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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:55, 26 December 2019

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Janelle Monáe

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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: [1] changed from 6ft6inches to 5ft3inches, [2] back to 6ft6inhes, [3] to 5ft4inches, [4] 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 [5], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I have restored the sourced value that was still in the article on December 3. She has grown a little since LA Models last measured her, but that can't be helped, they update measurements once or twice a year. AP 20191223 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: and @JzG:, the height has been added again [6], this time to 5"4. The editor is new, but they added a source. Do you think that a source like this is reliable enough for a WP:BLP? I'm still skeptical of including height, but I can't even access the source to verify it. Clovermoss (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source has been in the article since the beginning. IMDb has a more recent value but is not considered reliable for such data. An agency is. Almond Plate (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An agency is a primary source. We do not include controversial primary sourced data. Guy (help!) 00:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do, however, use primary sources for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Almond Plate (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a point of trivia which is changing over time. There's actually no source that gives her height with a date attached. I'm sure she was, is, or will be 5'4". So what? Does L.A. Models continuously measure the height of all the models on their site. Do they have independent fact checkers. Should we graph her height as she grows up? Perhaps we should also give her daily weight, and body measurements while we're at it. Or, maybe it just doesn't matter until some reliable sources write about it, to show it does matter. --Rob (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I filled out at SPI report [7] and AP 20191223 was blocked for sockpuppetry.

In conclusion, do we have a consensus to not include her height in the article (that way I can remove the BLP noticeboard discussion from the talk page)? I'll keep the article on my watchlist, but I want to know that this is what the course of action from now on should be (unless independent, reliable sources are cited for her height). Clovermoss (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree with ScottDavis. There are two RFC's ongoing on the page already, this smacks of forum shopping. I request this be closed as this is already being discussed on the page in question! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 19:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not forum shopping, I want to know if any of the proposed sources are acceptable for a BLP considering the history of some of the commentators and the libel implications. Bacondrum (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Nil Einne for the well considered feedback, as always. I'm coming round to the idea of mentioning the dispute if properly framed and attributed. Bacondrum (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum "mentioning the dispute if properly framed and attributed" sounds like a brilliant idea. I fully agree. --Rob (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 retribution for Bourrie's Wikipedia edits of some 10 years ago. Square Offset (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a brand new account who has never edited the Mark Bourrie page, what relation to you have to the editors who have banned from that page and share a similar interest as you with adding criticism to the Jesse Brown (journalist) page? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to the BLP issues raised, please. Square Offset (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two issues. First, the question about your possible conflict of interest, and secondly, your complaint. The first you can easily respond to and there is no problem with a COI if admitted and handled correctly. The second would require more explanation of the exact problem with diffs. O3000 (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to the BLP issues raised

Nope. Nobody died and left you in charge. Let's deal with the obvious block evasion, instead. Perhaps you should try to get yourself unblocked first. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone told me this was a BLP issues page. Silly me to believe them. Someone also said Wikipedia has a BLP policy that's supposed to be taken very seriously. Again. my complaint is that the subject of the article is insistent that he wasn't a journalist when he did the Duffy edits and other work/favors/whatever for Duffy, and the timeline shows he's right: he taught full time at Concordia in the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years (see Rate My Professor) got his PhD in 2009, according to the University of Ottawa alumni page cited in the article, did three books (2012, 2013 and early 2015) and went to law school in September 2014. The Christopher Waddell comment seems to be a dial-a-quote from the go-to journalism prof in Ottawa, who was fed information by David Akin, and then spit out a quote. Waddell as dial-a-quote: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=625&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ACYBGNTWkV_yWBbepnDOHROgKC5MnyNmXQ%3A1577113726113&ei=ftgAXqLCBpirtQafzaRQ&q=christopher+waddell+journalism&oq=christopher+waddell+journalism&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10760.13819.0.14130.11.11.0.0.0.0.347.932.1j2j1j1.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.0.0....0.-GCJyqaF90I) Bourrie's objection, also published by Canadaland (here https://www.canadalandshow.com/canadaland-strong-armed-me-writing/)(we can get into that site's lack of credibility later), is not mentioned. I think Bourrie has a point: anything that gives depth to the article has been trimmed out, while anything negative has been fiercely protected. For instance, the anonymous editors who guard the page could try to keep it current by doing the odd Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+bourrie+bush+runner&sxsrf=ACYBGNSvUNkx7zrtEd5fZ8tFBwc8u_Lauw:1577113436043&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjksICxhczmAhWoVN8KHUGOBHMQ_AUoAnoECBUQBA&biw=1366&bih=625. As for who I am, there may be a happy day when everyone writes on Wikipedia under their own name, so that we may be able to easily see their conflicts of interest, and they may take responsibility for their work. That day has not yet arrived. Square Offset (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Square Offset: The BLP policy says to put far more weight on what independent, reliable sources say about a person than what the person says about themselves. So, any complaint that starts with "the subject of the article is insistent" starts to run right into that territory of self-published sources (not to mention conflict of interest). —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking for straw man arguments is a waste of yours and my time, so let's not do it. You could try to make a case for leaving the article as-is by reading the links. The article by Bourrie is from the same site that Wikipedia uses to trash him. Wikipedia has a rep as an organization in which intransigent, anonymous white men stake out positions and guard them in power plays and drive everyone else away. It's easy to be an arrogant bully behind a fake name. It's also easy to trash the name of a real person without responsibility. And the BLP guide suggest people who feel Wikipedia has given them a bum deal should come here, so COI is also a worthless argument here -- whether a CO exists or not. You try to make the argument "we can libel Mark Bourrie because you might be Mark Bourrie." It's not much of a case you're making. Square Offset (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting how you start off complaining about straw-man arguments, and then go immediately into a straw-man argument with racist overtones about how all us "white" Wikipedians are out to bully people. Editing with a COI is a BLP issue. Perhaps one that you don't want to talk about, but when you bring a problem here you're likely to get issues addressed that you didn't bargain for, and first thing's first. Your refusal to answer the simple question of COI is as good as an admission, and the combative attitude is not going to help you sell your case. Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a COI. But even if I did, this is the place to complain about BLP violations. Now, do you have a COI? Do any of the other anonymous "editors"? No one will address my actual complaint. Complaints about Wikipedia being an insider social club ring true when all the responses are about the person and nothing is about the content. Square Offset (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Square Offset: Very well, I'll address the meat of your concern presented in your first message. Looking at the masthead of Canadaland, it appears to be a reliable source. They label Bourrie as a journalist. Even though he received a PhD, the timeline of our article shows he was continuing to do journalism work, so I don't see any problem with the text sourced to Canadaland. —C.Fred (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing that. The timeline, in fact, shows otherwise, and none of this "journalism" seems to be linked to by anyone. I tried to find some, and all that turned up was excerpts from his books, and absolutely nothing about Canadian federal politics or about Duffy (outside his book Kill the Messengers: Stephen Harper's Assault on Your Right to Know, which he discussed in the piece published by -- wait for it -- Canadaland). The Wikipedia page strongly implies, through a quote from someone who did no investigation but is held out as authoritative, he had a journalistic conflict of interest, covering Duffy and Canadian politics, while working for Duffy. I can't find evidence of that. Where is the journalism? Some links please. Timeline very strongly suggests he was writing three books and teaching during the time he did the Duffy edits. Square Offset (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be trying to track down evidence ourselves, we should be following what the sources say, and it seems that the sources about the incident call him a journalist. - MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's "original research" to do a Google search (Merk Bourrie in Google News: https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+bourrie&sxsrf=ACYBGNQmDDLqk5u6DARL57YgTTOjy9l2Yw:1577211335138&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjhPeK8s7mAhWDVN8KHTlnBqYQ_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1366&bih=625) to see if the subject of the piece is right when he complains on that talk page. There's an inherent human dignity question here: does Wikipedia actually care about truth and reputations? Or does it use weaseling to get out of responsibility and accountability, just as it allows editing and administering behind fake names? Does anyone care about getting it right, or is it just about exercising social power in Wikipedia cliques? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Square Offset (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in the proximate issue, but point: we certainly, can, do, and should track down material on our own for our education, not for putting into the article. Here's one that came up for me recently. We had a source, would normally be considered reliable, that said [pop star] had appeared in [girlie magazine] as the centerfold. Sleuthing and deduction revealed to me that this wasn't true -- she'd appeared in the magazine, but fully clothed and not as the centerfold. To determine this I certainly performed original research, such as searching the world wide web for copies of the supposed question, analyzing them, looking at the cover of the magazine (centerfolds are always on the cover or at least mentioned there; she wasn't), determining of the magazine in question ever used fully clothed centerfolds (they don't) and so forth.

So, what do do? Leave in what the reliable source said, or take it out since it wasn't true? Obviously we cannot be like "Reliable Source magazine said she appeared as a centerfold [source: the article], but she didn't [source: me]". But we can just remove the material. So we did.

Was that wrong? Are we not supposed to do that? I mean... you have to understand that "Reliable Source" is not a magic word. No source is always reliable for all statements of fact, and I would say that a source is by definition not reliable for a fact which it objectively got wrong. Right? Because holding otherwise would be... well, I don't want to throw around pejorative terms, but... but... so wrong it is on Jupiter? We are not putting in the Wikipedia things that we know are not true just because we can dig up someone who got it wrong? Tell me we aren't.

Don't know that applies here or not (busy, not interested) but I felt compelled to counter the editor's statement. Herostratus (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple responses to Square Offset's statements: (1) We're all volunteers here, and also not mind readers. If you have reliable, third party published sources that directly counter claims in the article, then please provide them. Telling everyone to google it isn't helpful if we don't know what we're looking for. (2) You keeping claiming that editors are controlling the page but haven't provided any evidence. Nothing's going to happen about that unless you supply DIFFs of misconduct. Woodroar (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of the article has a concern, in my opinion it should be taken seriously. But I'm a busy person and personally I've found the OP's tone and behavior to be off putting, to put it mildly, so I hadn't bothered to look into this until now. Frankly, if they had simply said "Yes, I have a COI" or "No, I'm simply interested because..." I would have taken this a bit more seriously, but the evasiveness automatically put me on alert.

First, the article reads for the most part like a resume. I can't really find in there anywhere --going strictly by the writing-- what this guy is notable for. Aside from an impressive list of schooling and jobs, what has he done? Talked to a Chinese news agency and participated in paid editing on Wikipedia? If that's all we got then it must've been a really slow news day on Wikipedia. As written I see no real indication of this person's importance. It's a terribly boring article about some insignificant stuff.

Now, let me see if I got this right. This is all about the use of the word "journalist" at the end of the career section, is that correct? This is not Wikipedia calling him a journalist by profession, but a paraphrase of someone named Christopher Waddell making a statement that I read as "Someone with a masters degree in journalism should know better, because that goes against all ethics of journalism." I haven't read the source, but I assume there is a direct quote in there from this guy that perhaps we should use instead. That would help clarify the intended meaning and make it clear that this is a statement according to Waddell, not a fact presented by Wikipedia. Zaereth (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sockpuppetry: I went through the article and didn't find any BLP violations. Almost all of the material is properly sourced and supported, and the few unsourced non-contentious statements are tagged inline. This looks like a complaint from the same person operating accounts such as Sportsman360, who left a nearly identical complaint on the article's talk page in September [8] and was subsequently banned for being a sockpuppet of Spoonkymonkey, who was banned by Arbcom and may be related to the sockpuppets of Mark Bourrie. All the accounts have the same argumentative style, and they also focus on people like Christopher Waddell for making "libelous" statements. Based on the article's talk page, editor Nfitz looks to have more knowledge about the sockpuppetry there (which seems to frequently have 3 month breaks in between, possibly to avoid checkuser). I will submit a new entry for the SPI if I have time later in the week. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has been banned as a confirmed sockpuppet of Spoonkymonkey. I suggest this thread be closed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before closing, I'll say I do think it would be helpful to clarify that the last sentence is an expert opinion by Waddell. I can see why this would upset the subject, but claiming another job is only trying to minimize it. To help clarify why I immediately read Waddell's statement like I do, journalism is not just a job like flipping burgers at the local Burger King. In journalism, reputation is everything. In some ways it's kinda like being a Marine. I've heard it said, "Once a Marine, always a Marine". Both have a very structured, internal value-system and a "code" that they live by. A code that carries with them all throughout their lives. It doesn't matter what particular job you're doing at the time, once you break the code your reputation diminishes in the eyes of other journalists, and once that happens... But if well sourced, Waddell's opinion seems like a valid, expert one (at least a peer) given the facts surrounding the case. However, we should also strive to add opposing views, that is, provided they exist. Zaereth (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Zaereth, and if the article subject had news articles or other sources that discussed the issues they raised, I don't think there would be any objection to include additional information. If they create another sockpuppet in 3 months, I strongly encourage them to focus on reliable sources that can be added. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Werthein Group

Gerardo Werthein

Gerardo Werthein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Malfeasance that is "under investigation". content aded here is negatve BLP sourced to finleaks and removed as misinformation here. Subsequently readded and removed. While not egregiously negative BLP, I'd like it looked at and I question the adequacy of the source.-- Deep fried okra 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zuleyka Rivera

"She is also the first winner from Puerto Rico to have noticeable mixed (African and Indigenous) heritage features, different from her four predecessors (Marisol Malaret, Deborah Carthy-Deu, Dayanara Torres, and Denise Quiñones) that have distinctly European features."

This is EXTREMELY speculative, unscientific, and incorrect, as several of the other winners are also of (obvious) mixed ancestry. Editor also doesn't define "mixed" and is likely basing his/her assumptions from colorism.

This sentence should be deleted, or radically reworked to be more accurate, cleanly defined, and not disparaging of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltacobot (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source for her heritage? If not then I agree it should be removed, we're not playing the ethnicity guessing game. Also, unless there's been a debate about race/ethnicity in the awards I don't see the point of mentioning it. Bacondrum (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Fiori

There is either a person or group of people who have continuously been vandalizing and editing Patrick Fiori's page even though I've tried to undo the changes. I would like to request that there be a page protection of some kind to keep the page from being edited unless it is by an admin or by Patrick himself, and also restore the page to what it was before all of the edits were made. Any advice or help by anyone is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

EDIT: I have reversed the edits made by the other users back to the way it was before. I hope it will stay that way. Though, I doubt it. Admins, please help!

Hajiru (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hajiru: Thank you for reverting the vandalism and welcome to Wikipedia. I see that the article has already been protected now. I couldn't have helped you with that specifically, since I'm not an admin. In general, if you'd like to request page protection, WP:RFPP is the noticeboard for that. You'll get a much faster response there than here, so it's a good place to go if you encounter a similar situation in the future. Clovermoss (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G. Nanjundan

G. Nanjundan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} Person was found deceased in last few days, there were various reports in newspapers etc. No talk page was created by the article creator. The talk page where created had Old revision of Talk:G. Nanjundan had no Template:WPBS blp=yes not blpo=yes parameters set; nor the living=yes {{WikiProject Biography}} set. I have subsequently set various parameters, FeanorStar7 has challenged them and I seem ot have challenged back. This is all good faith and I would like to know best practice setting for a newly created article on a person recently deceased for WPBS/bll & blpo and WikiProject Biography living=. This report has had to be rushed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC) See also my talk page. @Inter&anthro and S. M. Nazmus Shakib: article/talk page creators. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having more time and less rush on a different point on a day I have restudied Template:WikiProject Biography/doc and [[:Template:WikiProject banner shell/doc]. The Parameters section of the Biography/doc specifies "living=" mus be specified (yes or no). For a confirmed death of subjects of the article this must imply living=no for a confirmed death. "blpo=yes" should be used "Answer yes if the subject of the article is not a living person, but the article contains sensitive information about other living persons, otherwise remove this line.". In the spirit of WP:BDP the information in the article is (usually) sensitive to living heirs/friends for a "mourning" period; and I would suggest generally until interment; and erring on the safe side would usually be 6 months except for complex situations. The documentation for banner shell/doc is similar with blp=yes/living=yes demanded for living people (does not actually state the position for non-living people) and blpo=yes This should be used for articles where Template:BLP does not apply directly to the subject, but which nevertheless have content that directly relates to other living persons. BLP might be required if the article mentioned people other than the subject. In essential in thie case I have determined living=yes on the Template:WikiProject Biography template and blpo=yes on the [[:Template:WikiProject banner shell] would be appropriately place Template:BLP others on the talk page with points to a page covering WP:BDP. (I actually believe this is precisely -FeanorStar7's position on my talk page). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the living parameter for the actual WP Biography tag itself should be living=no since we know the person is dead; the blpo=yes in the banner shell I agree with... I hope this is clear. Thank you.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I simply need to be WP:TROUTed for braindeadingly setting it incorrectly on an edit this morning, now fixed. [9]. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Bushin

There's a few things that I wanted to bring up here first about this article. First, the article only has two citations: one being for his death today. I can't read them because they're in Russian. His name was also removed from Category:Living people. The other thing that stands out to me is that the only other citation in the article is to a sentence containing one word (read the article to see what I mean, I wouldn't want to repeat possible WP:BLP violations here). Are sources like these enough for a BLP? The original creator of the article was blocked for using mutiple accounts abusively, so I guess I'm a bit more concerned about the content. Clovermoss (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems harmless enough to me, book search gives returns. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Govindaharihari: That's good. Thanks for checking. I appreciate it. Clovermoss (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sen. Marsha Blackburn Biography of Living Persons

WHY are you looking for dirt on Sen. Blackburn under the guise of a Biography of Living Persons? You ask for evidence if she is "Racist" because of her vote in regards to recognizing Hawaii as former Pres. Obama's state of birth. SHAME on you!!! Biography's are apolitical and by asking for evidence if she is racist you are negating your claim to be a "Biography". This should be deleted IMMEDIATELY if you wish to maintain your credibility! Kilraywashere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilraywashere (talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the OP appears to be referring to Talk:Marsha_Blackburn#Racist_birther_background_and_links, which is a section that someone started over two years ago which had no comments in response until now. Looks like it was basically ignored. (There is text in the article relating to the subject introducing legislation in the wake of birther conspiracies, but there is no accusation of racism.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted on the article talk page that the comment, while maybe not well articulated, seemed fair enough since at the time there was zero coverage of the subject co-sponsoring that bill and I suspect we probably should have covered it, as we do now. (I don't think the comment inspired the fix, and indeed such comments often result in no action, hence WP:SOFIXIT etc, but the post of that comment still had a point.) As for the racism stuff, I would remove even after 2 years any explicit accusation of racism by an identifiable living person when not supported by reliable secondary sources. However since the comment on the talk page didn't say the subject is racist, but rather the conspiracy theories were, which IMO is a fair enough characterisation since they often were, I don't think we need to do anything. Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mriganka Singh

User:Kshitijbhargava171001 is adding unsourced POV and potentially defamatory content in the article as can be seen here, here and here, where the user writes that the subject has no other credibility apart form being the daughter of a notable politician as can be seen in one of the edits by the user here - "Mriganka has no other relevant milestone in her life than being the daughter of Hukum Singh.." The user keep edit-warring and is likely to violate 3RR despite I warned them once [10]. Since not much activity can be seen from the account apart from vandalizing the above article, it seems like a vandalism only account. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Gerstenfeld

Please note that someone keeps deliberately putting up a section on 'Norway' which is disparaging to Manfred Gerstenfeld. Every time we take it down, they put it back up. Can you please stop this?

thank you

Karen (for Manfred Gerstenfeld)

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