Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

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)

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)

OTRS

EJLevywriter I see Marchjuly advised you to contact the OTRS via email. If you have not done so I urge you to do so.

Most wikipedia contributors do their best to conduct themselves with good faith. However, there a people who contribute here prepared to use any means they can to push their personal point of view, or a point of view they are paid to promote. Sadly a technique these people have employed is to pretend they are the subject of articles they want to change, or delete.

What black hat hackers know is that even otherwise intelligent people can be fooled, manipulated, by an appeal to their emotions. They call this kind of manipulation "social engineering". The fourth Die Hard movie, the one where the hero's sidekick is a computer hacker, shows an instance of the hacker kid using social engineering to fool a remote support technician to remotely start a stolen car, by claiming he is the son of the car's driver, who just suffered a heart attack.

The lesson for us, from those past instances, is that we should insist that third party individuals, like you, who claim special standing, confidentially confirm their real world identities through our confidential OTRS system.

I suggest we put this discussion on hold, and wait for you to do so. I am sure if you are who you say you are, you understand. When you phone your bank they won't reveal your banking details, or make changes to your account, until you answer a bunch of questions that establish you are who you say you are. Confidentially confirming your identity through our OTRS system is the same kind of thing.

Yes, the wikipedia has a bad record of under-representing women. But we won't improve this reputation by forgetting to have you confirm your identity. Geo Swan (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I think the OP must be asking whether to include stuff related to this [2] [3] [4] [5][6] which seems to have been an issue for several months Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I wasn't more specific. I usually only get my info from Wikipedia and wondered why they weren't at the WWCC this year. 96.55.104.236 (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'm really busy IRL this week for teaching and graduate school, so I can't edit much. I see now it's far too long and detailed. I will be able to edit on this coming Sunday, I think. What are you thinking of trimming? Bearian (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  "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)

  And we've invoked Godwin's law. How many replies did it take this time? - Paul^T+/_C 03:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
  • If it says that, it's wrong. Consult a real-world dictionary. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Unless a category is supported by reliable sourcing, it cannot be added to a BLP unless it is clearly and plainly obviously correct. Someone who has published multiple novels is a novellist, regardless of if sourcing specifically refer to them as 'Novellist X'. The common and almost universal meaning of 'alumnus' is *former*, either ex/graduated etc. So unless they quit, or reliable sources refer to them as such, per the BLP its an invalid category. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - It looks like consensus has formed here, at least with respect to this article. Though, there is also similar discussion happening for the more general case at the WikiProject (linked above) that is also pointing in the same direction. Alumni categories are not to include current students. I concede the point given the outcome of this discussion, despite still personally disagreeing with it. Now, shall we add back the "USC people" category instead? - Paul^T+/_C 15:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Mark_Russell_(evangelist)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Point of order, IP, you suggest his disambiguator be changed to "Charity Executive". But isn't that charity an evangelical organization?

  Now, evangelical organizations may hire experts who don't share that faith. Corporations hire outsiders to be their CEOs all the time. A young Steve Jobs hired the older former CEO of Pepsico to run Apple, a few decades ago, who the fired Jobs, and almost drove Apple into the ground. If Church Army hired an outsider, I'd agree with the disambiguator "executive". If Russell lost his faith, so being CEO was just a job, I'd agree with the disambiguator "executive". But that is not the case, is it? Isn't he still an evangelical? Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Stephanie Singer

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.

---

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

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

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)

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)

Wang Zheng (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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.CTF99 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Please note that the book cover image is "up for deletion" unless and until it gets a valid notification of permission to be on Commons. Collect (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It does appear that EdiK2016 may have a conflict of interest regarding this article, and I have asked them on their talk page to explain this. I have also attempted to provide a neutral version of the article, rather than the blanking of sourced comment by one editor and the inclusion of excessively detailed and unhelpful content by another. The current version is certainly not perfect, but I have attempted to include sources for the competing claims that have been made, and have tried to be careful to say that they are merely claims by the other person, rather than stating them as fact in wikipedia's voice, as well as moving this to a section rather than having it in the lead or throughout the article (which is overall very favourable to the subject, unsurprisingly given who it has been edited by). I will also note that CTF99 appears to have been editing the article from multiple accounts and IP addresses without disclosing their own conflict of interest until now, which certainly hasn't helped. Melcous (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @CTF99: You should be aware that the last paragraph of your post is likely going to be seen as violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. While the BLP concerns you and Wang have about the article will be looked into and editors helping out here will do want they can, that last paragraph will only lead to your account getting blocked by an administrator if you don't strike-it-through or modify it accordingly as explained in WP:REDACT. In addition, the fact that you've been editing the article over the years and are claiming above that you represent Wang is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and most likely a financial conflict of interest as well since you're claiming your her attorney. This means you are subject to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, and you need to properly disclose your connection per WP:DISCLOSECOI or else your account may also be blocked by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ignoring all above The first cite for the other pilot only stated she intended to fly around the world, thus is not RS for her completing that flight in the first place. Such weak initial claims basically mean none of the "stuff" is sufficiently well-sourced for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Collect it's quite a bit more than that - there are other sources saying that she did complete the journey, the dispute seem to be around the exact dates and whether it was done solo, and there are sources for the New York court case. I have restored the content about the lawsuits and tried to keep the wording to what is found in the sources. Please have a look and discuss on the talk page if you think it is not accurate to the sources or not neutrally worded. Melcous (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Even though the CTF99 has redacted the part of their post which might be subject to WP:NLT, there are still some serious WP:COI and WP:PAID concerns which haven't been addressed. As I pointed out at WP:AN#Possible NLT at BLPN, CTF99 is not only claiming to be an attorney for Wang, he is claiming to be James Fretcher. In a couple of articles about Wang, I found this photo attribution to a "Jim Fretcher" in a 2016 Sun-Sentinel article as well as a mention of a "James Frectcher" a 2018 article by the San Gabriel Valley Tribune as being a "manager of CGA" which in turn is "China General Aviation LLC" the "promoter that helped prepare her financially for the flight" and which "also is named as a plaintiff" in a lawsuit that Wang has filed. This is a pretty serious financial conflict of interest connection to Wang that CTF99 didn't disclose up until his post above. These things need to be sorted out by CTF99; either he's the same James/Jim Fretcher and thus needs to properly WP:DISCLOSECOI and stop editing the article, or he's not and needs to stop the WP:IMPERSONATION. It also needs to be understood that Wikipedia articles are not the place to try and fight real world legal battles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong venue for that argument - this board is for BLP issues only. I note the final sentence is based on a "primary source" which should be replaced as soon as practicable per WP:RS. The claims which were violative of WP:BLP were rewritten at least. As I said earlier the stuff above my post is irrelevant to the purpose of this board, and I therefore ignored it all. Collect (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Not suggesting those issues need to be or should be resolved here, just mentioning that they need to be resolved somewhere, most likely at the AN discussion about them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Melcous, you seek to justify your editing by claiming "there are other sources saying that [Wang Zheng] did complete the journey, the dispute seem[sic] to be around the exact dates and whether it was done solo, and there are sources for the New York court case" but produce no sources and more importantly, cite to not a single source with even a single piece of evidence contradicting the bona fides of Wang Zheng's flight. Shame on you. You won't enforce the BLP rules rigorously as WP demands. Shame on you again for your preposterous assertion that I'm bringing a real world legal battle here. It's obvious I've done no such thing. I've never mentioned any lawsuit or Saki Chen's wild claims here. Only she or her paid hack proxies, such as EdiK2016, have done that in violation of WP policy. To be perfectly clear, this is Wang Zheng's WP page focused on her wonderful flight accomplishment and background; it is Saki Chen or or proxies who deliberately came here to lob grenades. Your mischaracterization is again, shameful. My point obviously is just the opposite; namely, that this page is no place for this kind of personal dispute and that the section "Lawsuits" must be irrevocably deleted. Remember, each BLP rule is to be applied so as to protect the subject. Honestly, perhaps you should review them one by one and refresh yourself with what they require and then look at this again.CTF99 (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not really the place for this discussion, but to clarify, CTF99 you have misunderstood the above where my comment about whether the journey was completed or done solo was about Chen, not Zheng, as per the sources in the article. It is also worth noting that wikipedia biographies do not exist to focus on someone's "wonderful accomplishments", you might want to read WP:LUC - the fact that there have been lawsuits about this and they have been reported in the media means that they can, will, and I would argue should, be included in the article. Melcous (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to give everyone a heads up, CTF99 was banned a couple of days ago as a sockpuppet. [7] Sperril (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Request Edit Review of Contentious BLP passage

Please see discussion at Talk:Jonathan_Swan#Request_Edit_--_Remove_Contentious_Material_re:_BLP. I have a disclosed COI regarding this discussion.BC1278 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This has now been removed by an editor. The same material was then added to the article Axios (website). See Talk:Axios (website)#Request_Edit -- Remove Contentious Material However, the editor altered the language by referring to me as a "public relations firm" instead of as "Ed Sussman," as the HuffPo article does repeatedly. It never refers to me as a "public relations firm." Therefore, I think it still falls under the BLP policy for removal of contentious material since only the inaccuracy makes it seem like it falls outside BLP. Not 100% sure. Haven't seen this situation before. Thanks BC1278 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Robin Ficker

This article is about a lawyer for whom a section was created about multiple disciplinary items he was involved in with the Maryland state bar association. All of these issues were sourced from a single RS. However the vast number of the issues weren’t even mentioned by the RS. I subsequently deleted the entire section. I’ve no interest in cleaning up the text to find what may be sourced. It is incumbent upon the editors who added such material to make sure it was properly sourced. Some may say this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t know if there was a baby to begin with. Feel free to re-add this section if you can find adequate sourcing. Regardless, I would appreciate it if you could add this to your watchlist and if it isn’t too much trouble to indicate here that you’re keeping an eye on the article, just so I know this has some eyeballs on the thing. Much appreciated --That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Bungarribee Homestead Site

Many changes were made to this article by JWSM-Bungarabee which include a number of allegations and negative personal opinions about presumably living people and current organisations. Many of the edits are large and often edit previous edits so it is hard to pin down the problems to specific edits. Some examples that particularly concern me though are:

• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12] (probably the worst, scroll down to the end of the diff)

Apart from BLP concerns, many of the edits are citing an unpublished source (citation [1]) written by the contributor (comments refer to it as their own work). A previous attempt was made by another editor to undo some of these edits but these were subsequently restored by JWSM-Bungarabee. Kerry (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like an SPA adding nothing but OR and personal commentary. Basically just ranting in many of their edits, in mostly a stream-of-consciousness style, obviously pursuing a grudge. I would simply revert back to the last good version with a very clear edit summary that this material violates not only BLP policy, but also nearly every other policy we have. If the user continues to revert and add unsourced commentary and refuses to discuss on the talk page, then there is likely a behavioral problem, in which case take it to ANI, AN, or a similar noticeboard and get an admin involved. Zaereth (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Wiles

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

I don't know if this is worthy to post here, but I have a concern regarding the wiki page for mathematician Andrew Wiles. The guy is a genius and highly respected in the mathematics community. He's definitely going down in the history books. However, the image used on the page is not flattering at all. There are many images available online that look much nicer, many of which compose of him writing mathematical statements on a chalkboard. There is even a beautifully done portrait of him by painter Rupert Alexander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencerkraisler (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Spencerkraisler: Wikipedia's is going to be limited to the types of images it may be used by the copyright status of those images. Since Wiles is still living and not particularly Wikipedia notable for his physical appearance, any image used in the article to identify him is going to need to be either freely licensed or within the public domain. Most of the images you're going to find online or in publications, etc. are likely going to be considered to be copyrighted images (see c:Commons:Licensing for more on this) unless it clearly states they aren't; this means they would be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive and pretty much a non-free license is never allowed for the primary identification purposes of a still-living person on Wikipedia per non-free content use crtierion #1. This doesn't mean the image currently being used for identification purposes in the main infobox can never be replaced; it just means that any replacement by a non-free image is almost certainly going to never be allowed. If you have any questions about a specific particular image you've found online, it might be better to ask those at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions instead of here. FWIW, while there may exist better photos of Wiles you can find online that are a little more flattering or of a higher quality, I don't think this particular photo would be considered a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons and perhaps removed for the reasons given in WP:BLP#Images; even if it was, however, it would (as I mentioned above) only be able to be replaced by a freely licensed or public domain image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Jamal Khashoggi

It seems to me there is a trend in Wikipedia to include political cartoons about Saudi monarch Mohammad bin Salman portraying killing Jamal Khashoggi in multiple articles. This issue has been previously discussed in Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi article where community consensus has determined that it violates WP:BLP and was removed. However, these pictures still show up in multiple articles (Jamal Khashoggi page for example) and most of these cartoons are published by a an Iranian based news website (Tasnim News Agency). There seems to be conflicting views on to include such political cartoons in BLP pages or not while those seeking inclusion argue about censorship so I would like to get to the bottom of it here. Isn't a political cartoon essentially an opinion? I don't mind having these cartoons published in the Editorial cartoon or it's author's page, but does this material merit inclusion in a BLP article? Would appreciate someone's who's experienced in BLP articles opinion. Thanks. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the inclusion of political cartoons on BLPs at all unless the cartoons themselves have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. We do fairly often include these on historical biographies, but with the benefit of hindsight to illustrate the political climate at the time, and without the heightened standards required of BLP. GMG^talk 21:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable either, I tried to remove it as a violation of BLP [13] but was blasted with being a "CENSOR". It seems the image is used to heighten the tension of the current political situation (understandably so), but I don't think its necessary to turn wikipedia into a political editorial specially since the people are alive. I wouldn't mind adding it to its authors page or a page specified for editorial cartoons but adding a cartoon of a living person is not merited at all. I wouldn't like Wikipedia to be have political cartoons of Donald Trump, Netanyahu, terrorist attacks, or other controversial figures that heighten political issues in BLP pages (WP is not a newspaper imo), but I must admit I'm not all-knowing in BLP issues and I don't know if those should be outright removed or not. Would appreciate second thoughts on this subject.Wikiemirati (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

People too often use the word "censor" without really having the foggiest clue what it really means. It's not censorship to leave out excessively graphic images, words or phrases used only for titillation or shock value and use a more clinical type of analysis, nor to leave out excessively boring details and summarize the info, nor to leave out things that are irrelevant to the article and text. Articles should not become a repository for random images, but rather images should have some direct relevance to the adjacent text, giving a visual to some point or of the subject. If an image doesn't fit into the context, then there is no purpose in having it. And like GMG says, unless there is some direct significance of a political cartoon to the subject's notability (for example, the artist of the cartoon, or if reliable sources show it had a direct impact on the subject's life and career --and it's talked about in the adjacent text) then it's most certainly not censorship to remove it, but rather a duty to do so. (Not to mention, unless it's on an op/ed page of a newspaper, using a cartoon to make a point in a serious article is in extremely bad taste.) Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, NOTCENSORED rarely applies in circumstances that don't involve human sexuality or swear words, and when invoked on a politically sensitive subject, is all but guaranteed not to apply at all in all the but most exceptionally rare circumstances...so rare I can't remember a single example. GMG^talk 22:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what’s posted above; the adding of the cartoon seems like a bit of image-related WP:UNDUE. If this were a non-free file, I think a strong argument could be made for it’s removal as not meeting NFCC#8, at least as it’s currently being used in the article. Some editors seem to be of the opinion that if an image is freely licensed or public domain, and it is somehow related to the subject of the article or something mentioned in the article, then it should be perfectly OK to add the image regardless; I, however, tend to think that the image should closely complement specific sourced content in the article so that seeing it is encyclopedically relevant to the reader’s understanding.

@Wikiemirati: I didn’t notice any discussion about this or even a notification of this discussion on the article’s talk page. Perhaps it would be a good idea to let others know that there’s a discussion here about the file. Unless someone wants to unequivocally claim WP:3RRNO, the file is likely going to be re-added each time it’s removed. If the consensus is that this is not a BLP violation per WP:MUG or WP:BLPREMOVE, then the file be discussed in more detail at WP:FFD. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking in terms of BLP, it's my opinion that the cartoon violates the very lede of WP:BLP, followed by the three subsections in the "Writing style" section, and the "Reliable sources" section, and several others on down the line. When in doubt, throw it out. It's up to the ones who want inclusion to demonstrate why it should be. So far the only reason I can see for inclusion is to cast the subject in an exaggeratedly negative light, and unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, the weight this gives is unfair. Zaereth (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I was going to amend my previous post, but got foiled by an edit conflict. Anyway, if previous discussion reached a consensus that this was a BLP violation in the article about the assassination, then it seems the same would apply to any other related article, except possibly an article about the cartoon itself or the artist who drew it. —- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I would think so. It's one thing to have an artist's rendition of an ancient moose in the article, but quite another to have a picture of Bullwinkle J. Moose there. Or, worse, yet, a cartoon of a moose towering over buildings crushing everything in its path. There's a reason newspapers put political cartoons on the opinion page; because they represent the artist's particular point of view. Zaereth (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Too many words. Clearly inappropriate for all the reasons given. O3000 (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have started a discussion in the article page Talk:Jamal_Khashoggi#Political_cartoons with a link to this discussion and pinged the user who has reverted me as suggested by Marchjuly. It's good to be clear on this subject instead of going back and forth in a long lengthy discussion about censorship and whatnot that goes nowhere which I am sure was going to unfoil if I did not start this notice. Wikiemirati (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Fraser Anning again

More eyes on the article and input on the article talkpage regarding the sourcing and wording of this edit (which I have reverted for now per WP:BLPREMOVE), would be useful. See current discussion. Abecedare (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thierry Baudet

An IP editor seems to be willing to edit war to include a literal translation of the Thierry Baudet's surname (as 'donkey/ass') in the lead of his article. This seems to me to be an utterly irrelevant, and is just being inserted in order to insult the subject; however, since it's technically a correct translation, I wanted to raise it here - I intend to continue reverting as vandalism, but thoughts from others would be appreciated. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 11:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped; for the record, I'd appreciate it if others would agree that the insertion is inappropriate, in case they start up again. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I agree with you, the translation of his name adds nothing of encyclopaedic value, it's just being done as a means to insult him. Neiltonks (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, completely inappropriate. StAnselm (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

David Arthur Jones

David Arthur Jones (Political Scientist) is an American expatriate working in Europe and Asia. He was a 20th century American legal sociologist, and he is a 21st century Polish political scientist, holding an appointment as professor of international business, international law, international management at University of Warsaw, Poland where he has worked since 2005. He is the author of several publications including Four Eagles and a Dragon: Successes and Failures of Quixotic Encirclement Strategies in International Relations, An Analysis(London and New Delhi: Bloomsbury, Plc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicalscientist88 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

And? We don't appear to have an article on him.--Auric talk 18:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Francis Vicente

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

Francis John Patrick M. Vicente (talk · contribs)

I'm at impasse with my discussion with FJPMV. I could use some advice, since he is now claiming that I own "his" article and that I created it, which he has been (sloppily) removing info from. I'm not sure if the sources are RS, but they look to be. --Auric talk 17:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a difficult task, since they are obviously very emotionally distraught, but also speak very broken English. I wouldn't be surprised if this is being translated by google or something. If anyone here speaks Filipino, perhaps they could come help break down the apparent communication barrier. (Note: all discussion are at the user talk pages.)Zaereth (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

For example, I'm not sure they understand that the link to WP:OWNERSHIP is meant for them to click and read (if they even can), but seem to interpret that as Auric saying they own the article personally. Something's not getting across. Zaereth (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You know, if no one comes along, another trick is to try phrasing your words and syntax to translate better over google. It's like when talk like Bosnian, my friend, you go make sentence more talk like Bosnian do. Zaereth (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ramesh Balwani

Hi after long discussion on the talk page I doubt that the lawsuit sections neutrality suits the requirements of a blp. As greenC and I seem to disagree on that point, I would like someone else point of wiew. Please accept my apologies if this is not the right place for this message, I'm neither a regular contributor nor fluent in English. Cheers --Doubleclavier (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the entire section on the lawsuit as this was sourced only to a legal document, which under BLPPRIMARY is not allowed as a source. I left a message on the talk page explaining it. If you have any questions about the subtleties of English, please feel free to ask me as I like to think I have a fair understanding of them. Zaereth (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The new version is much better. IMHO, only one possibly litigious sentence remain:

Balwani also was present when Holmes told Safeway's then-CEO that Theranos’ analyzers were being deployed in the battlefield.[17]

=> Balwani was also alledgedly present when Holmes told Safeway's then-CEO that Theranos’ analyzers were being deployed in the battlefield.[17]

I have the filling that the current version is assertive and sourced only by the indictment act. I wanted to implement the version above, but was blocked (apparently my edits on WP fr doesn't give me experience here :-/)

--Doubleclavier (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed that sentence as well, and all other citations to court documents. (Sorry, I didn't take the time yesterday to go through the entire article.) Please feel free to report anymore problems you see. Zaereth (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(Zaereth) I'm transferring this from my talk page to here:

You are right court documents can not be used as a sole source, but incorrect they can't be included at all on Wikipedia.

WP:PRIMARY states:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

WP:BLPPRIMARY states:

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

So the question is why you are actively deleting primary sources that are discussed by a secondary source? Maybe you have a reason to do so, but have not articulated it, why in this particular case they should not be in the article. -- GreenC 17:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY states unequivocally "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." (Emphasis in original.) This is nonnegotiable. You may use primary sources to augment a seconday source, such as the subject's personal website for example, but not court documents, birth certificates, marriage licenses, phone books, or other such public records. Further discussion should take place at BLP/N, so I'm transeferring this there. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I just removed the court documents again, but we may need some more eyes on this to keep them from being re-added. Zaereth (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the reason for this policy? That he faces charges by the SEC is a plain fact that is not opinionated or subjective in any way, and supported by dozens of secondary sources, most of which discuss and link to the court document. -- GreenC 18:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NOR. Zaereth (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Zaereth has the right of this. The article already states he is facing charges (backed by reliable, third party sources), there is no reason to re-add court documents which are EXPLICITLY foribdden by the second sentence WP:BLPPRIMARY. The last sentence of this policy explains that you can use some primary sources if certain conditions are met, but one of these conditions is that the addition of a primary source is "subject to the restrictions of this policy." One of these restrictions is "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." This means that it is never acceptable to use court documents to support allegations against a living person. In this case, these primary sources are not needed as the lawsuit and criminal charges are well-covered by reliable third party sources. SWL36 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. In my long experience on Wikipedia the word "assertion" is typically used to differentiate from statements of fact. Assertion is a matter of opinion, a subjective call, a belief - something besides a basic fact. This definition is supported by some sources, but not others, but either way the emphasis is on the mode of delivery ie. a forceful or strong conviction. When used in mainspace, it usually precedes a statement to make it clear this is someone's heart-felt opinion eg. "the man asserted he was innocent". This is why I think the word in this case is inappropriate (or at least confusing) for what it is trying to convey in the policy, and that it may actually be for the meaning related to an opinion vs. a statement of fact. Do we know when this section was added and by what process? -- GreenC 19:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it does somewhat confuse the issue. It should say "Do not use court documents, etc. Period." To assert something, whether fact, opinion, fiction, direction, instruction, or command, means to do so assertively. For example, the sentence in quotes I just used is assertive. "Don't play in the road, those cars are more than 10 times your weight." is assertive, yet a factual statement (regardless of whether the facts are true or not). But I learned long ago, the hard way, not to go around trying to change policy. The best way to affect change is by setting a good example for others. Zaereth (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Well it's still unclear what the rational is for excluding court documents. It would make sense to exclude them for opinionated statements, but arbitrary to exclude them always no matter what. I understand, this is what the policy says. But behind every policy is a reason for why the policy exists in the first place. OR and BLPPRIVACY doesn't really explain it either. Can you explain it in plain language? -- GreenC 19:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to primary sources in general, they are usually highly technical, and unless an author has some expertise in the subject matter, they are very easily misinterpreted by the layperson. This is especially true with things like legal documents, but even to things like Facebook or Twitter posts, where there may be some inside joke or background information that people leave out when talking to their friends, but are easily misinterpreted by others. I use primary sources all the time, like military flight manuals and scientific studies, but only because I have some expertise in those areas, and only in conjunction with secondary sources. Moreover, legal document often contain personal and private information, and thus also violate BLPPRIVACY. Zaereth (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok great. The only private info in the SEC doc are his name, age, city of residence and salary - all public info in secondary sources. As for it being complicated, it is a supplement to secondary sources for readers who want to learn more details on their own. The wiki text itself doesn't attempt to interpret the primary source. These seem like reasonable positions, so I wonder if the policy here is being interpreted as a literal rule rather than with common sense which is how policies should be handled according to WP:POLICY: "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." -- GreenC 20:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This policy is meant to cover all cases, not just this one. (Think about cases of rape, incest, or murder, where there is not only the subject but victims, witnesses, experts, family, children... Not to mention lawyers and court officials.) In all my time here, I have never seen an exception. We're a tertiary source, which means we try as best as possible to remain three times removed from the subject. In other words, we let the primary sources do the notable thing, secondary sources do their original research to investigate and report about the thing, and we summarize what the secondary sources say, trusting them to do their due diligence so we don't have to. (And "due diligence" has a very specific legal definition, called covering our butts.) I'll also note that while BLP works in accordance with all other policies, it ultimately trumps all other policies. Zaereth (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Right. Let the reporters do the reporting and investigating. We just summarize the reports, not dig up the details. Zaereth (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Limousine liberal

More eyes are needed on Limousine liberal#Later use. Several of the sources are questionable for BLP content (YouTube, NewsMax, MichelleMalkin.com, and an opinion column from the Washington Post). My understanding from WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPSPS is that some of these sources are not acceptable. There's also issues with WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:SYNTH.- MrX 🖋 23:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've removed the whole lot. See my four edit summaries as for why. Material added by an editor who (as anyone who's been here for a long time will know) is not exactly neutral on American politics. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look Black Kite.- MrX 🖋 23:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

william wrigley jr ii

May i respectfully ask that personal information regarding marriage status and number of children be removed from this wiki page. I understand that it is cited content but it is also outdated and incorrect. Rather than correct it i would like the information removed to respect the individuals privacy. My apologies for editing this in advance of requesting via this talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wrigley_Jr._II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.79.51 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I cut the non-notable names from the article. These people have no article so there is no point in naming them or infringing on their privacy. Since you have declared a WP:Conflict of interest you should not edit the article yourself. Please ask other to make the changes for you, either here or on the talk page. It is unlikely sourced content will be deleted. We're an encyclopedia, not Facebook, so we don't keep updates on relationship statuses. We only report what is found in reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, my advice to your associate and everyone else who comes here asking for this, follow Keanu Reeves' example. If you don't want the world knowing your personal life stop telling it to the world. Zaereth (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Eric Swanson

It is a resume and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.83.40.34 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really read like a resume. Much more detail than the usual resume.--Auric talk 18:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Tobias Harris

Someone has edited this article (Tobias Harris) to reflect an incorrect current team. Requesting someone correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5D:5680:6E:9964:AFF0:80FB:903C (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have undonify the change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Umar Farooq Zahoor

Seriously violates WP:BLP and not even a notable guy. A deletion discussion is going on AFD. - ToT89 (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Udit Raj Profile page

Dr. Udit Raj is an Indian Member of Parliament in the Lok Sabha, representing the North-West Delhi constituency. [1] He is also the National Chairman of the All India Confederation of SC/ST Organizations, nationally known as All India Parisangh .He is a social reformer and champions the cause of women. To him, without women freedom and choice and their participation in labor force, any effort is not going to take India to the targeted height . Of course, cause of Dalits, Tribals, OBCs. [2] Dr. Udit Raj joined Indian Revenue Service in 1990 as Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and was promoted as Dy. commissioner, Jt. Commissioner and Addl. Commissioner and resigned in 2003 and floated a political party - Indian Justice Party. [4] Dr. Udit Raj became national chairman of All India Parisangh in 1997 and a massive protest was launched to save reservation. It is to be noted that Parisangh is an umbrella organisation of organizations to which most of SC/ST employees in India are directly or indirectly connected . On its peak of the movement, people used to call him shadow Prime Minister seeing his connectivity and influence in all most all govt deptts. Parisangh has units and members in more than 400 districts in the country. This is the only organization in the country to mount pressure on the Govt to make 81st, 82nd and 85th constitutional amendments. Due to these efforts, five anti- reservation orders were withdrawn. On 23 February 2014, he joined Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and was elected Member of Parliament of the Lok Sabha in the Indian general elections, 2014 from the North-West Delhi constituency. [6] He has been twice awarded Best Parliamentarian Award by Fame India for consecutive years in 2018 and 2019. [7] (Citation needed for 2019) Mr. Ajay Chitnis, MD, Tapasya Productions produced a documentary named “The Crusader” on his struggles as a Dalit Leader and it was bestowed upon the Hon’ble Jury Mention Award in the 7th Bangalore Short Film Festival-2018 [8], 7th Delhi Shorts International Film Festival and 6th Noida International Film Festival – 19.

1. Early Life and Education Dr. Udit Raj was born in Ram Nagar village of Allahabad district, Uttar Pradesh to a Dalit family of Shri Kallan Singh and Smt. Sukh Dei. After completing his intermediate studies at his native place, he took admission at Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi in 1980. Right from his college days, he has been actively involved in many socio-political activities, which at times, also affected his studies. Due to financial constraints, he was forced to divert his attention from social activities. He started preparing for Civil Services Examination thereafter, and cleared the same in 1988, when he was selected for the elite Indian Revenue Service. [1] [9] Dr. Udit Raj came across many caste prejudices in his life, beginning from his early schooling. He and his brothers confronted caste prejudice in the school and in the society. During his college, he was actively involved in the student wing and there he joined the struggle faced by the farmers and labour unions. Later, after moving to Jawaharlal Nehru University, he joined Students' Federation of India. [9] During his training at the National Academy of Direct Taxes, he met Seema Bahl. Shared similar ideology and perspective towards life, they married in 1990. Mrs. Seema Raj is presently serving as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. [1] [9] [10] Besides the M.A and L.L.B degrees, he has been awarded a Honorary Doctorate Degree from Emmanuel Bible College and Seminary, Kota, Rajasthan. His intellectual acumen is recognized not only in India but at the global level. He has been participating and holding dialogues at Human Rights Council, the body of UN and other fora and other philanthropist and business organizations. He is a facilitator of Commerce and Trade between India and many other countries. He also holds dialogue with Member of Parliaments and Senators from around the world. Based on his interactions he cited the need for a platform to assist Investors and Businessmen from around the world to invest in India for which he founded Council for Promotion of Trade and Industry (CPTI). The Governor of Chungbuk province of South Korea also appointed him as Honorary Ambassador to promote Korean cosmetics and healthcare in India. He is also a prolific writer and till now, hundreds of articles have been published in various national newspapers. 2. Social Activist Career

2.1. Formation of All India Confederation of SC/ST Organizations In the year 1997, the Department of Personal and Training (DOPT), Govt of India issued five anti-reservation orders. These anti-reservation orders sparked the fire among the SC/ST Employees and unions begun mobilizing a national platform where the anti-reservation could be confronted. Organizations with different intellectuals and departments from all over the country joined hands and All India Confederation of SC/ST Organizations was formed under the leadership of Dr. Udit Raj. He was appointed as its National President. Under his leadership, various campaigns were initiated and demonstrations were held all over the country against anti-reservation orders. Under the banner of the Confederation, the first rally was held on 26 November 1997, second on 16 November 1998, third on 13 December 1999 and the fourth on 11 December 2000 in Delhi. It was due to his efforts that the Atal Bihari Government passed the 81st, 82nd and 85th Constitutional amendments, which in turn led to the retrieval of reservation benefits. [9] [11] The Confederation till day holds annual mass rallies to bring forward the issues of Dalits.

2.2 Fight against Land Acquisition In 2006, when Samajwadi Party acquired land from the farmers and allotted it to Reliance Company, a campaign was started under the leadership of former Prime Minister Shree V.P. Singh for the return of this land. Dr. Udit Raj played a stellar role in the movement, courting arrest against its implementation. (Citations needed) 2.3 Reservation for SC/ST in private sector Carrying the leadership of national mass movement forward, Dr. Udit Raj demanded reservation of jobs for SC/STs in private sector. He also moved a private member Bill in Parliament for reservation to Dalits in private sector [12] [13] (Present status and citations required) 2.4 Protest March to the Supreme Court The Confederation organised a mass rally at Ramleela Ground in December 2018, raising various issues, including the representation of the Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and minority communities in the higher judiciary and the alleged encroachment of legislative and executive roles by the judiciary. Dr. Udit Raj criticised the collegium system of appointing judges in the higher judiciary and raised the issue of representation of SC/ST community members in the high courts and the Supreme Court. He also demanded the scrapping of a Supreme Court mandated monitoring committee for overseeing the sealing drive in Delhi. Dr. Udit Raj along with several members of the Confederation were detained for attempting to lead a protest march to the Supreme Court. [14] 2.5 Buddha Education Foundation On the principles of Lord Buddha, he established Buddha Education Foundation with an aim to work towards enhancement of socio-economic status of Dalit, Backwards, Minorities, Women and other marginalized entrepreneurs like farmers by providing basic awareness, education and healthcare. Some key projects implemented by the NGO are: 1. Gender Sensitization training to more than 4000 women in North West Delhi 2. 2500 women were skilled to make Pickle, Papad and Potato based beverage. 3. 2500 women were given Computer Training. 4. Provided skill training in field of Electrician and Plumbing to more than 100 youth. 5. With Co-operation from O.N.G.C. more than 500 women were skill educated. 6. E-village training and Waste management training provided through Team Enoctus at Khampur. 7. Conducted sessions on Gender sensitization and Disaster management and Bio Gas etc at khampur. 8. With Co-operation from Media Tech 16 household toilets constructed in Khampur. 9. With co-operation from Rotary club 24 household toilets are getting constructed in Jaunti 10. Constructed more than 40 individual household toilets in Khampur. 11. With Co-operation from C.F.I (Australia based NGO) constructed a Gate at a cost of $39000 in Jaunti. 12. With Co-operation from C.F.I (Australia based NGO) constructed toilets and Bathroom at a cost of $22000 in Jaunti. 13. With the Grant from Australian High Commission of $19000, Capacity building has been done in association with Ms. Kiran Bedi run Organization. 13. A toilet block for a cluster of about 15 thousand people constructed in Bawana J.J colony with the fund of New Zealand based NGO. 14. 22 Computers and 10 Projectors in government schools of North west Delhi 25. 7 R.O plant and 14 Water Cooler in Government schools of North West Delhi 26. Beautification of Village Khampur through Paintings. 27. With Co-operation and grant from Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, 1500 Disable persons has been distributed kits in association with Tecnia Institute. On 10 March 2019, Buddha Education Foundation organised “Freedom Awards” on International Women’s Day with about 2000 women representatives; and honored the outstanding achievements and contributions of women. [15] [16]

3. Political Career In 2003, Dr. Udit Raj floated political party, Indian Justice Party. He formulated annihilation of caste system as the foundational ideology of the party. In 2007 he fielded more than 100 candidates for UP assembly elections. The other top Dalit leaders of the time felt threatened and criticized him. Eventually, claiming it to be his low understanding of the complex political system, on 24 February 2014, he announced merger of his party to Bharatiya Janata Party in presence of BJP National President Rajnath Singh. [6] Dr. Udit Raj joined the Bhartiya Janta Party after he was convinced of its sincere interest in the inclusive growth of all sections of the society including the welfare of the SC/ST and backward sections, besides upholding the integrity and unity of the nation. [6] In 2014, he became the Member of Parliament from North West Parliamentary Constituency New Delhi. He has raised the maximum questions in the parliament. He initiated many private members bills in the parliament with one amongst them is about reservation in private sector. 4. Positions held in Committees of the Government of India [1] 1. He was member of National Integration Council, Government of India. 2. He was member of National Monitoring committee for education of SC/ST and PWD, HRD Ministry, Government of India. 3. He is the Chairman of Buddha Education Foundation and Dalit International Foundation. 4. He is the Chairman of All India Confederation of SC and ST. 5. He is a member of Standing Committee for Social Justice, Government of India. 6. He is a member of Advisory Committee of Finance and Corporate Affairs. 7. He is a member of Land Acquisition Committee.

5. Awards Dr. Udit Raj won following awards: 1. Best Parliamentarian Awards 2019 by Fame India 2. Best Parliamentarian Awards 2018 by Fame India