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.

Robert Kagan

User:Wixifixer, who is the subject of the article, is attempting to remove ethnicity information from this page. I've had conflicts with him in the past and would rather defer the case to other administrators. Owen (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Labelling people as Jewish etc. falls into the topic of WP:BLPCAT where unless the person self-identifies as Jewish, we do not do so. Collect (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page in question, self-identification seems to be required for religion, but not for ethnicity. Or is this guideline given elsewhere? Owen (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Robert Kagan article, the disputed statement was entirely unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tell ya what - look at the prior discussions about "Jewish" on all the noticeboards - and note that categorizing a person as "Jewish" invariably is viewed as contentious where no self-identification is made. Trying to assert that "Jewish" merely is an ethnicity has not flown here before, and is unlikely to fly now. Collect (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Collect's argument - labeling persons without self-identification or other high quality sources is not acceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this is already here. Article has no sources regarding Kagan being Jewish; no mention of being Jewish at all. Agree with Collect. Must be removed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jewishness, in the final analysis, is irrelevant to this discussion. What we are discussing is whether or not unsourced material should be removed from a WP:BLP. As we read at WP:V: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately." I disagree with those who might say that this material is "contentious". It is merely unsourced. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussions all reached a different conclusion than that, however. Collect (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any time the subject of an article indicates in good faith that they do not wish to be labelled with a given ethnicity, we should respect that. It's a matter of courtesy and logic before we even get round to considering WP policy. Same goes for religion and sexual orientation. (Caveat: I have no idea if Wikifixer actually is the article subject in this case, and I have done nothing to check). Formerip (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot somebody stop the Jew-labeling, about which the subject has complained since 2008 with more patience than anybody should expect. is a 19:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Also, an editor currently appealing sanctions for repeatedly removing Jews from a list of indigenous peoples has plastered the talk page with his thoughts about the Kagan and alleged relations to "the Israeli lobby", alleged "double loyalty" (Israel and US), etc. Shouldn't such BLP violations be removed immediately? is a 20:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To benchmark the high standards for categorizing by religion, consider George Benson and whether or not he should be categorized as a Jehovah's Witness. He is not because we have yet no statement by him stating that he is a Jehovah's Witness---although we have statements praising the name of Jehovah and stating that he donates money to Watchtower Society, etc. is a 23:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Is a:Jewishness is irrelevant to this discussion. There are "no reliable, published sources" that might support an assertion that Robert Kagan is Jewish. We tend not to publish "original research". It is frowned upon. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: There are sources, this one by one of his neocon cohorts.[1]--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 19:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article again had problems with misrepresentation of sources, which were reliable but rather mediocre quality---a short book review/notice in Foreign Affairs and a profile in The Guardian. Nonetheless, these sources state that he is often called "neoconservative" but that he prefers to call himself "liberal and progressive". His books are concerned with liberal civilization and use a realistic perspective, rather than "neoconservative theology", in the words of Foreign Affairs. Accordingly, I have classified him as a political realist and as an American social-liberal. The liberal category has 2 subcategories, classical and social: There seems to be no evidence that he is a classical liberal; in American politics, a progressive (liberal) is a social liberal. is a 10:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:SYNTH. Stick to the sources, which by and large demonstrate that the mainstream reportage of Kagan characterizes him as a neoconservative.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 05:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SYNTH refers to edits made in articles (Wikipedia articles must not contain original research) - not to comments on noticeboards. So far you seem ~~hell-bent~~highly interested on labelling Kagan as neoconservative when your sources should only be used for opinions cited as opinions - which I believe I have stated a number of times in a number of places about a number of people of all political persuasions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement addresses adding/deleting of categories to the article that are outside of the scope of this thread. The basis for that was WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, apparently.

The "hell-bent" comment is out of line, because the issue related to how to characterize Kagan had been somewhat stable until recently, with the statements being attributed (as opinion) only under the "Ideas and Career" section of the article. It was not me that started deleting sourced material and adding/deleting categories without support in RS.

Though the sources are strong enough and plentiful enough to characterize him as a neoconservative, that was a compromise based on his shunning of the label. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is clear that it doesn't matter if he doesn't like the label as long as RS apply it to him, however.

The categorizations are unsupported and need to be restored to their previous status.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OR and SYNTH apply only to articles, not to noticeboards or discussion pages of any ilk. "Highly interested" seems fair as you, indeed, added Frederick Kagan to the List of Neoconservatives, and reverted removal of the other names. [2], [3], [4]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the part that Robert Kagan was removed along with Victoria Nuland. When I searched for more sources, I found two one for Frederick as well. And one of the sources is a recent scholarly source published by an academic press, and pertains to both Robert and Frederick, as mentioned in a thread below. I am of the opinion that all three individuals are described as neoconservatives in RS in a manner compliant with Wikipedia policy, as Mr.X has indicated as well.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the others agree that opinions must be cited as opinions. I fear you missed that part. Also look at your "sources" for categorizing a person: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup/ Neocons and the Ukraine Coup, Robert Parry,February 23, 2014 - self-published by the only employee of a non-profit. And opinion piece to boot. Your "source" for Nuland is http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a4f13052-18ca-11e4-80da-00144feabdc0.html She is married to Robert Kagan, author of Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus and one of the most prominent neoconservative intellectuals – even if he now shuns the label.. and you use it as a source to call her "neoconservative! Sorry - this is getting very old very fast. Collect (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Heilbrunn's They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (2009), published by the very reputable firm Anchor books, a division of Knopf, Doubleday, has 25 references to Robert Kagan as a leading neocon. In addition, in 2014 Heilbrunn wrote articles for the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html and Politico http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-neocon-surge-108021_Page2.html about the neoconservative phenomenon, featuring Robert Kagan front and center, accompanied by large photographs of same. So attempts to disassociate Kagan from the phenomenon he founded seem somewhat ludicrous, not to say futile, to put it kindly. Wikipedia should not be in the business of distorting the historical record. Leave that to the publicists and other interested parties. 108.54.227.81 (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

|}

There are ongoing discussions at several boards (look below) and articles, for which this discussion is useful here. is a 12:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road) and Ross William Ulbricht

Silk Road (marketplace) is a Tor-based online marketplace known as a place for illegal exchanges (drugs and such). It was operated, at least for some period of time, by someone who went by the name Dread Pirate Roberts. Ross William Ulbricht was arrested and charged with being Dread Pirate Roberts. But he has not been found guilty.

A few minutes ago Ross William Ulbricht had his own article. It's a WP:CRIME notability issue, first of all, but a whole lot more importantly it seems like a crystal clear example of WP:BLPCRIME. In the past it has been redirected to either the Dread Pirate Roberts article or to Silk Road. I've restored the Silk Road redirect.

The Dread Pirate Roberts article, I noticed, likewise is predominantly about Ulbricht, whose name appears in most of the sentences throughout. I've redirected that one to Silk Road as well. (Notability for this one is more debatable, though I would say that even if DPR were found to be the subject of sufficient reliable sources beyond those about Silk Road, it would still make sense to incorporate it into the Silk Road article as there just wouldn't be enough WP:BLP-friendly material to construct an encyclopedia article without turning that article into an article about Silk Road).

But I digress. The real issue isn't notability, and that's why I'm posting here.

I see this has come up a few times before here, the first two without conclusion and the third apparently also resulting in a redirect. Bringing it up because my redirects were initially both reverted, and given the relative popularity of the subject and the articles' histories, I imagine they will be again, so I'd like to get others involved. I've also requested page protection for both. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have not addressed, and would suggest discussion of, the coverage of Ulbricht in the Silk Road (marketplace) article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your objects in regard to WP:CRIME. We should probably wait for the outcome of the trial to determine whether Ulbricht should have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. If he is convicted, however, I think he should have his own article. This is a fascinating case, one that has been covered in major newspapers and news outlets. Ulbricht is a fascinating figure. He started out as an idealist, got involved in libertarian ideas, and (if his prosecutors are correct) crossed the line into facilitating the buying and selling of drugs and guns on the so-called dark internet. There's going to be a movie about him, you can bank on it. I don't mind holding off till the end of the trial, but after that, I'd like to see him have his own article. People will look for information about him. Chisme (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this. The Ulbricht and Roberts pages have been protected as redirects, but the Silk Road (marketplace) article still talks an awful lot about Ulbricht. Additional perspectives on how to handle this per WP:BLPCRIME are requested. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's going to talk about Ulbricht. He's its founder, and if the prosecutors at this trial are correct, its guiding hand as well. I really don't understand this desire to remove Ulbricht from Wikipedia. I still think he deserves his own entry, but I'll defer to you unless he is convicted, at which case, I believe, he genuinely requires an entry. Chisme (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that he's admitted involvement, and for that we can include him, but let's try to find any rational way to reconcile WP:BLPCRIME with statements like Ulbricht faces charges of money laundering, computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic narcotics, and attempting to kill six people. Prosecutors allege that Ulbricht paid $730,000 to others to commit the murders, although none of the murders actually occurred. We're connecting him with paying for assassinations in our Wikipedia article despite not having been convicted. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ulbricht was convicted yesterday. I assume we can now restore his article on Wikipedia. Chisme (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can put BLPCRIME issues to rest, that's for sure. There's still WP:CRIME standing in the way of his own article unless he's notable for more than his role as Dread Pirate Roberts, but certainly no objections from me for however you think it's best to handle it at the Silk Road article. But these are notability concerns rather than BLP, so this thread could probably be closed. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neoconservativism - Victoria Nuland

I've found a reference to her in a book, so I will describe that reference before the news media pieces listed originally. I would imagine there are more, but hope that this suffices. The book is by Craig Unger, called The Fall of the House of Bush

As for Robert Kagan, his father, Donald, a Yale historian, and his brother, Frederick, a military historian at West Point and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, are both highly visible neocon activists, and, in the Bush-Cheney administration, his neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, server as ambassador to Turkey and ambassador to NATO.[5]

Do the following sources support characterizing Nuland as a neoconservative?
In the Financial Times piece, the notable author protects his government source and doesn't name the former colleague in the Obama administration state department quoted.

In an administration so eager to correct the perceived errors of its predecessor, it might be surprising that Ms Nuland has emerged as its point person for dealing with Russia. She was Mr Cheney’s deputy national security adviser before moving to be ambassador to Nato. She is married to Robert Kagan, author of Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus and one of the most prominent neoconservative intellectuals – even if he now shuns the label.

“I have no doubt that when she sits down for a family dinner, she is the biggest neocon at the table,” says a former colleague in the Obama administration state department. “But she is also one of the most talented people I have worked with in government.”US diplomat Victoria Nuland faces questions over strategyby Geoff Dyer

Here's another potential source Neocons and the Ukraine Coup by Robert Parry.

Both Dyer and Parry are notable, as demonstrated by their Wikipedia articles. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 04:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

En passant mentions about a person have generally not been allowed for making claims about that living person. You need sources specifically addressing the person and not use of a single adjective in a single sentence. Also claims based on an anonymous source are problematic, and in this case it appears to be an opinion which must be cited as an opinion. You might get away with:

An anonymous person in the Obama administration said he thinks she is a "neocon".

but not more than that from the sources you give. Collect (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what is your opinion of statement in the Unger source?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unger gives an en passant mention - "his neocon wife" is insufficient to label the living person as a "neocon" as he says basically nothing about her. Collect (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"En passant"... Isn't that a move in the game of chess? What does that mean in English? And where is the relevant policy?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 19:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where a sentence in a book is the only sentence the book mentions a person, and the mention is only an adjective before the person's name without saying anything else about that person, the mention isn't worth a tinker's dam.[6],[7],[8],[9], [10] etc. Collect (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the Brookings Institution at which Kagan is a fellow has this to say:

POLITICO Magazine released a list of the top 50 influential people in Washington, D.C., including Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Kagan and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, described as "the ultimate American power couple."

The article goes on to say that Nuland supports her husband's tough policies.

Nuland, overseeing European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, has been a strong advocate of the engaged approach her husband favors as a crisis with Russia has unfolded on her diplomatic turf this year. The point was made, rather sensationally, in February, when a leaked audio recording of her F-bomb-laden diatribe about the fecklessness of the European Union, which she accused of not exactly playing a constructive role trying to end the growing conflict in Ukraine, appeared on the Internet.

108.54.227.81 (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown that one source listed them as a power couple. Your other source says that she advocates for his general policies. is a 06:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liliane Bettencourt

A link to his persons biography in Wikipedia was in a pfshing email I got supposedly from this person. Please check to see if its a real person. Its the bio that was last updated on 1-30-15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.69.47 (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bettencourt is one of the principal shareholders of L'Oréal. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the talk page of this article for more discussion of the scam.--Auric talk 21:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somalis in the United Kingdom

It has been claimed at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom#Somali Education that BLP applies to this article (in relation to the use of an editorial as a source). I've not edited much lately so am a bit out of touch. Can I get views on WP:BLPGROUP in relation to this article? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the debate is about whether using this Economist article to describe the educational performance of Somalis in the UK is compatible with the BLP policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again Larry. I tend to seek out controversial wp:BLP political articles, particularly where the subject has complained & is holding up expansion of the article. As a UK editor I look to see if the item would fall foul of English libel law which I'm familiar with as I suspect BLP policy is intended to meet that sort of standard. I don't think there is any issue here, partly because no individual is identified and partly because it appears to be a statement of fact from a wp:reliable source. It would have been helpful if the Economist had looked the reasons behind the poor performance. FWIW countries where there have been major famines tend to have health problems -see Dutch famine of 1944 and most individuals do poorly in tests designed for a different culture. If there is a disagreement between sources you can say so. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JRPG. Yes, I'm certainly not suggesting that we should use it as the only source, without considering the factors behind the situation. I'm glad to hear that you don't think it violates BLP. That makes sense to me, as Somalis in the UK are a large group of more than 100,000 people. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above was already posted on the reliable source noticeboard. However, some basic facts were omitted from the presentation. It's not whether the news outlet The Economist itself is reliable that is the question, but rather whether that specific article is. Independent reviews indicate that it is factually inaccurate in several aspects (e.g. [11]). Specifically, the piece does not indicate from where it derived its WP:REDFLAG nationwide education figure. This is perhaps not surprising since the governmental Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit indicates that no reliable nationwide statistics are in fact available, nor is the size of the student population in question indeed even known [12]. Local authorities such as the Camden Education Commission likewise indicate an altogether different, higher figure [13]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted here because you claimed that BLP applied to the use of the Economist piece in the article. Whether it is a reliable source is what's under discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By what conceivable measure is this large anonymous group of people being considered a BLP? BLP is intended to protect identifiable people from potential harm. Just because the subject of an article contains living people does not make it subject to BLP else we would be applying BLP to Eskimo, Republican Party (United States) and many, many other pages. Trying to shoehorn this topic into BLP, by a pedantic reading of the title of the policy and for the purpose of a content dispute is completely wrongheaded. BLP is a more restrictive content policy to protect actual people from possible harm not to protect some amorphous population from perceived negative information being placed in an article, we have other policies for that.

To specifically address the OP's question. My understanding of BLPGROUP is that it exists in order to provide protection to small, enumerable, groups of people. For instance if you are writing about the 2012 American Olympic Ping Pong Team, BLP should be considered because it is a small group whose members are readily identifiable. The group of Somalis in the United Kingdom is so large that comments made about it can not reasonable be seen to be applying to a specific, named individual who might suffer harm. JBH (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JBH. That's a very comprehensive argument for why BLP doesn't apply to this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Maloo

Jump up ^ "Cover story: Is HFCL For Real? [Pg. 2]". Business today.
Jump up ^ "HFCL's Nahata and Maloo may part ways". Economic Times. 22 August 2006. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
Jump up ^ "Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd". The Times of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilsuraj (talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I have added line breaks to your comment to make it easier to read--220 of ^Borg 08:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Devilsuraj: I note that you have removed some references already, here, however you have not used edit summaries to say why. Please explain how the sources are defamatory? There also seems to have been some possible edit warring over references and the "controversy" on this page. --220 of ^Borg 08:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored 2 sources you removed here here. As per my edit summary they don't seem 'defamatory'. --220 of ^Borg 10:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed several misleading refs, for example {{cite news|url=http://maloovinay.com |title=vinay maloo +indian investor |publisher=Economic Times |date=22 August 2006 |accessdate=11 May 2012}} --Auric talk 21:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Zonenko

A new editor has created the article Sergey Zonenko, making all sort of extraordinary claims about him discovering a new law of physics, marching on the front lines of a protest in Moscow alongside famous scientists, getting chased out of the country by the police, etc. The references given don't support the claims. They may well be true, but are likely to be difficult to WP:VERIFY per WP:BLP, and the editor who created the article has repeatedly reverted my additions of maintenance tags, and seems uninterested in dialogue about it. I'd be glad of some help with this so I don't breach WP:3RR: if WP:RS can't be found then we need to delete some of what's written there, which includes potentially libellous claims about living people. Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now gone to AFD. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy

Are these edits proper? [14] [15]

The entire purpose of these edits is to re-add the name of a living person (at great length) about whom the article was previously named. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy seems clear that the article is to be about the university and not about the living person herself and her deeds.

As no allegations of wrong-doing are made about the person, I find such stress to be improper per WP:BLP and the requirement that allegations be strongly sourced. Here the person appears to be the side issue at most and stressing her name appears improper and violative of our stated responsibility to be careful where we can harm living persons. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

Collect imagines that he is closing the AfD; thankfully this isn't how it will go. Removing all mention of this episode from Bresch's biography is bizarre (given the volume of sources devoted to it) and not in keeping with normal practice here; likewise with removing her name from the article on the MBA affair. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article was specifically renamed to remove the person's name. I suggest there is a reasonable inference that all those who supported a merge or rename did not assert that we should make sure we show Bresh's "complicity" in the affair. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Why the heck did someone add "a person" and "the person"? We're writing an encyclopedia not a mystery novel!- Mr X 14:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except the university officials at fault, that created the real scandal are not named in the lead, which leads one to conclude her name is not necessary there either. It may go on the body, until this article is merged as a POVFork and its all covered in the appropriate university articles and in the individual BLPs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If our sources name the university officials, we can add them to the article. If not, we have no choice but to generalize. The absence of some names does not justify suppressing the name of the person around which the controversy is centered.- Mr X 14:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are in the body of article, and your suppression claim is absurd. Perhaps you did not read what I wrote about the lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I described it as suppression was because someone apparently used "a person" and "the person" instead of Bresch's name. I purposely did not view the edit history because there's no reason to personalize this discussion, and I assume we are all here to improve the encyclopedia.- Mr X 15:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you did not view the article or my comment which you purported to be responding to, the other persons are identified not by name but by position in the lead, so again your claim of suppression in response to my comment is absurd. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garrison's name added. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect I don't think it's fair to say that consensus for not naming the article after her infers consensus for not naming her in the body either. The main argument was that the combination of "Heather Bresch" and "Controversy" implies Bresch was the main actor in the scandal, whereas the body of the article makes it more clear that it's simply referring to her degree and relationships. I did think that consensus that the article-title was problematic would make removing the redirect debate a shoe-in and was a little surprised by the response. However many such discussions just depend on who shows up that day. I could see the same discussion resulting in a rename back or a delete just depending on which editors happen to show up. CorporateM (Talk) 18:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She was specifically named eleven times in the article -- the others involved were not mentioned even once in the lead, and some not even once in the entire article by name. I consider that to indicate massive WEIGHT being given to her name, and zero weight to everyone else. Collect (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect The solution might be to add more information about the others involved, but this would require a lot of detailed article-work. CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note [16] the claim by an editor that Bresch was "complicit" in the affair. I suggest that anyone trying to assert "complicity" is violating WP:BLP on its face.

Profile stories on Bresch in Barron's and a local magazine both include the incident and in both source articles Bresch is the subject of the article. However, the controversy will have less emphasis when the rest of the article is filled out and if it follows WP:CRITICISMS by not having a dedicated section. As a minor copyediting item, some of the mentions of Bresch could be replaced with "her", but I find each mention of her in the controversy article to be needed, since the controversy is about her degree. I don't think allegations that Nomoskedasticity violated BLP on the Talk page are substantiated, as it appears to be a productive part of discussing the article and not trolling or attacking the BLP. I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article not a POVFORK? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, Bresch should be mentioned by name, in a controversy that revolves around her. Have we lost all common sense? How is this even a question? To claim that she is "innocent" and "not involved" seems absurd. Did not she herself list her credentials, including her "supposed" MBA? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it is a POVFORK, commonsense will tell you that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of MPs for constituencies in England 2010-15

James Duddridge, MP for Rochford and Southend East, is entered as UKIP party, while he never made such a defection. Given that the colour by his name is still blue, this is most likely vandalism.

Also Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) is entered and coloured as Conservatives, but has now defected and won the by-election as UKIP candidate.

Under the "By-elections" sub heading neither Douglas Carswell's Clacton by-election nor the aforementioned Mark Reckless's Rochester by election are included. This needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.43.158.132 (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, needed updating, done that for you. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

marc Ian Barasch

I would like to object to the article receiving a "stub class" rating. Although it is over-sourced by the subject, the factual material is well-written, well-footnoted, and well-documented. If the tone and content are insufficiently neutral, editors would be welcome to amend, emend, or delete where more balance and objectivity seem required. However, the subject's bona fide social achievements make the article a worthwhile entry,and it should not be rendered toxic to interested readers with a "red label" that functions as a Scarlet A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4900:1A47:5109:C7FE:1C0C:4C99 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Ian Barasch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article does not have a stub class rating. MarnetteD|Talk 06:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User means the talk page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's definitely not a stub-class article. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 17:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Birgeneau (regarding COI)

Robert J. Birgeneau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello!

My name is Vicky/eekiv. I was hired by Amy Hamaoui, an employee of UC Berkeley's Office of Public Affairs, to walk her through COI guidelines for contributions she'd like to make to the Robert Birgeneau article (see her user page for her COI statement). I recommended that she only make contributions in her sandbox, and allow a neutral 3rd party (not me, obviously) to have the final say on what content is appropriate for this article, and for a neutral 3rd party to be the person to incorporate that content into mainspace. She created content on her sandbox, and I did basic bias editing for tone/language/encyclopedia-ness, and now we're looking for neutral parties to do a more substantial review of her work. Would you like to help? Please leave us a note either on her or my talk page, or if you'd like, please suggest edits directly in her sandbox.

...and a PSA: I think that Amy is a really easy-going person to work with (and I think that about myself..but then again, I'm biased!). We're both aware that COI editing is a controversial topic, and we're both making our best efforts to be open, transparent and respectful.

Thank you!! -Eekiv 07:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Galloway

Unfortunately, I don't think there's much that Wikipedia can do with how other sites use the information from here. You should contact that website to fix it. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 18:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kapoor Family Tree

hi Team

i am of the believe that Kunal Kapoor being cited in this family tree is not the correct person. he is not the same son of Shashi and Jennifer who acted in the film Ahista Ahista.

please review and correct

regards Asha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.160.74.116 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy is generally ill-suited for biographical articles and I doubt that a IBNLive.in.com "photo gallery" is a reliable source for any genealogical claims. Collect (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kalfus

Ken Kalfus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello, I'm the subject of this article, which I think is deficient. Two years ago, per the Autobiography guidelines, I filed some comments in Talk on how to improve the piece. Since then, my Talk suggestions have been followed by comments insulting me and Wikipedia. Their tone may not conform to Wikipedia guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walesspeed (talk • contribs) 15:08, February 3, 2015‎ (UTC)

Personal attack warning given.--Auric talk 20:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the edits in question. Clearly unacceptable. Tiptoety ^talk 04:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Corby

A user claiming to be Corby (User:Endorman) has repeatedly blanked Michael Corby. Apparently he has "had enough" of his article existing. [17] Should the article be deleted, since he apparently wants it to be? Everymorning talk 01:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. How would we know if it's actually him. Also, if he is notable, then having an article about him serves the PURPOSE of Wikipedia.- Mr X 01:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of slapping a "bitey" template on his talk page, I reached out to this user in an effort to actually attempt to resolve his concerns. While you are right that we have no way of proving he is who he says he is, we should assume good faith and treat his concerns as legitimate. Tiptoety ^talk 04:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Sulkowicz

Emma Sulkowicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An IP has recently added the phrase "The accused gentleman has been cleared of all allegations and charges. Experts believe that Sulkowicz's behavior will result in society doubt of true victims' allegations and, ultimately, discourage these women from coming forward." Apparently this is sourced to this Daily Beast article. I am coming here to ask: does this seem like a reliable enough source for a BLP and does it support the statements currently attributed to it in the article?

Another issue here, BTW, is whether it is OK to link to sources revealing the name of the man Sulkowicz has accused of assaulting her. Everymorning talk 01:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why this source would not be considered reliable. The Daily Beast is under editorial control and the author of the article is a contributing editor to Reason (magazine). Citations frequently contain links to sources, so I don't see a problem there either. The accused man has obviously consented to discuss the incident with the Daily Beast.- Mr X 01:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bare minimum it will require attribution of the opinion per policy. Also, I would drop the "gentleman" and the ambiguous "experts" issue because that is just weasel words in a source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The source seems reliable. It does not support the content as written (above). - Mr X 04:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not like using The Daily Beast and such sources - but reliability is not publisher dependent. The fact the support text has some issues doesn't mean the source cannot be used, but I'd like something stronger. The conclusion is not novel or surprising - but it works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sears (physician)

This article is about an alternative medicine doctor. Much of the content appears one sided and lacking neutrality. I've removed two instances of what I believe to be rather blatant BLP violations: 1, 2. Additionally, it appears that the subject himself has created an account, DrBobSears (talk · contribs), and has attempted to remove large portions of the article calling it an one-sided agenda. Will someone please prune this article and add it to their watchlist? Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 03:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the lead was quotes from sources which were in the body. Sears is extremely notable because of his controversial POV. He was even involved in a previous epidemic (his patient was the index patient in an epidemic!), and his recommendations are influential in causing a very low rate of herd immunity in Orange County, where the Disneyland measles epidemic centers. That epidemic is now ravaging the country, and politicians, including Obama, are now getting involved. This has never happened before, and the criticisms of Sears are raining down, including from the press in other countries. My Google Alerts reports for him are myriad. I'm using only a fraction of what's being written. He's a fringe doctor known for his controversial views. Now they are getting strongly negative attention because they are dangerous, and we're documenting a fraction of it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is WP:Undue, his notability is ONLY from his alternative medicine views. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tiptoety that this article is written in a manner that violates BLP policy. And it is being used as a coatrack to highlight the negative impact of the anti-vaccine movement. Thee is huge undue weight with that way it is written now. Even if we don't agree with their point of view or actions, every living person get a well written article that follows NPOV policy. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current article appears to be being used as a coatrack to highlight negative impact of anti-vaccine movement. Sears' tolerance of alternate vaccine schedules does not even seem to be be accurately represented and it's also not the only thing notable about him, yet it's basically the entire article. Sears is also known as a proponent of breastfeeding and attachment parenting. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is UNDUE only because additional material is needed to cover other aspects. But we can't and shouldn't remove material that is well referenced. I will tag accordingly.- Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, part of the problem is the lack of coverage of the other work that he's done. But some of the content I removed from the article was not biographical content about him. Other than the that the wording needs to be adjusted to read more neutrally. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sources in that BLP sufficient to label and categorize him as an "anti-vaccination activist"? [18] I find that since his book is not "anti-vaccine" in itself, that labelling him as an "activist" when reliable sources appear to make that as a claim of fact may be violative of WP:BLP. His positions on some vaccines may be controversial, but that is a bit of a leap to "anti-vaccination activist" in Wikipedia's voice IMO. Collect (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to re-write the article to give a more balanced view of his life work has be reverted or re-written to the point that it is again close to an attack page and a coatrack. There is rapid reverting going on when anyone attempts to remove very one sided content. I'm going to remind the editors that the page is under two kinds of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. And that they need to carefully adhere to good editing practices and BLP policy. So I would appreciate it other administrators would check in since I'm now involved and also don't have loads of time to oversee the article talk page. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific misconduct

At scientific misconduct we have several living people listed that were investigated for scientific misconduct or disciplined for scientific misconduct. Should we have non-notable, living people here? I just removed a chemist who was investigated and cleared of scientific misconduct, but he admitted to plagiarism in a grant application. See Leo Paquette where I removed a link to the list clearly added to impugn a living person. Should we only have notable people here, what do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be kept if the name and the content is supported by a reliable source. I think that WP:REDYES may apply here because some of these names can pass WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For living people aren't we supposed to err on the side of caution. We wouldn't put non notable people on a list of sex offenders, even if they have been investigated and found guilty unless they were already notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Richard. With lists, we often use the same criteria as for article creation - each entry must be notable, and to ensure that spam additions and vandalism aren't a problem, we require that their notability be established by having an article here, and that the relevant content and sources (in this case documenting scientific misconduct) are accepted content in that article. THEN we can include them in the list. So, create the article first, and then add them to the list. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rich

Please monitor single source information posted under my Personal Life section. I removed all information that was placed as a prank - however being as I don't know how to report, or prevent, the posting of such inaccuracies, any and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalonlanding (talk • contribs) 06:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Avalonlanding. I have no way to know whether or not you are actually Mike Rich. But I do know that the content you reverted was completely inappropriate under our biographies of living people policy. I have put the article on my watch list, and I encourage other editors to do so as well. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V.V.S. Laxman

An editor is removing a cited claim that this person is the great grandnephew of a former President on the basis that VVS Laxman told him he's not the grandson of any President. Ignoring the error (nephew/son) to what extent does a purported conversation between a BLP subject and a Wikipedian trump WP:V? I looked in our self-published guidelines, but there's nothing about conversations. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yitang Zhang

This very low-key mathematician has received some prominent real-world attention, and some IPs and SPAs, possible sockpuppets, have shown up in the past few days aggressively removing sourced negative comments about a certain 3rd party, and are refusing to use Talk and the like. Experienced eyes would be welcome. Choor monster (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification, as I have been doing some work on Yitang outside of Wikipedia today—I had not heard of him prior to this, so the timing is convenient. I will add this page to my Watchlist and review it shortly. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup, let me mention that two new SPAs have shown up, just as aggressive, and one of them has taken to editing and deleting other people's Talk page comments. Choor monster (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate controversy

The article contains the name of a person who has been accused of what could be a crime, or a tort in civil court. The particular sentence is 'Shortly after the Steam release of Depression Quest in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend (name omitted here) wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay",[7] alleging, among other things, that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson.[8]" There are other references to that person in the article as well. I removed the person's name, but it was quickly restored by another editor. Use of this name might subject the Wikimedia Foundation to a libel action, and even it doesn't it is a violation of WP:BLP. There is some discussion of this problem on the articles's talk page under "Suggested Re-Adding of the Ex-Boyfriend's Name." GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name what crime you think this is an accusation of? I don't see anything in our BLP guidelines against non-crime torts. Given the vast array of things over which people have been sued, not listing a potential tort would practically bar us from saying anything about a living person. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) I am the editor who began the discussion on the talk page, and who reverted GeorgeLouis' removal after apparent agreement. On making the revert, I offered to self-revert if asked; that offer still stands if others think it is appropriate. That being said, I am very interested to hear other thoughts on this issue, now that it has been posted to this noticeboard. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this has been reported by the New York Times, I doubt very highly that any other source would be guilty for reporting the same thing. Surely, the New York Times' lawyers have looked into this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his name being in the article was either a libel or a blp issue. He's named in the Washington Post article linked in to that paragraph, and the events described are the same in the wikipedia entry as it is in the post. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 16:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His post started this controversy and he's named in multiple WP:RS's. I don't think it's libel or BLP. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 21:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's already a matter of public record and unless the veracity of that summarization of events is somehow being contended I'm unsure what part of BLP this runs afoul of; it's certainly not libel, which is a specific term in this context far more narrow than "reflects poorly on". GraniteSand (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Moore

Carmel Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I trimmed this article down today, removing unreliable sources (including the sourcing of the subject's birth name to IMDb, no less), but my edits have been reverted with the familiar "that's OK, I know I can override BLP and OR because I put effort into this article" argument. I am honestly finding it hard to care about the bio of a retired pornstar at this point (as I do of fringe topics, barely known rappers and reality TV shows), and I'm afraid I'll overreact and use a button I shouldn't. So here it is, if someone feels they can take it on, that would be great. I'm taking it off my watchlist. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have given it a shot.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon: Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name of Sophie Hunter

Hello there! I just want to ask a favor. You see, the middle name of Sophie Hunter in her page has been removed without explanation even with proper sources. Her full name is SOPHIE IRENE HUNTER and this reflects on her engagement announcement referring to her as S.I. Hunter as seen here.

It is also in the Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition It's not available online (under subscription).

Screen capture here (I have double-checked this in the library (it's a big book), and her middle name is indeed "Irene")

Further proof online:

From Find My Past (under subscription)

Screen capture here

From Genes Reunited (under subscription)

Screen capture here

Can you please be so kind to amend her page for her middle name to be included. Burke's book has been used as a reliable reference in Wikipedia regarding peerage, ancestry and those in the aristocracy. Thank you very much!80.109.107.210 (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All these screen captures and weak sources and the value to the reader of this persons middle name seem close to worthless, her middle name is of no encyclopedic value at all. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is also most likely a sock asking editors and noticeboards to do their editing, they have an obsession with Benedict Cumberbatch and Sophie Hunter. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connected_Device_Configuration

In this article few links are belongs to Sun Microsystems old website link ( http://java.sun.com/products ). It is redirected global java page of Oracle website(http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/index.html). It seems broken or removed the content or finding the expected content is not possible. please help wikipedia lovers to use proper link.

This page is for issues related to biographies of living people. You can post your request at talk:Connected Device Configuration. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Klein

May well be Jewish, but is nndb.com a reliable source for labelling and categorizing him as one? [19], [20] are the edits at issue. Collect (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. It appears to be self-published and the bio cites Wikipedia as a source.- Mr X 13:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and other sources are available: "Joe Klein, a centrist columnist for Time magazine (and himself Jewish)..."- Mr X 13:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, people can vote whichever way they want, for whatever reason they want. I just don't want to see policy makers who make decisions on the basis of whether American policy will benefit Israel or not. In some cases, you want to provide protection for Israel certainly, but you don't want to go to war with Iran. When Jennifer Rubin or Abe Foxman calls me antisemitic, they're wrong. I am anti-neoconservative. I think these people are following very perversely extremist policies and I really did believe that it was time for mainstream Jews to stand up and say, "They don't represent us, they don't represent Israel."[21]

--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 13:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-postel/israelpolitik-the-neocons_b_6585506.html now added to the http://www.nndb.com/people/408/000044276/ "source.

Is the HuffPo sentence:

Joe Klein, a centrist columnist for Time magazine (and himself Jewish) wrote that the neocons pushed for the invasion 'to make the world safe for Israel'.

Sufficient here to state in Wikipedia's voice that Klein is Jewish? If not - will someone tell the editor not to continuously and repeatedly re-add such claims into BLPs. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Danny Postel is Associate Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies". Jewish is not a pejorative term.- Mr X 14:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another potential source from Eric Lott, a Professor of English at the University of Virginia: "... Jewish Joe Klein's novelistic political interventions and aspersions."- Mr X 14:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I don't know whether the characterization belongs in the lead or whatnot as I don't work on BLPs very often, but it isn't even mentioned in the article despite the high-profile he's received in media coverage of the debate. I don't have time to sort out a text for the article.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it would be best to simply add it to the ~~person infobox~~ article if it is deemed relevant. My guess is that little more needs to be said about it unless there are a number of sources that discuss in some depth. That said: I'm not familiar with the subject, nor our article, so take my advice with a grain of NaCl.- Mr X 14:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did that for now.

The story needs coverage, look at the list of sources posted in this thread from Talk[22].--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: [23] is not even remotely acceptable under WP:BLPCAT and I find the continued insistence to label a person a JEW in Wikipedia's voice without clear self-identification is distasteful. Collect (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCAT:Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. is Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. I modified my advice accordingly.- Mr X 15:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)And you would appear to be obviously wrong on all counts about the sources and his self-identification not meeting BLPCAT, and MrX agrees that there are reliable sources for categorizing Klein as Jewish, and your denial of a "clear self-identification" is refuted by his "clear statement" made in a manner such as to be relevant to their public life or notability during the interview published in Atlantic. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I see that you have now struck through your recommendation of "person infobox", could you explain why?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken. The policy is pretty clear about self-identification and relevance being required for religious beliefs in categories, nav boxes and info boxes.- Mr X 15:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. It's probably better just to write the text up for the article.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here is another quote from the Atlantic interview

JG: You seem very angry at people who you specifically identify as Jewish neocons. And you're using the word "Jewish" in ways that we haven't seen Jewish reporters and Jewish columnists use.

--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time column, Swampland quotes

This piece, the underlined statement in particular, includes another candidate for "specific and non-ambiguous self-identification"

I have now been called antisemitic and intellectually unstable and a whole bunch of other silly things by the folks over at the Commentary blog. They want Time Magazine to fire or silence me. This is happening because I said something that is palpably true, but unspoken in polite society: There is a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who...Happily, these people represent a very small sliver of the Jewish population in this country...I remain proud of my Jewish heritage, a strong supporter of Israel and a realist about the slim chance of finding some common ground with the Iranians. But I am not willing to grant these ideologues the anonymity they seek.When Extremists Attack

Note that it is also quoted in the HP article linked to above On Joe Klein and the Jewish Neoconservatives. (Ubikwit unsigned)

An interesting parsing here -- what do others say -- is saying one has "Jewish heritage" the same as saying one is Jewish outright for purposes of "self-identification as 'Jewish'"? I think t might be usable for the category "American people of Jewish descent" but is that the same as "Jewish" as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice? And is his ancestry relevant to his notability - the second requirement of WP:BLPCAT? Collect (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the "second requirement", I would say that the second quote from the Atlantic interview ("You seem very angry at people who you specifically identify as Jewish neocons. And you're using the word "Jewish" in ways that we haven't seen Jewish reporters and Jewish columnists use.") clearly indicates that he is notable because of his stance as a renowned Jewish columnist that has taken a high-profile public stand against powerful Jewish groups in the USA. There are many sources addressing the debate surrounding the controversy that specifically note the "Jewish" dimension to the controversy because Klein singled out the "Jewish neocons", which is even reiterated in the title of the above-linked HP piece.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 13:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that self-identification, combined with the other secondary sources would seem to be more than adequate to describe him a Jewish in an infobox or category. The obvious relevance is that Klein has commented frequently about Jewish Neoconservatives, Jewish extremists and so on. I think we can wrap this up now, no?- Mr X 13:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- this statement together with the other sources meets the requirements of the policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've restored the infobox category of religious affiliation per this consensus, and added some text to the article. Please check it out, Joe Klein.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 07:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Klein does not say he follows the Jewish religion and the edits which do not have self-identification behind them are a direct violation of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: only Collect, it seems, is disagreeing with this, while there are three editors who say it's okay. I don't want to get involved in editing the article, but if Collect continues to revert against the views of other editors here there are ways to get it dealt with. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I hate to say this but so far no one here has managed to redact WP:BLPCAT which is policy. I take it you feel three voices override policy? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, have you done any research on this at all or do you think collaboration means just saying "nope"?

"Over 5000 years of history, we Jews have demonstrated a remarkable talent for survival, the promulgation of morality and justice, tolerance of others, terrible cuisine and an almost protozoan genius for subdividing ourselves."
— Joe Kein - Time (emphasis added)

"Where I come from–the outer boroughs of New York City–Jews were known for, and entertained ourselves by, arguing about everything. Nothing was ever off the table.""
— Joe Kein - Time (emphasis added)

This type of editing (or rather, reverting and obstructionist arguing) will likely land some parties in front of Arbcom or AE soon if it doesn't stop.- Mr X 14:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Glad to hear from you again. Now what precisely is the relevance to Klein's notability here? Note that is also required by WP:BLPCAT. And what there states that his religion is "Jewish"? Collect (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that Time quote might be sufficient for ethnicity but not for religion. It had not been givenbefore though - so thanks for raising it here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-vaccination activists

Looking here, most of the people in this category are not reliably sourced as "anti-vaccination activists" in reliable sources -- one person got in there for a single TV assignment as a correspondent , another in there for questioning the famous "swine flu vaccine" affair, etc. In short -- this category is riddled with bad entries, and all entries there should be vetted, as categories intrinsically make claims of fact in Wikipedia's voice that the people fall into that "contentious claim" area. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and one is in there for questioning the use of smallpox vaccines (because of complications observed) in his articles in peer-reviewed journals after smallpox was basically defunct in Europe in the 1970s. Collect (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about this as well. In many, if not most instances, the people are not self identifying as anti-vaccine. And in some instances they are denying it. There is no official body that declares whether someone is pro- or ant- vaccine. It appears to be a label invented by people who are activists to disparage or discredit individuals who they disagree with. This seems to fall under investigative journalism that is sensational rather than encyclopedic. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that self-identification is necessary as being anti-vaccination activist/advocate/proponent is not a religious belief or sexual orientation. That said, your comments suggest that maybe this category should be discussed at WP:CfD.- Mr X 19:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those two categories were spelled out since there repeated discussions about them. But the same can holds true for other topics that are personal ideologies not formal groups that you join or well recognized occupations or hobbies. I agree that WP:Cfd makes sense. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly seems to be truth in the case that this category is being misused and several editors have been reinserting it on Robert Sears who supports vaccinations. Apparently "Anti-vaccination activists" applies to vaccination supporters who disagree with CDC vaccination scheduling. Certainly seems like an improper label without context. I find NeilN's comparison to holocaust deniers to be horrifying. NeilN then restored the contentious label during the talk page discussion. This is a BLP issue and I believe the tag should be removed given the additional and now separate BLPN issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here I starting to have some sympathy for you. First, I restored the cat after checking there was a good source supporting it on the talk page. Since then, more sources have been added and no one else supports your position. Now, as to the holocaust denier change. You wrote:

"Sears own words and book advocate vaccines - thus he cannot and is not an "anti-vaccinationist". Those "reliable sources" you just labeled are opinions and historically we comply with the subject's stated stance on views regardless of what others say. This has been done for religion, politics, gender, and ideology." [24]

I wrote:

"That's incorrect. We have a plethora of Holocaust deniers who call themselves something else." [25] Followed up by: "He can say he supports vaccinations, just like Holocaust deniers can say they support accurate historical viewpoints. However analysis of their actions and writings may come to a different conclusion." [26]

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would see I was not comparing the two, but putting forth an example to refute your poor and incorrect assertion. Others have as well. So, please, take your outrage over something I never did elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be helpful to have a proper consensus building discussion (as in well defined parameters for weighing the opinions about policy) either at Cfd and/or a RFC on the article talk page. Right now there seems to be a rush to revert changes right away instead of working toward a true consensus that can stand the test of time. In my experience, most people can live with a decision, even if they disagree with it, if the points of view are examined and weighed and an impartial person closes the discussion. I will suggest this on the article talk page, too. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 00:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FloNight: I don't see a CfD being a "consistent" option unless you are proposing to delete most analysis-based categories. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An CfD was mentioned by someone earlier in this thread, and I don't see the point of having a discussion on the talk page if a CfD is happening. Xfd's are the best method to establish whether a item meets policy guidelines for existing on Wikipedia, so I can see the point of doing one. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 01:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a problem with analysis-based categories, so long as we aren't the ones doing the analysis. If we're doing the WP:OR to call someone an activist, then that's a problem. I don't know that the category needs go away, but it surely cannot have unsourced (as in sources that say what the category is labeling them as) entries. And, given that we're dealing with BLP here - they should be solid sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no current CfD, so this is the only discussion venue right now. I would suggest,moreover:

Anti-vaccination activist may be viewed as a pejorative claim about a living person, thus any use of it as a category for a living person must be strongly and specifically sourced. It contains two parts, each of which must be satisfied: The person must be broadly 'anti-vaccine' as a general principle, and that must actively promote such a broad 'anti-vaccine' position.

Being opposed to specific vaccines (one entry in the category was apparently placed there because he doubted the need to continue the smallpox vaccine in the 1970's in Europe - Gerhard Buchwald now deceased) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is there without any rational basis in sources. Jenny McCarthy who specifically denies the label. David Icke unsourced. And so on. Collect (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for "strongly and specifically sourced" -- a requirement of that sort is already well embedded in our general policies. Editors' views on whether the term is "pejorative" have no bearing, and there's no ground whatsoever for a "self-identification" or "disavowal" angle here -- what matters is what reliable sources tell us. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources do not state "activist" is the person still an "activist" in Wikipedia's voice? If the person is not specifically "anti-vaccination" per sources, are they still broadly "anti-vaccination" in Wikipedia's voice? Did you note the examples I gave - including one from a person who was likely right that general smallpox vaccinations in 1970s Europe were likely unnecessary? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the sources do not clearly state "X is an anti-vaccine activist" (or something REALLY close to that) then it is OR for us to make that determination. In even an extreme example, our Jenny McCarthy article has right in the lede that she is an anti-vaccine activist. She probably is. Unfortunately, the sources provided in the article (at least for that statement) don't actually say that. One talks about activists, but does not call McCarthy one. Another is an editorial blog post that characterizes the sentiment of reader opinion, rather than stating anything as the author or their publication. In other words, even for one of the most well known "activists", our article fails to make the case for tagging her as such. I imagine that if pressed, editors at that article would come up with some on-point reliable sources for the statement - and I think our policies oblige us to do so before branding/categorizing/labelling a BLP. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the category being renamed to something less inflammatory but still reflecting the fact that these are individuals prominently identified with the anti-vaccine movement. We absolutely should not be whitewashing this: they are responsible for outbreaks of preventable disease leading to serious harm and even death. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Chun

This person is not a local celebrity, rather a high school student at my school trying to be popular.

Should Wikipedia publish the name of the man who Emma Sulkowicz alleges raped her?

Should Wikipedia publish the name of the man who Emma Sulkowicz alleges raped her? He has not been convicted, nor charged with any crime and a university tribunal found him “not responsible”. He has given two public interviews, which appear to be an effort to clear his name after the Columbia Spectator (university newspaper) controversially published his name online as Sulkowicz’s alleged rapist in connection with Sulkowicz’s high profile performance art project, Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight. Talk page discussion of the issue can be found here --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His name is publicized in numerous locations, including the New York Times.[27] Kelly ^hi! 02:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly is currently the subject of an ANI thread related to this page. Link. Townlake (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite name I've already made my point on the talk page but I'd say the better way of phrasing it is should we republish his name now that he's acknowledged he is the recipient of the accusations. I can't find anything in BLP which should suggest we shouldn't. Also, note the parallel discussion at Gamergate controvery. GraniteSand (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. His name has appeared in numerous reliable sources for weeks. He has given interview. He is not trying to hide. He has been cleared of any charges. There is no policy or practical reason to omit his name.- Mr X 02:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Anyone-can-edit does not mean anyone can use Wikipedia to amplify an attack. In general, articles do not "allege" wrongdoings against non-public figures because hundreds of such allegations are made in various forms each day and the names are immaterial—an encyclopedia handles things differently from news media. There is no encyclopedic benefit from recording the name of the person involved. Wait until a court case is settled. The views of the person involved are not relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with much of that but I'll just ask, what part of BLP is it you think this is violating? GraniteSand (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the named individuals's father - "And yet if you Google him, in half of the articles you´ll find, he is still labeled a serial rapist.”[28] It seems the reason they went public was that his name had already been illicitly leaked and they wanted Internet search results to also show their protestations of innocence. It would be a violation of BLP to keep his name out of this article. Kelly ^hi! 03:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, if we publish here, then his name will be linked to his accuser on the top search result site in the world and the thousands of automated mirrors of it. No turning back from that, no moving on ever. Every search for his name will forever first pull up her article here. That is the result of publishing in her article. Why do that? What benefit? --Tgeairn (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The student has given two interviews, but only after he was outed by others. He has allowed himself to be photographed, but only in the shadows, so he's still trying to maintain some anonymity. Adding his name to the article offers no further clarity, but doing so will probably spread the name much further than the other publications have. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No: What is the benefit to the project or our readers of publishing? Whether we use BLPCRIME, BLP1E, BLPNAME, or some other reasoning - the fact remains that he wants to put this behind him. The two sources I read (NYT and something else linked earlier) both had quotes from the accused and his family saying they just want it to end. Just because we *could* publish it without violating our own policies certainly doesn't mean we *should*. His name adds nothing whatsoever to the reader's understanding of the Emma_Sulkowicz article. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding his name to the article (and he did make his name public) does humanize him. He's been cleared, so he doesn't deserve to be the target of "the accused" claims that Sulkowicz makes him the target of without response. Kelly ^hi! 03:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accused is low-profile, and only known for an unproven rape allegation. You don't need the accused's name to understand the article's subject. I see no rational argument for adding the name. Townlake (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand his name is already widely published, but on the other hand his name is not important. He was cleared of charges. She has chosen to carry around a mattress to publicize a perceived wrongdoing. He has actually already been cleared of that wrongdoing in a hearing before the university. I think we should take the high ground and withhold his name. I don't think we would be doing a disservice to the reader by omitting the man's name at this time. Bus stop (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with Mr. X above. We're making it clear that he's an alleged rapist. It's the job of Wikipedia to allow our readers to draw their own conclusions from what we give them, and we can safely rely on the fact-checking of all the other media outlets that have fact-checkers and not pretend the media doesn't exist. Also, neither will be students anymore per the NYT interview, in a matter of three months in fact.--A21sauce (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose adding the name of a low-profile individual unofficially accused of rape, but neither indicted nor convicted. The name is not necessary in the article about the accuser, and we have far higher BLP standards (thankfully) than newspapers do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time isn't a newspaper nor is Elle. The male bias on Wikipedia is completely evident in this entire section.--A21sauce (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A21sauce, while male bias is an issue on WP, I honestly do not think it's accurate to characterize this discussion as a male bias issue considering the two editors who have removed the accused student's name from article are not male editors, and are actually members of the WP:GGTF where improving this article has been discussed. Efforts have included preventing the Emma Sulkowicz article from becoming a biased and poorly referenced attack piece on Sulkowicz, as well as removing the accused name while discussion ensues as to whether publishing his name is appropriate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, BoboMeowCat, thanks. You do realize that women can be sexist against their own gender too, right? The alleged rapist even claims he was raised by a feminist.--A21sauce (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well sourced: NY Daily News 9 news Australia Washington Post. Subject has chosen to go public to counter the allegations; by refusing to say his name, and only categorizing him as "the accused" Wikipedia demeans his humanity. It makes Sulkowicz a person with a face and him so irrelevant his name isn't important. NE Ent 11:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The person falls under BLP1E as far as I can tell, and should be protected as such. Were he otherwise notable enough for a Wikipedia article on his own, then the allegation can be used as "widely reported" but as he is not, we can't. Absolute policy issue here. Collect (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cullen and WP:BLPCRIME : "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." I would go even further and suggest that the prose in "Sulkowicz's complaint" be toned right down - I appreciate Wikipedia is not censored, but seriously, is the mention of anal rape really important to mention to further the reader's understanding of the subject? I would say not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes This woman's notability comes from being allegedly raped, making her alleged rapist a key part of the story. Can't make an allegation without naming someone. The whole point of the mattress is getting one particular guy punished, so if we want to describe the situation, we need to be particular. Either that, or delete the article. Or rename her "the accuser". As it stands, we have one humanized person against one faceless menace. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:59, February 6, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Collect and Ritchie333. We aspire to be a respected encyclopedia. We are not a scandal sheet; we do not exist to promote scandals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's the point of the article? Subtract the scandal and its coverage, we have nothing left. She'd just be a student. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:26, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

One can write the article without including the alleged attacker's name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One can do a lot of things. I think we should do better. This is a story about two sides, but one of them's turned into a prop for the other. Every mention of "the accused" just reinforces that he doesn't exist independently of the accusation. It's more a problem for the NPOV noticeboard, as is. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Yes Regarding BLPCRIME's "unless a conviction is secured", there won't be any trial because no charges were or will be pressed according to the article. We have all the information now we can get. And my personal opinion is that something that can be directly sourced to New York Times, Washington Post and Time can't really be a BLP violation in any case. That is just ridiculous abuse of the BLP policy. --Pudeo ' 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should not include this. It is a trivium and Wikipedia is not here to Google-bomb people who have, according to the consensus view, done nothing wrong. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Heimo Pfeifenberger]

Per the Austrian article referenced (#5), Heimo resigned, a mutual agreement, not a sacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.25.29 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Neal

The infobox for the Patricia Neal article lists Gary Cooper as her "partner." Cooper and Neal had an affair over a period of a year or more, while Cooper remained married. Neal and Cooper never maintained a household, and their affair was not publicly disclosed at the time. Is this an appropriate use of the "partner" infobox parameter? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of coverage of Cooper in the biography is way too high and gossip-mill fodder. Collect (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Khamenei and holocaust denial

Is there any standard criteria for labeling a BLP as a holocaust denier? I know there are sources stating that Khamenei is a denier, and others stating that his words were misquoted and/or taken out of context. My problem is that I haven't yet found a source where he says "it didn't happen," so I'm not sure how to label him. As he is a BLP, how do I proceed on this issue? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... this one is slightly tricky. He's quoted in the article as questioning whether or not the Holocaust happened, but he didn't deny that it happened per se. It's enough to where I personally would label him as being someone who didn't think that it happened, as it's pretty obvious what the underlying tone is but you're right- he hasn't explicitly said that it didn't happen, which is probably intentional. I don't know if this should be labeled or not since he's treading that very thin line between speculation and outright denial of the Holocaust. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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