alison Chabloz in the article would perhaps be appropriate if Davies is deemed notable, although I suggest using the word "alleged" in reference to Ms Chabloz for the time being. Incidentally, Irving vs Penguin et al does establish ground for civil action if someone believes they are unjustly labelled a holocaust denier but it does also prove in a court of law that the Holocaust actually occurred, ergo for an individual to claim that it didn't would open them up to being labelled a holocaust denier. IANAL. Shritwod (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither am I, but I don't think there's a realistic chance of deletion, or I would nominate it. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should test that hypothesis? Shritwod (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel free. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that Irving v Penguin Books Ltd is a case in English law, and therefore has no legal impact on Wikipedia content. However, it is possible that some individuals within jurisdictions covered by the case might edit this Wikimedia project. MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Question in the context of this complaint, has the identity of Alison Chabloz been verified as the complainant? Shritwod (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably not. You may want to request a block pending identification via WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Actually my point was that this person is making a request claiming to be Alison Chabloz, but I don't believe that we have verified their identity yet. Shritwod (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Why the need to block before requesting my identity be verified? Would Guy or any other person not feel somewhat bullied by such a suggestion? Gosh, WP can be quite a nasty place! Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The irony of somebody who recorded a song accusing Holocaust survivors of lying calling anywhere a "nasty place" is staggering. By the by, you may be interested to know that Auschwitz was a much "nastier" place. Be glad you only have to deal with our level of nastiness. (Translation: You aren't going to shame anyone here into complying with your demands for "fairness"). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me guess: one of your relatives swallowed then defecated diamonds whilst prisoner at Auschwitz [9], or, on liberation of the camps, one of your relatives chose to leave with his/her Nazi persecutors rather than remaining to be saved from the evil Germans by the Red Army [10]? Eventually, your relatives were made into soap / lampshades / shrunken heads to be displayed at Nürnberg in order to show how evil the Nazis really were [11]. I'm finding this debate quite enjoyable [12]. How about you, dear Inquisitors? Alison Chabloz (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Lovely. And yet you claim you have some "right" to be treated courteously and deferentially by others. It would be hilarious if it wasn't evidence of a blinding lack of self-awareness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The things that this editor enjoys provide deep insight into her character. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: If you review her edit history, you may well conclude that she is best restricted to her user space, if only for her own good. Holocaust deniers are not a popular species on Wikipedia. I would block her but I am WP:INVOLVED. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Better still, why not make me wear a distinguishing badge and send me to the gulag? Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You display a quite stunning lack of insight. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, Guy, that's just your opinion. Alison Chabloz (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Augustus Sol Invictus

Augustus Sol Invictus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please remove the sections of him being a "Holocaust denier" and the quote about how the Unite the Right Rally had "resulted in three deaths", as its true purpose was to protest the removal of confederate statues. For people who first view the page, it's blatantly obvious that the author had meant for those things to appear first, as to slander this individuals reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.240.57 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the historical truth that millions of Jews were murdered by Hitler, he responded "I am still waiting to see those facts."

He is a Holocaust denier. Now, if you're not a Holocaust denier, why would you want to censor the fact that he denies it? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Clementine Ford sources

Clementine Ford (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding the article Clementine Ford (writer), I have posted on article's Talkpage five possible sources that appear to violate unreliable sources for biographies of living people.

Reason: Under BLP, none of these are sufficient quality sources. All suffer the same or similar objections to the sources apparently disqualified by Question over source validity, Killing men comment and Lifeline cancellation of clementine ford's speech under violations of WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPSPS and WP:GRAPEVINE. These links should all be removed as they are unsuitable sources.

Comment: As I have been accused of WP:Pointy here[13], I request that the action be engaged by another editor to avoid another possible WP:BLP violation or in being a POV-pusher. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Racism against Meghan Markle (resolved)

This appears to be a completely unnecessary article and possibly harassment. Recently created. If possible, could an admin evaluate the situation? --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It's much more than a "New page that will need work". In its present form it is basically an attack page directed at Jo Marney, who is WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE. StAnselm (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that Marney probably is a public figure, but regardless of that, she hasn't got an article and this article is just a coatrack. So I've deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)