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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:21, 30 March 2019

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.

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

E. J. Levy

E. J. Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I've been notified that an article purportedly about me contains both misinformation and bias E.J. Levy, despite efforts to balance it by Wikipedia editors (Partice Starr, Sarah Sloane, Hedgielaar, and others). I would like to request that this article be either removed or balanced, and that factual inaccuracies (especially malicious and inaccurate mischaracterizations of my forthcoming novel, The Cape Doctor) be removed. The site appears to be being used by a few editors (eg, Wallyfromdilbert) to attack me and my book, and to carry on an argument from Twitter.

It is my understanding that Wikipedia articles must conform to the following principles:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)

Wallyfromdilbert, among other editors, have repeatedly violated two of these three Wikipedia tenets in regard to the E.J. Levy page, despite attempts to correct these problems by means of edits and despite several appeals to Wikipedia editors and administrators. I would be grateful if the more balanced and accurate edits of Patrice Starr, hedgielamar, and Sarah Sloane, and other editors were protected against what seem evidently malicious rollbacks.

Wallyfromdilbert's edits do *not* reflect a Neutral Point Of View; rather they have repeatedly and selectively quoted from articles to attack my novel, The Cape Doctor, editing *out* quoted material from those same articles that would offer a more balanced perspective on the book and scholarly debate (see recent additions/edits by Patrice Starr and Hedgielamar for evidence of this; Starr and hedgie have added quotes that provide balance, but those edits have been repeatedly "rolled back" by Wallyfromdilbert and others so as to *bias* the page and its representation of my work);

Additionally, certain claims in the Wikipedia article about me and my book are *not* Verifiable, because they are factually incorrect. Specifically the claim that my forthcoming novel, The Cape Doctor, refers to James Miranda Barry as a "heroine" is simply wrong, as anyone who has read the novel can attest. The Wikipedia editors making this claim have *not* read my novel and are either speculating or quoting speculation, despite my public statements to the contrary to the press. In fact, as I have said publicly in Bustle, my novel refers to Barry as "he," "she," and a "hero"; I do not at any point refer to James Barry as a heroine. So this is both inaccurate and unverifiable. Nor is my novel "transphobic," as these editors want to claim. These claims are hostile speculation and mischaracterization, and should be removed. As my public statement in Bustle's article makes clear, neither I nor my novel is transphobic (quoting me from that article would support this assertion); claims to the contrary are based on malicious speculation and projection (such claims cannot be based on the novel, as the novel has not been released).

Despite repeated efforts to correct these inaccurate claims, these editors (Wallyfromdilbert among others) have maliciously mischaracterized me and my book. I hope that Wikipedia will put a stop to that misuse of Wikipedia. If it is not possible to stop this biased and inaccurate editing, I would request that the page be removed. Thank you. EJLevywriter (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are opinion pieces, speculating about the book using words like "led critics to believe", "if that is the case", "appears to misgender". These are not reliable sources about the book itself but mere speculation about something that has not been released yet. The only reliable report comes from the Guardian, which in addition to detailing the twitter debate notes that no one really knows how Barry identified, saying, "But whether he had always ‘felt male’ during his earlier female years (he changed identity at age 20), who knows?... Much of what we 'know' about him is really the Barry myth – that is, culturally constructed legend, based on hearsay, fiction and fiction-inflected biography." I think it needs to be toned down to reflect the twitter debate, but not to speculate on the novel itself. (It should also be changed to perfect perspective rather than future perspective so that it won't sound weird after the book is released, plus that looks more like we're not running an ad.) Zaereth (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zaereth, and add that the encyclopedic value of a twitter debate is dubious. A sentence or two may be due, but nothing more until far better sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I didn't add any of the contentious information to the page. My additions mostly expanded the references. I removed information added by Hedgielamar and his sockpuppet JMB2019 that contradicted the cited sources (and who largely refused to participate in any discussion about the changes that were reverted by numerous editors. BTW, I've removed several additions by other editors that were also unsourced.) "EJLevywriter" uses the same attacks fixating on me and writes with the same style as Hedgielamar (including claiming the Bustle article says that the novel refers to Barry as a "hero" when it clearly does not). This seems very suspicious, and likely to be the same user, although may or may not be the actual author, E.J. Levy. Just want to have a record of the similar patterns in case the edit warring by these users starts again. As for the actual article content, thank you, Ronz, for your trim. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. A request to confirm identity might be a good step to take, and a SPI report if any further editwarring occurs. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Hopefully your edit will end the dispute on both sides. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, when someone starts off with accusing everyone else of bias, I take that with a grain of salt, because it's almost always an unconscious confession of their own biases. I find it humorous how our own minds betray us. In cases such as this, looking at all the plugs both here and in the article, I have to wonder how much of this is publicity based. Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As one of those "other editors" that EJLevywriter and Hedgie mention, I'd like to chime in with my thanks as well, Ronz and Zaereth. I also agree with Wallyfromdilbert that this writing pattern is EXACTLY the same as Hedgie's, right down to the fixation on Wally and request that if the article can't be "balanced" (read: portrays the outcry as limited in scope and misguided in its criticisms) it should be removed; further, this person is the second one I've seen on here to mention Sloane's given name (it's not in their username). The first one was Hedgie. Take that as you will. Regarding the article, right now, that controversy is all that Levy is actually known for - I feel like it's notable enough to keep in, especially with the Guardian piece, but we definitely need better sources. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The The Cape Doctor paragraph in the article seems reasonable, but it shouldn't take up more than half the WP:LEAD, I'd remove it from there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful to Ronz, Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Zaereth for their very helpful corrections to this page purportedly about me, but several editors continue to mischaracterize my forthcoming book and me, in what appears to be continuation of a Twitter battle. I hope their biased and unfactual (thus unverifiable) characterizations of me and my book will be removed, and the editors involved (NekoKatsun and Wallyfromdilbert ) prevented from continuing attacks on me via Wiki.

Specifically: 1) these warring Wiki editors claim my novel refers to Dr. JM Barry as "heroine"; it does not and it never has. As I stated to The Times and Bustle, both of which quote me, the novel mostly uses first-person and male pronouns; I refer to Barry as a "hero" once at the book's end. (On Twitter, which appears to be the real basis for their edits, I referred to Barry as a "she" and a "heroine" only to counter those claiming only male pronouns could apply to that gender-ambiguous figure. No binary term seems to me correct, so I was balancing the ledger. My book should either be correctly represented or not characterized at all. I've not quoted sources here for Bustle and the Times, as I understand they have been repeatedly posted on the EJ Levy page and removed.) 2) I am lesbian, so any characterization of me should use that term. (To call me "queer" when I identify as "lesbian"--and have written about same--is equivalent of calling a straight man "bi-" despite his published statements to the contrary. The broader category may contain but does not accurately represent the individual.) 3) Any characterization of Barry on a page that refers to me should be factual and unbiased. Barry's biographers all agree that Margaret Bulkley dressed as a man to enter medical school and the army, institutions from which she was barred by sex, and continued to live as James Barry throughout adulthood. To elide the necessity of male dress to obtain and education and enter professions is to mischaracterize the subject of my book. These facts are not disputed, and are--I believe--correctly represented on the Barry Wiki page, which is sourced from multiple biographies, including Dr. James Barry: A Woman Ahead of Her Time (2016) by Dronfield/Dupreez. 4) If the Wiki page is to be used to continue a war on me (and the facts) by editors, I would request that it be removed. Thank you. Wikipedia should be factual, verifiable, and representing a neutral POV. These editors--(NekoKatsun and Wallyfromdilbert ) -- are not abiding by those standards. Thank you for your help. my clear statements about it contents to the Times and Bustle. I ; — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJLevywriter (talk • contribs) 18:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I see no evidence of anyone campaigning a war against you. When I see statements like that it becomes hard to take the rest of it seriously. In my personal opinion, some people are far too sensitive, like an open wound, and this twitter debate is a wonderful example of this. (Psychologically speaking, over-sensitivity tends to show a lack of self-esteem, self confidence, and a poor image of oneself (or, rather, an overly negative perception of how others view them; see: metaperception), and possibly at the extreme end some personality disorder such as BPD.) You can call me he, she, it, they, straight, gay, bi, a sissy, or a total a-hole for all I care. Water off a duck.

The Bustle article is an opinion piece and thus is not a reliable source. I haven't seen the "Times" article. Is it the NY Times or Anchorage Times? Or some other paper with that in its name? Is it an op/ed piece or a news article, because any paper has both? It's best to bring your sources here so we won't have to hunt for them, but keep in mind that the more reliable sources you can find; the more likely this will remain in the article.

That said, the statement in the article that the book actually uses these terms is not supported by either of the sources. The Guardian, which is a well-written piece, and the Daily Dot, which is far less favorable, both show this is only speculation. We should not say it as fact in Wikipedia's voice when the sources clearly do not. In all, however, I agree with Ronz that the entire "debate" is rather small and not too widely covered. As such, its significance doesn't seem to rise to the level warranting its inclusion, given the size and scope of the article, but others may disagree. Zaereth (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaereth: FYI EJLevywriter is likely a sock of Hedgielamar. Not clear whether the accounts are the actual author (especially since the actual author clearly refers to herself as "queer" and not just "lesbian" [1]). The accounts also refuse to engage in any discussion about the article content. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. For the purposes of this discussion only, I will assume she is who she says, although I would expect a writer to understand the value of paragraphs to comprehensibility. That doesn't invalidate some of her points. At the least, I would echo Gråbergs Gråa Sång and suggest moving it out of the lede, because we're giving it too much weight compared to the entire scope of the subject's life and career. Either that, or drastically expand the article so it's not taking up so much of the space. The weight we give info should be in balance with the significance of that info to the subject as a whole. And I've read the sources, which do not support the assertion that the book actually says this. This is all based upon stuff that was said on social media, including the word "heroine", but the book has not been released yet and no one (not even Bustle) says it's in there. (Bustle only hints at it.) And something deep in my gut still says publicity stunt, as there's no publicity like bad publicity. Zaereth (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion on the content of the article, but The Guardian source does claim the novel refers to Barry as a "heroine" ("The Cape Doctor by EJ Levy, which describes the individual born Margaret Ann Bulkley as ‘a heroine’"), although their source for that information is not clear especially as part of the header. Also, material about the forthcoming novel was already removed from the lead (based on a discussion on the talk page). The lack of additional information about Levy and whether she is notable have also been brought up there. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Zaereth for your notes above. I am who I say I am; EJLevywriter is not a sock; I am a lesbian author who has registered a formal complaint with wiki about ongoing efforts to mischaracterize me and my book on the EJ Levy page. The Guardian worked from Tweets, where I refer to Barry as "she" and a "heroine"; my novel does not, as I have stated in the verifiable press (Times of London, Bustle). To continue to mischaracterize my book on Wikipedia appears to be an attempt to engender controversy where there is none and to continue a Twitter debate. My book is feminist, gender-queer; I am lesbian. Please do stop quoting unfactual speculation about me and my book and quote instead what is factual, from those few in a position to characterize both--namely myself (as the author). I expected better of Wikipedia. I understand now its reputation for mob rule and misogyny, which makes me especially grateful for the few calm and thoughtful voices weighing in here. I'd be grateful if someone could revert to factual edits on the page ostensibly about me, as I understand it's bad form for me to do so myself. Thanks, guys. EJLevywriter (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levy, something to keep in mind is that as this book has not yet been released, and we cannot use it as a source here on Wikipedia. We can only use reliable third-party sources. That section of your article is primarily about the controversy that your book has generated - the articles cited there, as well as the Bustle article, are about said controversy. We can't downplay or remove an extant controversy about your reported using of pronouns just because you don't like it. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EJLevywriter: Even though you're identifying yourself as E. J. Levy, there's no way for anyone trying to help you to pass through their computer screen to wherever you are and actually see whether that's really the case; moreover, even if one person could possibly do such a thing, there's no way for Wikipedia to expect every person who edits the encyclopedia to do the same. Users are allowed to use their real names as their account user names as explained in WP:REALNAME, but in some cases some kind of more formal verification may be required as a precaution against damaging impersonation, and accounts identifying as a specific identifiable person may even be soft-blocked to prevent a user from claiming to be someone they aren't. You can send an email to Wikimedia OTRS clarifying who you are. OTRS volunteers are special editors who have been vetted to have access to certain types of emails sent to the Wikimedia Foundation about things related to Wikipedia, etc. and only they can see these emails. So, if you email OTRS from your official email address and provide proof or a statement that you are E. J. Levy, OTRS will verify the email and will add a template to your page (if everything is in order) so that others can see that your identity has been verified. This won't give you any special privileges when it comes to editing and you will still be subject to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (see WP:DISCLOSECOI for more on this), but it should quickly resolve any suspicions that your account might be a sock puppet. Whether you do this is up to you, but as I mentioned above, accounts claiming to be a particular identifiable person (particularly someone with a Wikipedia article written about them) often end up blocked as a precaution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EJ, I agree with you that someone is trying to engender controversy where there is none. These are the people on twitter. The story seemed important enough to some reporter that they felt it necessary to publish it in a reliable source using a reliable, journalistic style. That makes it worthy of inclusion ... under the restrictions given by all the other policies. One of those is WP:UNDUE. This says that, although the info is verifiably worthy of inclusion, it must be in proportion to the significance of that info. I see that people have worked to accommodate this rule by giving it very little space and moving it out of the lede. No one here appears in the slightest to be trying to continue this debate. They're just reporting that it happened.

Not everything printed by a reliable press agency is a reliable source. Legitimate news articles which are reviewed by an editorial staff and adhere to journalistic standards and ethics are reliable. Opinion articles and editorials in which the author gives their personal take or spin on the story are not reliable for anything except maybe the author's opinions. Your Bustle source is a great example of an opinion column.

My personal view is that the debate just not relevant to this article and really belongs in the article about the book itself. However, you've complicated that by engaging in the debate, thus adding relevance to yourself, so it's right on the fence. And the more you engage; the more the relevance shifts to you personally.

If you truly are who you say, then you have more power than any of us to affect this story, both positively and negatively. You can give interviews to reliable sources instead of engaging on twitter. You can write editorials and get those published. There are a myriad of things you can do as the subject to affect this story. When the book comes out, if the word is not there, you'll be vindicated and all the naysayers will look like idiots. (Not to mention, do you know how many people are going to run out and buy this book just to see? I guarantee you all those twitter debaters will, so I say just take your 15 minutes and run with it.) Zaereth (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the work is not yet released, giving what seems to be a very minor controvsery this much weight at this time is wrong, particularly on a BLP; its far too accusational for something not publicly available yet. When the book is out, the pre-release controversy stuff can be reviewed and included if still deemed important (maybe the changes didn't go far enough so the criticism continues; maybe it is fully resolved and no one criticizing before release has anything bad to say about it now). It does not need to be included at this point. --Masem (t) 23:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a link to the Times of London article mentioned above. I think that would be a good addition to the article, since it is RS. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/novelist-defends-her-version-of-pioneering-trans-doctors-life-story-f6hsbdgf3

I believe you need to sign up with a credit card to access the full article. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I lean towards Masem's line of thinking. We're in no hurry. Let's wait until the book debuts and see how it all plays out, when we have real reviews and information to go along with it. Zaereth (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to access the Times article, which seems to be the source of some quotes used in the Bustle article, a less reliable source. I will discuss this on the article talk page. The controversy, in the sense of people attacking Levy, is already discussed and referenced in the article. Until I added a sentence yesterday, there was nothing about Levy or others defending her point of view. This hardly seems to fit our NPOV policy, whether the book has been published yet or not. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more about RECENTISM. We want to be writing articles that are future-proof, covering the long-term details. A controversial aspect of a book that hasn't been released, the controversy over details that are not firm, may go away when the book is released, and makes the current inclusion of them inappropriate or UNDUE; just because it can be documented and documented within BLP sourcing considerations doesn't mean it is necessary to include. We prefer editors to wait for the dust to settle and then write about controversies, if they are still worth writing about anyway. --Masem (t) 18:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: As Marchjuly said below, it is probably best to put these comments on the article talk page instead of here. Discussions have already been fragmented, which negatively affects the ability to reach a productive resolution. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be best that any further comments about this be added to the article talk page instead of here. There are two BLPN threads (the other is WP:BLPN#E.J. Levy (2)) and article talk page discussion currently ongoing which runs the risk of fragmenting things and making it harder to reach a consensus. There now appear to be quite a number of editors discussing things on the article's talk page; so, it seems best to keep everything related to the article there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank HouseOfChange for weighing in on this; the summary up on the page this morning seems quite fair, representing the controversy on Twitter and distinguishing that from the actual text of my book. I appreciate, too, the correction regarding my sexual orientation. This now seems unbiased and well supported by reliable sources. My only correction would be that my professorship at CSU dates from 2012, not "as of March 27, 2019"; I received tenure there in 2014. Thank you for your help. EJLevywriter (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here at Wikipedia we require reliable sources for our information; can you point us towards a source that confirms your hire date and date of tenure? At the moment our source is the CSU site, which states only that you are an associate professor in the English department with a concentration in creative writing (fiction and nonfiction). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hyde

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

Sam Hyde's affiliations to the "alt-right" have marred his career and are clearly being used as a form of defamation by user Mrschimpf by removing any edits that provide context for these claims. Additionally, Hyde's support of pizzagate is not a defining trait and continues to be included in the header of the article instead of in the body of the biography section where it belongs. Mrschimpf clearly has a penchant for ensuring his opinion based viewpoints on right leaning figures remain on several articles based on the users edit history. This user cannot be regarded as an unbiased contributor or moderator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax (talk • contribs) 00:32, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

The 3rd of three sources for pizzagate / alt-right is not about Sam Hyde, he's only mentioned as guest of the Gavin McInnes Show. Allegedly mocking the holocaust in a linked video, that has been removed as violating YouTube's policy on hate speech. IOW, we can't be sure if that was a parody, satire, or seriously out of order. "NYUlocal" is used as source on various pages, so I'd assume out of order. The 2nd source confirms both, and while The Hollywood Reporter isn't the The Guardian, it's no nonsense, and one pizzagate suffices for a note in the lede, unless there are more conspiracy theories to report. The 1st source The Atlantic is even worse for Sam Hyde than the 2nd source, I fear that this is a hopeless case. –84.46.53.181 (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hyde and two other articles were already discussed here one month ago. –84.46.52.233 (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arvin Vohra

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

There are several incomplete or out of context quotes on this page, which is the page for the potential Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2020. Examples:

1. Rather that quoting the original person, quotes are coming from people quoting the person. The original quotes are easily accessible in the articles referenced on the page. I have fixed one of these, but there seem to be quite a few. 2. Opening sentences of satirical articles are placed as if serious, without including relevent information of the rest of the article. 3. Relevant information missing, literally including political views! Why are a candidate's political positions missing? These are easily available through project votesmart and other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.195.214 (talk) 02:29, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

Laura Dekker

Laura Dekker recently gave a presentation at a fund raiser for LifeSail, a Los Angeles non-profit that uses sailing as a vehicle to teach life lessons to kids. As fate would have it, Dekker has donated her beloved Guppy, the very boat she did the trip on, to LifeSail. She has similar ideals about sailing’s educational value and soon the boat will make its way from New Zealand to LA via Fiji and Hawaii.

The same reference is used in the line: In February 2018, Dekker loaned 'Guppy to LifeSail, a Los Angeles non-profit that uses sailing as a vehicle to teach life lessons to kids. [73] ^[1]

However, this line states loaned, which according to the American Sailing Association article is inaccurate.

There is an article that could provide more insight into this conundrum. In this story, Dekker was quoted using both loaned and donated to describe the affair. She said that a couple promised payment so she could donate the boat. However, no payment was made and so this must have been the reason why she claimed that the craft was on long-term loan. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Reynolds, Pat. "Laura Dekker Interview, Part 1". ASA. ASA.

Saikat Chakrabarti (FEC complaint)

Hello BLPN. I think there are inaccurate statements in our BLP Saikat Chakrabarti, concerning a complaint filed with the Federal Elections Commission. The problematic passages are:

... the attorney for the Ocasio-Cortez campaign and the political action committees with which Chakrabarti was associated, refuted the complaint as baseless ... – this clause has three problems:
1. The sources cited (RSes) do not say the attorney "refuted the complaint as baseless". The sources say the attorney "denied" the allegations, not "refuted" them.
2. Chakrabarti isn't just "associated with" Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress. He was a co-founder of both of them. Our own article says so in the other sections, but in this clause, we use the word "associated".
3. The attorney isn't just the attorney for the AOC campaign, Justice Democrats, and the Brand New Congress PAC, he is also the attorney for Chakrabarti's company, Brand New Congress LLC (a separate entity from the PAC), which is a fourth entity that the attorney represents. The cited sources identify the attorney as representing "four" entities, not three. The LLC received money from the PACs, which is the subject of the FEC complaint, so this could be a key detail.
Legal and campaign finance experts have expressed opinions consistent with Mitrani's assessment. This is entirely an OR interpretation (and not a correct one; the experts say there may be some minor wrongdoing, whereas the attorney says there is no wrongdoing whatsoever). The cited sources do not compare the experts' opinions with the attorneys' opinion. No RS reports that any legal or campaign finance expert said that the allegations are "baseless" or "refuted", etc.

The sources cited are Fox News, Washington Post, AP News, and Business Insider. To try to fix this, I edited the first clause to bring it closer to the sources, and removed the second clause, and posted on the article's talk page. My edits were reverted and consensus to maintain the status quo was declared on the talk page. I still think it's just a black-and-white issue of not accurately reporting what the sources are saying. So, I ask for more eyes on this. Thank you. Leviv ich 21:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to improve the previous consensus version to add clarity and accuracy. The Fox News story cited did not contain any assessment by legal experts or anyone else of the strength of the claim brought by NLPC, but Business Insider, MSN/AP, and Bloomberg all quoted experts arguing against the seriousness of the complaint. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think your edits were big improvements. Leviv ich 19:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Grey

For Sasha Grey two contributors agree that TMZ is an unreliable source, and that a recently archived talk page consensus about Dubiously cited information under "Personal Life" stated in 2016 about TMZ is still valid. This consensus also explicitly covers a Complex.com source based on the TMZ report. Fun fact, the two contributors are the GA nominator and the GA reviewer for Sasha Grey.

The reviewer suggested to add the info with reliable sources including Complex, The Daily Beast, and Daily Dot. The nominator rejected Complex.com per consensus, and rejected The Daily Beast per RS/P (yellow) and the immediate removal of an attempted January 2018 use of this source; as noted at the end of the recently archived consensus.

Both consider The Daily Dot as good source (RS/P green), and the article is used as source on Sasha Grey, but not for the TMZ info. Likewise the nominator added a Mandatory.com source for another fact, ignoring the same TMZ info also quoted by Mandatory. In a second review pass both contributors started to repeat their arguments unmodified, only one "find more" suggestion is covered by Mandatory. JFTR, an unrelated The Daily Beast source is used on the "almost good" article uncontested. –84.46.53.4 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the GA review now out of the way (fail) I'm still interested in other opinions about the TMZ source, it is only tagged as "yellow" (caution) instead of "red" (verboten) on WP:RS/P#TMZ. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO No "celebrity gossip" news is ever "reliable". Meanwhile the BLP is WP:Puffery for sure, and has "non-important stuff" galore about a relatively minor person. Be glad it even got a "fail". Collect (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC) (fixed all caps)[reply]

No PUFF-words on the complete page (ignoring sourced "Best …" awards.) Apparently you agree with the 2016 talk page consensus that the TMZ info should not be used directly or indirectly. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timothée Chalamet

Editors, many of them without many or any other edits to Wikipedia pages, are constantly adding that the subject (who was born and raised in New York) is a citizen of France, even though the claim isn't directly supported by sourcing. Usually, they are adding it right in the first sentence of his article. There is a source that appears to indicate he has a French passport, but, as our Wikipedia article on the topic states, a French passport "[serves] as indication of French citizenship" but "not proof [emphasis mine]; the possession of a French passport only establishes the presumption." In any case, it's original research and there doesn't appear to be a source that actually says he's a citizen. Sample edit: "To quote Art. 30-2 of French Civil Code, However, where French nationality may flow only from parentage, it shall be deemed established... Thus, born to a French father and holding a French passport, he should be considered a French citizen unless you can prove otherwise, not the other way around". This is the very definition of original research. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without at least one source that directly states that Chalamet is a French citizen, we obviously cannot infer that is from the fact that his father is French, that he lived in France, or that he has a French passport. WP:OR applies.- Mr X 🖋 18:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can be sure that he's an actor, so I've put that in the article. MPS1992 (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Moore (writer)

Stephen Moore (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs administrator attention. Two editors (User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Soibangla) are attempting to place violations into this article regardless of WP:RS (using blogspot, and a mediate source with paid pundits talking... not a journalist's report), WP:OR (stating things not stated in any source), and WP:SYNTH (by attempting to add their own rebuttals to his appointment, and to Moore's statements which simply no source is doing). I unfortunately do not have the time today to attempt to undo/change every edit against policy there. (I only happened to be editing the article at all since there was news of the appointment and not a lot about it in Moore's article for the public to read about... I wasn't out looking for bias) 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Please edit with your normal account. (2) There is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. (3) It's OK to cite recognized experts, even if they are not published in RS (in this case, actual economists commenting on Moore's faux econ credentials). However, the cited RS in the article mirror the assessments of the cited economists (describing bipartisan condemnation of Moore getting nominated for the Fed). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attempt to attack my character, just because I have executed my choice to not use an account to edit. I'm not violating the sockpuppet policy just by pointing out you're in actual violation of the most important policy on this site. 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) User:Snooganssnoogans readded content in violation of WP:BLP and WP:V with the following edit summary "Both Menzie Chinn and Greg Mankiw are recognized experts, and thus OK per WP:BLOGS." The only problem with that claim is that WP:BLOGS itself states that one should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." - I've reverted that violation of BLP policy as well. 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and congratulation on your near instantaneous knowledge of our policies! I do agree that neither of the sources in that diff are acceptable for a BLP. - Mr X 🖋 19:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I am not arguing I'm new here just because I'm using an IP address. I literally just don't use my old admin account anymore. 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then welcome back.- Mr X 🖋 20:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This source[2] can be used for Mankiw's opinion. A RS obviously reported Mankiw's comment immediately, given that Mankiw is clearly a recognized expert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to use that source... but do not confuse that as meaning your previous source was actually reliable. 2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edit points out Moore "has insisted on television that the economy is experiencing deflation, and when corrected by panelist Catherine Rampell on this unambiguous error of fact, refused to give ground," which can be seen at 2:03 in the CNN video embedded in the Mediaite source I provided. I later showed you his quote from his paywalled WSJ op-ed:"The deflation began with quarter-point interest-rate increases in September and December." He also said “The Fed is sucking the oxygen out of the economy and has created an economically debilitating deflation,” which I will also add to the edit. Moore may have been correct to assert that recent rate hikes have caused disinflation or deflationary pressure, but he is 100% factually wrong to assert that they have caused deflation. The last time the economy had a single month of deflation was April 2015. It is certainly noteworthy for his BLP that, despite being corrected on national television, Moore has subsequently chosen to double- and triple-down on a fundamental and rudimentary error that a first year economics undergrad is capable of correcting. And the fact he has chosen to do this suggests that it is not, in fact, an "error." soibangla (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you would login. soibangla (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance are you the editor who subsequently made edits that falsely asserted most people gave Moore high praise, which was not supported by the refs, and significantly altered a direct quote from a cited source? Just wonderin’ soibangla (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not anyone who has recently logged in. Period. I have no qualms with a single checkuser (most of whom I consider as friends still) looking to see who I am, nor the whole of ArbCom. You should be ashamed of yourself for casting aspersions about someone who has never interacted with you just so you can attempt to deflect from your, quite noticeably, deliberate violations of WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLPRS, and WP:NPOV. We shouldn't be letting our hatred of politicians write this encyclopedia. 2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to take me to ArbCom and fully substantiate this litany of false accusations, “deliberate violations of WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLPRS, and WP:NPOV,” which constitutes an egregious personal attack on the core of my integrity. And be sure you prove deliberate. As an alternative, perhaps consider a retraction and apology. soibangla (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator attention requested, again - The editor (@Soibangla:) is now making baseless attacks about me in their edit summaries while re-adding a copyvio: diff. Can someone do something about this, please? (IIRC this should fall under edit summary RevDel as well...) Editors/IPs aren't supposed to be facing this sort of bullcrap just because some editors feel a need to push their own personal political views onto this encyclopedia. 2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are aggressively whitewashing the truth. I am not pushing my personal political views. Please edit with your handle. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your response here and your response at the talk page stating how you will "definitely prove it. There will be no whitewashing."... seems to indicate you have a very personal vendetta going on here and that perhaps you need to step back from articles you're emotionally invested in, to maintain neutrality. Making personal attacks on me continuously, like you did on the talk page once more, is simply unacceptable behavior too. 2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I submit you are projecting. You appear determined to bury the factual reality that Moore has falsely asserted at least thrice that we have deflation. Seeing as the man is being considered for appointment to the Fed, whose primary mandate is to effect price stability through money supply management, the fact that he has tripled-down on this brazen falsehood is of paramount importance in his BLP. It would be helpful if you, as an obviously highly experienced editor, to post with your handle, so at least I can make an effort to avoid you going forward, as I suspect you and I have a "history" and you can "see" me but I can't "see" you, which allows you to bait me without consequence. soibangla (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSPS is very explicit on this: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Adding mediate or other blog links from others is 100% against policy. --Masem (t) 19:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "Adding mediate...100% against policy"? soibangla (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Byrne biography

The article cites her appearance in a movie called "Neighbours" but that is an Indian vampire film. I believe the correct film is "Neighbors" by Judd Apatow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.157.15 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the article as it has been, the film title is linked about three times directly to Neighbors (2014 film). Is there a link that is not correct? Why are you posting directly here and not to Talk:Rose Byrne? For that matter, the BLP is not protected; if there is an error, just fix it yourself! Thanks. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was an incorrect link, in the 'Continued comedic roles (2012–present)' section. It pointed to an article with the British English spelling of the title (Neighbours) rather than the US English spelling (Neighbors). It seems these two different but similarly-named films were both released in 2014: the former is an Indian horror, while the latter is an American comedy! I've corrected the link (and spelling) so it now links to the American film. Neiltonks (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Örjan Ramberg

Please see talk page there! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Jessen

There is no evidence provided to substantiate her claim that she survived an attempted abortion. The entry should be clear about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfreeg (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are three citations and her own testimony. What kind of evidence would you accept, besides these WP:RS? Also, who are you, and what is your interest, since you have never before edited that article, or even discussed it on the talk page? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the New York Times source, she has released some of her medical records. On those records under "Complications of Birth" it is noted "Born during saline abortion." Her claim is as well substantiated as any such claim can possibly be from where I'm sitting. Sperril (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garlic girls

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I thought I would avoid the curling project and bring this up here to get NPOV as to WP:Undue etc. The details are big in the curling world; being talked about by Vic Rauter and Russ Howard on the TSN coverage of the world championships. Thoughts? 96.55.104.236 (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think mosquitos really suck. I think time can both fly and crawl but never seems to walk. I think gravity's a heavy subject and neuropsychology is mindboggling. I think the true universe around us is very different from the one we perceive. But since you haven't asked a question or posed a concern, I can't form a single thought as to what you are hinting at. Zaereth (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Brown (journalist)

User:Spoonkymonkey, who is currently temporarily blocked, has been editing Jesse Brown (journalist) to re-add derogatory information sourced only to Twitter.[3] There are also reasons to believe he is in a COI situation Brown, which Arbcomm is aware of but which I am not going to go into here in order not to violate the policy on outing. Based on their editing patterns, it also appears that User:Spoonkymonkey used the sockpuppet User:Midlandino to edit the Brown article back in January. 104.222.125.138 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD with concerns of BLP issues

I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowkidar Chor Hai on the grounds that the article violates WP:BLP and WP:SOAPBOX. While being one of the many throw-away slogans, the title itself claims the Indian Prime Minister is a "thief", and that is just an absurd allegation made by his opposition.

It needs some extra attention.

Arbcom has clarified before that BLP applies on such stuff per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Principles. 103.220.38.163 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name actually means "The watchman is the thief" (चौकीदार चोर है।), not "the Indian Prime Minister is a thief" (भारतीय प्रधान मंत्री एक चोर है). Amusingly, the supposed text "चोकीदार चोर है।" meant "Chocolate is the thief," which I've fixed.--Auric talk 15:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

adesuwa aighewi

Hi!

This is Adesuwa Aighewi. I was born in 1992, someone keeps changing it to 1988. They have now blocked anyone from editing. This is a problem for my career. Can we please change back to my real age of 26 and not allow anymore changing?

Thank you!

AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adesuwa Aighewi (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently resolved by Ponyo in this edit yesterday, thanks. The semi-protection expires in three days, and on a bio about you just suggest non-trivial fixes on its Talk:Adesuwa Aighewi page, otherwise you could be or get in a conflict of interests. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin McInnes

This page includes multiple libelous assertions that are either sourced to partisan opinion-editorials or to articles completely irrelevant to the text at hand. In the "Career" section, there is a pattern of putting quotes and the editor's personal views together in order to create a specific narrative of events that casts the subject of the page in a negative light. Also, in the "Views" section of the page, there is a general pattern of inserting out-of-context quotes in order to try to prove the editor's personal view of McGinnes.

Thanks for taking a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyoKrsna (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if anyone is going to trawl through those Career/Views sections looking for what you mean, there are 70 or so sources in there. I can see a few that are not great, but we definitely need some specific issues to look at here. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific DaddyoKrsna, on sources you think are partisan or unfair? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue is the beginning synopsis, as it's what most readers will read and stop there. The label "far-right" uses as its sole source a hostile New York Times op-ed. The label "neo-fascist" uses a hostile Daily Beast op-ed that offers no justifying evidence for the term, a Chicago Tribune article that doesn't even use the term but happens to quote a Democrat politician as using it, a Lawandcrime article that itself cites NBC and the previous Chicago Tribune article as using the term, and a hostile Huffington Post op-ed of all things. Unless Wikipedia editors usually use antagonistic op-eds as their basis in creating neutral summaries of political figures, none of these sources are legitimate. I would also contest the credibility of the SPLC, but that isn't as big of a deal. The other main issue is when the editor presents McInnes' view and then shoehorns in his own refutation. See: paragraph 3 of "Law Sign Controversy" and paragraph 3 of "Lawsuit Against the SPLC." Otherwise there are numerous other examples of hostile op-eds used as sources, but these aren't as harmful as those I've mentioned. Reading the Views section again, it actually seems decent enough. Perhaps the quotes are chosen selectively to find the most obnoxious ones, but they are legitimate. Thanks again.DaddyoKrsna (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.J. Levy (2)

User NekoKatsun has repeatedly (and almost immediately) removed edits I made to correct inaccurate content. NekoKatsun wholesale removed my entire edit and reverted the text back to a former version with incorrect information. I explicitly stated why I made the corrections, and offered citation support. NekoKatsun is using E.J. Levy's page to promote an agenda (a singular interpretation the real-life figure Levy's novel is based on, James Miranda Barry, when IN FACT there are many interpretations of Barry's life and gender, based on published biographies and articles, many of which I've read). Argument's about James Miranda Barry's life should be made on the Barry's page, not E.J. Levy's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caprae Lac (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, this user has been indeffed as a sock of a user with a declared COI. The sockmaster and other users have been repeatedly trying to insert the same edit against consensus, and have ignored repeated requests to use the talkpage. Any editor is welcome to review the talkpage and page history.

The short version is that Levy's page has a section on the criticism that her upcoming book has been met with (using female pronouns for Dr. James Barry); it's kept short and the sources are reliable. The contested edit cites a low-quality source (Bustle) in an attempt to downplay the controversy and refute the other, higher-quality sources. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 02:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes used by Bustle are taken from an article published by The Times of London, which is a reliable source for an interview with Levy, which is in turn a reliable source for Levy's defense against the allegations. By the way, the Times article clarifies that Levy was criticized for using female pronouns for Barry in social media, not in the book, which as others note has not been published yet. Levy, in the Times says the novel refers to Barry most often as "I" but also sometimes as "she" and other times as "he."HouseOfChange (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be best that any further comments about this be added to the article talk page instead of here. There are two BLPN threads (the other is WP:BLPN#E. J. Levy) and article talk page discussion currently ongoing which runs the risk of fragmenting things and making it harder to reach a consensus. There now appear to be quite a number of editors discussing things on the article's talk page; so, it seems best to keep everything related to the article there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomasina Winslow

Reads like a bombastic resume, with such claims to fame as singing at a coffeehouse and receiving an education grant. Neil Armstrong has a shorter biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.36.20 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have made a start by cutting out a part that provides excessive promotional information on YATMA and tagging the article for its over-reliance on primary sources. I'll admit I prefer to tackle smaller articles; Bearian appears to be the primary author, who might be of assistance here. – Teratix ₵ 07:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Jade

Psantora (talk · contribs) claims that being a current student counts as being an "alumnus" and that therefore we should put her in Category:University of Southern California alumni. There are no reliable sources that explicitly support that labeling, so Psantora claims that the fact that reliable sources that state that she's a current student counts under his logic. This is not only a blatant misuse of the common meaning of "alumnus", but at the best is definitely not BLP-compliant.

I think it is very fair to keep any such categorization out of the article, regardless of Psantora's beliefs or their correctness, until Olivia's status becomes resolved by the university and/or reliable sources definitively categorize her as such.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the ongoing discussion, with the proper context, at Talk:Olivia Jade#Why is she listed as a "USC Alumni"?. I have also reached out to the relevant WikiProject for their input here.

@Jasper Deng: I do not agree that your characterization of my logic is accurate so I encourage others to read the discussion at the talk page of the article in question. It boils down to deciding if a current student should be listed in the alumni or people category. - Paul^T+/_C 02:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I consider the answer to that to be a resounding "no". But I think you will at least agree that your logic is not going to pass muster for BLP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just have to see what others think I guess. - Paul^T+/_C 02:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with "USC People" / also, a comment I support removing the USC Alumni category and replacing with USC People simply because, between the two, this option seems to be the one that would scandalize the fewest people (and I, personally, don't think she counts as a USC alumnus until she's separated from school). That said, the fact that RS don't explicitly call her an alumnus I don't find a compelling argument as we can find many quality BLPs with categories that are logically sound but not explicitly supported by RS using the exact terminology of the category name. For instance, there are very few RS' that explicitly describe someone as a "living person" but that is one of our most included categories. We also, for instance, include "American memoirists" as a category for Barrack Obama and I'm having trouble finding RS that refer to him as an "American memoirist" but, logically, he is on the basis of being an American and having written a memoir, both facts that are separately supported by RS. I think we're going overboard if we are now demanding that no category be applied to any article unless the specific phrasing used in the category name can be found in RS. Insofar as categorization goes, I think there's a precedential OR safe harbor for common sense. (Of course, this is all academic as I support removal of the USC Alumni category in any case in this instance.) Chetsford (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd contend that in those cases, these categorizations are straightforward: it's not OR'y to conclude they belong in those categories, and the subject would not typically find them controversial. In this case, the categorization is not at all logically straightforward and the subject could easily take issue with the implied meaning of "alumnus" here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an unreasonable position, though, I still have to disagree with it as (a) I believe alumni status is logically straightforward, and, (b) I don't believe the subject's preference should generally be a factor in whether or not we include or don't include something. But, that said, this is merely an academic disagreement. From a technical perspective I agree with you that we should remove the category in this instance. Chetsford (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'd definitely have no issue with a categorization of this sort for a non-BLP. And indeed it's not our job to cater to her preferences (she has not asserted them here anyway), but BLP does require sourcing for a controversial claim like this (hence distinguishing from mundane categories like "living people"). To me, it's logically straightforward to not have the categorization of alumnus on her article, but it is very much not logical to add that categorization.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"controversial claim like this" - I've seen argument of a category being inherently controversial invoked in cases like "Neo-Nazi" and "conspiracy theorist" but not "USC Alumni." That said, being myself an alumnus of a PAC 12 rival of USC I can understand that being called a USC alumnus would not be tolerated by any sane or reasonable person. So, okay. Chetsford (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And we've invoked Godwin's law. How many replies did it take this time? - Paul^T+/_C 03:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man argument. If you take Olivia's perspective, what would you think? (keep in mind her current life situation). This is why we have BLP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does Olivia's perspective have to do with it? The question is about factual accuracy regardless of how she personally feels about it. That is why we have BLP. If it were as you argue we wouldn't have anything negative to say about anyone in their own article because it would(/could) make them feel bad. - Paul^T+/_C 03:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything to do with it. From BLP, Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.. If Olivia (or rather, a general living person) would take issue with it (definitively yes), then it is "contentious". Also, as you have clearly seen, this categorization is being challenged and you have provided zero sources for the claim (again, your inference from the dictionary definitions does not count).--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact in question is if she is a current student. On this we agree, definitively yes, based on the current sources. The nature of our disagreement is explicitly about the style guideline for university categories, i.e.: (from below) It isn't clear if university "alumni" categories are exclusively for former students (including graduates, but not current students) and/or if university "people" categories should not contain current or former students/graduates if there is an appropriate "alumni" category present (and there usually is).. There is no dispute about factual information. This is a style question. - Paul^T+/_C 04:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact in question is if she’s an alumnus. You are unable to assume the material implication of “is a current student”=> “is an alumnus” and are therefore unable to reduce this dispute to that fact alone. You cannot equate those facts.—Jasper Deng (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This creates maintenance issues and it has a wider implications beyond just this article. Let's say Olivia does withdraw. You agree that alumni would be the correct category in that case, right? What happens if she becomes a current student again after that point? Do you then remove the alumni category even though it is still technically accurate even after she re-joins? You can't un-become an alumni. - Paul^T+/_C 04:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She should be categorized according to what reliable sources say. You cannot escape the fact that adding her to a category is a statement that she is the type of entity of that category. That’s why I’m taking issue with it on BLP grounds.—Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are not in dispute about what the sources say. The question is about what the university alumni categories mean. If they mean only "former students" and "graduates", then she does not belong in the alumni category and I will not have any reason to debate it. But, if they mean "current students", "former students", and "graduates" then she does belong in the alumni category because the current sources then support that assertion. Neither of these assertions about the meaning of the university alumni categories have been demonstrated one way or the other and can not be demonstrated here. The article as it currently stands does not have either category and I'm 100% fine with leaving it that way until there is a larger discussion to determine the current consensus on the topic in the proper venue. - Paul^T+/_C 04:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And once again you are unable to assume the expanded meaning you advocate because even if your argument holds water, it clearly is not mainstream. Therefore it is controversial enough of a claim to fall under BLP. In other words, your reasoning for the expanded categorical definition is too shaky in this BLP situation to be BLP compliant.—Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is tautological reasoning and invalid. The "expanded" definition is only controversial because you state it as such. Even if it is "not mainstream" as you assert (there is currently no consensus with regard to the categories on this point either way, trust me I've looked for it), that does not mean it would therefore be controversial. - Paul^T+/_C 05:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it very much does mean it’s controversial. The very fact that several editors are challenging you on this makes it so. For a BLP, something that is demonstrably disputable like this requires sourcing.—Jasper Deng (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no sourcing dispute. No facts are being disputed. This is purely a question of stylization. - Paul^T+/_C 05:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: do a significant number of reliable sources say that Olivia Jade is an alumnus of USC? Woodroar (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I've been actively following "Olivia Jade" on Google News and literally none of the results I've read have explicitly called her an "alumnus".--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I meant that for User:Psantora or any other editor who wants to add the category. I should have specified that, my bad. Woodroar (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources state that she is a student at the university. There was some controversy over whether she had withdrawn, which is I think the reason for the confusion and consternation on this topic. My argument is that even if the scandal didn't happen and there was clearly no question on whether she is a current student or not, the article still belongs in the alumni category, not the people category. There is extensive discussion on the rationale behind this at the talk page in question. - Paul^T+/_C 03:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive discussion isn't an end run around BLP. The category was challenged and removed, it's now your burden to supply an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Woodroar (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute on whether she is a current student (at least not with Jasper Deng and me). The question is about Wikipedia category policy. It isn't clear if university "alumni" categories are exclusively for former students (including graduates, but not current students) and/or if university "people" categories should not contain current or former students/graduates if there is an appropriate "alumni" category present (and there usually is). - Paul^T+/_C 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding her to the alumni category is stating that she is an alumnus of the school, for which you don’t have BLP-compliant sourcing. The general question of categorization isn’t relevant here.—Jasper Deng (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is relevant; it is the heart of the dispute since we do not disagree on the actual fact that she is a currently enrolled student, as per the latest reliable sourcing. One example that I recently (re)discovered are the Category:Wikipedians by alma mater categories. They all state "current and past students", in support of my point. Now, "alma mater" is different than "alumni" but the point is still valid. USC is Olivia's alma mater, correct? - Paul^T+/_C 05:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That whole comment by you is a red herring. “Alma mater” has a slightly more relaxed definition than “alumnus” and even in that case we would not make that statement about Olivia without reliable sourcing.

I should point to WP:BLUDGEON here. I think the consensus of this BLPN discussion is that BLP precludes this kind of categorization here without explicit sourcing. This would be irrespective of the semantics of “alumnus” since there is clearly far from a consensus that such can stand without sourcing (i.e. not falling afoul of WP:SYNTH). I think you should concede that your viewpoint (specifically the broader categorization) is untenable both on the BLP and on the semantic grounds here.—Jasper Deng (talk)

If anyone is guilty of bludgeoning here it is you towards me. I have not once responded to you unless directly addressed. You've inserted yourself into 2 separate conversations about this to argue your point with me without allowing the person I was directly replying to comment first. I should have ignored your responses and waited for the original editor to respond. Indeed, since you hijacked those threads neither Woodroar or Chetsford have contributed since. I'm curious if Trillfendi or ElKevbo have anything to add to the conversation. - Paul^T+/_C 06:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, I was bludgeoned out of the conversation by sleep, not Jasper Deng. Although I'd hoped that in the interim someone would have found sources stating that Olivia Jade is an alumnus of USC. Not synthesis to user-generated sites or obscure dictionary definitions. Not discussions about words other than "alumnus". And not excuses about confusion among sources because the story is developing, which I'll note is the absolutely worst time to make claims about living persons. No, I'm looking for actual reliable sources that actually unambiguously state that Olivia Jade is an actual almunus at USC which is actually required by our BLP and Verifiability policies. Now if you'll excuse me while work—not Jasper Deng—bludgeons me temporarily out of this discussion. Woodroar (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably remove her. No source calls her an alumnus, and the reasoning for including her relies on one editor's idiosyncratic interpretation of the meaning of "alumnus". That term is used almost exclusively to refer to former members of organizations. Latin roots should not be used as evidence for the meanings of English words. There doesn't seem to be an explicit category definition included on the category pages, but alumnus uses "former student" in its definition, so unless there's some project-wide consensus to the contrary, I don't think those categories should be used to include current students. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alumni meaning current student is not idiosyncratic and I'm not the only person arguing the point. There is extensive discussion on this point at the talk page in question. Re-hashing these points here and splintering the discussion seems counterproductive. Regarding the project-wide consensus on the point, I tried to find it at the project page and started the linked discussion when there was nothing definitive either way. - Paul^T+/_C 03:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the discussion on the talk page, and I find your arguments unpersuasive. The major English language dictionaries all agree that "alumnus" means a former student of a university, or a former member of a organization. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that is your opinion and I'm happy to debate it on the talk page or WikiProject in question. The discussion here is about whether the distinction (or lack thereof) it is a BLP violation. - Paul^T+/_C 03:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any issue regarding claims about a living person are, by definition, BLP issues. This is a noticeboard for bringing in more viewpoints on discussions regarding claims about living persons. Claiming that this person is an alumnus of USC when she is in fact a current student is a false claim about a living person. By adding her to that category you are making a false claim about a living person, and you are doing so not based on sources but based on your own (incorrect) interpretation of the meaning of certain terms. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is not about a dispute of facts. It is a style dispute. If we are going to determine that the current consensus is to only list former students in alumni categories, fine, but we need to have a wider discussion about it to get to that global consensus.
A good point from the talk page that has not been addressed here: Unless there is a very strong need to create and maintain categories or lists of current students, I strongly recommend sticking with alumni lists and categories. Not only is the alumni label applicable for current students but alumni lists and categories are a lot easier to maintain than student lists and categories. Once someone matriculates at an institution, they're an alumnus so we can add them to the list or category and be done with it. If we have lists or categories of students, we have to maintain them to not only add people but also remove people once they graduate, drop out, transfer, are expelled, etc.
I don't think a half a dozen editors commenting on this in the context of this particular article is appropriate. I'm clearly in the minority here but I'm trying to have a wider debate about it in the proper venue. I don't think this noticeboard is the appropriate place to have that larger discussion about the general guideline regarding university categories. - Paul^T+/_C 04:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the alumnus definition at Wiktionary is inclusive of "student" regardless of their current status at the university in question. The page hasn't been edited since 2018 and has included the term "student" since the page was created in 2004. In fact it was the only definition present at that time. - Paul^T+/_C 05:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If it says that, it's wrong. Consult a real-world dictionary. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zulkifeli Mohd Zin

An IP editor has repeatedly been changing the birth date without a supporting source. I initially reverted to the previous version but, upon realising that the cited source was a deadlink, removed the information entirely. The editor has continued to restore the unsourced material. I am now at 3RR and do not wish to edit war, so I am posting here. – Teratix ₵ 09:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the date and left my reasoning in a detailed edit summary. This is a rather blatant violation of BLP policy, so (technically) 3RR doesn't apply, but be careful with that exception. I'd suggest you post a note on the talk page and the editor's talk page notifying them of this discussion. Zaereth (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I have done so now. – Teratix ₵ 13:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Palfrey Simon Palfrey

The article Simon Palfrey appears to have been written either by the subject of the biography himself, or by a person closely connected with him.

The article as a whole reads like a piece of self-advertising or self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:E41B:4100:D921:E7B4:D7CA:6D09 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the entire article is basically a chorus of reviews, reading like the back covers of several different books. The article does need someone like yourself (hint hint) to go through it and change it into a proper encyclopedic style. But there aren't really any BLP violations, per se, and if it was written by the subject then they're good enough to cover their tracks linguistically. If you think it's a conflict of interest problem, you may try reporting it at WP:COI/N. Otherwise, it's a problem that anyone can go fix. Zaereth (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken out the long paragraph which was awful. The rest looks basically fine to me, but I have a major COI interest here so will leave that to others. If this was written by Simon then he’s awfully good at covering his tracks: lots of different authors over many years with occasional edits by others including at least one admin. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark_Russell_(evangelist)

Please could I ask the word Evangelist is taken out of the title of this entry? Mark is a CEO of charity. A more appropriate title would be Mark Russell (Charity Executive). The current title is misleading and leads people reading the entry to assume things that aren't the case

That would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:AF15:300:E8BA:7C6B:82F:B64E (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , the problem for wikipedia is that there are multiple notable Mark Russells so there is a need for Mark_Russell_(disambiguation) for readers to find the one they are looking for, unless one Mark Russell is especially notable that is how it works here, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the IP is asking that we remove the parenthetical, but rather replace it with something more accurate. An evangelist is someone who preaches the gospel in a public forum to convert non-believers to their faith. (A soapbox-preacher, regardless of beliefs. We get a lot of those around here. Either that, or it's one of the four writers of the gospels.) It's not really a term used to describe preachers of a church, even if it is an evangelical church (different thing). When most people think of evangelists, they're likely thinking of people like Billy Graham, Jack van Impe, or Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. I think changing it to perhaps "preacher" would be more accurate.

That said, this is not really the right place to ask. The correct place would be WP:Requested moves. Zaereth (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the organization is undergoing a bit of a rebranding, but if so, the Wikipedia effort is further along than that of the main websites, which all describe Church Army as an "evangelistic" organization whose members are "evangelists". I think that it would be a mistake to identify Russell's article title with his current job title - which is something that changes quite often in a person's life, and article titles are designed to be stable. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If he identifies himself as an evangelist, then great. Website definitions may vary from dictionary definitions. You can be an evangelist and be a Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, a Catholic, or even a Mormon. And yes, even an Anglican, but the two are not mutually inclusive. The parenthetical is only there to distinguish him from others with the same name, so people can quickly find the right article. It need only describe what he is most notable as regardless of title, current or former. Still, this is not the right place to discuss this issue. There is no BLP violation, so if you want the name changed you'll have to take it to the requested moves page, which I linked above, and it can be discussed there. Zaereth (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Cohn (investment banker)

I am contacting you regarding the article for Gary Cohn, the investment banker (found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)). I do not regularly edit Wikipedia pages and am not completely familiar with the procedures, but the below paragraph struck me as strange compared to the tone of other Wikipedia articles:

Critics of Cohn's describe his work style as arrogant, aggressive, abrasive, and risk-prone. They describe his "6-foot 3-inch & 220lbs" stature as intimidating, as he might "sometimes hike up one leg, plant his foot on a trader's desk, his thigh close to the employee's face, and ask how markets were doing".[15] According to former Bear Stearns Asset Management CEO Richard Marin, Cohn's arrogance is at the root of the problem. "When you become arrogant, in a trading sense, you begin to think that everybody's a counterparty, not a customer, not a client."[15] Cohn's supporters see these qualities as advantages. Michael Ovitz, co-founder and former chairman of Creative Artists Agency and former president of The Walt Disney Company, stated that he is impressed with Cohn. Ovitz said: "He's a trader. He has that whole feel in his body and brain and fingertips."[15] Ovitz sees Cohn's toughness as a "positive" value, explaining that a high-ranking executive can't be "all peaches and cream".[11][15] Donna Redel, who was Chairman of the Board of the New York Mercantile Exchange when Cohn worked there as a silver trader, remembers Cohn as "firm", "strategic", and "driven". Martin Greenberg, her predecessor, said Cohn "was tough", and added, "Gary got in with the right people, worked his ass off, and used his head".[15]

No matter an individual’s opinion on Mr. Cohn (with whom I have no professional affiliation), I think the bolded material presents some potential issues in terms of quality and tone. The first bolded sentence appears to be a bit biased in the tone - I think a balanced approach could be taken in the description of these qualities, but this paragraph is not how it would be done. Additionally. The combination of the attribution "arrogant, aggressive, abrasive, and risk-prone.” is not quoted, which masks the fact that the referenced article (view-source:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-24/succeeding-blankfein-at-goldman-may-prove-hurdle-too-high-for-no-2-cohn) never presents this depiction of Mr. Cohn as described here. Specifically, Richard Marin is the only person in the article mentioned as viewing Mr. Cohn as arrogant, the full quote reading "Richard Marin said Cohn's arrogance is at 'the root of the problem' at Goldman Sachs. 'When you become arrogant, in a trading sense, you begin to think that everybody's a counterparty, not a customer, not a client,' Marin said. 'And as a counterparty, you're allowed to rip their face off.’” Especially since the descriptor “arrogant” is applied twice in the Wikipedia article, it seems a bit misleading considering that both references refer to a single quote which is the only use of the word in the referenced Bloomberg article. The referenced Bloomberg article never describes Cohn as aggressive, and in fact the only use of the word is from a lawyer definitively saying that Cohn was not aggressive. The referenced Bloomberg article never describes Cohn as risk-prone (which I think is a malapropism in this context in any case); in fact, the only mention of Mr. Cohn in connection with risk in the article is describing how his willingness to take risks while leader of a business unit led to great success for that unit. The phrase “intimidating, as he might” is part of the quote, and I think it is arguably displaying of a point-of-view when it is not displayed in this way. The way the phrase “the root of the problem” appears in the Wikipedia article (removed from the original quote, see above) I feel is arguably non-neutral in its perspective.

Your team may agree with any or all of these comments; I flag them for your attention in the hope that the material of the article can be reviewed by people with more experience than myself and, if appropriate, make changes. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.10.215 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section "Personality and work style" is based off of one article. I would suggest removing the section, and instead putting any relevant details about his "work style" at Goldman Sachs into the section of the article on his banking career. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Schwarz (astrophysicist)

I am the creator of Robert Schwarz (astrophysicist). Yesterday, anonymous user 157.132.20.166 began removing text from the page. The first removal had no description, so I undid it. Later removal descriptions say that they were done by Dr. Schwarz himself, who is upset that the page was written without his knowledge. A check of https://www.whatismyip.com/ip-address-lookup/ shows this IP address is associated with the U.S. Antarctic program, and so I believe these comments were actually written by Dr. Schwarz. I believe that all of the information on the page--including the information removed--was well-sourced and written in a neutral point of view. What is the appropriate thing to do here? EAWH (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is going on there, on investigation I consider the removed content uncontroversial and well enough cited and so have replaced it. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, we're not talking anything controversial but even if that's the case, the sources backing it are fine. The removes are inappropriate, and if that really is the person named removing it, its unfortunate that that inforamtion is out there but its removal makes no sense. Arguably if they feel there is anything sensitive that shouldn't have been published by those sources they can submit an ORTS ticket to prove their identity to potentially ask for that to be removed. --Masem (t) 21:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Singer

Material removed by Reaper Eternal ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephanie_Singer&type=revision&diff=889669018&oldid=878720327

Please remove the added paragraph.

The added paragraph contains a false and libelous statement.

The added paragraph has no citation and seems designed to damage my reputation.

--Symmetrysinger (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Stephanie Singer[reply]

The paragraph was added by an IP and had no sources; I've removed it as probably vandalism. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wang Zheng (pilot)

I am an attorney for Julie Wang (Wang Zheng) the subject of the above-referenced Wikipedia page, and write to request that the repeated attempts by patently conflicted individuals and/or their proxies to vandalize the page with libelous, poorly sourced and unsourced contentious material about the subject, a living person, be removed immediately from the article and its Talk page.

Wang Zheng's primary employment is as an airline pilot and libelous, unfounded, false and scurrilous accusations against her will impact her current and future employment and are directly contrary to Wikipedia policies. There is no benefit to the project to give credence scurrilous, frivolous accusations by a COI individual simply to prop up an undocumented controversy. For these reasons, the objectionable material must be taken down immediately to prevent further injury to Wang Zheng. After a proper investigation, it can always be republished later if there is a consensus that portions of it properly may be restored in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

The undisputed facts are as follows:

On September 19, 2016, Wang Zheng made aviation history by completing a solo circumnavigation of the globe in an airplane. With that flight, Wang also became the first Asian woman and the first Chinese woman to pilot an aircraft around the world. At the time she had already accumulated over 1,600 hours of flight time, 600 of which were as an FAA-certified flight instructor, and had obtained her airline transport pilot certificate, qualifying her to fly for scheduled airlines (the highest level FAA pilot certificate).

That Wang Zheng accomplished her circumnavigation flight on September 19, 2016, is unassailable historical fact. Not a single person has come forward with any facts to controvert any part of her accomplishment, nor will anyone ever do so since the flight was successfully conducted exactly as reported. Not only were the bona fides of her flight vetted by Earthrounders, the preeminent aviation organization recording and documenting around the world flights, but also by AOPA China who administered and co-promoted the around-the-world flight event "contest" under whose auspices the flight was conducted and who, on November 1, 2016, declared Wang the "first Chinese woman to pilot an airplane around the world," after vetting and approving the bona fides of the flight.

Not only was the flight tracked by the Iridium satellite network via a "Spidertracks" aviation transponder located in the cockpit of the aircraft but also by public, independent flight tracking websites such as Flight Radar 24 an Flight Aware, who also use satellite data to track her flight around the world. The flight, moreover, was fully documented with customary paperwork from beginning to end, at each stopping point, as well as by photos and video, as well as flyover permits for various countries and documentation from the FAA enabling the aircraft to be flown with extra fuel tanks replacing all seating except for one pilot's seat.

The objectionable material in the "Controversy over Claims" section of the page as well as the section of the Talk page entitled "Self publishing, business promotion and fraud," casts aspersions on the bona fides of Wang Zheng's flight but offers no evidence. Any assertion that Wang's flight was anything but bona fide is not only unsupported by evidence but is patently defamatory and must be immediately removed. Innuendo and "suspicion" cannot support outright claims of fraud on Wikipedia's pages. Yet that is exactly what's going on here and it's simply outrageous.

Based on the evidence and facts, there is no actual controversy about the main subject matter of the article, Wang's solo circumnavigation flight. The libelous edits to the page and its Talk page are being made directly or indirectly by "Saki" Jingxian Chen who has been unsuccessfully lobbying for over two years for AOPA China to accept her assertion that she, and not Julie Wang, is the first Chinese woman to fly around the world. Chen's assertion, however, was rejected when AOPA China determined that Wang Zheng was the first Chinese female pilot to successfully fly a global circumnavigation and is in any event frivolous. There is no dispute that Chen's flight concluded on September 27, 2016, and Wang's eight days earlier, on September 19th. Unless Chen has a time-machine she will never have a valid claim to being the first Chinese woman to fly-around the world.

A more obvious actual COI is difficult to find. Although I am no Wikipedia expert, the manner of EdiK2016's edits makes it obvious that he or she is Chen's proxy, probably paid. Chen's obvious COI is all the more reprehensible since she either has no reliable sources, relying on her personal blog her personal blog and other Chinese blogs that exist only because they can be outright paid-for, for her unfounded assertions.

Also false and defamatory is the inclusion in the "Controversy" section of the unsupported allegation that "Wang never completed her circumnavigation or provided sufficient evidence." This is libel per se by Chen and Wikipedia, right on Wikipedia's own page, and is contentious material about a living person. There is no footnote. Footnote No. 24 preceding refers to an article from 2016 is irrelevant to the proposition it is supposed to support.

With this communication I am in good faith following Wikipedia's rules for mediating disputes concerning biographies of living persons and hope that more seasoned, neutral editors can cut through the nonsense. I am happy to work with you to resolve this but be advised that if the matter is not resolved expeditiously, and any libelous, contentious, or conflict of interest material is not removed, Ms. Wang will proceed to exercise all available remedies and hold accountable all responsible individuals for all damages permitted by law, including attorneys' fees. Wikipedia's rules do not allow for frivolous, unfounded allegations to be lobbed into the public square by persons seeking deliberately to destroy another's reputation or allowing a subject to be victimized or cast in a false light. Unless and until there is factual evidence upon which to base the assertion that Wang Zheng's RTW flight is not bona fide, Wikipedia may not provide itself as the forum for the current fake "controversy" based on "suspicion" and innuendo.

James FrechterCTF99 (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Reynolds, Pat. "Laura Dekker Interview, Part 1". ASA. ASA.

[1]

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