Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Material on talk page of a BLP

• Ghervazen Longher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The talk page of the above has a "Controversies" section with "On 18 September 2013, the prosecutors filed the criminal charges against Ghervazen Longher, accusing him on two counts conflicts of interest" and a link to a Romanian-language website. I had removed that, thinking that such material should either be in the article (and fully justified per WP:RS and WP:DUE and WP:BLPCRIME), or not placed anywhere. However, the material has been re-added with some rewording. I noticed the addition while commenting at WT:Talk page guidelines#Adding external links to talk pages where there is a proposal to systematically place relevant external links on article talk pages. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In the same context, I would like to ask how much this edit is ok or not.

Is it ok to mention that the prosecutors filled a criminal charge on corruption counts against a relatively unknown politician? He is quite unknown in Romania.

Is it ok to mention that into the talk page? WP:BLPCRIME:

• For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured

In this case he was not accused by his political or personal enemies but he was accused by the prosecutors who already filed criminal charges against him on conflict of interest counts. If the prosecutors would have filed criminal charges against him based on some suspicions and a few clues, that would have been something else. But he was accused based on clear evidence that he hired his brother and sister in his office.

I am not sure why the policy talks about relatively unknown people here. I can only imagine that's because the editors might forget about the fact that criminal charges were filed against him and, in 5 years when the court will give the final verdict (that's how much it takes on average in Romania) they won't update the article. But in this case, mentioning the criminal charges on the talk page helps the editors (who accidentally land to this talk page) not to forget about this case, so when they will see what I posted on the talk page, it will prompt them to search for the final verdict on that case. If the editors completely forget about Ghervazen Longher and they don't see the talk page either, they won't update the information, but at least the outdated information is in a talk page and not in the article. —  Ark25  (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The question of what is WP:DUE for insertion in an article frequently arises. Generally (and particularly for relatively unknown BLPs), accusations, charges, and arrests are not appropriate. For example, someone could be charged, and a year later the court case may reveal that the charge was based on lies, and the case is thrown out—there is generally no reason for the charge to be recorded on Wikipedia for the year that it takes for the final outcome. Therefore, articles generally wait for convictions (when the court case closes). Exceptions exist—for example if a reliable secondary source were to write an indepth article on a person and mention the significance of various charges, mention of that may well be appropriate. In conclusion, there is no reason to mention that someone was charged with two counts of conflict of interest in the article in question. Material which does not belong in the article most certainly does not belong on any other page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with this statement of the applicable rules. As a matter of principle, well-sourced information about actual charges of political corruption would seem to be relevant and important in an article about a political figure. This is not the same thing as asking whether or not we should report when an actor is arrested for shoplifting, or for that matter whether we should report when a political figure gets into some kind of trouble over his/her sex life, or something like that. Well-sourced information about an ongoing corruption trial of a sitting government official would seem to relate directly to the core facts that make the subject notable, and leaving it out may tend to violate WP:NPOV in the opposite direction. I'd also question the assumption that an elected political figure is a "relatively unknown" person: to the contrary, political figures are the paradigm examples of people who have voluntarily exposed themselves to public scrutiny, at least with respect to conduct directly relevant to their political activity. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be reasonable depending on the situation. However, in this case those of us who do not understand Romanian cannot grasp the background, and any report of a charge would represent 50% of the length of the biography—that pretty much rules it out because if the charge had to be mentioned to satisfy WP:N then WP:BLP1E would apply. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Arxiloxos is right, a parliamentary is a very important person for a country. But in Romania, only like 10 or 20% of them are getting attention. Most of them are unknown to the people, the people never talk about them, and the national newspapers never talk about them. For many of them, not even the local newspapers don't bother to mention them. By the way, the news about Ghervazen Longher being investigated is more or less the only news article about him in national newspapers, and he is MP since 2004. That makes the news article I mentioned in the talk page even more valuable for the biography of such a member of the Parliament. I think there is a huge difference between a parliamentary being investigated for corruption and an actor being arrested for shoplifting. I really think it is relevant (WP:DUE) for the article, even if, in the end he comes out "clean". Romanian justice is famous for delaying such cases for 5 or 10 or 12 years even until the defendant can benefit of Prescription. Romanian justice is famous for working against the people, instead of working for the people. Therefore "clean" according to Romanian justice is many times equal to "dirty". It looks like the Romanian justice is some kind of washing machine. But sometimes, those who are charged are getting away with it even in USA. Mark Rich was investigated for a huge number of criminal charges and in the end he come out "clean", because someone (cough) decided to wash him and to make him "clean". Therefore, what should we do? We can't mention serious criminal charges just because those who are supposed to work for the people (judges, presidents) are instead cleaning the defendants and work against their people for a nice profit? (allegedly - of course! maybe they do it for humanist reasons) That would make me feel like I live in a dystopian world. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Reginald Mengi Wikipedia Page

Reginald Mengi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent attempts to edit the profile page of Reginald Mengi are being removed within hours of the edit. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia which is to accurately inform the public. If Reginald Mengi choses to place a page on Wikipedia then it is a public page who should then be free to edit it accurately. This is not being allowed to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.242.104 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia pages are not 'public' - this is a privately owned website. And secondly, any editing of pages is conditional on conforming with Wikipedia policies - most specifically in this case, that any controversial negative or positive material concerning living persons must be cited to a reliable source. This is not optional, and unsourced material must be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed several sections that were completely without sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This page was redirected to IPP Media on 29 June. Amuchoki (talk · contribs) receated the page on 2 July, without any references! I have reverted. --220 of ^Borg 16:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And an IP reverted to un-sourced BLP version after about 4 hours. User @NQ: has just reverted that edit. :-\ Sigh. RFPP time? IPs reverting and adding same text all seem to be from Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania. However the OP here read as Bournemouth United Kingdom. --220 of ^Borg 01:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Lynds

Peter Lynds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting 3rd-party eyeballs for Peter Lynds. This article has had trouble for a long time with WP:UNDUE synthesis of unpublished work to paint a picture of Lynds as an established physicist. I and another editor have been trying to clean-up the article (efforts summarized at talk), but every attempt is reverted by an account named SamW2, which has only a few contributions (all on this article), but who seems to be an experienced editor (judging from the jargon used). The current version of the article is one that SamW2 keeps reveting back to. For your reference, the "cleaned version" that I believe should be used removes the undue text and adds a source from a peer-reviewed journal reporting that Lynds' primary paper has been preceded by Henri Bergson in his 1896 book Matter and Memory (S E Robbins, 2004 On time, memory and dynamic form. Consciousness and Cognition 13(4), 762-788: "Lynds, his reviewers and consultants (e.g., J.J.C. Smart) are apparently unaware of his total precedence by Bergson"). I hope we may get some opinions as to how to proceed here because the reverting is persistent and bordering on an edit war. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC).

SamW2 has been blocked for edit warring after I warned them to stop. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Is it OK if we revert to the version that Agricola44 and I think is NPOV, or should we wait? We also both think the article should be deleted as not notable, but were going to hold off on initiating that until this process was complete.--75.83.65.81 (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it. Ya'll might want to try WP:DRN for this, and make sure SamW2 participates. It seems more like a content dispute than a BLP one, and the account in question is probably the subject or related to them in some way. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What Agricola and user 75.83.65.81 failed to mention is that the original version of the page seems to have worked on by hundreds of editors over the years, and over the past few, seems to have been stable. They want what is already a fairly short page to be cut to a few sentences, making no mention of Lynds' other work, some of which have also received a good amount documentable coverage and discussion, as a google search will show. They also want to the page to be negative. Ultimately they want the page deleted. I've been trying to discuss the issues with them on the talk page, but, to me anyway, they don't seem to be interested in doing this and just have one goal in mind. I understand why I was blocked for edit warring, but I was trying to protect a stable BLP page from two editors who seem determined to wreck it, and they took turns to revert to their version. I think going to dispute resolution is a v. good suggestion. If they really want to, I'd also encourage them to take the page to AfD for a vote. However, I think the page should be returned to the original version why this goes on, both because it has been stable til now, and also because people will need something to vote on if they take it to AfD. Agricola's version is just a short stub. So, as a heads up, I'm going to look to revert the page to the original version and try to work though our respective concerns on the talk page. If we can't make any progress, I'll take things to dispute resolution. SamW2 (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Investigative Project on Terrorism

A combination of WP:NOR, and WP:Defamation at the Investigative Project on Terrorism and Steven Emerson. I have repeatedly tried to delete the violating statement, but User:Serialjoepsycho keeps reverting it. See the following diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism&diff=614596007&oldid=614567674. Also, the article itself is inaccurate, and I have initiated a proposal to merge in an attempt to provide accurate information about the actual entity, The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, rather than perpetuating all the confusion involving Steven Emerson as an individual, and/or as an individual heading up a think-tank called The Investigative Project. Editors appear to be confused over the identity of the non-profit foundation which was formed in 2006, and Steven Emerson, and Steven Emerson's work under The Investigative Project think-tank. Since it is not an actual BLP, but still violates BLP policy, I thought it best to bring it here for potential action. You can see the OR here in the info box where the editor attempted to combine all three entities into one. [1] Perhaps some editors feel they have more freedom to violate BLP when the information is under an entity, and not an actual BLP. Finally, the statement misquotes, and/or misintreprets what the sources actually said, and what Steven Emerson actually said. Atsme☯^Consult 17:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I as well as Sepsis II have reverted it. We have both stated the position that we do not feel there is a BLP violation. I suggested multiple times that Atsme use some form of dispute resolution, including suggesting BLPN if they disagreed. This is on the IPT talk page. Any other charge above unrelated to BLP I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Policy states that in the event of a BLP violation, the offending statement should be deleted immediately, which I did only to have it reverted. As noted above by Serialjoepsycho, he and Sepsis don't consider it a BLP violation. Perhaps the reason they don't is because they don't understand the IPT article itself is ambiguous, misleading, and involves 3 separate entities as stated in the merge rationale. The diffs point to a blatant violation of BLP because the statement in the article includes the editor's own POV which differs from what the sources actually state. Serialjoepsycho's response; i.e., "no need to respond" - is the attitude that caused me to bring the offending diffs here. He refuses to acknowledge there is a BLP violation, much less the Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis_of_published_material violations that have been committed by the existence of the article itself which is nothing more than a combination of information from different sources conglomerated to create the IPT article which creates the WP:BLP violation. Atsme☯^Consult 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Two editors have commented that this was not a BLP. Atsme the only other editor to comment has undertaken a pervasive effort to whitewash the page. Two editors disagreed with his claim. I recommended he come here if disagreed. Noting the response above I'll go ahead and comment what I've already commented in the merge discussion. There is no reason to merge. He uses Cherry picked sources to make a case for merger. His sources do not differentiate IPT pre-incorporation from IPT post-incorporation. IPT as well as a number of other sources make the claim that IPT was founded in 1995. His case is solely original research. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The disputed diff[2] cites two sources. The first source[3] doesn't mention anything about the Oklahoma bombing and the second cited source[4] is a press release and therefore not a reliable source. Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be a pretty clear WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Since neither cited source supported the content, I've (temporarily) removed it[5] until consensus can be established. A Quest For Knowledge from the article. (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)<br /

After spending a little more time reading the article, it doesn't appear to be particularly well-written or well-sourced[6] and may contain copyright violations.[7] This might be one of those articles that's easier to fix by rewriting from scratch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This actually does mention the Oklahoma City bombing. In about the middle of the page. "Emerson is unapologetic. But he has made mistakes in the past. In an interview after the Oklahoma City bombing, Steve Emerson confidently pointed his finger at the wrong culprits at Muslim terrorists. As everyone now knows the bombing was the work of an American Methodist, Tim McVeigh."Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As to the copyvio issue. I agree. I went to the youtube video in question no indication they had rights. I also note that the rights they released it under Standard YouTube License. I'm unsure of the specific copyright holder but even if it was released under some type of copyleft license it would be inappropriate for someone else to release it under the Standard Youtube license. I went ahead and removed it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: as pointed out above does in fact mention the OKC bombing. Your argument above is based off it making no mention so I would have to ask for further response.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Yes, you are correct. The CBS article does mention the Oklahoma City bombing. My bad. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge:I don't wish to misinterpret you. Are you indicating that you have no BLP objection to the use of that source for the part of the statement that it validates?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: It's a partial withdrawal. I was clearly wrong when I stated that the CBS news article didn't mention the Oklahoma City bombing. But we shouldn't be using press releases as sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: I concede to your point in this case on the use of a press release. However I disagree with your statement that press releases can't be used as a reliable source. Of note would be that public corporations may use press releases from groups like to PR Newswire to meet SEC Regulation Fair Disclosure requirements. Determination of wp:rs standards should probably made case by case.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a partial revert on the page based solely on the 48 hours source that includes only the information that source validated.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Other sources include, Cair, Nashville Scene, Media Matters, Media Monitor Neywork, FAIR, and the list can really just keep on going.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, WP:POV. Emerson never "pointed his finger", and never said the words, "Muslim terrorists" as was incorrectly stated in the IPT article. WP:BLP specifically states: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

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

We must get the article right.

Scroll midway down the following archived article in American Journalism Review to the paragraph directly under the header, "CBS officials did not return calls".[8]. After reading that paragraph, please note that there was no actual "finger pointing" by Emerson, and no use of the word "Muslim". WP:BLP specifically states Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives;. And now Serialjoepyscho has again violated WP:BLP by adding the same contentious, sensationalized statement here. Emerson's actual statement as quoted by reliable sources was a likeness, or comparison using the following words, "Middle Eastern trait". If editors are following BLP policy, they are not supposed to use inaccurate information, and "must take particular care". Emerson never actually said what the referenced source claimed he said. Furthermore, Emerson was not associated with IPT(F) at the time because IPT did not exist which further adds WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources to the WP:BLP violation. Deleting the statement from the IPT article was the proper action, especially considering Emerson was a freelance writer and producer at that time, 11 years prior the organization of The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation in 2006. Atsme☯^Consult 14:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

To put it simply, there is only one IPT. Your case for differentiation is original research. It doesn't matter where you post or how many times you post it because that does not change it from synthesis. Your position depends on your conjecture as much as if not more than the sources. If your comments were to be deleted your case would disappear. To put it in simpler terms, your argument can't stand on sources alone. Regarding my so called original research, I don't work for CBS nor have I been on 48 hours. The rules on original research don't apply to sources. They apply to editors. I'm unsure if members of CBS or 48 hours have edited wikipedia but there is no indication they have edited this source. 48 hours is not a primary source or a tabloid. Contenious statement? Which one? Are you saying that me quoting 48 hours, "Emerson is unapologetic. But he has made mistakes in the past. In an interview after the Oklahoma City bombing, Steve Emerson confidently pointed his finger at the wrong culprits at Muslim terrorists. As everyone now knows the bombing was the work of an American Methodist, Tim McVeigh." Is contentious and a violation of the BLP? I disagree. But I notice you are the only one who has suggested this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho is simply trying to shift the focus away from his BLP violation onto me with his false allegations. His behavior is very disruptive. The IPT article has major issues, but the focus needs to stay on the issue that was initially presented here - a WP:BLP violation. As I stated above, I attempted to delete it, but was reverted by User:Serialjoepsycho, and User_talk:Sepsis_II, the latter of whom I thought was blocked from editing, so I don't understand how he was able to revert. See the diffs here: [9] [10] BLP violations do not require consensus. They require immediate removal. Serialjoepsycho refuses to acknowledge the violation, and has twice posted the same violating statement on this noticeboard. Atsme☯^Consult 07:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked at the time and that is how he reverted. Why? I've had one user other than you to comment on it. They gave a different reason than you. As noted above one of the reasons they gave was incorrect. As noted above I did request that person comment further. I don't see that as a violating statement. No experienced editor has commented on it yet. But allow me to direct you to WP:BLPTALK Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. I question if this poorly sourced being from 48 hours. I also don't agree that is a BLP violation. Here's a good place to answer that question. You know they may have created BPLN just for that. The quote in question is about making a content choice. I'm sure @Sepsis II: might have a response when he gets back.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

In response to Serialjoepsycho's question, "Why?" - because he was involved in a dispute that resulted in his being blocked the day after he reverted the BLP violations at IPT. According to his Talk page, he has been blocked on more than one occasion, so I consider it rather odd that he would make yet another disruptive edit in light of it being a BLP violation. I don't consider his edits at IPT to have been made in good faith, and the fact that he supports Serialjoepsycho's position speaks volumes, not to mention their combined efforts in "taunting" me for proposing a merge as evidenced in the following diff: [11].

With all the taunting and bullying aside, my primary concern is maintaining accuracy, and respecting policies when editing Wikipedia articles. Verifiability, and exercising extra caution cannot be over-emphasized when writing about living persons, yet based on Serialjoepsycho's earlier comments wherein he stated, I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard, I am inclined to believe there is a serious lack of concern. Perhaps he believes that citing a single source without verifying accuracy is ok, which may explain why he and Sepsis II reverted my edits. Such disruptive behavior in light of the BLP violation I brought to their attention is why I believe this is a serious issue, and why I decided to bring it here for discussion. The information that was added about the Oklahoma City bombing is not relevant to the IPT article because it involved an interview with Steven Emerson as an independent reporter, long before the IPT Foundation was organized. If the statement does not violate WP:BLP, why wasn't it added to Steven Emerson where it belongs? It actually does violate WP:BLP which I've verified because of my concern over keeping Wiki articles accurate. The verifiability of the statement that was made according to the source that was cited has been challenged, and for good reason. Reliable sources verify that Emerson did not make the comment(s) as stated in the IPT article, with the exception of a few words he used during one interview with CBS. There is no validation for an editor to take an out of context statement even further out of context, and include it an article where it doesn't belong. The results are violations of the following policies - WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Instead of collaborating in an effort to fix the problem, Serialjoepsycho dug his heels in deeper, countered with false allegations against me, antagonized, bullied, baited, and dared me, and is still holding onto the belief that Emerson made the alleged statement, further refusing to accept the fact he violated WP:BLP policy. If that isn't bad enough, his only support in this debate has been from an editor who was blocked for disruptive editing on a different article the day after he reverted my edit. Atsme☯^Consult 21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis II block was unrelated to this situation here. He was blocked for a 1RR violation under WP:ARBPIA He can comment further later. Your intention to diminish his standing over that is ridiculous. The comments that I felt no need to respond to were your entire case about Pre-incorporation and post-incorporation IPT being separate. You provide no reliable sources to show that they do and follow your conjecture would require ignoring reliable sources that suggest they are the same. Further you left an important part of that quote. Let's go with the full quote shall we? Any other charge above unrelated to BLP I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard. That confers different meaning than your POVpushing attempt at paraphrasing. Both I and Sepsis II agreed that it was relevant to the IPT article. At further complaint it was suggested that you take it here. The offending statement has been removed from the article pending further comment here. I'm waiting for further comment here from the one editor who has commented other than you. The alleged statement is commented that OKC bombing had a "middle eastern" trait. The meaning of that as interpreted by reliable secondary sources is that was commenting on Muslim Terrorists. It may not be his or your choice interpretation of Islamic Extremists but it's a fair interpretation. I'm not interested in collaborating with you to whitewash an article. I'm not interested in Collaborating with anyone to whitewash a page. Your previous effort to whitewash IPT is still documented on the IPT talk page. Your recent tenditious edit on the IPT article reinforces the thought that you are trying to whitewash the article. Removing the template that was discussed in depth against the consensus. You drop it on March and then comeback to it in June. Who are you trying to play here?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Chip Bertlet

Does [12] "violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and other policies" as asserted on my user talk page? [13]

The accuser states his deliberate intent to get people blocked for such egregious edits, an edit which Chip Berlet himself found reasonable as opinion cited as opinion. [14] Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Chip Berlet did not find it reasonable at all.[15]. Please take a moment to get your facts straight. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Um -- what the hell does

If folks want to restore the criticism of Laird Wilcox I have no objection. I appreciate the irony of Wilcox using the same method criticized in his criticism. Yet I note that I have two books, not three, and both Right-Wing Populism in America and Eyes Right received the Myers Award which led to the Drylongso Award.Chip.berlet (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

mean in that case? (The link you gave does not refer to Wilcox at all, and thus I am puzzled wht Brandt, Prouty et al are important in this discussion at all) Collect (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You are confused. The link I gave refers directly to the removal of the Wilcox material, as demonstrated by the threading of the reply and the diff pointing directly to it. What else could it refer to? This material has been removed by several editors with the subject acknowledging the material was problematic. It has been added back in against consensus for no reason other than to malign the BLP. The source in question, The Washington Times does not meet the bar for reliability due to its explicit organizational bias against Berlet. If Collect thinks this is acceptable for BLPs then we have a larger problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The person is notable. The edit summary Don't see why an opinion published in the Moonie rag qualifies as notable or relevant.) shows the problem. The issue is whether a quote of an accepted expert in a field becomes trash if published by "Moonies." The odd part is the last sentence so "Moonie-fied" is, in fact, Berlet's position! Berlet believes that Wilcox is attempting to discredit his competition. Which is surely NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The Washington a Times is a RS, and I'm amazed anyone would think otherwise. This addition violates BLP? How so? It seems fairly tame.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Justin Mateen

The article on Justin Mateen contains sourced material which is being removed anonymously.

Article Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Mateen

This article needs to be locked or monitored closely to prevent anonymous users from removing sourced and relevant content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heisenbuger (talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a double-edged issue, as partisans on both sides of a particular debate are engaging in scandalmongering and whitewashing. It is true that there have been attempts at removing all negative information, but you have inserted material based on original synthesis and court documents, which is not permitted.

More eyes and more reliable sources for this article are needed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Amen

Daniel Amen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Your attention is called to a Request for comment at Talk:Daniel_Amen#RFC: List of journal articles. 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Is a Getty Images page a reliable source for a potentially controversial claim about a living person

Is this Getty Images page (which I believe is self-published) [16] a reliable sourced for the claim "She also took part as a nude model for the Matildas' calendar..." which appears in the BLP of Kim Revell?- MrX 18:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Yu need s specific reliable source making the claim. The source given does not name anyone, thus cannot be used to make a claim about a specific person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Already removed before I saw this thread... GiantSnowman 18:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks Collect and GiantSnowman.- MrX 20:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Rubin (journalist)

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.

---

Jennifer Rubin (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing dispute on that article about including critical material sourced to reliable sources. Some fresh eyes on this would be appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Even the most cursory inspection of the competing revisions will show reviewing editors that that the dispute isn't simply about "including critical material sourced to reliable sources". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, edit warring is not a solution. You can pursue WP:DR instead of trying to force your viewpoint by continuously reverting, as you have done six times over the past weeks. Note that WP:3RR is not just about 24 hours, that policy applies also when editors choose editwarring over dispute resolution. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2014 (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.

Oleg Voronin

Oleg Voronin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kindly take a look at the Oleg Voronin article as it has not been written in a neutral manner, references to dead links or unreliable sources.

Citation from article:

Further claims were made in a Moldovan article from the Ziarul de Gardă, and include but are not limited to: Zahar - the Moldovan sugar syndicate, which Oleg Voronin controls, and an allegedly shady 1997 deal in which several thousand tons of sugar were sold to Romania. The problem here is that the entire national product of Moldova is not this high, and the assumed source of this sugar was donations made by the Cuban government to aid Moldovan hospitals. That his opponents have been "cast away, bankrupted or arrested.

There are no references to sustain these allegation, thus these allegations have a clearly defamation nature and have to be eliminated.

Another statement with no references: “Zahar - the Moldovan sugar syndicate, which Oleg Voronin controls, and an allegedly shady 1997 deal in which several thousand tons of sugar were sold to Romania. The problem here is that the entire national product of Moldova is not this high, and the assumed source of this sugar was donations made by the Cuban government to aid Moldovan hospitals.”

In Moldova never existed any “sugar syndicate”. The only association of Moldovan sugar producers was founded in 1994 with the name “Association “Sugar” and which name was modified in 1998 as “Union of sugar producers”. It is member of the National Patronage of the Republic of Moldova.

“The younger Voronin has often been accused of corruption, …”

The hyper-link from the word “corruption” leads to the Wikipedia article “Political Corruption”. This article gives the following definition of political corruption: “Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence.”

Thus, only the government officials, the officeholders may be accused of corruption. The subject of the article “Oleg Voronin”, according to his biography described in the same article never held any office in any government agency and, therefore, never could use his “official duties” in no activity. Thus, this statement is false.

“…but most recently it was the Tiraspol Times[2] that raised the issue.” The hyper-link from “Tiraspol Times” leads to the Wikipedia article “Media of Transnistria”.

According to this article “Tiraspol Times was a short lived (2006–2008) English language news provider focused on Transnistria.”. Now we are in Anno Domini 2014. Hence, the qualification “most recently” is not later than 2008, i.e. at least 6 years ago. So, this is not “most recently”, but it is “once upon a time”.

Moreover, in the same Wikipedia article on Media of Transnistria this publication is characterized as “being strongly biased in favour of the Transnistrian authorities and Transnistrian independence. In order to give an example about the credibility of this publication the article states: “The site published few ads and its funding sources are not known. Edward Lucas, a journalist for Economist, suggested it could have received its funding either from the government, from Vladimir Antyufeyev's State Security Committee or from one of the Transnistrian companies.

Tom de Waal, a London-based journalist and author, was outraged to see an article under his name appear on the "Tiraspol Times" website. "I've certainly never been to Pridnestrovie, Transdneister, or Moldova, and I am certainly not arguing, as is written under my name, that Pridnestrovie has a better case for independence than Kosovo," de Waal says.”.

It also has a reference to the following dead link: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/628

Taking all this, the given source is not enough credible to serve as a reference. Thus, the whole sentence has to be eliminated: “The younger Voronin has often been accused of corruption, but most recently it was the Tiraspol Times that raised the issue.” Altfelmd (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, you are free to remove, trim or amend anything that is unsourced or poorly sourced. You don't need consensus or permission. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Seymour Barab

An unregistered user added that Seymour Barab passed away on June 28, 2014. I have since searched unsuccessfully for an internet source that confirms this claim. Are there other sources available? Hrdinský ^〒 12:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. It might be true, but I couldn't find anything, and we need strong sourcing in order to declare someone dead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Tim Blixseth

Tim Blixseth needs attention for NPOV issues, in particular the lead. I've cleaned it up several times over the past year but CinagroErunam (talk · contribs) keeps coming back with cherry picked details that again create WP:UNDUE emphasis on negative issues. I'm tired of the back and forth so I'll leave it to others at this venue to attend to it as needed. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a primary source and thus unacceptable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually almost half of the article had citations to primary sources, which the BLP chainsaw has now excised. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Skylor Page at Clarence (2014 TV series)‎

As of July 3, 2014 there have been numerous accounts of the creator of the show of 'Clarence' having sexually assaulted a woman. Whether these claims are of merit matter not to the BLP policy, especially of WP:BLPCRIME. ...editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. However, the point is that the claims are potentially libelious and may entitle Wikipedia to certain unnecessary legal proceedings, which may be repeat like an allegory of what happened at Yank Barry. I do not wish to omit the information of the person being fired; it's of relevance to show, but to omit the BLP-violating content reason in which they were fired. Here are the diffs of the IP edits:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_(2014_TV_series)&diff=615499625&oldid=615496304
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_(2014_TV_series)&diff=615478821&oldid=615474663
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_(2014_TV_series)&diff=615472362&oldid=615471853
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_(2014_TV_series)&diff=615460820&oldid=615386924

I have already done my three reverts, and as per WP:3RR states, it's more actionable that I report it here than continue to revert with the IPs. Though I do have to ask; could I? I think the latest edit is one of the more egregious ones. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not that's true, it's offtopic at best. And if this was being inserted into the subject's bio, we'd still need a lot more than some tweets and a blurb on BuzzFeed. Reverted and protected for a week. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted another instance of an editor attempting to add it. (Per WP:3RR exemption for BLP.) I've referred them to this noticeboard and the talk page. Tutelary (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

To add, there is now a page for Skylor located here Skyler Page in which I think that monitoring for the same issues should be had. I've already added it to my watchlist. Tutelary (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, section

Amigoe article. This came up before, and there was removal of 'drugs house' references, but the section still makes various claims about what Natalee Holloway's mother and stepfather did, and were planning to do. These are living people. As far as I can see it all traces back to one one source, and that is an account of interviews said to have been done in the making of a locally made documentary. The section as it stands claims an unlikely degree of inside knowledge about questionable intent in other people's minds. Nothing independent of the account of the interviews that this single documentary made has been drawn on, and BLP assertions in the section about NH's then stepfather interfering with the investigation are certainly the kind of thing that may be challenged. Overagainst (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ari Teman

A number of accounts and IPs, which appear based on action and language to be the same person (KLetters, ArtTenak, Demenac234 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ari_Teman&diff=600031750&oldid=600030341 )) have accused falsely Mr. Teman of acting in porn, stealing from charity, not graduating college, inserting false cofounders of companies, etc. One look at the ArtTenak user history and it's clear this is some psychotic stalker dedicated to defame Mr. Teman. They contribute on no other article, and visit Mr. Teman's page multiple times daily to remove positive information and add false negative information. I'm asking (1) that ArtTenak be banned (and ArtTenak's IP address). (2) That the article be reverted to before ArtTenak (3) and that it be fully protected for only accepted administrators to edit. NYClay770 (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ari Teman

Edits by User:ArtTenak have been repeatedly deleted for vandalism, uncited sources, biased language, removing positive accomplishments, and defamation. ArtTenak exists solely to damage the reputation of Ari Teman and that is its sole action. I'm asking user ArtTenak be banned and the article be reverted to pre-ArtTenak. NYClay770 (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Claudio Di Veroli

I'm writing because of what I suspect may be a malicious edit on the Claudio Di Veroli article.

I feel the article has been greatly distorted in its meaning, to the point that a renowned musician and musicologist who has received consistently favourable reviews and endorsements is presented as a minor figure.

The current version of the article refers to him having been reviewed unfavourably by 'some reviewers', only citing a single review, the only unfavourable one Di Veroli ever had.

The differences in the last version before 'MusicologyPhD' did a massive edit, make Di Veroli sound much more minor than he actually is, and appears to have an agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claudio_Di_Veroli&diff=612820382&oldid=593785199

I've spoken to Dr Di Veroli and he feels it is not worth entering an edit war with a malicious, anonymous editor. He'd rather his page were deleted. As the creator of the page, I can no longer delete it since it has been edited by others, thus I am formally requesting that the page be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielsilvera (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

We do not delete articles upon request. If Di Veroli meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, an article on him is appropriate - and if he doesn't, the article should not have been created in the first place. As for 'malicious edits', it seems that a new contributor has made substantial revisions to the article - some at least of which seem legitimate, in that they are removing unsourced promotional claims. Quite possibly the revisions have gone too far, but such issues should be settled by discussion, not by deleting the article. You are of course free to propose that the article be deleted (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy), but any proposal will need policy-compliant grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the article and feel that, once again, we have a failure to find a middle ground. The editor in question was right to remove some overly-promotional claims, but went much too far in the other direction with negative insinuations. I have tweaked the article accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Behruz Sethna

Please add in the file of Prof Behruz Sethna of being listed as one of the prominent immigrants by the Andrew Carnegie foundation. Source New York times Friday July 4, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.145.1 (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul Singer (businessman)

I am not here to report a BLP violation, but rather to raise for discussion material that is being improperly deleted from a BLP using an incorrect interpretation of the BLP policy. The article in question is Paul Singer (businessman). Mr. Singer is most notable for being the proprietor of a hedge fund called NML Capital, which is widely described in reliable sources as a Vulture fund, and is in the middle of the present controversy over vulture funds and Argentina (see Argentine debt restructuring#NML Capital.)

User:Meatsgains has repeatedly deleted references to NML Capital being described as a "vulture fund" from the article (diff,) arguing that any material that could put the subject in a negative light is a BLP violation. On the talk page, I called his attention to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which says that "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I also provided a partial list of reliable sources which apply the term "vulture fund" to NML Capital, and discuss Singer's involvement, including his dislike for the term:

New York Times

The Guardian

Financial Times

Huffington Post

The Hindu

Bloomberg

Tagesschau

USA Today

I also rewrote the section with what I consider to be unchallengeable sourcing. Meatsgains reverted again today(diff), so I am bringing the matter to this board to solicit input from uninvolved editors. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason I removed the content is because Singer's "hedge fund" is being mislabeled with the misleading term "vulture fund," which is a pejorative and is slang. Words or phrases such as these are in violation of WP:TONE. An article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon.

Not once did I argue, "any material that could put the subject in a negative light is a BLP violation," so I'm not sure where Joe Bodacious got that from...

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act isn't referred to as Obamacare throughout the article. Isn't this the the same situation? I'd like to hear what other editors have to say. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You say "mislabeled" and "misleading" -- but those words seem to emerge from your own views on NML. What matters is that the term is used by numerous reliable sources. The fact that there's an entire article on Vulture funds also reinforces the case for using the term where sources describe a particular fund as such. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe the term "vulture fund" as "mislabeled" and "misleading," not me.

• Financial Post and Huffington Post Although the creditors are often referred to as “vultures,” the pejorative is highly misleading.
• Panam Post These creditors have been mislabeled “vulture funds,” a pejorative nickname that the defaulting debtor uses to qualify those who justly and legitimately demand what is rightfully theirs.

What is your response to the ACA vs. Obamacare example I posted above? I don't see how the pre-existing Vulture fund article reinforces the use of the term on Singer's personal page. Meatsgains (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Those sources fail WP:NEWSORG for this purpose. I note that you are choosing to edit-war over this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I also added to the article sourced material indicating that there are objections to the use of term, including from Singer himself. NPOV means that all notable viewpoints are included. Edit warring to remove any reference to vulture funds is a violation of NPOV. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, you stated that because there's an entire article on Vulture funds, the case for using the term "vulture fund" is reinforced on Singer's page, yet in the article for vulture fund, the last sentence of the lead paragraph reads: "The term is used to criticize the fund for strategically profiting off of debtors that are in financial distress." It is not a descriptive term and does not improve the BLP. It's a derogatory term.

WP:BRD states that to break deadlocks, editors must "discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit" (which we are currently doing). "Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made." Joe Bodacious was the first to make the bold edit by adding questionable material to Singer's BLP. The content should be removed first and discussed. I am removing the information to return the page to status quo ante, not engaging in an edit war as Nomoskedasticity posted on my talk page. Nor did I violate the three-revert rule. I did not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Meatsgains (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

But on the other hand, you are refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion of policy. You are simply stating your personal dislike for the term, which you call "negative" or "derogatory," but as has been pointed out numerous times to you now, this is covered very specifically in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikipedia policy is very, very clear on these matters, and you are trying to evade the rather obvious points being made, so your continued reverts do constitute edit warring. And the NPOV-based argument for using the term is getting stronger by the hour. Here are major news stories that have appeared in the past week on Singer and vulture funds -- it is his claim to fame:

New York Post

Forbes

Buenos Aires Herald

Lebanon Daily News

Global Post

Epoch Times

Huffington Post

Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova

Subject doesn't know who cricketeer is and it "effected billions of people". Confused? Read this. Experienced editors have been replying on the talk page but more eyes would be welcomed as offwiki canvassing is happening. [17] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Chambliss

Good evening.

This is not a complaint or error notification. In the biography for Woody Chambliss, it would be nice to include the fact that he also played cousin Zadok Walton on The Waltons. It was a memorable performance.

Janet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.28.108 (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Jai Prakash Menon

Jai Prakash Menon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Administrators

• The article [[[Jai Prakash Menon]]] violates the 3 core content policies of BLP:Biographies of living persons
• 1) Neutral point of view (NPOV) - 1 author trying to control the content of article, which is written solely basis public news paper articles.
• 2) Verifiability (V) - No statement on record, no company statement by Airtel, no legal law-suit in court of law
• 3) No original research (NOR) - factually incorrect information (Jai Menon developed model for outsourcing network, which in incorrect)

• I have been raising the above issues, however Thomas.W is not ready to discuss anything on rational basis.

• Article Jai Prakash Menon is factually incorrect. e.g. It states He developed "the model of outsourcing network" used by Bharti and other companies in the industry. However, multiple sources confirm that He developed model for S1 IT outsourcing. REferences below. The author don't even know whether he was in IT function or Network.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/info-tech/jai-menon-quits-vodafone-heads-back-to-airtel/article1628493.ece http://www.informationweek.in/informationweek/global-cio/181177/dr-jai-menon

• WallStreet Journal/Mint is not considered a credible source, but others are single handidly considered a credible source.
• As junior editor in one of the most prestigious news organization globally, We have performed our primary research on the topic and failed to substantiate 2 facts:
• 1. there is no named statement on record confirming the rumors or allegations
• 2. No statement on record by Airtel (even after repeated requests by us, the mails were unanswered)
• 3. No legal law-suit in the court of law.

I requested Thomas.W to provide either of the 3, however he has failed to produce in any forum. However, in turn he is deleting any attempt to factually improve the article, which puts a question mark on his motives. (Please refer my edits on June 2, 2014 to improve the article)

• Look forward to a rational hearing from all assuming that Wikipedia is not a collection of unanimous news paper articles.

• Request for BLP Administrators: I have started my professional career in journalism and editorial recently, and may not be able to adhere to all WikiPedia editing guidelines in past due to limited knowledge. This shall not be linked with the intent to improvise.

User:theamigosinc9:51, 5 July, 2014 (IST)

• This is just a repeat of previous session here at BLPN: nothing has happened since then, other than repeated disruption from Theamigosinc. The two refs above, particularly the first one, might seem connected to the controversy in the article, Menon's departure from Bharti Airtel, but aren't, since they're dated two and four years before that departure, and so have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Thomas.W ^talk 06:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Thomas.W - the references are provided to prove that article is factually incorrect, and is not linked to Menon's departure from Airtel
• Your comments are testament of the fact that you are refraining from discussion with neutrality.
• You are deleting sourced content from the Article with valid references, as you have done on 2 June, 2014 deleting my edits containing sourced information.
• This article violates all the rules of BLP, which I have been raising repeatedly. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper which clearly states that:

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.

• However, you are trying to sensationalize a newsworthy event and has given undue weitage in the article.

User:theamigosinc9:51, 6 July, 2014 (IST) — Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• We've been through that too, the circumstances surrounding Mr Menon's departure from Airtel have NOT been given undue weight. The article is well sourced, factual and well balanced, so stop your disruption. Disruption that includes taking the article, which hasn't changed since it was last discussed on BLPN, with no support for your views, to BLPN again. Thomas.W ^talk 10:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Rashid Ali Malik

I am not able to edit infobox of Rashid Ali Malik no idea why. Kindly help/guide me? ----Zainkazmi1 (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the a BLP issue with it?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Zainkazmi1. Although this is a page for reporting problematic BLP content rather than for general editing questions, I have taken a look at Rashid Ali Malik and see no reason why you can't edit the infobox. I copyedited the article and added a number of wikilinks. Please feel free to ask a more detailed question, either on my talk page, or at the Teahouse, a friendly, helpful place to ask editing questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

Two users have been altering the lead sentence of this article, trying to implement something which is not sourced. Even though WP:BLPREMOVE reverts for unsourced statements don't violate 3RR, I'd rather not risk it and prefer if others got involved.

The contentious item is the phrase "host of Freedomain Radio", which is the name of a podcast and YouTube channel operated by the subject. The name of the show, and his role as host, is well-sourced within the article. This phrasing has been quite stable in the last few months.

There is a supplemental website freedomainradio.com, and the two users are trying to imply that Molyneux "hosts" this website (which is something only computer servers do), as opposed to the actual name of the show as documented in sources (their edit summaries imply there is some confusion that could arise because people might think Freedomain Radio is an actual broadcast radio show). No sources say he is "presenter of freedomainradio.com", so this is both incorrect and unsourced material. Thanks for taking a look. --Netoholic @ 20:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The text "and host of the Freedomain Radio online broadcasts." was added here on May 15th. (I do not know when the modifier of "online broadcasts" was removed.) This description suits me fine. We do not imply that we can dial up FDR in our car or via Sirius XM Radio. The only way to listen to FDR is via the website. The recent edits which OP complains about have been an effort to find compromise and consensus. Nothing more. – S. Rich (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich I think you offer a moot point. Unless otherwise stated there is no implication that you can tune in via Sirius xm or radio frequency. Though is not to suggest that there is an issue with mentioning that's distributed online. Netoholic could perhaps provide a diff that shows your BLP complaint?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: The original (status quo) version is "host of Freedomain Radio". Here are the diffs: Specifico changes it to "host of the Freedomain Radio website", Srich32977 changes it to "he hosts the Freedomain Radio website show", Specifico changes it to "is the presenter of freedomainradio.com and adds Alexa ratings that are not noteworthy in any secondary source, and so are misuse of a primary source. None of these edits conform to how any sources describe the show or Molyneux role as host. "host of Freedomain Radio" is accurate and compact for the lead. The show is detailed in its own section - Stefan Molyneux#Freedomain Radio - where details are expanded upon and make it clear this is not easily confused at all with a "Sirius XM" or anything like that. These edits are meant to defame and detract, not based on any sources. --Netoholic @ 04:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So I looked and find the change was made 5 days later here. "Quite stable in the last few months" should read "Quite stable in the last 45 days." The Rush Limbaugh Show is clearly described as a broadcast radio show. For 5 days we had clarity on the point. – S. Rich (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC) And I have suggested that "host of the Freedomain Radio online broadcasts" be accepted. – S. Rich (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say this matter doesn't really belong here. Y'all should take it to dispute resolution. While no source says he is the presenter of freedomainradio.com, I do expect they are meaning that he is the host of said podcast. That is not well written, but I'd really have to let someone else comment if that is a BLP issue. As far as Rush Limbaugh and clarity goes, that's a separate article. To me is trivial to list or not list that information. What is the consensus on that matter? If there is no consensus at the moment consider opening an RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right. (And I shuda' looked at the intro above that says "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.") Also, we have a recent edit that should resolve OP's concern. I suggest you close this thread. – S. Rich (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The edits are defamatory in this case because they completely misrepresent the show as being called "freedomainradio.com" when the sources all say "Freedomain Radio". The website (like many, many others related to other shows) is supplemental/archives/community. When you are taking away the name of his main brand/project, you are being defamatory. Also, the Alexa stats were added to defame the website, because it itself is not high traffic. No source mentions any significance to the site rankings of freedomainradio.com, so this is misuse of a primary source in order to defame the site. --Netoholic @ 04:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that as defamatory to Stefan. I don't see a BLP issue. I don't see any indication that the stats were added to defame the website. I personally don't feel is suited for the BLP board. Have you considered dispute resolution?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is defamatory because it removed the primary name of his show from the lead sentence. It'd be exactly like going to Stephen Colbert and changing "host of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report" to "host of colbertnation.com". Its ridiculous. --Netoholic @ 05:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree with that. But here's what I would like to do. I'd like to go to the talk page and see if I can find both sides of the issue and see if we can come to a compromise that meets both sides desired outcome. You can just leave this open and perhaps another may see your BLP violation. Maybe before then we can actual work this out. You really don't have anything to lose. I've already commented there.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The statements are not defamatory. They do not harm the reputation of Molyneux. Nor does describing the internet website as an "online broadcast." – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User involved in this dispute pushes the envelope even further in this edit removing the title of the website from the External Links section. While some websites like Ask.com use their url as the brand name, this is not the case with Freedomain Radio. It is refered by its title/brand almost universally, both on the site itself and extensively in the sources used in the article. Edits to remove the title/brand name of the website from the article are bordering now on vandalism, especially because this editor knows this change is being discussed here and is continue to push this. --Netoholic @ 05:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Pushing the envelope is putting it on a little thick. They offered a reasonable explanation for the change. WP:BRD is a good idea sometimes. Did you ask them why they made this change by chance?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If BRD applies, then the version of the lead sentence should be revert to the status quo from before they made the changes. They explained "why" in their edit summaries, they haven't given any rationale though. Their edits disagree with the sources, so I think its just that they don't have a rationale that fits any policy. --Netoholic @ 06:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

BRD is an accepted practice. Take a minute til you are less annoyed and take that to the talk page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried twice already to revert it to the status quo version, and they reverted back, which is why I'm on this page in the first place to ask for assistance. --Netoholic @ 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Again I don't see this as a BLP issue. That BLP revert exemption only applies if you are right. Do be careful. Consider using some other form of dispute resolution such as an RFC. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether its a BLP issue or a BRD issue, the article should be reverted to the status quo version ("host of Freedomain Radio"). I think its BLP, since the change is unsourced and obviously contentious. --Netoholic @ 07:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Gonzalo Lira

Anonymous IP address keeps inserting a one-sided, possibly libelous claim about a business dispute involving Lira. IP address is 98.113.143.89.

The business dispute does not involve either civil or criminal courts, and appears to be a private affair. Nevertheless, the anonymous IP user keeps reinserting the disputed material. The anonymous IP address might be the person Lira is in dispute with, as they mentioned information in the dispute resolution that I opened that is not publicly available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MILH (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right that the material being inserted is wholly inappropriate, although it was probably a bad idea to open a mediation case over it... reporting it here would have been enough. Nevertheless, the IP has now been blocked for 72 hours. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find any secondary coverage over this. Yet. I suspect there may be some from other blogs in a couple of days which still mostly likely won't meet RS requirements. Ravensfire (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ravensfire, This dispute started in May 2013, and from what I researched, it's a dead-letter. @FreeRangeFrog, sorry, you are right, I should have reported it here, rather than open a mediation. Thank you. MILH (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

James Frenkel

Talk page discussion: Talk:James_Frenkel#.22Rumor_of_Sexual_Harassment_28_June_2013.22

There are previous discussions of this in the archive: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive180#James_Frenkel Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive181#James_Frenkel

On June 30th, Wiscon released official statements which were reviewed by lawyer, confirming that an official complaint against James Frenkel was made. I made changes to the article which were reverted without explanation as to why these were not acceptable sources.

A previous article, published on i09, was also removed. BLP says that articles with editorial review comply, but this was reverted with the complaint it was a not a primary source.

Given that we now have a primary source stating that an official report of allegations were made, which was reviewed by an attorney- greatly reducing the risk that this would fall under "libel"- in addition to a secondary source that meets the qualification an article under editorial review, I believe that the weak statement that an official complaint was made against him at the conference complies with BLP. Thanks. Lepidoptera (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, please see WP:BLPPRIMARY. And while you're there, WP:BLPCRIME will be useful too. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I did think secondary sources were preferable, but that was the reason given for why the i09 article needed to be removed.

Sexual harassment additionally is considered to be a crime in many jurisdictions, so I think that WP:BLPCRIME would inevitably be invoked to omit the content. Unless he's been convicted of it, then we can conclude it. I went through this with a similar subject, you can see it at 'Skylor Page' section. Tutelary (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The statements made don't mention sexual harassment, and as you can see I only said "a complaint" was made, and not the nature of it. Lepidoptera (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The (self published) source cited does not state that " an official complaint against James Frenkel was made". Lepidoptera's edits have clearly also violated WP:SYN in connecting such allegations with Frenkel leaving Tor. And regardless of sourcing, per WP:BLP policy, we should not include unsubstantiated allegations in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We can remove the connecting statement as per WP:SYN. However, the source does in fact state that an official complaint to the wiscon organizers was made. "Everyone in WisCon Safety and WisCon leadership from WisCon 37 through WisCon 39 understands that Elise made a formal report; this has never been in doubt. Her report was treated with extreme seriousness at the time, including follow-ups by Co-Chairs with both Elise and with Jim Frenkel. " Lepidoptera (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)