Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive243

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Anthony Zerbe

reference to actor Roscoe Lee Browne as currently living and touring, but has actually been DEAD for 8 years(DEAD. NOT alive and NOT touring, even as per wikipedia entry for Roscoe Lee Browne)

current incorrect wikipedia content foro Anthony Zerbe: "currently touring the United States in Behind the Broken Words, a performance of contemporary poetry, comedy and dramatic works with fellow actor Roscoe Lee Browne." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhurt (talk • contribs) 13:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source confirming his death? I can't seem to find anything. Meatsgains (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Dead [1] Lipsquid (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid: Thanks. I'm in the process of updating page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid: Wait, the source you provided doesn't say anything about Zerbe's death, only Roscoe Lee Browne's. Meatsgains (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The article Anthony Zerbe has stale information. "He is the former artistic director of Reflections, A New Plays Festival at the Geva Theatre in Rochester, New York, which is currently touring the United States in Behind the Broken Words, a performance of contemporary poetry, comedy and dramatic works with fellow actor Roscoe Lee Browne." Nope, not touring with Mr. Browne. Though this is not my BLP thread, I am just a drive by with a BLP issue on another subject and was trying to help. Lipsquid (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a good example of why we should never say "currently" on WP. I have put this in past tense, since we don't know when this touring took place, but we do know it is not going on "currently." Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We will leave his "death" off the page until it can be confirmed in a reliable source. Meatsgains (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Meatsgains What are you talking about? If you read above, Roscoe Lee Browne is indeed dead and it is very reliably sourced. The problem on the Anthony Zerbe page has thankfully already been fixed by Kendall-K1. This can be closed. Lipsquid (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)\

I misread the beginning - I thought this was referring to Zerbe's "death". Meatsgains (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

List of oldest living people

SiameseTurtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The list of oldest living people page lists living supercentenarians - people known to be alive over the age of 110 years. The issue I have is with the ranks that are used for the living people. One source, the Gerontology Research Group states the rank of the living person. However, there are currently only 48 people listed from this source - all born in September 1904 and before.[2] Other sources, such as news reports are given for other people listed who are younger supercentenarians. However, these either give no rank, or an outdated rank that no longer applies because several months have passed. Despite this, ranks have been assigned to these people without a reliable source to back them up. My issue with this is that we cannot merely just add a rank to a living person without a reliable source, especially given that calculating the rank is not an exact science.

Within the introduction to the list, the article states "The actual number of living supercentenarians has been estimated at 150 and 600. The true number of living supercentenarians is uncertain because not all supercentenarians are known to researchers at a given time and also because some supercentenarian claims are unproven."[3]

There are a lot of uncertainties that are mentioned here. There could be anywhere from 150-600 people aged over 110, which is quite a large range. Comparing this to the list itself, there are currently less than 150 people listed. The article goes on to state that not all supercentenarians are known about[4], and going by these figures, there could be over 450 people missing from the list. Clearly if there are many supercentenarians missing from the list, then this would drastically affect the ranking system.

One member suggested that WP:CALC should apply. However I dispute that because it's clear we do not have full information about supercentenarians, so it is not an obvious calculation. There is also plenty of evidence in the history of the article of newly discovered people being assigned to a high rank, and then having everyone else move down a place - which seems to happen on a regular basis. [5][6][7] That's clearly not possible - no-one's rank is going to drop as they get older. It's merely that the unsourced ranks were inaccurate in the first place because not all supercentenarians were known about. Having inaccurate and unsourced information about living people would appear to violate WP:BLP.

My issue is that the ranks that have been assigned to living people on Wikipedia are being assigned on incorrect assumptions about the information we have. Since we know that many supercentenarians are not known, we cannot know for sure what someone's rank is. I feel the current situation to assign a rank for everyone violates WP:OR and WP:SYN as the ranks below about 48 are not reliably sourced, and they make a false assumption that we know of every supercentenarian, which is refuted by information by sources in the article.[8] We simply cannot assume that the next person on the list is the next oldest person in real life.

My suggestion has been to remove ranks that are not reliably sourced particularly because I feel this violates WP:BLP to have unsourced information about living people, but this has been met with some contention and it was suggested that I brought the case here for further discussion. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support removing ranks, as I've said for a long time. We're not going to use GRG's rankings, because their lists are not complete. And no other RS is in a position to offer them (nor tries to). E Eng 05:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The ranks from the GRG are reliably sourced however, and their research is published in peer-reviewed journals[9], so I don't see a particular reason why we should be selective about what information is suitable from the source. If the ranks are deemed suitable for a scientific journal, then they should surely be fine for Wikipedia. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Support no ranks. It sounds like an invitation for OR and impossible to reliably source. I don't think it's appropriate to use WP:CALC here. —PermStrump(talk) 13:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Support removing ranks, as I've also said for a long time, for the exact same reasons as listed in the above !votes. Ca2james (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Get rid of the rankings because they violate BLP and RS. Also, because they are a marker of systemic bias. Because of the dearth of reliable birth and pension records in broad swaths of the world any list of the purportedly world's oldest living people will be inaccurate and skewed toward the first world and away from the third.

Colleagues, please also be aware that the subject area of longevity is under discretionary sanctions because of an Arbcom case. Fair warning, issues about sources, reliability and verifiability have long been contentious here. Let's take care to be civil here, and aspire to give off more light than heat. David in DC (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Support removing unsourced ranks, as I have in previous discussions. Assigning ranks is original research. The WP:CALC exception would only apply if one were applying ranks to a complete set with easily comparable values, which this is not. Pburka (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

If WP:CALC doesn't apply and the unsourced ranks do violate policy, then I believe we'd be better off not having any ranks at all. We cannot rely solely on the GRG source(s) for rankings since their tables are so largely incomplete. As stated, there is an estimated 150-600 supercentenarians but the GRG has only ranked 48 or so. Does the GRG know the person ranked 32nd on their list is the 32nd oldest person? What happens if a reliable source has someone older than September 1904 but isn't on the GRG tables? Agreed with David in DC above in that any source that provides a rank is going to be inaccurate. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have already removed the heading "Rank" from the column once. It has been replaced by another user with "№" which I've let stand for now as a more neutral term even though it seems rather redundant (I'd have thought consecutive numbering starting at "1" was obvious to anyone who can operate a computer). Removing the column, as was done with part of earlier versions of this article, led to frequent errors in the number of entries iin the table, and I would expect the average reader to want to know how many people there are in the table (note: NOT "how many (verified) living supercentenarians are there" but "how many reliably sourced living supercentenarians are there IN THIS ARTICLE). Leaving a headerless enumerated column seems the easiest way of doing this. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a fine solution. The numbers aren't ranks, they're ordinals. clpo13_(talk) 22:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Changing the name of the column doesn't stop it being a rank. If we want to count the number of cases, then just put a total number in the text above. There's no need to assign a number for everyone, and it's already been pretty much well agreed here that we shouldn't be assigning these without a reliable source. SiameseTurtle (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish! The majority of comments here are for deleting rankings entirely. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Bill Brochtrup

I found Bill Brochtrup categorized as gay, but I don't see prose info yet. I don't want to remove it, so I found People mag and Advocate and Greg in Hollywood. Is any of sources reliable? --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI I added a section break above George Ho's question re: Brochtrup just cuz the thread was getting long and this is kind of separate from the more general discussion above. IMO those sources seem fine. They each have strengths and weaknesses, but it seems pretty cut and dry so it's hard to imagine someone would challenge it and if they did, it also seems like it would be easy enough to find more sources. The Advocate article actually cited the same People article, so they kind of count as one source, and I'd probably only use one or the other. Brochtrup looks like a good example of someone where being openly gay is relevant to his public life since a lot of the coverage on him talks about how he was one of the first openly gay actors in Hollywood and in one of the interviews he said, "I hope that I sort of laid the groundwork for some of the young guys coming up". Another sign that someone's sexuality is relevant to their career is when there's more to say about it other than, "He's gay." There's some good substance here about Brochtrup and I'm surprised that there was nothing in the narrative about it already. —PermStrump(talk) 17:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I added Personal life section. I don't feel comfortable adding the info into Career section. But feel free to integrate if you want, or expand if you feel more is needed. George Ho (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ian McKellen's message about Bille Brown

Is this webpage a reliable source about Bille Brown? Brown is already dead, but McKellen is a living person. I wonder whether I should post that. George Ho (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Evan Adams

I added a couple sources for verification. I don't know whether the documentary itself is a valid source. George Ho (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

David Roberts (climber)

Someone has inserted "He was forced to resign amid allegations of student sexual harassment." without any sourcing. Without a source, I don't think this is acceptable, I've deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing was absolutely the right decision. Thank you for catching that. Mz7 (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Ulbricht_Passport.jpg

I believe it is improper for Wikipedia to show the entire passport page of a living person, as in File:Ulbricht_Passport.jpg. Can someone please advise?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Hello! I asked Commons admin Steinsplitter and Steinsplitter recommended to nominate it for deletion so that is what I've done. See here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for pinging me!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Abdulrahman Abu Daya

FreeJustice (talk · contribs) has just blanked Abdulrahman Abu Daya with a PROD saying "|the original information written here was part of a smear campaign and is largely false. The person in question, Mr Abu Daya, demands that the page be removed completely and wishes to report the smearing". I'd appreciate it if someone else would take a look at this. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Jay Caspian Kang

Hi there, I'd be grateful if someone with more experience than I would have a look at the edit history on Jay Caspian Kang, especially since July 14. He drew some attention for an article he wrote in July about soccer, and since then a number of unregistered and new users have added commentary that's unsourced, often non-neutral, and potentially defamatory. Since this concerns a living person and is still happening weeks later (unfortunately the last one was up for several days before an editor removed), I'd be glad if someone could have a look and assess the best steps to manage this. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Colson

Subject may be deceased. No sources yet, but some edits by users who claim to have attended her funeral.--Auric talk 20:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I dug around a bit but could not find any sources that confirm her death either. Mz7 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Did a search on news sites but found nothing. The subject is 99 years old, so it's certainly plausible, but we can't say this absent sources. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Peace at Home Council

Since all of Turkey is on lockdown and purging, isn't posting the names of private individuals without a wiki bio a BLP violation?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:BLP. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Jung-ho Kang

Some eyes on this please. Additions and reverts of allegations with no talk page discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Another case where the desire to add "allegations" appears far in excess of reason. Wikipedia should require that "allegations" be restricted in all BLPs, IMO. Collect (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

marc schiller

Can you please delete this page. Thank You Marc Schiller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optiontrader11 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I nominated the page for WP:AFD here. Meatsgains (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Janine Gordon

Janine Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is riddled with inaccuracies, lack of citations and omissions that are glaringly obvious. There is no follow up to the lawsuit against 50 Cent. She lost. There is also no mention of her suit against the photographer Ryan McGinley, which was dismissed in short order by the judge. Ms.Gordon's litigiousness is not reflected in the wiki by the inclusion of the results of her lawsuits. She also sued Levi Straus, Team Gallery, Chris Perez: Ratio 3 gallery, and Peter Halpert

^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

There should be link to the judges dismissal^[4]

And the motion to dismiss that eviscerates Gordons lawsuit^[5]

References

^ Corbett, Rachel. "DISMISSED! JUDGE TOSSES COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT AGAINST RYAN MCGINLEY". Artnet.com. Artnet News. Retrieved 9 August 2016.
^ Freire, Jose. "Team Gallery's José Freire on Why Janine Gordon's McGinley Lawsuit is Meritless". Bloutin Art Info. Louise Bloutin. Retrieved 9 August 2016.
^ Masnick, Mike. "Judge Slams Photographer For Bogus Copyright Lawsuit: Says Use Some Common Sense, Points Out 'Utter Lack Of Similarity'". Tech dirt. Retrieved 9 August 2016.
^ Sullivan, Judge Robert. "JANINE GORDON, Plaintiff, VERSUS RYAN MCGINLEY, ETAL., Defendants" (PDF). The New York Times. Retrieved 9 August 2016.
^ McGinley, Ryan; et al. "DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT" (PDF). copyrightem.com. Retrieved 9 August 2016.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TaterLAX (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"Felons" category

This category was just created, and I fear it may be in violation of WP:BLP. Opinions? Collect (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it in principle. What matters is whether it's applied properly, via sources. At present there are two living people in the category, and the category seems fine for both. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of big problems with it. The fact that it is only used on a few pages suggests singling people out. Also, it doesn't fit into the categorization system: it is used with Dinesh D'Souza, but he is already in Category:21st-century American criminals. Is a felon the same as a criminal? Perhaps a felon is a criminal whose been convicted - but in that case we only use criminal categories for felons. St Anselm (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Felons was changed to a redirect by StAnselm—that's an improvement, thanks. There is no good reason to make up new categories to add labels to a couple of articles, and the Felons category should not be used. The established categories are sufficient. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A criminal is not necessarily a felon. The terms are not interchangeable at all. A person who jaywalks is a criminal, but they are certainly not a felon, at least not in the United States. A person who commits a felony is a felon, a person who commits a misdemeanor or a felony is a criminal. Very, very different things, serious crime versus minor crime. This seems to be a place where a new category makes sense, the legal system certainly differentiates the two in separate categories. Lipsquid (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

While correct, in this case it would be redundant. All felons are criminals but not all criminals are felons. Having a category where all the people (felons) are also categorised criminals would be pointless duplication. Obviously the other way round it would be an issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that is a perfect justification for felons to be a sub-category of criminals rather than a new top level category. Lipsquid (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It would certainly take a lot of work going through every criminal article and working out if the person was a felon or not. And having the category for just a handful of people would be a very bad idea. St Anselm (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore

Should and can it be mentioned on this page that the person about who this article is, spat (as in spitting) someone in the face on TV. Even if he admitted to it himself? If that is not a WP:BLP issue it's allright with me, but I'm wondering and we should remain on the safe side with these issues. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion yes, since the videos have millions of views within of less than a week it is definitely relevant. It is in fact his video with the most views at all and the first which pops up if you type his name into Youtube. The whole event is videotaped and covered by both sides as well as third parties and referenced in the chapter, so an unbiased reporting is definitely possible.

If I may quote from the top of this site: "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Since the person in question already admited the event on camera one can barely talk about "adding defamatory or libelous material to articles". This is the reason why I restored InsultedElephant's entry that you have deleted. Are there any other concerns than defamation that you have, since I think we can rule this one out? After all, reporting about does not automatically mean judging about it. --Yukterez (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Coverage by Jones and his close allies or by Dore and his allies is not sufficient to include this incident in this biography. Lots of views of a YouTube video does not man that the incident ought to be included in a BLP. We would need coverage in independent reliable sources and the Hollywood Reporter includes only a passing mention which does not even mention Dore by name. This is not a major incident in this person's life. It is a minor squabble that by now, a couple of weeks later, is forgotten by almost everyone. To include it with the poor quality sources we now have would be to devote undue weight to a relative triviality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The material is undue. Edits like this are not helpful for an encyclopedic biography. One clue is the "Controversy" in the heading—that's an admission the event was a throw-away news item. Come back in six months with secondary sources that comment on the long-term significance of the event. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

My concern in this matter is primarily if it's a BLP violation or not. Whether its undue is of course an important question as well, but that was not my primary concern when opening this thread. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Armond White

Back in January, Drmies whittled Armond White down from 40K to 8K, which I thought was a vast improvement. It's back up 32K now, and much of it seems promotional. From doing a spot check on the sources, at least some of it is off-topic original research, if not a coat rack. For example, two of the sources cited, [10] and [11], do not mention Armond White at all, as far as I can tell from doing a text search. The second one seems like some kind of voting thing for potential panels at SXSW, and I don't see what that has to do with Armond White. Other sources look similarly dodgy, such as a Wordpress blog. I'm tempted to simply revert back to Drmies' edits due to the poor sourcing and promotional tone. Thoughts? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You mean to revert to the version at 18:32, 15 April 2016?

From that version to the current version is diff.

There are a couple of edits in that diff which seem ok (removal of an unsourced "contrarian" remark is good). Almost all the rest of the diff is to add the "Style of criticism" and "Re-evaluation by scholars and writers of color" sections. Those sections are far too detailed for an article at Wikipedia, so removing them seems desirable. Their real problem is that the wording is more appropriate for a personal website. SpecFicGurl may like to comment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, not literally back to Drmies' edit, I suppose; like you said, there were a few good edits made, and those should be kept. I agree that this article seems like it's turning into someone's blog post about Armond White. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Shrimpton

The article as it stands is largely written by Psychonaut. It was not checked with myself (the subject) beforehand, although I have been a Wikipedia editor and a Wikipedia user. It is an attack piece, which lacks balance, makes serious factual errors, resorts to abusive language, such as the term "conspiracy theorist", and relies on tabloid newspaper journalism in the United Kingdom, citing reports from journalists I have never heard of, let alone spoken to. It is fair to refer to my two convictions, but balance requires that the defence case is summarised as well as the prosecution case (Psychonaut has exhibited no interest in the defence case, indeed does not appear to have recognised that there was a defence case). Balance also requires a summary of the fresh evidence which has emerged since my conviction, some of it supplied by Britain's Security Service (MI5), and a reference to the fact that these convictions are the subject of ongoing inquiries by the UK's Criminal Cases Review Commission, set up in the wake of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four fiascos to correct miscarriages of justice. The Hon Mr Justice Wilkie has ruled that the reference was on legitimate grounds.

The article omits any reference to my achievements in public life, such as my Chairmanship of the Bruges Group, or my negotiation of General Pinochet's return to Chile. It refers to me as a former immigration judge, but neglects to identify the appointments, or state for how long they were held, or refer to notable cases in which I made judicial decisions, several of which are reported.

There is no reference to my successes at the Bar, including appearances in more than 25 reported cases. I am patronised as a "campaigner" on weights and measures, instead of being referred to accurately, as a constitutional lawyer who led the defence team in the famous Metric Martyrs Case all the way to the House of Lords.

There is no reference to my widely-publicised leading of the Customer Buy-Out consortium to buy Rolls-Royce Motors in 1998.

I am patronised as a 'campaigner' on global warming, which is misleading. It is fair to refer to my published analysis on anthropogenic global warming hypothesis but there needs to be a short summary of arguments. It is not my fault that they are of such intellectual rigour that supporters of the hypothesis have been unable to answer them.

There also needs to be a short summary of my reasons for concluding that Dr David Kelly CMG was assassinated.

My publications should be referred to. Psychonaut may disagree with the conclusions in my intelligence text Spyhunter (June Press, 2014) but he should not abuse his editorial privileges by suppressing any mention of it. My published articles on legal and intelligence issues should also be listed, along with major intelligence conferences where I have presented papers. I should also be identified as a member of British Mensa.

My reasons for concluding that MH370 was shot down by a Fakour-2 missile should be summarised, in the interests of fairness and balance. Revealing the existence of this covert Iranian missile programme was a major intelligence success.

As a supposedly objective biography of a legal and intelligence professional the article as it appears is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Shrimpton (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed claims made by The Daily Mail and Mirror, as they are not reliable sources. The rest is written negatively.--Laun chba ller 20:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

UK Court Order

An IP has added information which is confirmed by reliable sources. However I believe publication of the information is prohibited by a UK Court Order. Is there a policy for such instances? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Such prohibited information normally borders on BLP violations so you may want to get it reviewed if there's any doubt. However the site goes mostly by US laws, so typically, ensure Template:Sub judice UK is on the talk page and if you're in the UK, close your eyes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, some background reading: here and here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As each editor is responsible for their own edits, anyone outside the UK (except UK citizens) who adds the material is not subject to the court order. It only applies to people within the UK, or UK citizens. Any editor in the UK who breaks it does so at their own risk, as the fact that the material is on an international website based outside the UK is irrelevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be wise for me to make no further comment other than thank you guys for the feedback. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Frequent rash edits and removals resulting in imbalance on Thomas Rosica article

As a beginner level user and reader of Wikipedia, it is surprising to see that countless efforts to learn and add balanced and detailed content to the article on Thomas Rosica is continually being reverted to a narrow and non-detailed article. Many references to sources of content have been provided, many users have submitted texts, copyright removals were corrected with tweaks and adjustments, original text was written and submitted. I thought it was in the responsibility of admins to constructively modify content or make suggestions based on supplied facts and information rather then rashly remove content with a poor review of the entire article and all the sources provided. I am beginning to wonder if there is a bias on the part of certain editors to leave the article imbalanced and skim intentionally. A simple google search for Father Thomas Rosica provides a very wide array of information and sources about his life and works and that is very poorly reflected on the Wikipedia page as it has stood for the last three months. I beg other contributors to review this page and help make it informative and balanced. The article appears to have had issues in the past with libel, defamation and mudslinging, and the state of the current article seems to be a more subtle form of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Where he spoke (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The most recent addition of a large amount of text was reverted and revision deleted by Diannaa as a copyright violation. Even close paraphrasing of copyrighted text can be removed per WP:COPYVIO. Prior to that, I see multiple additions of unsourced content in violation of WP:V: [12] and [13]. It's the duty of administrators on Wikipedia to uphold policy and that appears to be exactly what Diannaa and Doc James have done. clpo13_(talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The claimed copyright content is made available as a press document stored within the saltandlighttv.org website. It is provided there for public domain use for media and press. Please see first reference on page to a PDF article. How does it need to be clearer that there is no copyright infringement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Where he spoke (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And at the bottom it says "Copyright © 2016 Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation". Also we appear to be dealing with a number of editors with a COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At the bottom of the page in question, there is a copyright disclaimer: Copyright © 2016 Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation. If the material is meant to be in the public domain, there must be a clear declaration of that fact. See WP:DONATETEXT for more information. clpo13_(talk) 21:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Sexual identity of living people

After the discussion at #James Dreyfus, I am becoming more concerned about handling of information (suppression and/or categorizing people without reliable sources). Because not enough sources discuss it, or such information is suppressed as "unimportant" or "non-notable", I wonder what the fates are on people's sexualities. If lots of information are removed, that would affect my enthusiasm toward Wikipedia. Still, if people are categorized without reliable sources, sources that verify the importance of the info itself should be found before the info is removed or suppressed. --George Ho (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Who cares what a subject's sexuality is if sources don't cover it? How is "a gay architect" any more informative than "a heterosexual architect" when the person's notability stems from the buildings he's designed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I just... want readers to see any of them as role models to the community. Otherwise, I don't know what else to tell you. George Ho (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

To continue the example, I don't think the average gay architect is looking to be a role model to the community. His biography should not foist that upon him. Sure, if he's active and notable for gay rights advocacy, mention that as part of his personal life, but really, an unadorned "a gay architect" is equivalent to "a black architect". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we do have Category:African-American architects and so on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... not everyone is buying the "gay is the new black" thing. I could buy it, but the movements of the African diaspora tackled skin-based prejudices, while the movements of LGBT community around the world are complex. The LGBT movements have slowed down due to insufficient resources, global conflicts, etc. Also, determining who is gay is risky and not easy without being careful or gossipy. What about being in same-sex relationships? Do the relationships verify the categorization? George Ho (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the question is here. If there are no reliable sources saying that the subject is gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans/etc., then they should not be listed in any of those categories and should not be identified as such in the article, period. Any such categorization or mentions should be removed until such sources are found. If there are such sources, the identity shouldn't be emphasized in the article just to do it. I.e., if a gay man is married to another man that should be mentioned, but if he is single and his being gay has little or nothing to do with his notability, then maybe his sexual orientation shouldn't be in the article. Also, per the race comparison, please remember that queer and black are not mutually exclusive categories (I am both). Funcrunch (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of irrelevant junk that gets put in bio articles (ethnic white ancestry, parent and sibling names and professions), so let's not hold being gay or bi to a uniquely higher standard. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but folks aren't usually targeted for discrimination or violence solely based on their sister's occupation. I get that the OP wants to increase LGBT visibility on Wikipedia; that's been the main focus of my participation here over the last year or two. But if reliable sources don't emphasize a person's sexual orientation, the article probably shouldn't either. Categorization should be sufficient in that case; creating a section that consists entirely of "He is openly gay" (as pointed out in the OP's thread on James Dreyfus) is just awkward. Funcrunch (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Just as "people need role models" isn't a valid reason to include content that otherwise wouldn't belong, nor is "we need to protect people from the consequences of their own coming-out" a valid reason to remove content that we would otherwise include. I don't think we need an entire "Personal life" section just for someone being out either, but it should be included in the article text in order to support the use of the category with a source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

How can I tell from reliable sources that being gay is related to his or her notability? George Ho (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's usually not that hard. Have the sources covered how the person's work or life has been influenced by their orientation, gender, etc? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What about sexualities of ~~Ian McKellen, Neil Patrick Harris,~~(shoot, very detailed already) Derek Jacobi and Jim Parsons? I don't know how their coming out or not coming out affected their careers. I know Rupert Everett's sexuality is very notable. George Ho (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A quick glance at the biographies for Jacobi and Parsons reveals that both are in same-sex partnerships, so that's notable enough to put in the article independent of their careers. Funcrunch (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What about Doyle and Cerna? --George Ho (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A quick glance at those bios reveals that Doyle is in a same-sex partnership, and Cerna wrote and starred in a semi-autographical play about being gay. Again, both notable. Again, what's the question here? Funcrunch (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN already answered the other question. Here's the question for you: if a guy or woman is single and outs oneself as gay, how do we tell whether or not that info is notable via sources? What is minimal requirement to include the info besides verification with reliable sources? George Ho (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well if you want an official policy for inclusion, at least for categorization, here it is. Basically only if the subject has "publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" Funcrunch (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a "gay is the new black" thing. Categories are there for navigational purposes, not for "this is a role model for the community". Sexuality, if it isn't part of what a person is mainly notable for, should be treated no differently than any other aspect of a person's life. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"How is "a gay architect" any more informative than "a heterosexual architect". Because for an artist, work and love are inextricably entwined; private and professional life inseparable. As for architecture specifically, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the enormous body of recent scholarly work on architecture in the light of queer theory, and biographies of gay architects. The homosexuality of the Bawa brothers, for example, shaped almost everything they did. Engleham (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, that is a debatable sentiment. And again, as I've been saying, "if sources don't cover it". Perhaps you're missing the point? Substitute criminal lawyer, mystery author, software game author, etc. for architect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I like to look at this stuff beyond just the sources and really question if it adds something to the understanding of the subject, or if it's just being thrown in as trivia (usually for the author's own personal cause). Is this something that is really going to help me understand this person? In some cases, yes, if the person is notable for their sexual orientation, then it would help to understand what that orientation is. In most cases, no. Sexuality is a very private thing for most people, and difficult to categorize as being simply straight or gay. There is a whole spectrum in between. Would it be any good to begin describing so-and-so as being heavily into S&M, that John Doe is into toys, or whatever other tidbits we can throw in because it suits our own ideals of what a role model should be? As someone above said, we shouldn't foist that responsibility onto someone who hasn't purposely assumed the role. Zaereth (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

My feelings entirely. If this is done thoughtfully, to improve understanding in articles, and in proper context, then I'm all in favour. If it's done just to label, because, for some reason, someone would like just to label some attribute, then no, that is wrong. The same goes for any personal characteristic. Begoon ^talk 13:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

+1 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment one's race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation usually have nothing to do with what makes someone notable by which I mean if that person's race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation were otherwise, they would fail WP:GNG, but unfortunately Wikipedia has a penchant for labeling, segregating, ghettoizing, people's biographies by such. Given that a majority of the NBA is African-American does Category:African-American basketball players really inform us, or just segregate them? As for architects, we have Category:African-American architects‎, Category:Jewish architects‎, Category:Ethnic Armenian architects, Category:LGBT architects‎, Category:Nazi architects, Category:Women architects. Unless some reliable sources can show that looking at the output of an architect one can inherently discern, his or her sex, sexual orientation, race, creed, or color, or political party, these are all bogus categorizations and they proliferate, because everyone whose an African-American architect, Jewish architect, etc., is something other than an "architect" full stop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Your ghetto is my pedestal. When I see my group all together, I feel proud. Maybe this says more about you, than about the actual categorization. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Your pedestal is proof of the POV of these categories. Perhaps you believe these are folks to be proud of too: Category:African-American mobsters‎, Category:American mobsters of Irish descent‎, Category:Jewish-American mobsters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with pride, until that pride turns into group segregation. You'd have a tough time getting rid of racial categories, because that's one of the three primary categories (according to any sociology book). The human mind operates by categorizing things. In fact, it's likely that any animal with an amygdala categorizes all of the information it receives.

Categories are very useful but easily misused or even maliciously used. Categories are extremely "black and white" (no racial inference intended). Whereas in most cases, there is a lot of grey area that should be balanced in the text, categories offer no balance. It is simply a one-sided statement of "fact."

This is all what makes categorization of people such a powerful tool of propaganda. They take no account of the lives of real people being lumped into a category of which they may not belong, or only partially, or, in the case of sexual identity, may want to keep it private or would rather be known for their achievements than their attributes. (Why not have a category of blonde architects, overweight actors or maybe brown-eyed politicians?) Unless a person is notable for a particular attribute, it serves no good purpose to officially categorize them as such.

There is a wonderful episode of the Twilight Zone that was on just last night, called Four' o'clock. You can look up the plot on Wikipedia, but there's a wonderful line in the show where the antagonist, Oliver Crangle, is talking to a lady whose husband he has been hounding. When asked why Crangle says (and I'm paraphrasing), 'Because they're evil. No, I don't know your husband. I collect facts and compile them, and I label people and I categorize them, to root out all the evil people in the world.' It's a wonderful episode, and I gotta hand it to Rod Serling for finding such ingenious ways of covering real issues, like labeling and trolling. Zaereth (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael V. Hayden (General)

Michael Hayden (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Added page links Jim1138 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There has been some back and forth about General Hayden's political affiliation which should be put to rest by his appearance today, August 11th, 2016, on "Morning Joe" at MSNBC. On the show today he says the following: "A lot of us have been identified in the letter as Republicans. A lot of us do not have a strong political identity, like myself included. I would not label myself as a Republican."

See at approximately 6:52 in http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/general-hayden-trump-insults-his-audience-742217795645

Previously used reliable sources were statements by journalists who merely made the assumption that General Hayden is a Republican based on where and when he served at the national level. They seem have ignored the fact that he was appointed to his first national position, Director of NSA, by a Democratic president and, more importantly, that he did the majority of his national level service as a non-political, uniformed member of the United States Air Force. There is no evidence of any of the journalists having discussed his party affiliation with him or having asked him if he was registered with any particular party. Ldcrank (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment on infobox|party: READ NOTE: WP:RS -- You've got to provide an actual source saying he's not, and has never been, a Republican if you're going to remove a statement backed by four of the most respected political new organizations in this country.

References supporting "Republican":

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/off-message-michael-hayden-hillary-clinton-2016-221276 Former CIA chief Hayden: Clinton better prepared than ‘incoherent’ Trump – "Hayden is a loyal Republican"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/05/new-clinton-ad-features-republicans-denouncing-trump/ New Clinton ad features Republicans denouncing Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html 50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk’
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/ Where Republicans Stand on Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet

Should party affiliation be "Independent", "Republican", or removed altogether? Jim1138 (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Tom Brier

It seems obvious that this page has been re-created by a contributor who either has close ties with the subject or did not know that in translating the page, it had already been nominated for deletion in February 2016 and the result was to delete. Either way, the username seems to have been created solely for the purpose of resurrecting this page as no other contributions have been carried out: "the english wikipedia must be maintained as the most powerful... i am dedicated to translating articles that only appear in non-english wikipedias". Although I dare say this is vandalism, I would suggest that it is suspicious in its intent. The username madethisaccountasathroaway appears to have created an account the very same day in order to resurrect the article page. This may attribute to ties close to the subject. Either way, this page was voted for deletion and should remain so. Since I am not an administrator, I do not know the protocol for addressing this issue; but I hesitate to place a deletion tag on this page, even though it warrants one. I am unfamiliar with this, so I yield to more experienced editing contributors and administrators. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:G4. Just add {{db-g4}} at the top of the re-created article (including the double curly brackets). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Seth Rich

Need some urgent admin eyes on Murder of Seth Rich. A newly created account (which has an uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia policies and venues) created this article and filled it with speculation and conspiracy theories about a recently deceased person (and their family). I've removed the offending info but that editor appears hell bent on putting this stuff in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks has said he was their source inside the DNC for the leaked emails. Not saying whether it is, or is not, a conspiracy, but certainly not like this guy is coming out of nowhere, I saw it on broadcast news today. [14], probably worth of a quick mention one liner and then ask the guy to wait for more sources to vet the situation. Lipsquid (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm the God-Emperor of the article. All of the information in the article is reliably sourced, often from multiple sources, as one can easily check. There is no good reason to remove the content. To Lipsquid: WikiLeaks has not said that, as they have a policy of not revealing their sources. TradingJihadist (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

So the whole thing should be removed. BLP people.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You have no argument, other than stating and repeating "BLP". The article as it is now does meet BLP. Everything is reliable sourced, eg from Daily Telegraph, ABC News, Washington Post, Sky News, and more can be found. You should explain in more detail why it doesn't meet BLP but I don't think you can. TradingJihadist (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've spruced up the article a bit today. Seems just as legitimate as the similar Chandra Levy article (maybe more so), provided all the paranoid conspiracy theories are kept out of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Warren Ballentine

Warren Ballentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new user just attempted a whitewash of the article (and inadvertently broke it). I don't have time to investigate it fully at the moment, but my quick look made me wonder if the previous version was far too over-egged. According to the July 2016 version, the sentence was very minimal, and presumably there was a reason for that—a reason that would not justify a highly negative article. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Tom Brady

I have made an attempt to de-bias the mention of the "Deflategate" controversy in the Tom Brady page introduction. My edit was subsequently removed by "Achowat" for being more about "Deflategate" than Tom Brady, which, IMO, is an inane observation, seeing as to talk about Deflategate is to talk about Tom Brady, and seeing as the Deflategate subject was brought up in the previous sentence anyway, with a blatant anti-Brady sentiment to boot. If you're going to censor one side of the public and critical opinion about Deflategate and its validity/effect on someone's legacy on their Wikipedia introduction, you censor the other side as well. Or you keep them both. To keep one over the other is a clear allowance of bias in what is meant to be an unbiased overview of his meaningful accomplishments and their impact. I'm fine with toning down the amount of citations, but there clearly needs to be something there to represent the view of the many, many people who specfically purport that the Deflategate controversy has no effect on Brady's legacy, and the line before the introduction of Deflategate does not satisfy that role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendragonrah (talk • contribs) 05:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100 percent with the above. It seems to be an NPOV issue to state some people feel the controversy has harmed his reputation while not saying some feel the controversy is overblown - especially when the latter sentiment is more widely held. Either include both lines of thought or neither. Calidum ¤ 06:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Milos sarcev

Someone may want to take a peek at the top thread on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions right now. TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Graham Hunt (Politician)

Very obvious case of stolen valor by politician. Repeated undoing of edits that reflect facts of situation, clearly someone close to Hunt if not Hunt himself. Military service controversy has clear citations and evidence in article that have been removed multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StolenValorWA (talk • contribs) 06:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Bryony Page

Someone has significantly changed this article with rude results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samb208 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. There were some simple vandalism edits, but they have been reverted and there hasn't been any disruption for 36 hours. I have watchlisted the article for now, but if you yourself discover vandalism or content that otherwise violates biographies of living persons policy you should revert it immediately. Politrukki (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Colin Cowherd bio

in Colin Cowherd, under 2.1 The Big Lead, it states: "ESPN's new Ombudsman, LeAnne Schreiber, wrote an article sharing her negative opinion of Cowherd's gigantic nose."

Not referenced, and does not appear in the relevant ombudsman statement, so I suspect this is simply defamatory and needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.107.31 (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this has now been fixed. See Help:Reverting if you'd like to know how you could have done it yourself. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Black Pine

This band is currently performing as just "Black Pine" and no longer "The Black Pine" due to documented membership changes. This message is from the article's subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessikadiamond (talk • contribs) 19:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jessikadiamond: it'd be easier if you cited an official website or verified social media account that says this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Their official site shows the band is still called "The Black Pine". No changes are necessary unless someone can find something otherwise. Meatsgains (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation

Disagreement on the Clinton Foundation article regarding content based on the book Clinton Cash and BLP violating material that is unrelated to the claims made in article text: [15].

At least three users (myself and two others, User:Scjessey and User:Steve Quinn) have pointed out to User:Bloodofox that the material in question is based on a unreliable source, violates BLP and/or misrepresents the sources.

The article is also under discretionary sanctions which include a 1RR restriction as well as the injunction "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.". User:Bloodofox has ignored this. They have also been extremely uncooperative on the talk page, refusing to discuss the actual content but instead making repeated personal attacks against users who disagree with them (for example here, here (multiple), here (multiple), and here). Indeed they stated their intent to edit war on the article explicitly [16].

A thorough analysis of the problem with the source by User:SteveQuinn is here at the end. I pretty much say the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Volunteer Marek. First, make no bones about it, like his failed attempts at the Debbie Wasserman Schultz article, this guy is doing anything and everything he can to keep Wikipedia's Clinton Foundation article completely whitewashed of criticism. The Clinton Cash stuff isn't the focus here (notable as it is). Indeed, there are plenty of far more reliable sources for criticism but they're apparently not good enough (see recent pieces by the New York Times and CNN, for example).

Nobody threatened to edit war with the guy (it's 1RR per 24 hours there) but whether it's ping-trolling me with warnings or gaming the 1RR rule ([17] vs. [18]), the article must remain as in line with the Clinton campaigns narrative as much as possible, I suppose. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again you are attacking editors and making personal attacks rather than actually discussing content or substantiating your position. Do you see what Steve Quinn did on the talk page? THAT is what you are suppose to be doing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) As opposed to this [19]? Athenean (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Asking you - you personally - to stop engaging in WP:STALK and WP:HARASS behavior is a perfectly legitimate request. For uninvolved editors, there is a whole history behind Athenean's presence here which I'm too tired to go into at the moment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that neither the New York Times nor the CNN sources are actually being used in the disputed section. Bloodofox is saying that he should be able to restore text based on other, unreliable sources, because there exists some sources which are about something else (although related).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Is that what I'm saying? Because that's news to me. Without the interpreter: Marek is extremely eager to wholesale revert criticism from the article, regardless of the source, as he's done on related articles. I'll put together a little on the NYT and CNN pieces and we'll see what happens. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the New York Times and the CNN sources are not actually used in the text under discussion, right? I mean, if you want to propose some text based on these sources to replace the text that is based on other, unreliable, sources, that's fine, let's hear the proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I mean, I could be wrong - it's late and I'm tired - so are these sources used in the section we're talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I am User:Steve Quinn. There is at first an antagonizing section title "NPOV Tag: Article Currently Looks Like A Puff Piece" [20].

And bloodfox begins this section claiming:' "We all know that the Clinton Foundation is most famous for one thing and that's accusations of corruption via quid pro quo donations" [21]. So, already his strong point of view is expressed. To me their biased view is apparent.

Then rather than discussing content they claim they know what motivates readers most - Foundation controversy [22]. Also, his focus on controversy is something akin to yellow journalism or also known as "click bait" in today's lingo [23] In any case, insisting on placing speculative wrong doing in this article, even when reliable sources show that no wrong doing by Hilary or Bill Clinton has occurred is supporting violations of BLP - to support a point of view (see previous diffs). In summation, bloodfox's talk page style, in this instance was aggressive, overbearing, and consisted of many personal attacks:

"your relentlessly pro-Clinton editing that reads like a Wikipedia version of the Clinton campaign's Twitter" [24]

"And now I can see why: we've got a couple of decidedly non-neutral editors IV-ed to Wikipedia and camped out here with the goal of keeping the article as bleached and rosy as possible for a current presidential candidate...However, when you've got a couple editors with a clear political bias willing to sit around and restore one another's reverts, this is the result—a rosy puff piece" [25].

Bloodfox's talk page style seemed as if this person was trying to bulldoze his way past at least two editors, and possibly three, who explained to him over and over the WP:SYNthesis, the WP:BLP violations, and the WP:UNDUEweight that comprised the section of this article he was defending. I was not one of the three. I came by later. I can supply more diffs later if they are needed, but I need to go offline right now. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Murray Bartlett

I identified the actor as gay per Out magazine and then removed it. Then someone else used an actor's interview to establish the guy's sexuality. Does it make his sexuality notable? --George Ho (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have to ask, the answer is probably no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

In the RfC, I cited four issues. Including the slight problem that the actor does not say "I am gay" at all in the interview apparently, that the source fails WP:RS, that we require specific self-identification for such claims, and that the claim is not specifically notable for that person. Collect (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Evelyn de Rothschild

I have posted a note on the talk page of this article expressing my concerns.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Konrad Mizzi

I have good reason to believe that CoI exists with at least one editor who has been editing this article since 19 April 2016. I have reported this user for CoI and placed a coin-notice on the user's talk page. This user has mainly edited only this article since establishing a user account; other edits are directly related to this BLP. This BLP is about a politician involved in the recent Panama Papers controversy, which has seen him removed from his previous office within the Government of Malta but he remained a so called Minister without portfolio within the office of the Prime Minister of Malta, which seems to be a term that more than one user is disputing, even though I and others have cited multiple reliable sources to indicate that the term is appropriate and accurate. Anyway, I believe that someone who has much more experience with BLPs than I do can sort out the issue that's been afflicting this article for a number of months. Thanks. --ToniSant (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard Mack

I feel that the two editors at Richard Mack would appreciate comments at Talk:Richard_Mack#Information_said_to_be_incorrect. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Eric (Musician)

I put Eric (Musician) up for speedy deletion, based upon the fact that it isn't significant (I googled the full name and went through multiple pages of searches and found no reference to him, even when I search his full name and musician together, and Zurrkd (talk · contribs) removed it, he has removed it multiple times. Iazyges (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Evelyn Lozada

Evelyn Lozada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a dreadful article made worse by the recent IP edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Meh done a cull. Problem is almost all of the material is UNDUE rather than BLP violating material - in that it can be reliably sourced but does not outright constitute a BLP violation. Although I think some of the edit summaries do! Accusing someone of being a golddigger in an edit summary should be grounds for summary blocking imho. "but it is a known fact she seeks out rich men" That and the tone of some of the wording included 'quickly became pregnant' for example, look to me to be deliberate attempts to smear her character. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Justin Knapp

Please visit Talk:Justin Knapp and weigh in on the discussion about whether or not his two RfAs should be included in the article, if they need references, and if Wikipedia pages are satisfactory references in this case. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Pat Lee (comics)

Could someone with more time on their hands take a pass at Pat Lee (comics) and see what needs removing. I'm not really au fait with the BLP rules anymore, sorry. Hiding T 20:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is awful as written. It's running pretty close to narrative style in the first half and persuasive style in the controversy section. There are quite a few grammatical and spelling errors, such as this doozie of a run-on sentence: "Comic book journalist Rich Johnston repeatedly reported controversial details concerning Pat Lee, including the allegation that Dreamwave's assets and employees were shifted over to the new company Dream Engine, started by Pat Lee's brother Roger Lee, in January 2005, even before Dreamwave declared bankruptcy, the allegation that Lee had transferred ownership of a company-owned Porsche to himself prior to the Dreamwave bankruptcy, the allegation that Lee had bought an apartment for half a million Canadian dollars before the bankruptcy,[14] a list of Dreamwave's debt and creditors, and the allegation that artist Alex Milne had been working as a ghost artist for Lee on Top Cow's Cyberforce title without being credited, with Lee eventually stopping to pay Milne when Top Cow had asked for confirmation that Lee was indeed the sole artist of the book and Milne refused to comply."

Phew! (Yes, that is actually written as one sentence.) The biggest concern is illustrated by this sentence, where we actually name a gossip columnist and call him a "journalist." His own Wikipedia article doesn't even make that claim, and Comic Book Resources themselves call his column a "rumor column." All of the information sourced to this column violates our sourcing policy and should be removed. (Including the above "sentence). Controversies should rarely have a special "controversy" section, as this just becomes a dumping ground for POV. Instead, the controversies would be better worked into the relevant text. They should be summarized. We don't need every detail of the controversies; just the gist of it will do.

That's just a small portion of what I see wrong. I haven't gone through all of the sources, but they should each be checked for reliability. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ruth Ratny

This page has no sources and no specific information and is not supported by citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H1o2l3l4 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Gian_kumar

Hi, the friend of mine works for them, and He asked me to create these pages, am not being paid for these. He has written 3 books also and now even they have notification for speedy deletion, let me know the valid, trusted sources, I can provide them. Thanks.

Thanks for your contributions but for the page to keep, additional reliable sources need to be added to verify the page's content. Meatsgains (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the page has been deleted. Meatsgains (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

shakeel

The picture in this article is not his picture. Someone placed Bushra Ansari picture instead. Please allow this to be changed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddr4321 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Good find. Thanks for brining this to our attention. I've removed the image but couldn't find an image to replace it. I'll leave that to another editor. Meatsgains (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

User Govindaharihari in particular has made a couple of edit summaries regarding Anjem which are violations of BLP, even if the edits themselves introduced no specific claims, which need clearing up (Diff 1 and Diff 2). Actual conviction relates to "inviting support" which is intrinsically different to actually supporting another individual. Thanks Koncorde (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Olga Korbut

The material on Olga Korbut is taken directly from her website without attribution. - viz the section about her legacy: On her website (olgakorbut.com): Olga is a highly decorated athlete with four Olympic gold medals to her credit, but it is not this feat for which she is most remembered. The media whirl which surrounded her 1972 Olympic debut caused a surge of young girls to join their local gymnastic clubs, and a sport which had seldom been noticed previously now made headlines.

On wikipedia: Korbut is a highly decorated athlete with four Olympic gold medals to her credit, but it is not this feat for which she is most remembered. The media whirl which surrounded her 1972 Olympic debut caused a surge of young girls to join their local gymnastic clubs, and a sport which had seldom been noticed previously now made headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.65.161 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I reworded that part. I didn't look to see what else might be a copyright violation. Does anyone else know how to use one of those tools that scans the whole article for copyvio? —PermStrump(talk) 21:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It is common for websites to copy from Wikipedia. Did someone prove the copying was BY Wikipedia and not just FROM Wikipedia? The Internet Archive might shed some light. Edison (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The text quoted above shows up first on her website, apparently, 20 July 2012 as shown by the Internet Archive. The Wikipedia version of 14 Jan 2006 contained "Korbut was of course a highly decorated athlete, with four Olympic golds to her credit. But it is not her results for which she is most remembered. The media whirl that surrounded her after her Olympic debut in 1972 caused a surge of young girls to join their local gymnastic clubs. A sport which had previously seldom been noticed now made headlines. " If there are other seeming copyvios, please also check them to see who copied whom. This text was created and added to Wikipedia by User:Miss zara, who edited numerous gymnastics articles from 2006 through 2007. Other sits can copy from Wikipedia, but they should credit us for what they copied. Edison (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Danny Jacob

Danny's name is wrong on a part of the page that doesn't appear to be editable by the mortal man (I'm his friend - he asked for my help)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Jacob - he is called Daniel David "Danny" Jacob (born October 8, 1956). We are not sure where the "David" came from - it's not even his middle name.

Can that be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:628C:E300:D019:8C7A:4011:C724 (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reliable source supporting this claim, it will not be added. Meatsgains (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed it (not because I read this - I was responding to an OTRS email.)--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Shaunae Miller

Since this athlete won the Olympic 400 meters race - falling across the finish line - there's been a huge amount of unreliable/twitterati speculation that she dived deliberately, and she's received massive amounts of abuse that she "stole the medal" from US golden-girl Allyson Felix.

Although it's true that many news articles used the word 'dive', they make it perfectly clear that they don't claim it was a deliberate act.

The Wikipedia article has been repeatedly changed to say that it was - including six times by SirBartleMerryworth [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] - including lying in the edit summary, calling it a "typo" - despite others asking him to stop during those edits [32]. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected since yesterday. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I know. And I am aware of the idea of "wrong version" being protected, and that it can be fixed at a later date. However, in this case, the wrong version makes an unfair accusation about a living person, without appropriate references. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeremiah Godby - AfD

Please weigh in on the AfD: "Subject appears to be a non-notable runner who promotes "natural medicine" by running across the country. There are a few mentions in small, local newspapers from 2011. The current article has a very promotional tone that is derived mostly from self-published sources close to the subject. At best, notability is due to one event." Delta13C (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

CRAIG TARO GOLD

The Craig Taro Gold entry is simply a self-promotional commercial violating Wikipedia's three core content policies: 1) NPOV 2) NPOV)V and 3) NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.7.87.194 (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Niraj Antani

Hey all, this article needs some help, esp. from those who edit politicians' articles frequently. I think there's too much "administrative" fluff in there, but that's just me. What I know is that there has been serious vandalism, a BLP problem or two, and likely POV editing possibly from both sides. I may have to semi-protect it if it continues; I handed out two indefinite blocks already, I think. Anyway, your help is appreciated, both in turning it into a better article and in keeping an eye on out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page and will keep my eyes open for an vandalism. Meatsgains (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Paul Fix (racing driver)

ZoeyHolley keeps deleting updates made to this page that are accurate about Mr. Fix from a recent Trans Am race. In order to show the full history of Mr. Fix's career, such updates are important.

.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.204.110 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason your edit is being reverted is because you have not provided a reliable source for support. Meatsgains (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

References

^ https://vimeo.com/178902235

Roy Moore, Kim Davis (county clerk), Troy Newman (activist)

Persistent vandalism of same-sex marriage related articles including Roy Moore, Kim Davis (county clerk) and Troy Newman (activist) all originating from User_talk:2602:301:771A:DDAF:5055:3F2E:DCC9:84E7. Request block of vandalism only account User_talk:2602:301:771A:DDAF:5055:3F2E:DCC9:84E7. 166.70.217.188 (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. --S Philbrick (Talk) 00:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:107.77.192.10 is also being used as a vandalism only account, same targets -- same sex marriage related Bios. 166.70.217.188 (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

David Schmidley

The Wikipedia article says "The Oklahoma State University Faculty Senate called for Schmidly's resignation" 1. OSU has a Faculty Council, not Senate 2. The Source (USA Today)says something to the effect faculty leaders called for resignation, not that the Council (or Senate)so voted. The Faculty Council never voted to ask for Schmidly's resignation, nor did it censure or vote lack of confidence. 3. During that period I was Vice Chair and then Chair of the Faculty Council. For various reasons I made sure there were no such votes. Basically, I wanted to avoid the trap the New Mexico faculty got into. In NM it turned into faculty v. The People. That is what would have happened in Oklahoma. At OSU our strategy was the high road. CHEERS! Bob Darcy Regents Professor Emeritus, Political Science and Statistics, OSU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8B7:F9C0:1CB7:C82:4ABF:5BAA (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Chimezie Ndubuisi

My Chimezie Ndubuisi Uduma from Ebonyi State Nigeria, I am the son of Ndubuisi, the son of Uduma Udu of Ebunwanna Edda, in ebonyi state Nigeria... I was born on the 14th of April 1993. I obtained my first school leaving certificate at Orinta Primary School,in Afikpo South in Ebonyi State, Nigeria, I also schooled at Etiti Edda Technical Secondary School, also in Afikpo South in Ebonyi State, Nigeria.... I was single handedly raise by Mr. & Mrs. Agwu Eseni From Ndi-ba Edda, in Etiti Edda Autonomous Community in Afikpo South, also in Ebonyi State Nigeria. The first son of Mr. & Mrs. Ndubuisi Uduma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meziend (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Meziend: What were you hoping to accomplish by posting on WP:BLPN? Thanks Meatsgains (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Dana Nicole Bradley Homicide

Hello. This article is about a highly notable criminal case ("one of the largest and most costly murder investigations in Newfoundland’s history"), with loads of sources "out there" including a book published in 2003. But it is unsourced and has, from its inception, contentious material about living people. If it was up to me, I would WP:BLPDEL it and recreate it as a stub ("Murder of Dana Bradley" would be a better title). Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a massive clusterfuck of BLP violations. Names of non-notable people, addresses of non-notable people, accusations of suspect-coercion against named people. All unsourced. I have removed most of the glaring stuff. But I am not sure its salvagable in its current state. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ripoff Report

Is an article to which WP:BLP clearly applies.

[33] is an edit which several editors and IPs seem desirous of retaining within this article.

The edit specifies that the site is "Private, for-profit" and run by a specific living person. (I note that the use of "private" seems useless, as most sites which are not government-owned are "private" including all ".com" sites in the first place.)

First part cites Australian sources for a lawsuit against Google for failing to remove searches affecting them from Ripoff Report. This material appears related to Google, but no to the Ripoff Report article, and seems oriented to specific Australian law, not applicable to the website. Where the case was not against Ripoff Report, Ripoff Report was not affected by the lawsuit, and was not represented in the lawsuit, that it is not relevant to the article at hand.

Part two uses http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/25/ripoff-report-publisher-hammered-in-9th-circ.htm as a source for:

Ripoff Report's publisher, Xcentric Ventures, LLC, unsuccessfully sued consumers and their attorneys for malicious prosecution in federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona in 2011. In August 2015, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published their order affirming the district court's order dismissing the case. The ruling notes that Xcentric had sued over the consumers' underlying attempted racketeering extortion claim, which "alleged that Xcentric attempted to extort money by encouraging third parties to post negative reviews, manipulating the posts to highlight negative reviews and to further highlight the negative reviews if the businesses posted rebuttals, and then charging high fees to 'turn the negative into a positive.'" "The claim was tenable because a district court had previously held that similar allegations stated an extortion claim against Xcentric," the 9th Circuit wrote in its order

Where UNDUE seems a major issue.

Ripoff Report's publisher, Xcentric Ventures, LLC, sued consumers and their attorneys for malicious prosecution in federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona in 2011. In August 2015, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case. The decision held "The claim (of extortion) was tenable because a district court had previously held that similar allegations stated an extortion claim against Xcentric," the 9th Circuit wrote in its order.

Appears to me to be of proper weight here, and the "extended play" version appears to be overlong and detailed, verging on a POV edit.

Part three is an OR screed.

In 2015, the [[United States District Court for the District of Utah]] stated that, although the Ripoff Report homepage shows the tag lines "By Consumers, for consumers" and "Don't let them get away with it. Let the truth be known", the site allows competitors, and not just consumers, to post comments. The Ripoff Report home page also says: "Complaints Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported, File your review. Consumers educating consumers", which allows a reasonable inference that the Ripoff Report encourages negative content. Moreover, Ripoff Report's webmaster affirmed that positive posts about a company are not allowed in the website. Therefore, the court concluded that the website's owner is not a neutral publisher, because, through large fees that companies must pay for the website's advocacy programs, it has an interest in, and encourages, negative content.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9d2c2ba9-efa2-4e58-9f82-16534eab2023 |title=Federal court rules against Ripoff Report in CDA case |date=23 September 2015 |accessdate=19 August 2016}}</ref><ref name=utah-court>{{cite web |title=Ripoff Report and Ed Magedson: Federal court rules against the website |date=30 August 2015 |url=http://www.presto.news/ripoff-report-ed-magedson-lawsuit-utah-6153646570.html |accessdate=19 August 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Judge [[Clark Waddoups]] |title=Case No. 2:13-CV-00926 |date=27 August 2015 |url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2428558/vision-security-v-xcentric-ventures.pdf |accessdate=19 August 2016 |format=PDF}}</ref>

This uses http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9d2c2ba9-efa2-4e58-9f82-16534eab2023 which is a blog in esse from "Internet Defamation Removal Attorneys".

It also uses http://www.presto.news/ripoff-report-ed-magedson-lawsuit-utah-6153646570.html which is not WP:RS by a mile as far as I can tell. No clear editorial control, no sign that it has ever been used for any articles at all on Wikipedia. No author indicated at all. And the language "The Ripoff Report website is notorious for publishing undocumented and anonymous complaints about any company or any individual" appears to indicate that the "source" here is far from a neutral bystander.

Lastly, the edit uses https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2428558/vision-security-v-xcentric-ventures.pdf which is absolutely a "primary court source." And this case was simply a denial of direct reconsideration of a ruling made by the same judge. Which is, in fact, one of the least significant court documents imaginable.

In short, edit warriors intent on demonstrating that the Ripoff Report site is engaged in "extortion", and that it is run by a named living person are violating Wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:RS etc.

Would others kindly examine the edits at issue, please? Collect (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I cant see that WP:BLPGROUP applies (which would be the only way BLP could be applicable), since apart from the founder (who may or may not have anything to do with the daily running of the website) its staffing is not exactly visible. It could be 5 people, it could be 50. I agree there are issues with primary sourcing (court documents) and unreliable sourcing (websites that do not demonstrate reliability), but I dont think there is a BLP issue to answer as all the alleged misdoings are clearly attributed to the entity 'Ripoff Reports' rather than an indentifiable person. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify - if we did apply BLPGROUP, there are issues with sourcing, but if we dont, those issues still exist. The only difference for me is that one would require urgent removal with discussion to include, the other can wait while a discussion on the reliability/undue-ness of the material is conducted. Personally I dont think this falls under BLPGROUP to require the first. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Heath Evans

Football analyst Heath Evans apparently made a Twitter comment a few days ago about dangerous bicyclists; he drew some critical responses from cycling advocates and issued an apologetic tweet. [34] Now an assortment of IP editors have been adding criticism and hostile characterizations of Evans. His Twitter page does have a few related posts, but I can find no coverage at all about this kerfuffle in reliable third party sources (and none have been offered), so it appears to me that the multiple efforts to add negative commentary to his article violate WP:BLP as well as our neutral point of view policy as expressed by WP:WEIGHT. Additional viewpoints are invited. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP or WP:CRYBLP?

The following RfC is either an example of following WP:BLP or WP:CRYBLP, depending on which side you are on:

Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#Should the WikiLeaks reward be mentioned in the article?

We could use some more eyes who are familiar with what our BLP policy actually says. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016

move to more appropriate venue [35] LavaBaron (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

This article contains a section that had been called "[Clinton] Poor health theory" which rebuts the hoax regarding Clinton's health. It has been repeatedly blanked on the charge the entire section is a BLP violation (I'm guessing the editors in question mean it is a BLP against Donald Trump since it mentions the hoax originated from his campaign). It is shown here [36] in the archives in the section beginning

“

"According to CNN, some opponents of Hillary Clinton have used a combination of "junk science and conspiracy theories to argue that Clinton is suffering from a series of debilitating brain injuries", though there is "no credible evidence" behind any of the claims. Vox has called the allegations a "bonkers conspiracy theory" while MSNBC has characterized the charges as a "conspiracy theory" consisting of "bizarre and unsubstantiated claims" ...

”

I attempted to open a RfC here [37] after the editors involved tried to blank a section of content that provided specific sources that undermined the conspiracy theory/hoax, however, they've got around that by just blanking the entire RfC.

NeilN has had to semi-protect this article due to socks inserting attacks, but it appears there is a more entrenched group of editors who want to transform the article from a rational analysis to a pro-conspiracy rant. Unfortunately, the article is under 1RR so not much more can be done. An analysis of whether this is a BLP violation against Trump, though, would be appreciated. Unfortunately, since the RfC is now being deleted I have to bring it here (unless they delete this as well). We had a previous issue with pro-CTers trying to delete the "False Claims" section from the Birther article on the charge it was a BLP violation against those making the false claims, this seems to be a replay. LavaBaron (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Dave Fedor

The Dave Fedor article is a mess. It looks like the writer may have made a number of template mistakes. I'm not sure to what extent this is a violation, as opposed to simply needing to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C3:8002:8F10:2C98:DA62:E8E5:8AAA (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears the issue has been resolved. A simple revert seemed to suffice.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Dragan Vasiljkovic

My name is Bradley Slowgrove and would like all references to me on the Wikipedia article on Dragan Vasiljkovic deleted. For instance it says that I was in The Netherlands to negotiate some sort of deal to have Dragan Vasilkovic's case transferred to the International Criminal Tribunal. This is clearly false as it is legally impossible to have a case under the Australian Extradition Act transferred to the ICTY. Check it and you will find there is no procedure. Secondly ICTY jurisdiction cuts off at the end of 2004 and all indictments in the ICTY had to be issued by the end of 2004 and all this is in 2010. When the press unnecessarily rang me in The Netherlands to confirm this ludicrous impossible story I told them it was incorrect and why but they went ahead and published it anyway. I supposed they assumed that because I was in Holland I would not find out about it.

Next Allan Moore was not legally a "magistrate" but was a defendant in matter C3 of 2006 in the High Court sued for damages and habeas corpus in the High Court for imprisoning Mr. Vasiljkovic. This is easily verified. It is also obvious that all the allegations against Mr. Vasiljkovic are under the laws of war and no public official is protected by their office under the laws of war whether Serbian or Australian. That is why they are the laws of war and Australian and international law is the same. What do ypu think protects Australian troops in Afhanistan? The laws of war.. There is only official protection of state officials under the laws of peace . Most war criminals are state officials and the laws of war do not know "Aussies" are special. It is ridiculous if not ethnocentric or racist to assert that Mr. Vasiljkovic has no official protection and Allan Moore does because he is an "Australian"magistrate. There is no ground of professional misconduct known as "threatening a person with severe personal consequences"and in fact this happens usually every time you sue someone as Allan Moore had been on all material occasions. This is merely a lurid allegation that does not withstand scrutiny. I was not flagged by Dutch Police when entering The Netherlands the AFP knew I was in Holland only because I told them.

Use your common sense. When was a person's lawyer ever taking away from them while in jail for how he conducted their case to get them out of jail while their case is sill going on? The Bar Council and ADT cannot touch me until his case is over and there was no way they would let his real case get before the higher courts. Once they got rid of me it is obvious why no lawyer will go near anything I say and that is what they intended. It does not happen and the ADT has no jurisdiction over me regarding an ongoing case under federal law. I resigned from the NSW Bar over repeated political interference in his case by the Bar Council to protect Australian public officials that have no protection under the laws of war. The enemy on Australian soil cannot imprison a soldier that fought against that enemy under flag and in uniform in an armed conflict. It is Croatia that alleges and it is accepted Mr. Vasiljkovic was a Serbian military commander and it is Croatia that raises the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Got it now.It is not that hard just try thinking with the other side of your brain. I note that Mr. Vasiljkovic would have served more than his sentence before he was indicted in Croatia applying the sentencing principles attached to article 24 of the ICTY Statute. Not even the Nazis or Stalin have done what has happened in this case and I mean the real Nazis and Stalin not that on television. They have done all this in public and in plain sight right before everyone's eyes. The laws of war and Geneva are universal and global do not care whether Vasiljkovic was in prison in Australia or Croatia. You cannot imprison Mr. Vasiljkovic for near 10 years in Australia and claim his imprisonment all starts again when he lands in Croatia. What gets me the is that the press is still after him despite 10 years jail including 3 years in solitary before he was indicted by Croatia. It has never happened anywhere. None of it including putting Vasiljkovic in jail without evidence and then barring him proving his innocence to get out and there is more still but not enough room. When you point it out to the "Aussie"state official they then ruin and rob you for threatening them. No person with an I.Q above that of a pigeon could possibly believe that any of this is the law. You do not need to be a lawyer to know something is rotten.

I have stayed silent in the Vasiljkovic case for years but once it is finalized I intend to publish and one thing I do not lack is unimpeachable evidence. Just take time to think about the oddness of the Australian proceedings as represented in your article and any objective smart person should know that there is something strange about it all including the disappearance of his lawyer ( Geneva counsel). For instance there is no High Court order putting Mr. Vasiljkovic in jail. Courts do not and cannot authorize "manhunts". Courts adjourn before making any order of imprisonment until the person is brought before them and put in the dock and only then an order can be made. Custody must be taken away first by the executive government before Courts can make an order CONTINUING their imprisonment. Read the High Court order and it does not put Mr. Vasiljkovic in jail. In western democracies a person gets their liberty from the common law not from the state including any court order. Think and you may discover a massive scandal right before your very eyes. What I have said above is only a taste. Remove my name now. It is all before your eyes if you look and think. I am not in an "I said they said"situation. Tell me is there anything in the Australian proceedings that says that the person sent to Croatia IS Dragan Vasiljkovic? Was he for the second 5 year imprisonment brought before a Court or a magistrate by the AFP and identified or was he taken straight to jail for 5 years by the AFP and then sent to Croatia? The answer is he was not identified by a Court or a magistrate so far as Australian law is concerned.The person in Croatia might be an actor and not Dragan Vasiljkovic. The proof can found on the Australian public record if you know where to look. I will give you a hint the AFP had no arrest warrant for him when they grabbed him in their"manhunt".They had to get rid of Vasiljkovic to cover up the fact that he should not have been arrested to start off with. Mrs Solon is your answer to show that the Commonwealth government has done this before only this is much worse and they had to go on with it to get away with it. I think I have said enough to have my name removed.

Generally I do not see how it is in accordance with Wikipedia's policy to cite newspaper reports as primary sources concerning any of the three armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Every ICTY indictment must be supported by prima facie evidence and if research into the evidence and findings of the ICTY is done you get a much different picture to anything that appears in the press. For instance there is no finding of any armed conflict at all in the former Yugoslavia until at Kijevo on 26 August 1991 with JNA involvement some three weeks after Mr. Vasiljkovic left the Krajina. Croatia was not recognized by Australia until 16 January 1992. So there is no war and no Croatia for two thirds of the Croatian allegations against Mr. Vasiljkovic. Skirmishes like Glina are not "armed conflict". Of Course Croatia has a different propaganda version of the war than everyone else. One that the ICTY has refused to hear when dismissing the many Croatian amicus curiae applications and one that Mr. Vasiljkovic is barred from challenging in a Croatian Court. Bradley Slowgrove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.118 (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The material about you seems tangential at best, and, unless Wikipedia ends up with a proper article about you finding you to be specifically "notable", WP:BLP rather supports removal of the material from this article. Collect (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

mika brzezinski

"Donald Trump in a tweet at 1:29 PM on Aug. 22, 2016, called her Joe Scarborough's "very insecure long-time girlfriend" and a clown."

This does not belong in the first paragraph of an article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.242.163 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed by Bentogoa.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's false campaign statements

You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Kliph Nesteroff

Content and writing of page seems horribly unobjective as if the subject himself wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.204.195 (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Keith Stevenson (writer) ‎ and Adam Browne

Keith Stevenson (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adam Browne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both articles appear to have been created and largely written by the subjects and one another; Stevenson's in particular is a promotional vehicle, filled with press blurbs. WP:COI is apparent, but both require much clean up to become neutral, with lists of non notable publications and puffery removed. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Obama

As noted on the talk page, Michelle Obama was born in Chicago. There is absolutely nothing except this bogus Wikipedia article saying she was born in DeYoung, Illinois which did not even exist in 1964. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.197.61 (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I added some additional sources to the talk page, including in her own words: I was born and raised on Chicago's South Side, I was born and raised here on the South Side in South Shore, I’m here today because Chicago is my home. I was born and raised here...As Rahm said, I was born and raised in South Shore. But a consensus will have to be established before any changes are made.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Luisito Pié

Luisito Pié (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article about an Olympic bronze medalist from the Dominican Republic in taekwondo. There have been comments in both Haitian and Dominican media about his mother origin. The article is protected, but a user have inserted sensible material about the main issue since after the protection and in the middle of the discussion. The issue is if we have to include in the article the whole nationality discussion about his mother in an article about an athlete. There is no any open investigation about it and the official bureau have released a statement saying that everything is completely clear. Can you please help us with this? Thank you. --Osplace 14:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it OK to add inline external links to a BLP, possibly suggesting that the subject has done something unethical?

See this edit atDebbie Wasserman Schultz which I content violates WP:BLPSPS and WP:ELNO. - Mr X 18:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That inclusion would seem to be a violation of multiple policies and guidelines, as you presciently note. Not only are inline external links highly deprecated, links to partisan interest groups (and at this point that's what WikiLeaks is) are especially to be avoided. It would be like including an inline link from Media Matters for America in Donald Trump's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

In this case no, in some cases yes. A *reliable* source that is being used to reference material in an article that may contain other negative information that is not in the article should not be removed out of hand. In this case a wikileaks link is far from being a reliable reference for a BLP. -edit- Oh I see the context now, I wouldnt use external links like that in a BLP. I would pipe through to Wikileaks and let them folllow the trail that way if they needed an external link. Per WP:ELNO really the only one that applies is 13 and even then that is arguable given the bit about deep linking. RE BLPSPS, is Wikileaks self-published though? I was under the impression while everything was user-submitted, what was actually displayed was subject to checking/verification by Wikileaks for authenticity before being made available. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I linked to the wrong part of WP:EL. The relevant portion is WP:ELBLP, and of course the first sentence of the guideline: Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article. - Mr X 16:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, it's WP:PRIMARY. This is an all-out "no". --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Kim Molina

Help, please. I'm tired of warring with a fan account, who posts personal information in a WP:BLP (birth name, date of birth) without providing sources. When I've removed said content or added cite tags, the account has reverted and added bogus sources. Protection? Block? Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed all the unlinked claims - and will watch the page for more fanzine additions Govindaharihari (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Govindaharihari. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency

Several IP's and at least one new account have been coordinating off-wiki to add information about a lawsuit against an individual. Article is currently semi-protected (thanks @Widr:) but could use some extra watchlisting moving forward. Please email me if any admin wants to personally review the evidence of the off-wiki activity; it's too disparaging to link IMHO. VQuakr (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich

Editors views are solicited on the talk page thread captioned Deletion of Rewards. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The main issue is whether it's a BLP violation for this article to mention that WikiLeaks has offered a $25,000 reward for information about this murder.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I have looked at the talk page in question and even made a few comments. I see absolutely no BLP issues with mentioning that WikiLeaks has offered a $25,000 reward for information about the murder. Some sources have speculated as to why WikiLeaks would do such a thing, and any such speculation should be handled with care because some of the speculation is a clear BLP violation, but there is zero justification for keeping the well-sourced and notable fact that WikiLeaks has offered a $25,000 reward for information about this murder out of the article. Clearly, it is not a BLP violation. "BLP" is not a magic word that allows one to censor material that someone (in this case the family) may object to. Then again, it is far from clear that the family objects to any mention that WikiLeaks has offered a $25,000 reward for information about the murder. Rather, they appear to have a problem with the associated speculation (as do I). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I wish some more editors would get involved here. It appears that the article is being pared back to nothing. The AfD was unsuccessful, but we seem to be headed to the same end result. Does this article even fall under BLP, given that there was no suicide nor gruesomeness?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I definitely see BLP issues and have clearly pointed them out with my talk page addition [38]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What you "pointed out" (I really hate that phrase; it pretends opinions are facts) was an argument that any speculation about whether Seth Rich was or was not a WikiLeaks source is a BLP violation. Not a single person on the page disagrees with that. What you completely failed to "point out" was why you think that stating that WikiLeaks offered reward money without any speculation about whether Seth Rich was or was not a WikiLeaks source is a BLP violation. This is the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard, where most if not all participants are quite familiar with what is and is not a BLP violation. Would you be so kind as to attempt to make your case here? Please explain why you think that simply stating that WikiLeaks offered reward money is a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to copy a question I posted on the talk page. It's a thought experiment which I believe clarifies the issue by removing the political flavor and other associations. Guy and others, I'd be interested in your take on this:

Here’s a thought experiment: Recall that Sony Pictures’ computers were hacked by the Guardians of Peace “GOP” around the time that the film “The Interview” was released. The film mocked and vilified the leadership of North Korea.

Suppose that your son was the executive chef of the Sony Pictures commissary. Shortly after the Sony hack, your son is brutally murdered in the middle of the night walking on the streets of Los Angeles. The GOP announces a reward for information leading to the conviction of the killer.

As his parent you decry this phony insinuation and you state that to the press. The reward story gets temporary blip in media coverage and then fades to nothing. Do you think WP should report it in an article about your son’s murder? Do you think there’s any reason for an article about your son’s murder in the first place?

SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

In the Murder of Seth Rich article, we have the following sources in the references section...

"WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward for help finding Omaha native Seth Rich's killer" --Omaha World-Herald
"WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward over murder of Democrat staffer Seth Rich" --The Daily Telegraph
"WikiLeaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer's killer" -- Washington Post

...but no mention of WikiLeaks offering a reward in the article. If WikiLeaks offering a $20,000 reward is a BLP violation in the body of the article, why isn't it a BLP violation in the references section? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Guy, those refs appear to be left over from article text that was removed. Could you comment on the North Korea/Sony Pictures scenario above? SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I will address your North Korea/Sony Pictures scenario. You added something that you designed to lead the reader in a particular direction: "The reward story gets temporary blip in media coverage and then fades to nothing". Change that to "The reward story gets the same amount of media coverage that the Wikileaks reward is getting" and the answer is the same as it is with the Wikileaks reward; include the fact that a reward was offered. We don't censor articles based upon what some editors think the well-sourced material implies. And yes, I would feel the same way even if it was my son who was murdered and I hated North Korea.

Also, you are wrong about the refs. They are used as sources for other material in the article. If a ref has a 15 next to it, look for [15] in the article.

Now that I have answered your question, please answer the question D.Creish asks below. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Several editors have asked in what way could simply mentioning "WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction" violate BLP. No one has offered a succinct, rational explanation. Specifico, would you care to? D.Creish (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I can give you a reason (not one I personally agree with) - by indirectly indicating the subject was the source of the leak to wikileaks it can be seen as implying the subject acted inappropriately (legally, ethically etc). Something we should avoid in BLP's without strong sourcing. Even though wikileaks explicitly state 'this should not be taken as blah blah' - that is actually worse, as human natures response to smoke/fire. "Well if they deny it, it must be true". And they are not actually denying it. The reason *I* dont think think its a problem is that I do not think even if the subject was linked to wikileaks, this is a negative. Not everyone shares that opinion, especically in the US political arena. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Can an AfD result be overturned by contested assertions of triviality?

Quite aside from WikiLeaks, editors at this article talk page are now claiming (1) the idea that Rich was sober when he left the place he was last seen is a BLP violation, (2) anything allegedly trivial about Rich is a BLP violation, and (3) WP:BLP applies to this article even though this was not a suicide and there's nothing gruesome in the article. Please note that an AfD resulted in no consensus, and so the article was kept; what's happening now is that the article is being gradually deleted on the mistaken premise that everything in it can be deleted if there is no consensus to keep it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

A "Keep" close at AfD isn't an endorsement of specific content within that article. See WP:ONUS. This slippery slope argument is unfounded. Geogene (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Supporters of deletion during the AfD said that the article is trivial. No consensus during the AfD resulted in keep. Now people who supported deleting the article are saying that anything they regard as trivial can be removed unless there's consensus to keep it, which will seemingly result in deletion of the article by attrition. It is a slippery slope indeed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

anything they regard as trivial can be removed unless there's consensus to keep it. Yes. Exactly. Geogene (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Geogene, wouldn't that mean that any AfD that closes with "keep because no consensus to delete", can be followed by de facto deletion because no consensus supports keeping anything in the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I routinely remove sourced content that isn't backed by consensus, if I feel I have a valid reason for doing so. I'm not concerned about any larger philosophical implications of that. Geogene (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree that editors should not remove content merely because of no consensus? There has to be some plausible policy-based rationale beyond "no consensus", right? WP:Preserve disfavors complete removal of undisputedly well-sourced material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The question is irrelevant because it misrepresents the motivations of the other editors, who have voiced policy based concerns about that content. Geogene (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I really don't like it when people casually throw around the word "misrepresents" given that the word is synonymous with lying. I was asking you a general question without reference to specific editors. If you would agree with the general principle, then we could have a civil discussion about whether the general principle is being respected at the article in question. I'm not going to continue this with my honesty being questioned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, throwing in WP:PRESERVE does not support the argument for keeping material that is trivial or BLP. This editing policy advocated by Anythingyouwant, is still in agreement with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The trivial information contradicts WP:UNDUE and the BLP content contradicts good editing behavior according to BLP.

So the point is, "Neutral point of view" is mentioned in this WP:PRESERVE section, at the tippy top, and I quote: "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research." I think it would benefit Anythingyouwant to read the policy he or she is advocating.

Also in the section beneath PRESERVE is WP:CANTFIX which states, "What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia; and WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia...". I think that is sufficiently on point. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Probable BLP issue

Just prior to lock-down on this article I belatedly discovered what appears to be content that contradicts WP:BLP. Specifically, the article now states "Rich left the Lou's City Bar in Columbia Heights at 1:45 am and told the bar manager he would go to a nearby bar. The bar manager stated that Rich was not drunk or even tipsy." Each sentence is a trivial detail, that has no bearing on the topic, and which casts the victim in a negative light. There appear to be no underlying rationales that show these sentences support the topic. Given these cast the victim in a negative light, for no good reason, they may actually produce more unnecessary anguish for the victim's family.

Although these are apparently based on a Newsweek source, Wikipedia is not Newsweek and is not a newspaper [39], [40]. Also, just because a bartender said this does not make it noteworthy. In fact, given that a non-notable person said this, meaning the bartender, these statements carry no weight and have no relevance pertaining to notoriety and BLP. Additionally, there is no way to determine the veracity of the statements by the bartender. Historically, in the years prior to this incident, we don't know how accurate his statements are when recounting details to others. We just do not have this information.

Given that these sentences seem to serve no purpose other than imitating news reports hungry for every detail, it seems these should be removed per BLP. Hence, I am requesting that an Admin remove this material. If more discussion is required after its removal (if that happens), I am thinking that can happen on the talk page.. Also, there are other editors engaged on the talk page who, I think, probably agree with what I have said. But I won't bring them into the discussion unless it is deemed necessary. There is also some history pertaining to attempts to remove this material and its ultimate restoration in the edit history, and on the talk page, just prior to lock-down. I can add diffs for that, if it is required or if it helps Admins to make a decision on this matter. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I endorse this request. It's disgraceful that a litany of SYNTHy personal details have been imposed on this article. They should be removed and all editors should be warned not to reinsinuate this content. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I also think there is another BLP issue, and this can be treated as separate from above. In the article, it states, "Rich was shot about a block from his home in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. in the vicinity of Howard University." To me there appears to be unnecessary detail after "Rich was shot..."

Saying a "block from his home" might be vague enough. But is it necessary to target-in on the specific location as much as possible with "in the Bloomingdale neighborhood...in the vicinity of Howard University"? Why is it necessary to know this? It's like a tourist's guide to go see where this person was perpetrated against. Especially, with the conspiracy-theory-rumor-mill that is on the Internet cranked up into in high gear. It also seems like engaging in gossip - "Did you know blah, blah, blah?" We have to be careful about not re-victimizing the victim and coming to the aid of unnecessary anguish for the family. It also, irrelevant to the point where how many people actually have any idea where these locations are in Washington DC? I know I don't. I suspect unless one is familiar with Washington DC neighborhoods or the particular University, then these details are not relevant to this event. I propose saying only that Rich was shot in Washington DC, or something like that. So again, I request that an Admin either remove or adjust the material cited. Thank you. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There is one more potential BLP issue. I don't think it is necessary for this:' "Hillary Clinton spoke of this fatality during a speech advocating limiting the availability of guns." So what? As has been brought up during discussions, how many other people related to the region she was speaking in, has Hilary Clinton brought up? She probably brings up someone different in Chicago, and someone else in New York and so on. I hate even bringing this up, because these are victims. But yet, because some can't see past salacious details, it is in the article. And the only way to address it - is to address it. There are other sources available that discuss this particular crime - so this is clearly not needed in the article to reinforce that Rich was victimized by gun violence. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the Howard University bit when it was inserted, and I agree it's off-topic and also a bit loaded. I think the second point is valid as well. SPECIFICO talk 11:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of Wikileaks reward by anon IP

An anonymous IP restored the Wikileaks reward content into the article about seven hours ago, which is currently deemed a BLP violation. I suppose this person is trying avoid sanctions and so on. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Could an Admin please undo this. In the context of ongoing talk page discussion, it's clearly inappropriate if not "vandalism" but unfortunately it would be falsely called inflammatory if a conscientious involved editor were to undo it. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You are asking an admin to edit war by proxy on your behalf. The proper way to deal with an IP who restart an edit war is to report the IP at WP:ANI, not to edit war yourself or edit war through a proxy. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I already removed it per BLP policy - per notification Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#Administrative_reminder_re:_BLP_policy - and in reference to WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Here is the diff [41]. And this is a good faith edit. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, Guy is running with the assumption the IP intended to start an edit war. We don't know the IPs motivations, or even if the IP was aware of sanctions. For myself, I have been just guessing because the IP has not returned. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Request DS template

I request a Discretionary sanctions template be affixed in this article for when people open it to edit. Then they can see that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions and what type of editing is permitted [42]. Steve Quinn (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nate Parker

This is a sensitive entry currently in the news (in very, very brief: includes discussion of sexual assault allegations, acquittal), including reference in the press to these events being addressed on subject's Wikipedia page. Both the entry itself and discussion at the talk page could benefit from additional attention from uninvolved editors. I'll note I also requested the entry's GA status be considered for reassessment, owing to the instability of the page and new problems of due weight (the controversial section of the entry has expanded but the other sections have not).

Worth noting also that some of same concerns may apply to the entry for Parker's film The Birth of a Nation (2016 film).

Thanks in advance to those who are up for having a look at this. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: Thanks for this effort. It is much appreciated.

I think the original Good Article award was really badly done -- or at least wasn't at a good level -- as I had to pretty much scrub the article of a lot of stuff that bordered on #copyvio when I started updating the article regarding the sexual assault claims, etc. So a re-assessment is a great idea and until these major holes in his Career section are improved then possibly the prior Good Article award should be removed.

As it stands, I think the article is in okay shape but is yes, definitely imbalanced and needs content. That said, due to the high level of publicity, the events surrounding the sensitive entry issue should be at least mentioned to the degree they are, with the good existing citations. I don't think the event warrants further expansion (some of the added info after I stopped editing the page could definitely be trimmed actually) but I would also say that the event doesn't need to be its own page, either. Thanks again! -- BrillLyle (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

J. Arch Getty

Someone saying that they are the subject of the BLP has made an appearance on the talkpage, complaining about some things. A few more eyes would be appreciated. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

João Vale e Azevedo

A lot of edit warring going on at João Vale e Azevedo. One user, along with an IP (who I suspect is the same user), continue to restore content back to the page, despite multiple talk page warnings. The user has been blocked for a week after the issue was taken to the Administrator's noticeboard but the IP account continues to edit the page. The edits in question do not improve the overall quality of the page and they damage the references' format. A second set of eyes would be appreciated! Meatsgains (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

[43] is an edit for the sole purpose of placing "(unearned)" into a Wikilink.

In 2007 there was a controversy over an (unearned) MBA degree in her resume,

The question about the degree is covered in the body of the BLP, but the stress on "unearned" here where the link makes clear that she was not found guilty of any wrongdoing is unwarranted.

The same editor also did:

[44] removing a 26 August Fortune (magazine) link.

That article specifically and precisely backs the claim that the panel found that Bresch did not deliberately lie. Removing this claim allows the implication that she deliberately misled people to remain in the BLP.

[45] the same editor modified a related BLP article with "(“taking the most charitable view")" using a source [46] which made a rather plainer statement:

(the report) didn't directly fault either father or daughter

and

The University's investigation had cleared Bresch of intentionally lying"

And the aside about "taking the most charitable view" was not about her lying - which it said she had been cleared of, but with regard to the degree with the comment "Taking the most charitable view of this claim, the Panel believes there may well have been a misunderstanding.

In short - she was cleared of lying absolutely, and the Panel suggests the MBA issue may well have resulted from a misunderstand.

In short, there is an obvious desire to ~~defame~~ ensure that readers clearly gain an implication of a person as a liar where no grounds for making that claim are in a reliable source. Trusting that the Fortune article is a reliable source.

[47] is an incomprehensible edit which muddies commonsense, and basically walks away from the clear points made in the Fortune article.

Will others kindly note these issues? Collect (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"Defame"? Are you making a legal threat? At a minimum, it's a personal attack on another editor. As for substance: the only way one gets to "not lying" is "there may have been a misunderstanding" -- it's the same point. Anyway, the idea that the article without your edits implies that she is lying is an idea that only you could come up with. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That is just about the worst reply I have ever seen on this noticeboard. Collect (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a WP:BLP violation in any of those edits. This seems to be a run-of-the-mill content dispute. ~~I see that no one has tried the article talk page.~~- Mr X 14:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Kindly note https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heather_Bresch&diff=prev&oldid=736730860 before asserting "that no one has tried the article talk page." Collect (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistakenly looked at the controversy talk page article. Carry on. - Mr X 16:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Philippe Cousteau Jr.

Am having issues at the subject article with a new editor adding PROMO and badly sourced (e.g to IMBD) content. More eyes would be helpful. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bart D. Ehrman

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Bart D. Ehrman about possible imbalance at Bart D. Ehrman#Reception. There are two main BLP issues involved here:

Can we use blogs from biblical scholars who praise Ehrman? In other words, can we WP:IAR on WP:BLPSPS in order to provide balance to the section?
Is quoting critics of Ehrman who believe in inerrancy a BLP violation, on the basis that the critics lack objectivity?

Thanks. St Anselm (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Number two is not phrased accurately at all. The question is whether theologians who belong to the Evangelical Theological Society (which requires members to swear belief in biblical inerrancy) can be considered reliable sources for the consensus of historians and/or textual critics. Especially given that there are apparently no non-members of the ETS who agree with their depiction of the consensus. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Vivien Stern - Error in footnote

Footnote 3 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Stern,_Baroness_Stern is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.56.125 (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the section because it was not supported in the source provided. Meatsgains (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Editwarring at Shaun King

I am currently engaged in an editwar at Shaun King where an editor is removing the statement that Shaun King grew up with the knowledge that his biological father was black, because he doesnt consider the ethnicity of his father to have been sufficiently proven, or consider King and the NYT a reliable source for iunformation about his father ethnicity (or even about his knowledge of who his father was growin up). I think WP:CRYBLP applies and thatr they are misapplying BLP, please feel free to chip in - I have of course now disengaged.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have commented there, that specific argument it is a BLP violation is ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

All that is needed to fully comply with WP:BLP is to state that Mr. King was told that his biological father was black. Most people believe what they are told, as far as I can tell, and the idea that a DNA test is needed is pretty much irrelevant to what Mr. King reasonably believes. This is not the same as the case of a person who has never been told they are part-black acting and presenting themselves as part-black. Collect (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well quite. SPACKlick is stating that reporting what Mr King has stated is his belief is a BLP violation against the un-named, un-known father. Who may not be black. Which is utter nonsense. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

momina mustehsan

Article about Momina Mustehsan is not accurate. - People continuously editing it and adding random things - Birth year is wrong (Actual year is 1993) - Birth place is wrong (Lahore, Pakistan) - Information on family is wrong (Parents are not from Multan. The family is from New York) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS9 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I fixed what I could there. Not a lot of reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Alison Weir (activist)

Can someone else take a look at the last couple of edits on this please. I feel there is some undue focus on negative material going on. The latest is more obviously problematic, it describes two living people (Clay Douglas and Mark Dankof) as a white supremacist and antisemite respectively, sourced to 'Jewish voice for peace' which is obviously not an impartial source for either of those claims. The first is more of an undue rather than obvious BLP issue. In a Guardian op-ed, the writer accuses Weir of spreading blood libel about organ harvesting with no evidence. Weir responded by letter pointing out that in her original article she evidence of Israeli organ harvesting from respectable sources. As usual, her rebuttal is not mentioned at all. Could someone else take a look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There are a few problems on that page. We've got a few self published sources that aren't from news-organizations making comments on the person. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert L. Johnson

Describes Johnson's purchase of the Charlotte Hornets as "selfish", for his own monetary gain. Insinuates his wife is too young for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C487:AA40:25DE:5071:9961:879 (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like some fan was upset with him, removed their tirade per BLP. Thanks for bringing it here.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Dragan Vasiljkovic (1, 2 & 3)

TLDR if you want this to go anywhere, learn to be succinct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My name is Bradley Slowgrove. I wish to thank Wikipedia for removing my name from your article on Dragan Vasiljkovic. I am now willing to provide you with the whereabouts of primary source material from the ICTY and OSCE that paints a much different picture that the jaundiced commentary you find in the Australian Press. WILL YOU GIVE ME A VOICE? In addition I should be able to direct you to parts of the austlii web site that has the legal proceedings on it relating to Mr. Vasiljkovic. I was Mr. Vasiljkovic's lawyer for his extradition hearing and part of one of the High Court cases. You should see me named as his counsel on the austlii transcript for the proceedings in the High Court on 15 February 2006 where I succeeded in getting his case set down for the Full Court. I am an expert in the laws of war that cover the entirety of the allegations against Mr. Vasiljkovic in the Croatian warrant and request that I have a copy of on my computer that I should be able to forward by attachment. They only relate to the Krajina in what is now lower eastern Croatia. You need training to properly analyze these documents and you should know that Croatia never produced any evidence to support these unpleaded allegations. However this does not make them useless to say the least when you compare the structure of the Croatian allegations to the ICTY findings on the Krajina theatre of the Croatian war. There is nothing to suggest that Croatia ever made any of their allegations to the ICTY. Nor under the rules for ICTY transfer of cases to local jurisdiction could Mr. Vasiljkovic ever be transferred to Croatia because it is the enemy(See ICTY cases on rule 11 bis). Why then did Australia when the ICTY would not even transfer Mr. Vasiljkovic to Croatia if the ICTY had the allegations and indicted Mr. Vasiljkovic?
I taught Public International Law at a major Australian university for at least 17 years. I also designed the extradition aspect of that course for admission to practice. I practiced as a barrister for nearly 24 years. I can shed some light on the defamation allegations as well. I will not be biased in Vasiljkovic's favour and state only what the evidence discloses. It will lead you in a different direction. For instance the Wikipedia article does not seem to realize that the defamation proceedings brought by Mr. Vasiljkovic against "The Australian" relate to allegations fundamentally different to the allegations made against him by Croatia for which he was transferred for trial. There is only one minor overlap with the Croatian allegations that are all in the Krajina where the defamation allegations mainly relate to Bosnia and also Serbia where Mr. Vasiljkovic was never a military commander. This in itself is odd in both respects. You should note that the ICTY deals with many areas in Yugoslavia where the press never went or reported on. You will find I can answer and substantiate all questions put to me on all aspects of Mr. Vasiljkovic.
A small taste of what I have is this:If you look at the testimony of Arnout Van Lynden in early June 2006 before judge Moloto in the Martic hearing on ICTY transcript(it should be on the ICTY web site) you can work out that Mr. Vasiljkovic was essentially banished from the Krajina by about 3 August 1991 by Milan Babic and Milosevic. Mr. Van Lynden was a Sky News Reporter at the time who has testfied in many ICTY trials including recently the Karadzic trial called by the prosecution. He is hardly a friend of the Serbs but was at Glina. Moreover the fact that Vasiljkovic left the Krajina about 3 August 1991 is corroborated by a footnote in the Stanisic and Simatovic prosecution which establishes that Serbian State Security made an application to intercept Mr. Vasiljkovic's Belgrade telephone that was granted on 5 August 1991 and these applications were continually granted for telephone intercepts by Serbian State Security on Mr. Vasiljkovic's private home in Belgrade up to mid 1992. There were no mobile phones at that time in Belgrade. If you compare this time frame against all the indictments issued on primary facie evidence under article 19 of the ICTY Statute concerning the Krajina aspect of the Croatian war you will find that all war crimes and crimes against humanity by Serbs against non-Serbs in the Krajina happened during the period that Mr. Vasiljkovic was back in Belgrade under surveillance by Serbian State Security as a potential western spy.This not only gives Mr. Vasiljkovic a fabulous alibi but it is also an alibi he could not possibly know about. You should see now why the ICTY never indicted Mr. Vasiljkovic. It takes someone with my training who is willing to do massive work such as going through all the mass of evidence on the Krajina aspect of the Croatian war to see if there is a structure to it and there is. Are your editors willing to do that or have that training when writing their article? I did this professionally for a living and that is a big difference. Only Croatia believes it and war th existed in June/July 1991 to the ICTY the war is not until 26 August 1991. I note documents from Serbian State Security available to the ICTY are not available to the Croatians in Mr. Vasiljkovic's Croatian case. I bet the prosecution in Croatia has not interviewed Mr. Van Lynden. B Slowgrove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.204 (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but Wikipedia's policies and guidelines instruct us to use secondary sources; there's a specific prohibition on using court documents as primary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(Continued below at #Dragan Vasiljkovic 2. 185.92.25.20 (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

Dragan Vasiljkovic 2

(See also #Dragan Vasiljkovic 1, above. 185.92.25.20 (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)) This is Bradley Slowgrove on the comment to my prior comment on this page about the Dragan Vasiljkovic article and more. Wikipedia policy does not prevent the use of court documents and unchallenged evidence published on the internet for cases that are over. All that material is in the public domain for that purpose.If the comment to my information was correct anyone could write non-defamatory nonsense about someone else on Wikipedia and it could not be contradicted without violating Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia policy is based on that it can be contempt of court to publish court documents in ongoing cases. No such problem arises with ICTY web site publications and the ICTY web site is there for that very purpose. It is published by the ICTY so it cannot be contempt of the ICTY to use it. The problem is that those responsible for the Wiki Vasiljkovic article have neither the time, skill or knowledge to access that primary source material. The same is true of the austlii web site. These are published by the Courts so the citizen can make up their own mind that the Courts are functioning properly and justly in cases and are not just for lawyers. Under Australian law war crimes cases are decided by juries for this reason. Mr. Vasiljkovic has been denied a jury trial by the Commonwealth. Why? Instead he was flicked out the back door to the enemy over an armed conflict with Croatia after 10 years jail and no jury trial anywhere. If something is factually or evidentially unsupported on primary sources then allegations against any person should not be published. Further what makes a secondary source is that it is underwritten by a primary source. Much of the material in the Vasiljkovic article is pure gratuitous commentary for people with an interest material or emotional in their conclusions that contradict the primary source material or they believe everything the press and/or governments says. It is not really secondary source material at all but just floats in the air all on its own devoid of scrutiny. The advantage of the internet is that people are no longer dominated by what the press and governments tell us if trained in research and investigation, have scholastic method, are thorough and unbiased in their work and better still have expertise in the laws of evidence.You can then work out if governments or the press are misleading you. The advantage is that people have the information to think for themselves instead of being led by the nose about events beyond their line of sight. Remember all ICTY indictments must be supported by prima facie evidence before issued by an ICTY judge (not the ICTY prosecutor-see article 19 ICTY Statute) so ICTY indictments are not just a set of bare allegations which is what the Croatian Vasiljkovic allegations are and is what the article on Dragan Vasiljkovic contains. Aarons book "War Criminals Welcome" on Mr. Vasiljkovic with one exception uses only newspaper reports and his only primary source reference if properly understood helps Mr. Vasiljkovic. I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt everything I say from primary evidence. I will now let off in the next paragraph a small part of the evidential dynamite to make my point. Note I take things head on and do not skip over information that does not suit me which this next aspect on the surface would seem to do. A professionally trained researcher has integrity and does not engage in sins of omission to "prove" their point either. They are not "selective" and they stay "in context". For example the Wikipedia article on Dragan Vasilkovic article refers to a "throwaway" line not a finding by the ICTY in its Martic trial judgment where Mr. Vasiljkovic is named last in a cavalcade of names of ICTY indictees said to have been part of a a criminal enterprise with Martic. Mr. Vasiljkovic was not indicted or mentioned in the Martic ICTY indictments and was not represented in the proceedings nor was he a witness. Therefore the remark in the judgment is without doubt a denial of due process of law. The uncontradicted testimony of Mr. Van Lynden in early June 2006 (referred to in my last comment) establishes that Mr. Vasiljkovic could not be part of any such criminal enterprise with Martic. The Court's reference to Mr. Vasiljkovic would have to arise from the documentary evidence of Vasiljkovic's presence at a meeting with JNA military commanders and Serbian administrators in late July 1991 at Glina where he said that the areas around Glina were now secure. However because Mr. Vasiljkovic was not the focus of the proceedings the trial chamber judge overlooked the Van Lynden evidence that immediately after that meeting Mr. Vasiljkovic returned to Knin with Mr. Van Lynden and at Knin had a farewell dinner with Van Lynden and Babic and was then sent back to Belgrade. The entirety of Van Lynden's evidence is interesting including that on what Mr. Vasiljkovic is really like in person rather than as portrayed in the press. When Vasiljkovic was sent back to Belgrade by Babic, Simatovic and Milosevic from 5 August 1991 he was under surveillance by Serbian State Security as is established without challenge in the ICTY in Stanisic and Simatovic that refers to the actual telephone intercepts of his Belgrade private home. Stanisic and Simatovic were the heads of Serbian State Security. This is true reliable secondary source material not newspaper reports. It is also admissible telling probative exculpatory alibi evidence of a person who has never been indicted and was not in evidence at the Martic trial. It is also devastating alibi evidence because Mr. Vasiljkovic could never have had knowledge of it for he was jail in Australia both during the Stanisic/Simatovic trial and was also in jail in Australia in early June 2006 when Van Lynden testified in the ICTY. None of this evidence is in dispute and gives Mr. Vasiljkovic a more than solid alibi backed up by the fact that it was an alibi he could not have known about. Evidence hardly gets much better than this. Further the date pleaded for the Martic criminal enterprise to commit ICTY article 3 war crimes in the Martic indictments is 3 August 1991 supported by prima facie evidence. Further again the ICTY found in Martic that all the relevant war crimes for Glina in execution of the Martic criminal enterprise were committed from mid September 1991 onwards. Mr. Vasiljkovic was at that time not only back in Belgrade Serbia not in Croatia but forbidden to return to the Krajina and his phone was bugged without his knowledge and the transcripts of those calls were available to the ICTY Prosecutor. It can also be inferred from this that ICTY investigators went right through Glina for war crimes and Mr. Vasiljkovic was not indicted over anything that occurred at Glina in late July 1991. It was not possible on the evidence for Mr. Vasiljkovic to be part of a criminal enterprise with Martic to commit these post August 1991 war crimes. Further you can infer that the war crimes at Glina in July 1991 do not exist because they would have been discovered by the ICTY investigators since it was Martic who sent Mr. Vasiljkovic to Glina in late July 1991 and then included in the ICTY Martic indictment issued by the Tribunal on application by the ICTY Prosecutor that had those same telephone intercepts (article 18 ICTY Statute). (I have further evidence that will show the July 1991 Glina war crimes alleged by Croatia CANNOT exist yet Mr. Vasiljkovic is on trial for them in Croatia after 10 years jail over Glina). Croatia, however, does NOT allege in its unsupported "war crimes" allegations against Mr. Vasiljkovic made to Australia that he was involved in any "criminal enterprise at all" let alone with Martic. Proper precise pleadings supported by evidence are always a legal necessity in all war crimes trials because people can allege anything about the "fog of war" where "truth is always the first casualty". Mr. Vasiljkovic could have taken proceedings in the ICTY to have that "throwaway" line in the Martic judgment removed from the ICTY record for denial of due process. He did not because a person alleged to be him but not identified by an Australian Court was grabbed by the AFP in May 2010 without Court order,taken straight to prison and has remained in prison ever since. (The convicts on the First Fleet were identified by a Court before they were transported to Australia). When you are in prison people can say anything about you, stab you in the back and there is nothing you can practically do about it. The Martic judgment "throwaway" line used in the Wiki article is not admissible as "proof" in proceedings involving Mr. Vasiljkovic but all the evidence I have drawn attention to is. Imagine what it is like when you are imprisoned without evidence and barred from proving your innocence to get out and people/the press/governments can say anything they like about you.This is just the tip of the iceberg on what I can prove and I will use this page to debunk all of what is in that article from primary sources if people are interested. The press and government press releases are not primary sources of the contents of what they assert. If after I have debunked the Wikipedia Vasiljkovic article people are still interested I will replace it with a much more interesting correct story supported by unimpeachable evidential sources. I will take it slowly leaving the bigger bombshells to the end because of space and so people will not get overwhelmed by the size of the evidence. All I ask is to just think about it slowly for yourselves. Think of some of the statements by the Commonwealth government reported in the press in this including one paraphrased in the Wikipedia Vasiljkovic page. You should find they do not withstand scrutiny. Think for yourself and do not be led by the nose by the governments and the media.The evidence of the true story is all on the published public records both international and domestic if you know where to find it and I do. Smart people who read this should recognize by now they are getting something special and encourage me to continue.The end will be more than worth the long journey. It is for smart people who can think for themselves because I am precise and detailed and I know it all. I just demolished above the only possible barrier than anyone could have honestly cited back at me over the Wiki Vasiljkovic article. It will be all plain sailing from here if enough interest is shown in the state of alleged Australian democracy. I conclude for now with one very simple dynamite question and that is: If the Vietnamese government made unsupported and unpleaded war crimes allegations against an Australian soldier over the Vietnam War would Australia send that soldier back for trial in Vietnam on those unsupported allegations let alone barring them proving their innocence in Australia to get out of jail? Of course not. Then why is Australia sending a Serbian soldier back to Croatia on the same basis? You do not have to take notice of me just think about it yourself and see if you do not get a very big smell up your nose. B. Slowgrove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.97.95 (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have put a lot of effort into writing this text. Unfortunatly, WP:TLDR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Dragan Vasiljkovic 3

YOUR REFERENCE ON LENGTH This is Bradley Slowgrove again on Dragan Vasiljkovic and especially on the reference by Wikipedia for my length. I do not need a reference to a wiki page on how to write concisely especially by someone who cannot spell the word "unfortunately" or does not edit their work. I have written professionally for years. I know so much about this I can churn this out in a minimal amount of time using undisputed immaculate primary sources as if I am playing a piano but without repetition.This took about an hour with editing and I type with two fingers. It is comparatively long because I am systematically proving Vasiljkovic is, as a matter of substance, innocent although he has never been convicted of anything after over 10 years jail. (SEE LEGAL INNOCENCE BELOW and UNKNOWN SOLDIERS THE LATTER IS REALLY WORTH THE EFFORT). I also jazzed it up a bit if imprisoning an innocent Australian/Serb for 10 years without charge bores you although I note the Australian media is upset that an Australian in jail over a murder in Bali might be held for "as much as 3 weeks without charge". Lay persons are usually always interested in whether "they did it or not" so I have taken the long way around by proving innocence although it is those that allege that carry the onus of proof. I suggest you did not read all my post because you cannot hold concentration for very long and do not appreciate the significance and impact of the primary material referred to. The Wikipedia Vasiljkovic article is riddled with ERRORS. 1. Mr. Vasiljkovic was never convicted of ROBBERY as a juvenile. He pled guilty to break and enter but not steal over a teenage party in an abandoned derelict house. He was the only one charged and of course the only Serb. 2. The RECEIVING was from some young street kids of a stolen cassette player in Melbourne. They were amusing, he over payed in cash to give the kids some money because he felt sorry for them. I am from the Vietnam war generation and know what police were like in the 60/70s and their attitude to "new Australians".3. Mr. Vasiljkovic was not convicted of "forcing" women into PROSTITUTION either, an outrageous allegation against a man in jail without any charges. An ESCORT who took "out calls" moved into his apartment and shared the rent. After she went to the estate agent to pay the rent the agent raised her presence in the flat with the police as she was not on the lease. Vasiljkovic was falsely charged with living off the earnings of a prostitute, not represented at court and was building a yacht with a Croatian friend to sail around the world. The police charges could not stick so they said to him we will let you plead guilty to running a BROTHEL. They are going to make brothels legal in a month then you can get out of here and work on your boat. Fighting it will cost money and we have to keep coming back for ages. Vasiljkovic is naive- an outdoor person- a sailor, aviator and field soldier, not some sneaky office hound manipulating across a confined terrain for career synergies. V is not dependent on a clean record for petty offences to earn a living outdoors. What matters to him is whether you can tie knots,trim and mend sails on the high seas and navigate where competence and incompetence, right and wrong are not subtle but visible and obvious. Mr. Vasiljkovic was accepted into the Australian ARMY because the Defense Department was satisfied that he was a "fit and proper person" despite the two prior convictions. If it was otherwise his application would have been rejected. He was honorably discharged after over 4 years service for this country. The Wiki article is just a mouthpiece for the press, the Commonwealth government, racists and the Croatian state and its nationalist propaganda about its "Homeland war".

THE ARTICLE AND PUBLIC CURIOSITY: UNDER THE LAWS OF WAR IT IS PROHIBITED TO HOLD ANY RETURNED SOLDIER OUT TO PUBLIC CURIOSITY AND THAT INCLUDES SERBIAN SOLDIERS THAT HAVE SERVED IN AN ARMED CONFLICT ABROAD. YOUR WIKI ARTICLE DOES THIS TO MR. VASILJKOVIC. THE LAWS OF WAR ARE NOT ONLY FOR THE LEGENDARY ANZACS. If you know anything about armed conflicts the warring states often try to control how an armed conflict is recorded in history for decades after the war is over. Further most WAR CRIMINALS are bureaucrats, security police, politicians, and second phase occupation troops. On the research statistically of all persons active in an armed conflict ACTUAL COMBAT SOLDIERS THAT DO THE REAL FIGHTING ARE THE LEAST LIKELY TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES although given the most media attention. When they do it is usually always because "BLEND INS"(out of uniform and no flag) kill their comrades and they go berserk or because they do not know who is who in the local population. Al Qaeda are "blend ins". At Abu Graib the U.S. "soldiers" were reservists- "week-end soldiers". Wr criminals on the whole are hangers on far from the danger of war. I am not Serbian and Wikipedia is a global organization but is acting as a mouthpiece for jaundiced vested interests that I have discredited already.Any new readers see my prior posts. THIS IS VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS. At one stage that has now passed both parents put our child into boarding school because there were reasonable concerns based on information I still possess that my personal safety may be in jeopardy. If I continue with this I can prove who and why later in proper order. I have stayed silent for years waiting for people to wake up and notice what is really simple obvious and beyond dispute. No matter how plainly ridiculous it is they still keep it up as if this man still has something to answer for when he never has. We now have a generation that has no idea of the fundamental principles of western democracy and cannot think for themselves despite the internet. The "net effect" is to make smart people smarter and dumb people dumber so the overall "net effect"is that they are a dumber generation. INTELLIGENCE IS ACQUIRED NOT INNATE. They also believe what the media, politicians and "authority" tell them. They do not know that BUREAUCRACY likes the guilty and HATES THE INNOCENT. The guilty are a career move for them.The innocent are a career deficit to be buried at all costs. State officials do not admit their errors they bury them sometimes in jail, below ground or even at sea. This one is unique because they have buried him in public. Nobody notices what is right before their eyes if it spoils the story. The innocent make state officials look bad so they go on with their mistake buoyed by irrelevant media coverage on the wrong war at the wrong time. MENTAL LAZINESS does the rest. This is why you should never have capital punishment. What they never say is "SORRY" because it means you did something wrong. PEOPLE ARE PSYCHIATRICALLY PROGRAMMED TO AVOID DOUBT FROM BIRTH. If they get an answer for nothing on anything that does not affect their perceived immediate interests then showing them the answer is wrong puts them to work to discover the right answer.This is like asking them to repay LOTTERY WINNINGS because there has been a mistake. Always bet on self interest. It's always a goer. Anything else has to overcome sloth to get a start. V's INNOCENCE spoils the story but work replaces it with a much better story.There is a PAY OFF for the trade off.

LEGAL INNOCENCE: If you want me to use my legal expertise to establish his innocence to shorten what I have to say (because your concentration flags despite the quality of the material) I will. READ THIS: All the Croatian allegations against Vasiljkovic taken at their best are described by the subject matter war crimes in articles 2 and 3 of the ICTY Statute that demand indictment on prima facie evidence(article 19). Mr. Vasiljkovic has been in jail for 10 years without indictment or evidence including NO PROOF OF ANY WAR ANYWHERE IN YUGOSLAVIA. Apparently we are to rely on media coverage about a totally different war in Bosnia in 1993 because the laws of war and ICTY know nothing about any "civil war in the former "Yugoslavia" only the media. Only Croatia thinks there is a WAR in June/July 1991. NO ONE ELSE INCLUDING ICTY. Of his 10 years in JAIL 3 have been in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT not related to his behavior in prison so legally he has done the equivalent of at least 12 to 13 years jail and continuing. Article 24 of the ICTY Statute says on sentencing for guilty persons the ICTY must take into account Yugoslav criminal sentencing practices. The article 24 ICTY cases of Silvijicannan, Babic and Plavisek would mean that if guilty Mr. Vasiljkovic could get no more than 10 years jail for the unpleaded unsupported Croatian allegations if indicted and convicted by the ICTY. He would be out on PAROLE after 6 years. Silvijicannan got 10 years jail, was out in 6 on parole, after being found guilty as an accessory to the KILLING OF OVER 100 PRISONERS at Vukovar hospital. Babic got 13 years for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and he was president of the RSK in Krajina in the Croatian war. Biljana PLAVISEK was deputy president and leader of the Bosnian Serb rump parliament in Pale during the most televised ATROCITIES of the Bosnian war. She was convicted of crimes against humanity, was sentenced by the ICTY to 11 years jail in Sweden and was released after 8 years. All had FULL CREDIT given for time served in the U.N Detention Unit in The Hague prior to sentencing so reducing their actual time spent in jail under their sentences. Not Vasiljkovic, of course. Neither in Australia nor Croatia although it is the law. VASILJKOVIC HAS DONE THE TIME BEFORE BEING CONVICTED FOR THE CRIME. A WORLD FIRST FOR AUSTRALIA. Check it out! Your Wiki article is DEAD.
NIS BID IDEM: Mr. Vasiljkovic's prosecution in Croatia is what is legally called under the laws of war " nis bid idem"and that means for a lay person is "its all over now" because he has already served his sentence in jail before being indicted in Croatia. It is still goes on, he has not been tried let alone convicted. It has the legal effect that he is GLOBALLY CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT under international and domestic law whether he has " DONE IT OR NOT". To try him now is in legal substance to violate the law on DOUBLE JEOPARDY and this is the second time this has happened. Once in Australia and now again in Croatia. I can debunk all the Croatian allegations against him and can pretty much debunk the allegations made by the Australian newspaper that DEFAMED him about a war that he never was a military commander in but where i have already shown that the Glina allegations by Croatia in a different war where he was a military commander "he did not do it". I still have the rest to go but Wiki says I am too long. Murdoch's "The Australian" defamation case was before the MURDOCH hacking scandal but after the unmentioned NAIDU CASE where the NSW Supreme Court found the same company in the defamation case, NATIONWIDE NEWS, liable for $100,000 PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR RACIAL VILIFICATION causing post traumatic stress disorder worth over $2 MILLION in damages- an Australian RECORD VERDICT. "The Australian" in an editorial actually boasted that it had conducted a war crimes trial in Australia against Vasiljkovic where I can prove in a split second that the Murdoch "Australian" has no idea what a war crime is from their very own allegations not heard by a jury under the correct onus of proof. The defamation case is still used in the Wiki article despite someone wrongly commenting on Wikipedia policy preventing use of Court documents as sources when a court judgment is a court document. I do not consider any Murdoch publication as a source for anything. In the defamation V was found to be a mercenary without wage records and there were not the TELEPHONE INTERCEPTS of Serbian state security in evidence in the defamation case that I disclosed in my last post. Nor was it shown that Serbian State Security banned V from the Bosnian war. Mr. Vasiljkovic did not have a cheque book to go abroad to find witnesses in what was a war zone as The Australian did AFTER (not before) the Australian article was found defamatory by a jury. I note that there is no reference anywhere in the ICTY about the often mentioned Mr. Vasiljkovic aka the well known "Captain Dragan"ever being called "the Prince" by anyone. Instead Mr. Vasiljkovic had to run his defamation case from a jail cell with no money after any chance of him getting decent damages from Nationwide News was destroyed by Croatia and the Commonwealth imprisoning him on DIFFERENT CROATIAN ALLEGATIONS AFTER (not before) he sued Murdoch's Nationwide News for defamation. I have more believe me but it is getting too long because the evidence for him is so massive the reader may get tired let alone check the primary sources.

THE UNKNOWN SOLDIERS: Do you know that the most serious Croatian allegation is against Vasiljkovic? It is that he has command responsibility for unnamed others killing "two UNIDENTIFIED Croatian prisoners of war" 23 years ago (See Croatian arrest warrant 12 December 2005). This is actually in the Croatian documents used in the proceedings by Croatia and the Commonwealth to imprison and transfer V. Unbelievable! There are NO BODIES and NO IDENTITIES. For MURDER you can have a body with no identity or an identity with no body but even the movie screen has never come up with murder where there are no bodies and no identities. NOT ONLY THAT THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPOSEDLY PHYSICALLY DID IT ARE ALSO NOT IDENTIFIED EITHER AFTER 23 YEARS BUT APPARENTLY MR. VASILJKOVIC WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF IT WHATEVER "IT" MAY MEAN. HE MUST HAVE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB. TOO BAD HE DID NOT MAKE HIMSELF DISAPPEAR unless perhaps he did. Vasiljkovic will be the first person ever "convicted" of war crimes against the UNKNOWN SOLDIER. Apparently Croatia cannot keep track of its own soldiers despite the Geneva Conventions requiring Croatia to register all of them so this can never happen even though Croatia purports to rely on Geneva for making allegations against Mr. Vasiljkovic. All this is in Croatia's primary documents that Australian officials have acted upon while drawing six figure professional salaries from the public purse. State officials do not look, read or think otherwise thye find answers that do not suit them. Mr. Vasiljkovic was not identified by a Court before he was jailed and sent to Croatia either so maybe he did disappear.YOU HAVE AN UNIDENTIFIED MAN BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR OTHER UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS "LIQUIDATING"23 YEARS AGO OTHER UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS AND NO ONE HAS FOUND THEIR BODIES. THIS IS THE ULTIMATE IN UNKNOWN SOLDIERS. The "no"s continue because there was no indictment for 10 years. There is still no trial until September 2016 and do not forget "no war" and "no evidence" but there is jail and no doubt there will be a sentence. Originally there was no allegations when the identified V was jailed on 20 January 2006. The allegations with the unidentified persons "liquidating"other unidentified persons came in 60 days after he was jailed to be picky. All the Croatian prosecution needs is a whole lot of witnesses saying they saw nothing and they will prove their case for sure. THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SENT AN UNIDENTIFIED MAN TO CROATIA THAT IS SAID TO HAVE AN UNIDENTIFIED RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS HAVING UNIDENTIFIED RANK "LIQUIDATING" TWO UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS 23 YEARS AGO. BUT THERE ARE NO DEAD BODIES. To fully get the complete impact of this you have to see my earlier email where the AFP grabbed a man in mid May 2010 without an arrest warrant they said was V without having him identified by a Court or a magistrate unlike the convicts transported on the First Fleet. You know what they say about the "fog of war"and "truth being the first casualty". Too bad there has never been any evidence of any war and only Croatia no one else believes there is a war in Croatia in June/July 1991. In fact in June/July 1991 there was no Croatia. The "no"s certainly have it in this. Never let the truth spoil a good persecution even when there is no talented oppressor. I can hear the Australian mind ticking over "Ah, yes! but we all know its him".That one simple thought is why Australians culturally will never truly be a democratic people. Do YOU think "he" did "it"?

 A DEAL,A JUDGE and A TIP: The Croatians have apparently offered Mr. Vasiljkovic a DEAL that they will release him if he pleads guilty. He refused. Mr. Vasiljkovic will be found guilty and kept in jail in Croatia not because he has done anything but because he has not. They all want a guilty finding and to keep him in jail to protect all the people responsible for putting him in jail in the first place. Condemned men tell no tales but apparently unidentified ones do. WHAT SORT OF A JUDGE WOULD SIT AND DECIDE GUILT IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL WHERE THE ACCUSED HAD ALREADY SPENT OVER 10 YEARS IN JAIL FOR THE CRIMES HE IS BEING TRIED? Don't just agree with me. Think for yourself because this sells itself I do not have to sell it to you. Remember under the laws of war state officials are not protected by their office not just those accused of war crimes but those conducting the case against them. The most basic war crime is the enemy calling an opposing soldier a war criminal and then jailing or deporting or executing them without giving them proper standards of Geneva justice as required by the laws of war. Calling enemy soldiers war criminals and using enemy state local criminal procedures and sentencing without regard to Geneva standards of justice violates the laws of war. War is nearly always an armed struggle over state sovereignty so state sovereignty is never a defense under the laws of war. It all makes sense doesn't it? If the laws of war were otherwise then the laws of war would not only be useless but become a weapon in the war used by either warring party against each other alleging war crimes after every battle. Think it through. You might further realize that the laws of war continue on after the war is over. There's a TIP for those who think.
WIKILEAKS and WIKIPEDIA SCRAPPING THE V ARTICLE: I appreciate that Wikileaks is a separate organization to Wikipedia but you could refer this to Wikileaks who can handle CONTROVERSY. If you do not want me on this page put me on another one. If anyone wants to dispute what I say they must meet my intellectual pitch and also know what they are talking about. While I have a mountain of published undisputed evidence to back up everything I say WIKILEAKS may have the resources to find some very JUICY internal government memos on this DISASTER. There a lot of people in authority and positions of power scared stiff about the truth in this (some I can identify). Wikipedia does not have the "hutzpah" for this despite its global voice. Perhaps the clever people only publish in Mathematics and Science" because whoever put that reference on my email does not have strong powers of comprehension or is it attention deficit disorder? Sorry for not proving innocence in a 100 words or less or being boring in doing so. I certainly pass quality control but perhaps there is not any. If Wikipedia wants to run with this the donations should increase in the long run if they situate the editors outside Australia. I have given you enough information to start a new page on Dragan Vasiljkovic. Why not SCRAP the Vasiljkovic article saying new information has come to light that affects the veracity of the sources cited on the web page? I will continue if I start to get positive responses from smart people who can think and want this to go on. I am not remotely Serbian just too good at my job but I am not interested in raving Croatian nationalists with an axe to grind that want to get anyone regardless of truth and the law and keep the "war"going by other means well after the ICTY has closed down. If you are really interested in international affairs, intelligence agencies, international crime, war and political corruption on a grand scale the best is yet to come if you ask for it but beware it is not like the movies. You get to be an interactive cyber insider to the real thing. They are not clever but the banality of evil. Hannah Arendt 'Eichmann in Jerusalem'.Ticking a box with a pencil can often be a war crime and now clicking a mouse. A lot different from a soldier running up a hill with a rifle and bayonet. I have already destroyed your entire Wiki article. It is up to you if you want a more accurate replacement but I can give you it all including the Australian political and legal history on war crimes going back to WW II. It is also very relevant in explaining this entire mess or better still 5 messes. Work out an appropriate forum. Do you have a "bombshells web page" for me and do I have to be identified?  I do not have a cyber signature. Am I unidentified too? "The truth was obscure,too profound and too pure. To live it you had to explode" Bob Dylan --- HAVE I GOT ANY TAKERS WHO WANT SOME EXCITEMENT?  B. Slowgrove.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.4 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Gibson

Michael Gibson is Beatles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.160.96 (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Michael Greger

See Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Graham Hunt (politician)

I could use some help at Graham Hunt (politician). An SPA is whitewashing the article, removing sourced material, and restoring deleted unsourced contentious material. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Is .whosdatedwho.com/ a reliable source

... In a BLP, for who's living with and has children with who? Surely not? -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Surely not... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia for sure. Collect (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, whosdatedwho.com is just as likely to "report" (with little to no actual citations) on things being "true" that might, in fact, just be rumor. Not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia at all. Guy1890 (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bart D. Ehrman needs more eyes

Talk:Bart D. Ehrman

Don't want to go too much into detail for fear of the appearance of canvassing. All I'll say is that some users on both sides of the dispute appear to be suggesting the citation of blogs in the "Reception" section.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Saraju Mohanty

I think the biography at Saraju Mohanty needs some independent eyes. It has either been edited by the subject himself or some very loyal fans. There is not one but two image galleries of the subject, one where he is out and about meeting people and the other looks like a childhood photo album. To give you an idea of the POV nature, one image has the caption "Saraju Mohanty in an inspiring discussion with High-School Students in Lodhachua Village Odisha, India in 2010." On top of that there's lists of articles he's edited, theses he has supervised, and so on. I'm not sure where to begin with reducing it, so I am listing it here for broader attention. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about WP:BLPSPS or maybe WP:SELFPUB for Pakistani singer Momina Mustehsan

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Weak_sources_for_basic_facts_about_Pakistani_pop_singer_Momina_Mustehsan Jytdog (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Luc Illusie

Hello ! The biography of Luc Illusie contained several factual errors, which I corrected directly, while adding new information. But there is a paragraph which I had corrected and which has been re-entered : I think it is at the least very misleading (and not relevant), at the worst almost libellous. At the suggestion of the author of those lines, I explained the problems (with references) in this paragraph at length in the Talk page, Talk:Luc Illusie, but apparently with no success. Opinions welcome !Cgolds (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Chris Hayes (journalist)

Similar content dealing with accusations of antisemitism have recently been added in two separate sections of the article. At least one of the passages, which cover the same ground, can be removed. Beyond that, more eyes are requested for neutrality. Thanks. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

[1] Corbett, Rachel. "DISMISSED! JUDGE TOSSES COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT AGAINST RYAN MCGINLEY". Artnet.com. Artnet News. Retrieved 9 August 2016.

[2] Freire, Jose. "Team Gallery's José Freire on Why Janine Gordon's McGinley Lawsuit is Meritless". Bloutin Art Info. Louise Bloutin. Retrieved 9 August 2016.

[3] Masnick, Mike. "Judge Slams Photographer For Bogus Copyright Lawsuit: Says Use Some Common Sense, Points Out 'Utter Lack Of Similarity'". Tech dirt. Retrieved 9 August 2016.

[4] Sullivan, Judge Robert. "JANINE GORDON, Plaintiff, VERSUS RYAN MCGINLEY, ETAL., Defendants" (PDF). The New York Times. Retrieved 9 August 2016.

[5] McGinley, Ryan; et al. "DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT" (PDF). copyrightem.com. Retrieved 9 August 2016.

[6] ttps://vimeo.com/178902235

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]