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.

Madhu Purnima Kishwar

One user is repeatedly adding defamatory content about Madhu Purnima Kishwar. It is already in politics and fake news section and still being added. I am not editing it again and again but I request to block the user. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/927078736, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/926928158 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/926928158.I am working for their website so I am not editing but one person told to complain here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:896:5648:D1E5:A66D:1E03:55F3 (talk)

Thank you for the report. It seems that the problematic edits were reverted and the article has been stable for a while. The bot didn't archive this section because it lacked a dated signature. -kyykaarme (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Tony Hancock (footballer)

This article states that the subject played for Hyde United F.C. during his career, and cites an interview in the Manchester Evening News. I know this to be untrue, and the club's historical database confirms this. How do I correct this? I realise that, in the great scheme of things, this is minor, but surely we should attempt to be as accurate as possible, even if there is an inaccurate citation from a printed source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by QuiltedBunny (talk • contribs)

@QuiltedBunny: You could write on the article's talk page. It can be difficult to prove that a source is wrong (if that's the case here) unless there is another source that contradicts it, but maybe the article's creator or someone else notices your comment and you can discuss the issue there. -kyykaarme (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Roger Schank

On Roger Schank (notable as an expert in artificial intelligence), Cog3.14159 (talk · contribs) is claiming that mention of Schank's widely-reported association with Jeffrey Epstein is a BLP violation, and has three times removed it, most recently in Special:Diff/930618467. Before the removal, this material was sourced to a 2008 article in Slate and a 2019 article in New York Magazine; I think these are reliable enough and that the spread of years adds to the justification of including this, but other opinions would be welcome. Relatedly, the article itself is somewhat promotional, I think because of COI edits, and could use de-puffing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The text additions used inflammatory language implying "guilt by association" that are not supported by the source articles. The New York Magazine article sourced was one paragraph that ended in the speculation that the BLP subject might have been helping Jeffrey Epstein prepare to "defeat evil robot machines". It is not a quality source. The additions are BLPGOSSIP that did not add relevant information to the BLP subject's contributions to multiple fields over decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cog3.14159 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The New York item has a silly remark about evil robots, but the Slate story is in-depth and entirely suitable. The content should be restored. XOR'easter (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the content and am stepping away from the article per COI (now disclosed on user page and the article). cog3.14159 (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Peter Handke (2nd take)

There is a debate going on at Talk:Peter Handke on whether his birthplace should be listed as "Nazi Germany" [1]. Note that this group of editors is only interested in Handke, though this would normally apply to anyone born in Austria in the period after Anschluss and before the end of WW2. Khirurg (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Note: The second current report on the same article. I've edited the section title. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think people there are trying to be a bit too literal. When looking for a birthplace, people are looking for an actual place, not the nation or government of that place at the time. We wouldn't say Jesus was born in Rome, just because Judea happened to be under Roman rule at the time. Likewise, we wouldn't say Israel either, because the land of Judea is well known. But if it weren't well known, then perhaps. For example, Achilles is called a Greek hero, even though the country of Greece didn't exist at the time, because calling him an Illyrian would just be confusing to the average reader. Countries, governments and borders change all the time, but the names of places tend to remain unchanged over vast periods of time. Regardless of the socio-political movements of the time, the actual land has been known as Austria for over a thousand years, and is going to be the easiest for the general reader to understand.

And I don't even know why being born under Nazi rule is relevant to the person's life story. It's not like a baby is going pop out and start giving chest salutes and waving swastikas around everywhere. It's a baby. Unless there is some significance of that to his life and notability, then it just seems trivial and is not really an accurate description of place. Zaereth (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC).

When we say that someone was born in a certain country, it should actually be true. We should give birth places in terms of the countries as they existed at the time, not as they are now or as we would like to pretend they might have been. The country he was born in was Germany and we should say so (also saying in more detail somewhere in the article text that it is now Austria and that when the German conglomeration was dismantled at the end of the war he became Austrian). It would be anachronistic to write that Charlemagne was born in Germany or Belgium (whichever one now bounds his birthplace); this is no different. I don't see it as any particular shame that he was born in an oppressive country or that his father was a Nazi soldier; those aren't things that can be avoided by choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, actually, that's what the article says, "Charlemagne's exact birthplace is unknown, although historians have suggested Aachen in modern-day Germany, and Liège (Herstal) in present-day Belgium as possible locations." It doesn't say France or the Frankish Empire. It gives actual locations that a person can find on a map. Zaereth (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It does not say "born in Germany or Belgium", and should not. It says, in the text of the article, that he may have been born in either of two cities, and that those two cities are now in Germany and Belgium. Similarly, for Handke, we should not say that he was born in Austria. He was not. He was born in a city that, at the time, was part of Nazi Germany, and is now part of Austria. We should say so in the text of the article, and if the limitations of infoboxes force us to specify a country, the country that we list in the infobox should be Germany. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a stupid question (my history knowledge is not great), but was Germany's annexation of Austria at the time recognized by the rest of the world? We have had many situations in history where one country claims it has taken another, but this is not recognized by the rest of the world and in such a case, we should use the world's perception rather than the claim of one country. --Masem (t) 21:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What I forgot to mention is that the reason I suspect this is happening is because Handke has strongly pro-Serbian views, which is not well-received by some of the people pushing for mentioning "Nazi Germany" as his birthplace. I don't think it's a coincidence. Khirurg (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

How about we focus on the facts of the matter and not on the motivations of other editors, per WP:AGF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The obvious compromise here is to leave the info box field empty and then in the text explain he's born in Griffen in present-day Austria. I would also find it acceptable to have the info box say "Griffen, under German occupation" (or similar). No "reich" or "nazi" anything would even be remotely acceptable.

Are we sure we don't have any other BLP articles where the subject was born in "anschlussed" Austria? CapnZapp (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Except we're not saying people were born in a country, we're saying they were born in a place. Plenty of Wikipedia births list just the state, or even the just the city of birth. Austria did not stop existing as a place name during the Nazi reign, it merely became a province rather than a separate nation. So while saying he was born in :"the country of Austria" would be problematic, merely saying that he was born in "Austria" would be fine, and would be clearer as to where he was born than saying "Nazi Germany". --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hitler rendered Austria as Ostmark, but the place where Handke is was born, i.e Griffen is in the current state of Carinthia. That province still existed under Nazi Germany and was never dissolved (see map: [2]). A way around this could be to have it in the infobox as Griffen, Carinthia and like this it bypasses anything to do with Nazi Germany or whatever names it was known as i.e Third Reich, Deutsches Reich etc or the status of Austria being relegated to Ostmark.Resnjari (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody can choose, or change his biological parents, place of birth, native country, etc. This is simply destiny. May we change the destiny? Isn't this discussion an absurd? Retroactive change of somebody's country of origin or even hiding it! Jingiby (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I know where you’re coming from Jingiby, but it was Hitler's Germany. That's the problem. Having the Carinthia formula at least provides continuity of a geographical location.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Guys, thing is former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has Nazi Germany listed as his place of birth for his infobox. The question rises, why for him and not for Handke? There has to be some consistency here.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Everything David Eppstein said, what Resnjari said, what Jingiby said, and also this. Austria is not a geographical entity like the Alps or the Danube, but as Anglophones understand it in the context of what country the place of birth is in the infobox, it's a political one, that has existed in 1919-1938 and 1945 to present. Adolf Hitler's infobox says Austro-Hungary. If Austria was an eternal "place" it would say "Austria". Our policy seems to be using the then-contemporary state entity, not the anachronistic current one. Our policy should not be "say Austria for current Austrians born under the Nazis, but not for Nazis from Austria". However, in any case, the simple fact of what government someone was born under, which they have no control over, is not under the purview of BLP. --Calthinus (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what? but not for Nazis from Austria? Are you implying Handke is a Nazi? Did I read that correctly? I will have you know that BLP applies to talkpages and noticeboards. Regarding the birthplace, Griffen, Carinthia, as Resnjari suggested, is an excellent suggestion, and I support it. Khirurg (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you did not read correctly. Adolf Hitler was a Nazi from Austria. Handke is a currently living person, born in Austria under the Nazis. And no, Carinthia is incomplete information, and people often don't even know where that is, so no I do not think Resnjari's suggestion is sufficient, sorry Resnjari.--Calthinus (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Its ok, Calthinus. The word Nazi is what it is. I was thinking. Maybe Griffen, Anschluss Austria. Like this it refers to WW2, the status in which Austria was under and internationally recognised (let’s not forget the allies first acknowledged the union before they disavowed much later). Like this it avoids the words Nazi or Germany, but is still factually correct. (pinging others involved in the discussion: Jingiby , NatGertler, David Eppstein, Masem, Zaereth, Khirurg).Resnjari (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have been aware of this content dispute for awhile, but I am not interested in it. For those interested, IMO, there are many ways how this can be solved. After all, the first section of the article already says that Handke comes from a family with Nazi background, sth that makes it obvious that Austria at the time was in a way or another part of Germany's influence. That part of the infobox is just a small detail. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Well Ktrimi, as Fut Perf once pointed out, infoboxes cause some people to not read teh actual article, and for this, they should burn in hell. Jokes aside, Resnjari I have nothing against "Anschluss Austria" but in terms of usage, you search it and what it comes up wiht is "pre-Anschluss Austria" and "post-Anschluss Austria" and not "Anschluss Austria"; still at least it is recognizable and accurate. There's also a simple option if the word Nazi is really such a big issue-- "Germany". --Calthinus (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Now that the discussion is about specific remedies, I have provided my opinion on the talk page: Talk:Peter Handke#Austria or the Third Reich? and not here. Unless there's more BLP-related issues, I feel the visibility of the Peter Handke infobox has been raised, and we can conclude the specific issue there to avoid having two discussions on the same thing. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Tejasvi Surya

Should this article have separate section namely Allegations of abuse when it was not scandal and just trivial things.

• It didn't have LASTING effect and nothing conviction or other thing happened after that.
• Person is not known for only this event.
• I tried to merge it under the life section by looking at Vivek Agnihotri which was also addressed with the help of this noticeboard. But it is getting reverted and even name reception has been changed into the allegations of sexual abuse.
• It shows fan-POV and resume style while it is not and other editor is not pointing specific issue but demanding complete overhaul? Can someone check and confirm whether it is NPOV and encyclopaedir or not?

Regards,-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

After being caught openly lying on the article talk page, Harshil169 makes a thread here and makes a second blatant lie. Hershil merged the contents to a section named "Early and personal life" as can be seen here in this diff as well as the edit summary and not to "life" as he is claiming. And this incident that was/is investigated by Womens commission and was taken up in High court of Karnataka is anything but personal life. When I asked this question on the article talk page that how can it be called personal life, instead of answering there, he opened this new thread here. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I already answered that similar section was included with help of BLPN in Vivek Agnihotri’s career but you brought Similar Stuff Exists essay in between. My stand is still same that it’s about his life and to point out negative details in one section is violation of NPOV. WP:CSECTION even says that. I opened a thread to seek opinion of others.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The section is not named as "Controversy" as you are falsely claiming, the section is named as "Allegations of abuse" which is what this section is about. If you have a better suggestion for the heading you are welcome to propose it on the talk page. But this is certainly not Reception as you tried to add into the article here. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Vivek Agnihotri, the "Allegation of sexual harassment" and "Twitter" sections are still there. WP:CSECTION is about sections focused on criticism or controversies and especially those as section names. In the article here, the header "Allegations of abuse" is a factual name of the event, and I'm not seeing the issue with it. It also does not seem appropriate to have it in the "Early and personal life" section since the event also involves his political candidacy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, Is H2 heading is okay for? Read comment of Masem below. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

As to whether the allegations should be covered, I think there is enough there (between the injuction and the summons) to at least be discussion, and what is there is about the right level of detail. What I would be concerned is making the section an H2 alongside the other major headers. I would find a way to make that a subheader of his period in the Parliament, since the accusations appeared to start right after he took office. Making the allegations H2 does bring them out too much. --Masem (t) 22:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Masem, Accusations came when he filled nomination. It’s not related to parliamentary career. Thus, I included it under life section. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Ohr

Removal of NPOV tag without discussion and overall whitewashing complete with 5 judgments/determinations that "conspiracy theories" are behind any and all criticism of the Subject. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about Ohr are common, but they've all been debunked. Claiming that he's some sort of "deep state traitor" is the violation of BLP which needs to be watched for here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

We use RS. We don't sift through primary sources and fill the article with direct quotes from them, in particular when it's done with an intent to lend credence to what RS have characterized as conspiracy theories about the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Drive by removal of the NPOV tag without resolution should be sanctioned, imo.

Also, NorthBySouthBaranof at the discussion page helpfully suggests something should be added about the OIG's criticism of Orr, yet nothing has happened.

Mainly though, there is absolutely some sort of paranoia and groupthink epidemic ( or maybe its just plain old propaganda, I don't know which ) underway in the USA about so-called "conspiracy theories", and when some of said theories are shown to actually have some merit, it is baffling, at the least, to leave those "don't even think about this" terms ( e.g."debunked conspiracy theories" ) in the related article, especially 5 times. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Bob Bland

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

Still ongoing issues here. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive265#Bob Bland. I have requested semiprotection. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Gerrit Cole

There is still an issue with him being listed as a "Free Agent" when he has cleverley signed a 9 year contract with the NEW YORK YANKEES, Per the whole world and espn This matter needs to be fixed immeadetly because It is unfare to classify him as a "Free Agent" when clearley he is not. If he were still a free Agent then the San Diego Padres would be able to sign him. People keep reverting the page back to say Free Agent when clearly he is a NEW YORK Fn YANKEE. I don't know what more else to do on this matter and It needs to be fixed asap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarmusic2 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Gerrit Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

References

It might be better to ask for assistance at WT:BASEBALL. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Suze Orman

I just ran into a worrying section in Suze Orman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): "The Creative Service for the Public Good, a self described citizen journalism group, created and published a critical expose documentary on Orman. The documentary alleges that Orman has no financial education or credentials, a Narcissistic personality disorder, had scammed the public, promoted exploitative financial products, engaged in unethical sales practices and taken advantage of the poor & middle class. The documentary shows a video of a young Orman saying she has a Master's in Social Work, which is false. It also shows Suze lie about teaching for the University of Phoenix, but then quickly admitting that she did a course "under the guise" that students can't take out loans if they can't afford it."

The referenced part was added by User:Andreldritch, the last unsourced sentences by User:Mbsyl. I would have simply deleted it, perhaps even revdel's id, but I'm involved in a dispute with Mbysl who believes that deleting anything is censorship and has (I think, he doesn't name names) called me serpentine lawyer, so I'm leaving this for others, sorry. I've looked at the source Andreldritch uses, the "Creative Service for the Public Good". It's run by Sharon Janis and Night Lotus Productions. Janis was interested in and involved in spiritualism but later, she says "another series of unexpected events led to my seeing some of the corrupting forces that are destroying the United States and our world, with a mafia like web of complicit media and government officials being controlled like puppets by the likes of Anita Dunn, Hilary Rosen, and the way too powerful political lobbyist media broker psy-op strategists at SKDKnickerbocker (and God knows what corruption is behind and using them), who were recently named the third most powerful players in politics by Politico. Note their mission line, "Where powerful Democrats plot the anti-Trump agenda". I can't find any evidence that would leave to to think his is a credible source for a BLP. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• The youtube video claiming a scam says it was authored by Sharon Janis who is not an authority on anything. This source (The Motley Fool) calls a similar video by the same author "The Dumbest Criticism of Suze Orman I've Ever Seen" (however, Motley Fool also criticizes Orman, although nothing like "scam"). I removed the undue and very poorly sourced criticism section, but I'm pretty sure it will return so other opinions would be welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Huh, I actually thought she was an SNL-character. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

That YouTube video by Janis has over 2 million views, which makes it notable. I think mention of the video should be made in order to make the entry thorough. And the Motley Fool does note that the video makes some valid points, although not that Orman caused the Great Recession. Since the video is mostly about the credit card, I vote to include it. 71.105.6.139 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No, number of of views does not make it notable (or to use WP-terms, WP:DUE). Attention to it in reliable independent sources could. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Both the Motley Fool (https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/11/06/the-dumbest-criticism-of-suze-orman-ive-ever-seen.aspx) and the Financial Times' newsletter (https://financialadvisoriq.com/c/1091583/114713/suze_orman_stop_bashing_advisors) discuss the video, and cite concerns about Orman. Since they are both reliable sources of financial info, that bolsters the argument for referencing the video. There are dozens of other wealth management sites that discuss the video, although none with the cachet of these two. 71.105.6.139 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If you think that a source calling the video "The Dumbest Criticism of Suze Orman I've Ever Seen" bolsters the argument for using said video, then there's no point in discussing this further with you. --Calton | Talk 18:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

looks to me like that article only criticizes one very narrow piece of the documentary and ignores the rest. i would love to see someone dispute the myriad of claims in the documentary, rather than focusing on 1 tiny piece or on who the documentary maker is. the part that i added to the Orman wiki article is taken from Politico Solving for Y and is almost an exact quote from Orman.Mbsyl (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not all in on the video's claims, but Calton should note that the Motley Fool article primarily takes issue with the video's comments about her causing the recession, while saying that it does have some salient points ("While there were some valid concerns"). So yes, that does bolster the claim that the video has attracted attention for some of its claims. Nice of you to parse the word "bolster" without reading the Fool article. And nice show of collegiality in trying to rectify this. 71.105.6.139 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sharon Janis writes about Spiritual Happiness—her opinions on that topic might be usable somewhere. However, Janis has no qualifications that warrant her opinions about Suze Orman being recorded on Wikipedia. A youtube video is a self-published source and fails WP:RS (with certain exceptions for identifiable authors who are provably expert in the area in which they are commenting). Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

if you watch the documentary, i think you will see that Janis is an expert on Suze Orman. the production quality isn't great, but it is clear that she did a TON of research for this. And Janis also goes over how she helped Suze get started in the entertainment industry, showing pictures of them together, further evincing her qualification to make an accurate documentary about Suze. Mbsyl (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not what WP:RS says. Janis has no qualifications relevant for a commentary about Orman and her opinions are not usable per WP:SPS. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Motley Fool "article" is actually an op/ed column. So is the Financial Advisor article, which is written more like an advice column. I don't know about the documentary, but from reading the website's lead-in --and the very fact that it's a documentary-- makes me believe it's likely literary journalism and filled with the author's opinions and editorials, thus none of these would be reliable sources for anything but the author's opinions. And to my knowledge, youtube is never a reliable source. Zaereth (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

so a video of Suze clearly lying - even admitting to it in one example - isn't reliable if its on youtube?Mbsyl (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Videos are easy to fake, and youtube has no editorial oversight to ensure their videos are legit. Once we open that door Wikipedia will be fair game for every so-called expert and mythbuster or champion looking to show how things are "really done" or that they are indeed world-record setters despite being banned by the record holders for cheating, etc... A reliable source is one with editorial oversight and a good reputation for fact-checking, so we don't have to, and should be as objective as posible. The problem with documentaries in general is that they try to give factual information in a fictional way. The goal is to invoke emotion because that is what makes a story interesting, but that can only be done subjectively, and it loses objectivity. If multiple reliable-sources pick up on it and decide to investigate the story themselves, then we can include it. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You know, as an example, I saw an episode of House yesterday. I really hate this show, not so much because the lead character is a jerk, but because it follows the same exact formula every episode. (ie: A guy collapses and ends up in front of the famous Dr. House. They muddle over the problem then inject him with a bunch of drugs that only make the condition worse, all while the great doctor does his best to insult everyone around him. Then they switch to a bunch of different drugs that nearly kill the guy and destroy his liver, and just when everyone is about to call it quits, Dr. House has an epiphany and realizes it was an ingrown toenail all along.) In this particular episode, someone is doing a documentary on the doctor, and he does his level best to come off as an uncaring, narcissistic a-hole. But in the end, when he views the finished product, she had cut and clipped all his interviews in order to match her own narrative that he's this loveable doctor with a heart of gold and gruff exterior. And he nearly gets sick and vows to "stop this travesty before it airs".

While most documentaries I believe try to get it right, the writers always have this narrative of good guys and bad guys, and heroes and victims, etc., that really keep the story interesting. They are great things when done right, but they shouldn't be mistaken for news. That's why news stories are short; because you can only hold a reader's interest for so long. We Wikipedians collect all the boring, objective news and assemble it into the long articles nobody reads. Zaereth (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The documentary does not meet the standards of reliability. If similar claims are reported elsewhere in reliable sources however they could be added. Citizen journalism provides a useful service in drawing attention to stories ignored by the mainstream. In some cases they may draw the attention of mainstream sources to these stories, in which case we can report them. In other cases for whatever reason they ignore them and they cannot be included. TFD (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• BLP violation: poor sourcing and highly prejudicial claims which require high quality sources (emphasis on quality and the plural 's' in 'high quality sources'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

J.E. R. Staddon

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

What, exactly, needs fixing with this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayner111 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Rayner111, like it says at the top of the article, it lacks inline citiations, very obviously in the first two sections, but not only there. The "Research and Writing" seems to be mostly based on the subjects own writings, and that is not how it should be on WP. Such a section should, for the most part, be a summary of reliably published sources independent of the subject, writing about his writings. If there are no such sources, the article should not mention them. WP:BLP may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Joel Hayward

Could someone who knows about Islamic scholars take a look at this article. I have massively trimmed the academic content (which was largely based on his autobiography) but I don't really have the knowledge to do the same for his Islamic work. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There are major problems with this BLP as well as its vast bloat One is that if it goes to AfD, the cites on GS appear to be large but in fact many are attributable to other scholars. Furthermore several of the links are dead. All sources need to be checked to see if they are RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC).

Roy Johnston

Is this death notice an acceptable reference for Roy Johnston dying? My initial thoughts are that the notice does not contain any biographical information to enable us to confirm it is the subject of our article, but thought it prudent to obtain the views of others. FDW777 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a rather unusual case. I say no, it's not acceptable, because there's no link between the obituary and the material in the article. For instance, the names of his wife and children are not in the article so we can't infer that it's him from a match on these. I can't find any other reports of his death anywhere at present. We need to be careful about declaring someone deceased, so we need to err on the side of caution. Neiltonks (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Eric_Arnoux

Eric Arnoux poorly sourced with fake informations about namesake it's not an acceptable reference in wikipedia Proposed deletion - Sources don’t demonstrate notability of Eric Arnoux, secondary sources don’t be sufficient to establish his notability.

It's almost a WP:ATTACK page as it stands - entirely negative in its view of him. I'd look for something to give a more balanced view, but unfortunately sources are likely to be in French, and my French is very rudimentary! If a French-speaker can't find something to balance the article better, I'd say it should go. Neiltonks (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the notability of Arnoux, but if an editor thinks it should be deleted, they should send it to AfD. It's not going to be deleted by disruptive users re-adding prods that have already been removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This is at AfD now. FrankP (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Janelle Monáe

Janelle Monáe

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

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Janelle_Mon%C3%A1e&oldid=929953850

This is my first time submitting something here, please forgive the newbishness.

Please see the Talk page under "Year of Birth" for the links to information which I believe should be taken into account to at least bring the year of birth "1985" under question, and edit Monae's entry to a "?" year of birth--either 1985 or 1982. I understand that by Wikipedia's own standards, the evidence might not be considered valid enough to permanently alter the date of birth to 1982 alone, but I do not feel Wikipedia would be doing its own function any justice to blindly repeat an untruth, even one parroted by well-sourced & "notable" sources repeatedly.

Here are the links to the information sources cited in favor of a 1982 year of birth:

Monae's public people search entry, stating "Ms Janelle Monae Robinson is 37 years old and was born in December of 1982." : https://www.fastpeoplesearch.com/ms-janelle-monae-robinson_id_G1815840038640576704

Monae's 3rd grade info sourced from one of her middle schools, teacher there quoted with the school year she was in 3rd grade: https://blog.thecurrent.org/2018/05/this-is-janelle-monaes-third-grade-photo-from-her-time-at-minneapoliss-hale-elementary-school/

Monae's high school's web page, article about her, stating year of graduation: https://kckps.org/about-us/reasons-to-believe/previous-reasons-to-believe-honorees/janelle-monae/

Monae shown attending her 10 year anniversary, with video captioned "2001" for grad date at beginning, as well as sign on the wall showing visible "01" at 1:00 minute mark, and an attendee stating "Class of 2001" at the 5:54 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwu7RxvBEx4

Monae stating the astrological positions of the moon and horizon at the date & time of her birth: https://twitter.com/JanelleMonae/status/1203402334304387078 -which match only a year of birth of 1982 on Dec 1st as can be seen here: https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Mon%C3%A1e,_Janelle

-and not a year of birth of 1985 on Dec 1st as can be seen here: https://astro-charts.com/persons/chart/janelle-monae/ -(which puts her moon in the sign of Cancer, and not Gemini, as Monae states on her Twitter account) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CF00:410:A1EC:C22F:25E6:D6CD (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Ok, wow. Where to begin. First, thanks for bringing this here and taking the time to explain your position. The problem is that this is what we call original research. What you've basically done here is the work of a private detective to bring us primary sourced evidence in order to prove some truth that either she's lying or the sources got it wrong. Not only is it original research, in many cases these types of sources may contain private and personal information that we don't post for safety and privacy reasons. That's why we don't use things like birth certificates, school records, blogs from former teachers, etc... We rely on reliable, secondary sources to do the research themselves and provide us with the birthdates. Not to mention that, per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we need to find that date in multiple, reliable, secondary sources, in order to demonstrate that the subject is fine with us publishing the date.

It's not our place to try and expose her private information. We simply publish what we find in reliable, secondary sources. If she lied to them, that's really none of our business and we still go with what the sources say. If she lied about her real age, then that shows that she does care and we should definitely not publish the originally researched date.

And finally, going to the lengths of piecing together her astrological information is above and beyond extreme. Few of us here are astrological experts, nor are we even going to attempt to verify that you are correct. That's taking original research to a whole new level, upping it into synthesis. No, we should just stick to the sourced date and leave well enough alone. Zaereth (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Unfortunately it is what I expected, as I have learned things in this process, about Wikipedia, that I never knew before. And as an information consumer, I am so disappointed in what I've learned. It forces me to take anything I might find in Wikipedia with a huge grain of salt, and to teach myself not to go to it primarily as a good source of information, unless I want a distillation of whatever is repeated the most often by whomever, no matter how true or untrue the bit of info might be. It is not unlike those who repeat a lie so many times, and get their friends to repeat it, until the mass populace at large believes it. Wikipedia is an outlet that grants a megaphone to such things. So much of this has to do with protecting Wikipedia from lawsuits in this post-truth world, and I can see that. So disappointing. But Wikipedia should at least have the integrity to not reprint a demonstrable falsehood, and to leave her birth year blank.

I regret my monetary contributions to Wikipedia now, extremely modest and occasional though they were, and had I the ability, I would rescind them. I didn't know what I was supporting. :( Seriously, this is depressing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CF00:410:35BC:123:4A3E:94CB (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your past donations! I am glad that this has been a learning experience for you. Of course you should take anything you find in Wikipedia with a huge grain of salt! MPS1992 (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry, it was not my intention to upset you. I can tell you're very intelligent, so I will try to explain, if you'll bear with me here. Wikipedia is about what is verifiable in secondary sources. As a tertiary source, we like to keep ourselves three-times removed from the primary sources. We let the reporters do the investigating and we trust them to get it right. Does this mean they're always right? Most certainly not, but the way to deal with that is to find equal or better secondary sources. We're all anonymous here, so we can't expect readers to trust in our expertise, nor should we expect them to have their own expertise in deciphering the primary sources.

Scientifically (and journalistically) speaking, there is a difference between what is verifiable and what is true. Verifiable means I can show you evidence. Truth requires me to take that evidence and create a theory (opinion) of how it all fits together. For example, someone showed up at the potential energy article and posted what was their own theory of gravity and energy. It was all very well sourced. A little too well, if you know what I mean. What they had done was to take little bits and pieces from many, many different books and assembled it into a band new theory of gravity. Now this person may have been a genius and may be trying to show us the truth of gravity, but they're no Einstein. They were engaging in synthesis, and until their theory becomes accepted by mainstream science, Wikipedia is not the place to publish it.

See, this is really no different. You've brought us evidence and then asked us to do the science ourselves to come up with the correct truth. None of us here rely on the expertise of anyone else. All we ask is that people provide sources, and the real experts will have those sources. If no sources exist, we simply leave it out. For example, I have expertise in the art of Japanese swordsmithing. I know from personal experience that the notion that the soft-iron core of a katana helps prevent it from breaking is a myth. It doesn't prevent breaking anymore than the soft-steel jacket already does. What it really does is prevent ringing, like a bell that wasn't homogeneous when cast. Such a sword is easier to use because it doesn't hurt your hand as much, plus it tends to strike without recoil, like a dead-blow hammer. While I know this to be true, that's a far different thing from finding it printed in reliable, secondary sources, because few of their authors have ever held such a sword, let alone tested it in use in comparison to homogeneous blades. Until someone actually prints that info in a book somewhere, it simply stays out of the article.

With things like birthdates, while it is useful biographical data, it's borderline trivia and not really germane to learning about who this person really is. But it is personal and sometimes private information that people can use to cause real harm, so we err on the side of caution and give the subject a lot of latitude in control over their own information. I hope that helps explain. Zaereth (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Tanner Ainge

Yesterday, Utah County Commissioner Tanner Ainge's page was edited by a user regarding a recent tax increase. The edits in question are poorly sourced and opinionated in nature. Here is a LINK to the diff page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TK-379 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue, the edits in question seem to have been removed now. MPS1992 (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Kiwao Nomura

• Kiwao Nomura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Needs a review for neutrality, because the main editor, Hayimi (talk · contribs), may have a COI. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The issue at this page stems from a broader question about the general use of COI and AUTO tags, a discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography#Correct_Use_of_AUTO_and_COI_tags — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankP (talk • contribs) 10:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No evidence has been offered of any COI editing. The article still needs review, and a review of Hayimi's edits is probably a good idea as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be some evidence of COI editing on the part of Hayimi, but nothing conclusive. They created the article, and at the time added a "biography" section containing unsourced info that only the subject or someone close to the subject should possibly know. And the fact that the user in question took the photo for the article, which is a rather close portraiture, seems to suggest some intimate knowledge of the subject. Aside from that, the user hasn't edited the article since 2012, shortly after creating it, and has done many useful edits on other article from 2010 to date. The subject does seem to be at least marginally notable, so even if the user is COI I'm not really seeing a huge problem with their edits. They may not be the best at keeping a neutral tone, as article does have some peacock and weasel problems, but that could just be a sign of a enthusiastic fan and should be easy for any exterminator to address. Zaereth (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice catch about the photo. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Prof L S Seshagiri Rao

Hi There, The renowned Professor passed away, so you may have to move this from under Living people category. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymym (talk • contribs) 10:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. BLP rules also apply the recently deceased, sometimes for as long as two years, so that's something to keep in mind. Zaereth (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex Konanykhin

I'm no fan of these two, but User:Wikireadia2020, a new user with what seems to be a lot of warnings about and issues with BLP pages and otherwise on his talk page and other parts of the site such as 1,2, or 3-and has launched similar attacks against Silvina Moschini and Alex Konanykhin, including on Kon's talk page. Thought it was something to look at, and possibly revert? Kon's page reads weird as it is-we're using a Wikipedia debate to cite something in the lede of the page about his feud with Wiki that never appeared in any RS. Trust me, I hunted for one for a while tonight. Surprised nobody picked up on it in the media, seems like a serious thing. Odd they’ve been able to so successfully push their conspiracy theories to the point these two are wrapped up in things, not that following the impeachment talk pages isn’t enough to drive us all crazy! 2605:8D80:422:7ACA:F1D0:97A0:21A0:921D (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

One of his companies being banned from Wikipedia editing is not appropriate for the lede of the article about him if there's not coverage of it in reliable secondary sources indicating its significance. I've moved it further down. I can't comment on impeachment talk pages, whatever they may be, as I have no knowledge or experience of such things. MPS1992 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

We don't cite Wikipedia, it's user generated WP:NOTSOURCE. Bacondrum (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no attack on this guy, he's a known scammer and media manipulator that hides his tracks well. For his side of the story, read https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1996/08/18/from-russia-with-chutzpah/a37d4fb3-c0ae-443d-b2ee-72c8cb154cb5/ for the 'other side' you won't find anything online and it's all in Russian language. There is an active bot protecting him, the first modification from his page used material from this above Wapo story and was reverted, as it wasn't in line with what the editor wanted. I'm just shocked how inaccurate wikipedia is, and trying to contribute based on what i know. --May intelligence prevail.. (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikireadia2020 has been CU blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Kristina Pimenova

• Kristina Pimenova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

She's a child model, and her height gets changed somewhat frequently but there doesn't seem to be any sources whatsoever being used. The height itself isn't even consistent: [3] changed from 6ft6inches to 5ft3inches, [4] back to 6ft6inhes, [5] to 5ft4inches, [6] to 5ft6inches. I noticed this, removed the height, and started a talk page discussion about it yesterday. However, no one's commented and the height was changed yet again [7], this time to 5ft6inches. I tried looking for a reliable source that verified her height, but couldn't. She's 13, so she's likely still growing anyways. If her height can't be verified as correct information, I don't think it should remain in the article. Am I doing the right thing right now? I think I've been doing what I should in a situation like this, but I don't really have much experience with situations like this. Clovermoss (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd remove her height as it's going to change and no sources are available to verify. Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do we even have this article? The principal claim to notability is by inheritance. Guy (help!) 00:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Pascoe

• Bruce Pascoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently some opinions columns have been published questioning Aboriginal author Bruce Pascoe's Aboriginality. Pascoe identifies as Aboriginal. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to Pascoe as Aboriginal, including the ABC, SBS, The Guardian, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald etc.

The columns have been run in two News Corp mastheads: The Herald Sun and The Australian, both reliable sources, but their opinions columns are famous for their strident bias. The main voice in the debate is Andrew Bolt. Bolt has been convicted and successfully sued over near identical claims made in this column (Bolt has been sued a number of times in the past after publishing defamatory falsehoods). In this context these mastheads are not independent reliable sources, they are "culture warriors".

The other voice is essentially yellow journalism a generally unreliable source - Quadrant.

The three publishers of the claims are the main protagonists in the Australian "culture wars". The source of the information is a total hatchet job, someone who obviously fixates on Bruce Pascoe's Aboriginality to an unhealthy and wildly disproportionate extent. It's a blog, little more than an attack page: https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/

The only reliable voice published on the debate so far is the The Saturday Paper and they tear the claims to shreds here: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/media/2019/11/30/bolt-pascoe-and-the-culture-wars/15750324009163

Some editors want to add this claim that Pascoe is not Aboriginal to his page. I believe this would violate a number of guidelines, namely: WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:LIBEL.

Undue because only a handful of columnists, who clearly have a strident bias and also have a history of attacking fair skinned Aboriginal people, have made the claim. Why haven't other mastheads reported the claims? That gets to the next point and why we shouldn't publish them either - other mastheads haven't gone near it because they may well end up in court: Libel - because the main voice in this debate has been convicted and sued for near identical claims in the past. These claims may well end up in court under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

With this taken into account I do not believe such claims should be published in a BLP unless they are more widely reported in independent reliable sources.

Thanks in advance. Bacondrum (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to add some further detail about the source of the info on the blog: a Wikipedia editor has stated on the talk page that he is the author of the blog, and that he is the sole source of all of the info used by Bolt (in the Herald Sun and possibly syndicated in the other Newscorp tabloids?), The Australian, and Quadrant. The first are two behind paywalls, and the opinion piece in The Australian (referred to by someone on the talk page) was not published in their print version that day, so they are hard for most editors to assess. However it appears that they are all either by columnists or opinion pieces by editors. There was also a video of Bolt on his Sky News show. This article in another independent source makes a brief mention of Bolt’s attack and Pascoe's response. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to add to that...who is the author of Black Emu Exposed? What are his qualifications? All this info has come from a complete unknown. Bacondrum (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

To clarify the statement above that Some editors want to add this claim that Pascoe is not Aboriginal to his page. I feel misrepresented by Bacondrum statement. Most of the editors referred to have not said we want to say "Pascoe is not Aboriginal", we want to say something akin to "Some commentators have questioned Pascoe's claims of Aboriginal ancestry." The statement would be referenced to one of Bolt's articles and Dark Emu Exposed or perhaps just to the Inside Story article mentioned above. Some of the comments about Andrew Bolt on talk:Bruce Pascoe have gone very close to breaching WP:BLP about Bolt. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

" Most of the editors referred to have not said we want to say "Pascoe is not Aboriginal", we want to say something akin to "Some commentators have questioned Pascoe's claims of Aboriginal ancestry."...Six of one, half a dozen of the other. It's libelous, end of story. As I've stated before Scott, unless there is wider reportage I'm going to fight the inclusion of libelous and undue content every step of the way. Yawn. Bacondrum (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree it's the same. The sources may not support the addition. But it's far easier for there to be sufficient sourcing to establish one, than it is to establish the other. Conflating the 2 just confuses everyone what we're actually discussing. A fairly common response at BLPN, is that the statement requires inline attribution and can't be said in wikipedia-voice. Clearly this would not satisfy you and fair enough. But if you ask the wrong question, expect the wrong answer. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I looked at this a week or 2 ago. Is the question actually over his Aboriginal ancestry or over his identity? When I was looking, it sounded like at least some of the controversy was coming from organisations representing various Indigenous Australian groups. I would be surprised if such groups would necessarily dispute his ancestry, since I presume that may be established by his known genealogy. But it's fairly common that such groups require more than simple ancestry to accept someone's identity, e.g. it arises a lot with Native American identity, e.g. there is a very long running dispute over stuff like Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent. (Check out the history of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America for more.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on the lack of any real info on who is behind it, nor any evidence it's meets our requirements for fact checking and accuracy, there's no way in hell that https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/ is an acceptable source in any BLP, except maybe as a supporting link if something they say is sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment The top of this page says For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. There are currently two open RFCs on talk:Bruce Pascoe on related topics of this report. The second RFC was raised by the same person as this report. Neither has been closed yet. The first four sentences of this notice are not in dispute. What appears to be in dispute is how much weight should be given to "right wing" sources, and how the content of those sources should be used in the article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie

Mark Bourrie

BLP subject complains on talk page of unfairness. Has not been given due consideration by Canadian Wikipedia editors who have locked the page down after stripping it of most of the information, refuse to listen to him claim cited article has error that he complained of at the time -- the accusation that he had a conflict of interest as a journalist when, as the timeline clearly shows, he had earned his PhD, was teaching and writing books. Appears to be spite and retyribution for Bourrie's Wikipedia edits of some 10 years ago. Square Offset (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)