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.

A Voice for Men

A Voice for Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors have repeatedly restored the content of this edit in violation of WP:BLPGROUP and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Note that the article is under article probation.

The company in question "A Voice for Men" has a single employee, Paul Elam. The site (www.avoiceformen.com) indicates it's "owned and operated by Paul Elam" and has a limited volunteer staff. As such I believe WP:BLPGROUP strongly applies.

Statements using this buzzfeed article as a source, those using primary sources (the SPLC blog and findthecompany.com) are the most problematic and have been restored without talk page consensus. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The BuzzFeed article was discussed on the RS noticeboard a few weeks ago. [1] The findthecompany info is used to corroborated the statements made in the BuzzFeed article. The SPLC content (which I wouldn't classify as a "blog") is about a group of websites and the groups that post to them, not a specific person. The SPLC's characterization is presented as their own assessment, and its has been repeated by several reliable sources, such as Time[2]. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue including BLP information from strong RS. A neutral reading of the Buzzfeed article, including the title, shows it is not sufficient as a sole source. Although I don't believe it's directly relevant to the argument, I classified the SPLC source as a "blog" because the URL begins with: www.splcenter.org/blog/ José Antonio Zapato (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've no dog in this fight, but have fully protected the page at an arbitrary version due to a slow, weeks-long edit war that's been going on - Alison ^❤ 07:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That's understandable, but we still have an editor who's confessed to edit warring, and as soon as he was blocked the IPs started working on it. By his own admission, he doesn't care if he's blocked as long as the page is on the "right" version. That seems like a very good incentive to continue the slow edit war. Gaming the system like that seems messed up. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's frustrating, I know, but what's going to happen is that they'll refuse to engage on the talk page while others will try to come to some agreement. The dispute will get hammered out and the article changed again, and they'll have had no say in the matter. Only this time, when they revert, they'll be doing so against consensus and thus their changes will not stick - Alison ^❤ 08:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to reverse Alison's protection even though she gave permission to any administrator to do so. I tend to endorse it because she's right about the edit-warring. I blocked the editor who was being the most disruptive and when I did so, his version was in place. If I'd wanted to revert it, I could, but although I think many of his BLP claims are marginal and certainly not of the sort that justifies reverting under WP:3RRNO, I also didn't think there was any policy-based reason for my choosing a version. The only thing that gave me pause subsequently is the block evasion, and an editor shouldn't benefit from block evasion. At the same time, though, honestly, Grayfell should not have reverted after my block of the other editor. Finally, I also agree with Alison that there's nothing wrong with the current version being in place until a consensus as reached as to what material should or should not be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I can see that. I was getting edit conflicts with the IP while attempting to fix some of the raised issues, which was irritating. It seemed like a clear-cut case of ban evasion, but there was nothing that couldn't wait until that was resolved. Grayfell (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• The A Voice for Man page is clearly not a BLP. It's the most popular men's rights website. Hundreds of activists publish content on the site and dozens of volunteers help keep the site going. The claim that BLP applies to the article because most of the activists involved with AVFM aren't officially employed by the site is absurd. Moreover, the BuzzFeed article and especially the conservative way that source is used is actually BLP compliant. The men's rights topic area has had the same problems with "new" editors and IPs for years. One of them gets blocked only to have the next one show up and make "their" article more "on message". It's not just frustrating for individual editors, it's detrimental to the aims of the project. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Sonicyouth's comment here [3] pretty much demonstrates how and where BLP applies to the AVFM article. If we are adding content about AVFM the website/community, then BLP does not apply. If we are adding content about AVFM the company and its financial spending then BLP applies. That is because there is no one in AVFM the company besides Paul Elam. You can't differentiate off of him. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

But we are adding content about the website/online community/online presence, its content, its activities, its online store, its attempts to raise money, etc. AVFM is notable and discussed in RS only as a website/online community/online presence. For example, the Huffington Post is obviously also a company beside being a website, but nobody would ever suggest that The Huffington Post is a BLP and that statements about the website are indistinguishable from statements about Arianna Huffington or the other founders. AVFM is not the same as its founder. Please come up with something more convincing than the BLP angle. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

But you are also adding content which cannot be differentiated from Paul Elam. Read the Diff, that's your words. Paul controls the money flow, so you can't question the money flow without questioning him. If you are saying AVFM is spending money in a bad way, you are saying Paul is spending money in a bad way. If people are questioning how AVFM spends money, then they are questioning how Paul spends the money. It isn't because Paul is the founder, it's because he's the only person in the company. A Voice For Men, the company, is Paul Elam. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RS are questioning what AVFM (not a specific person X) is doing with donations. Everyone involved with the website is welcome to answer, whether it's the founder, the managing editor Dean Esmay, chief information officer David King, chief marketing officer Peter Wright, or any of dozens of activists and hundreds of contributors who are involved with the site's workings. And absolutely no, I am not saying that "AVFM is spending money in a bad way." If you absolutely must attack a straw man, do it with someone else rather than waste my time. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for using the term 'you' it was not meant to be a direct statement, but a generic you more like "someone". However the point you seem to be consistently missing, is that questioning AVFM about financials is no different than questioning Paul Elam about financials. Paul has set up the company so that he is the only one in control of such things, so while you might think that Dean, or David, or any of the other activists involved in the running of the site could have input, they cannot. That is because the financials are through AVFM the company, not AVFM the site, and while AVFM the company pays for AVFM the site, they aren't the same thing. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The money is raised online, as in one the website, with many people involved in the fundraisers. You assume that the RS share your opinion of the founder's omnipotence concerning every decision and only pretend to discuss AVFM. But they don't. I do not know how you could possibly have arrived at the conclusion that a page about a very popular website is a BLP but maybe you'll have more success convincing others. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, so what, exactly, is the BLP non-compliant content, here? I don't understand the complaint about the BuzzFeed article other than that it's extremely unflattering. Everyone seems to agree, including Elam himself, that Elam has financial control of the site. He has made this statement himself, and sources have commented on it. We use unflattering sources all the time, including for BLPs. Being unflattering is not, by itself, a valid complaint against a source. What is it about this source that makes it unusable? What are the statements in the article you object to, and why? Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

First we can make sure we can quote correctly, and with proper context. I know you, Grayfell, have helped with that on the article talk page here [[4]]. However, Sonicyouth has repeatedly asserted that BLP doesn't apply on that page. [[5]], [[6]]. To answer your question, the non-compliant content is the Buzzfeed piece on its face. Under BLP We should be using High-Quality reliable sources. What's more per WP: ELBLP we need to take consideration of BLP with what we're linking to. And that Buzzfeed piece isn't merely unflattering, it's a hit piece which has delved into Paul's personal history in an attempt to smear him. If it were a piece about an organization it would be fine, but we expect better than Tabloid journalism on BLP content. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The editor who started this section has not only been banned for edit warring, but had their ban extended for coming back as an IP account to continue to revert towards their intended version of the article. I do not believe this section was started in good faith. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Finances

I removed this statement from the article. The claim in wikipedia's voice that all donations to the website "A Voice for Men" go to the founder's personal finances is not supported by the source. Relevant source text quoted below (link.)

Asked repeatedly by BuzzFeed News how the donations were spent — including those raised for “security” related to the conference — Elam said, “It’s none of your fucking business.”

Later, however, Elam acknowledged in a post excoriating “dumpster divers from MSNBC” that “every dollar goes right in my pocket,” but that it is nevertheless well spent in advancing the cause. “The way I look at it is that the donations are given freely by people who get a really great website (that they could just get for free) and who believe that I use this operation to further issues that they think are important to them.”

Neither the subject nor the article's author imply donations go to his "personal finances." Personal finances would cover personal vacations, movie theater tickets - it's a stretch to suggest this is what he meant by "it [goes to] advancing the cause", especially in a BLP. Despite this, there was prior consensus among three editors to include this statement in our article (link) and my removal was reverted. I suggest this violates BLP and misrepresents the source. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing off-topic discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why we need two separate sections on this article here? It fucks with the navigation. Why is this being reverted? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC) In what way does it break navigation? The link for each is distinct. EmonyRanger (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Section target, from one's watchlist. There's no justification for two separate sections; can someone else please combine them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry to harp on this but the section links for each are distinct - one ends with #A_Voice_for_Men, the other ends with #A_Voice_for_Men_2. And the original filer, who is now blocked, has listed this second (distinct) link in multiple places. It seems only unhelpful to break links he has no ability to correct. EmonyRanger (talk • contribs) 18:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC) You don't understand the point I'm making, do you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC) I added "II" to the section header. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you, thats very reasonable. Can I ask that you hat this discussion so it doesn't distract from the intent of the post? EmonyRanger (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Vanessa Lynne Bryant

This article is incredibly offensive, particularly this comment: "Dozens of additional Connecticut practicing attorneys voiced their concerns about her qualifications. It was widely held that Vanessa Bryant's chief qualification was her race and gender.[4]"

In fact, Judge Bryant is a very well-regarded and accomplished District Judge. For instance, in 2012, she issued an opinion finding the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, tackling a difficult and contentious constitutional law issue before the Supreme Court's review of the question. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Judge Bryant and also struck down parts of DOMA as unconstitutional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.238.24.33 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not only does the link given not work, it's a self-published blog. I've removed it. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems all the criticism levied at her in the first paragraph of 'Federal Judicial Career' is from a primary source. I don't think this is acceptable. Incidentally, I don't think a section titled 'Federal Judicial Career' should exist solely as what seems to be an area to bear out a grudge against the subject of the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Went through and correct a few issues, but an IP editor has since seen fit to revert my changes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

IP editor here, hang on a sec. You make it sound like vandalism! I posted a full explanation to the talk page. The reasons given in your edit summaries are misunderstandings, which I've explained there, e.g. "does not exist in source" when it does, "sourced to primary source" when it's not, etc. I expected to have this conversation on the article's talk page... 168.1.75.52 (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You're free to explain which edit summaries were incorrect. "Does not exist in source" was (by your own admission) correct, and there were no edit summaries I made which contained "sourced to primary source". If you disagree with particular edits, you should not completely undo my and other editor's contributions- there are easier ways to do it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You removed about half the article and several sources in about half an hour. If you make bold changes be prepared to justify them. You didn't say primary source, right, I assumed that was your objection when you said "Cannot use online rating system as source" - the characterization of the rating come from an RS, no an "online rating system." I'd really rather have this talk on the article page though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.1.75.52 (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The BLP issues which other editors introduced (and you are edit warring to retain) are perfectly relevant to the BLP noticeboard. Any editor can see that the edits I made have not 'removed half the article', and when I removed an online rating system as a source I removed something cited directly to 'The Robing Room' (which is, amazingly, an online rating system.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I encourage editors to see the extent of content Peter removed. Re: 'the Robing Room' you also removed the characterization of their rating cited to an RS. Apparently you missed that, as you missed the quotes that you claim in your edit summary had no source when the source was right there. s far as "edit warring" - you made big changes, I reverted and posted why on the talk page, you reverted my revert, which I then reverted. Can't see how you'd describe that as me edit warring. 168.1.75.52 (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now this guy is edit warring. He's reverted my revert twice now with no effort to address the very specific reasons I listed on the talk page. Only suggesting that I don't understand WP:BRD and if I want to revert his bold changes I'll have to discuss them. Can an admin maybe help here? 168.1.75.52 (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The removal by Peter seems perfectly reasonable. We don't need to go into absurd levels of detail on the ABA's rating of her from 2007, and it's undue weight to extensively discuss a nearly-decade-old rating with no apparent relevance to her current performance and no evidence of any significant or lasting external interest in the rating. The ABA said something about her, she was appointed and confirmed anyway, the end, so far as the sources are concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Great! Your criticism here doesn't seem to be with the quality or characterization of the BLP sources so lets have this discussion on the article talk page! 168.1.75.52 (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Another ('completely unrelated') IP joins the edit warring, and my interest falters. Best luck to any other editor who wishes to correct these issues. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I get this a lot as an IP editor. Look over the article's revision history, the majority of work here was done by IPs. I'm still happy discuss specific changes on the talk page. I mean that sincerely. 168.1.75.52 (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter Schweizer

Peter Schweizer recently wrote a book called Clinton Cash (not even published yet) alleging some bad things about the Clintons. It's made the news and several outlets and papers are running with the accusations. It's been brought up at White House press briefing. In the past few days several left leaning orgs have come out attacking Schweizer's character and reputation and he's very much become a target in the media cycle. Recent edits of the past day, including by User:Cwobeel, a frequent ideological battleground editor, have been attempting to turn his BLP into an attack piece. The next several weeks will require some active stewardship which I can't always provide. Semi-protection is premature at this point but that may change. GraniteSand (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@GraniteSand: What edits of mine you consider inappropriate in that article? And why don't you engage in discussions on that article's talk page rather than cast aspersions here. Sheesh! - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Denis MacEoin

Someone has reintroduced potentially defamatory information about me, contrary to your principle that 'Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.' Someone, possibly myself, had argued correctly that linking me improperly with the controversy on my report 'The Hijacking of British Islam' is defamatory because I had no hand whatever in the aspects relating to a possible (but unproved) forgery of a receipt obtained from one of the suppiers of material. I wrote the report but had no hand at all in the administration or the people who collected the material I was given to write the report. That there was a controversy there is no doubt, but the piece reinserted implies that I was connected to any possible impropriety is libellous. By all means write an article about the report, but in doing so make it clear that my role was simply that of author, not researcher or administrator.

May I also add that the sneering comment that I use this article as 'my blog' is wholly inappropriate. I did not write the original article, but as the subject have gone in froim time to time to correct mistake and to update things like new publications or involvements. This is not like using it as a blog, and this charge should be withdrawn. I get the feeling that someone out there dislikes me for some reason, and I retain the right to correct mistakes, remove anything defamatory, and update information. I am, surely, in the best position to make these judgements. None of this constitutes 'vandalism'. It would be better to focus on the numerous hagiographical accounts of Muslims and other religious figure that appear across Wikipedia. And please remove the accusation that this is an autobiography. Whoever wrote it, it was not I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis MacEoin (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the controversy section, as well as a lot of other unsourced/poorly-sourced content and added a notability tag. The article does not contain any high-quality secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 17:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Uma Kumaran

Uma Kumaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Subject is a candidate of in the British General elections in May 2015.Now a post was made in iharrow then removed by iHarrow from its website following a compliant from the subject to them. It was alleged in January 2014 by Harrow’s now defunct Independent Labour Group that she did nothing to support the Tamil community when demonstrations were taking place outside Parliament to raise awareness of human rights violations by the Sri Lankan Government nor to support their complaints about discrimination against Tamils in the Labour Party.[7] KUmaran later wrote to the editor of iharrow asking that the article be removed because it contained slanderous accusations and false allegations and had been used as a way of setting up a wikipedia page to continue false rumours and divisive politics along ethnic lines. She said the article was "simply the personal vendetta of a member of the ‘ILG’ and is deeply damaging and completely untrue." The post was removed The source given is iharrow should this be removed from the article Uma Kumaran which is a WP:BLP .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed. The material was sourced to a non-reliable source. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bernard Marshall Gordon

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

An unsourced puff piece, filled with praise and editorializing, apparently in this form since at least 2007. Would profit from cutting and major rewrite; the current and longtime state is unacceptable. Thanks. 166.171.187.166 (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• "As of January, 2007, the book of Bernie's earthly life is still open. Consequently there are no scholarly sources on his life and works." LOL-ROG-LMFAO This is so bad, and has so few actual sources for the included content, that I'm not even sure where to start. It would almost be easier to write a new article from scratch. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I know; it made my teeth hurt just to scan it superficially. I think it does require drastic surgery, especially if the edit history doesn't yield a more acceptable sourced version. Better to start anew with a paragraph or two, well referenced, than to let articles like this sit for the better part of a decade. 166.171.187.166 (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Stubified. If sources are forthcoming the article can be re-built. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme

Vermin Supreme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article suffers from NPOV, Verifiability, and original research issues. Requires attention from a veteran editor. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw a fair amount of stuff, which I've dealt with. Did I miss anything? --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a few things that strike me, however, I may be not be the best judge of it hence why I am looking for outside eyes. There are things like this "He also campaigned in 2012 on a platform of zombie apocalypse awareness (and zombie-based energy plan) and time travel research,[9] and he promises a free pony for every American" which seem to be unencyclopedic. The bullets in 2012 political campaign seem to be excessive as well. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The statements that he campaigned in 2012 on a platform of zombie apocalypse awareness and time travel research and that he promised a free pony to every American are properly sourced. It would be unencyclopedic to report something else. The Wikipedia editors didn't make them up; the subject of the article made them up, and that is notable when done on the public forum of an alternative campaign for the Presidency. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Leidig

Michael Leidig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi All,

While I think the subject appears notable, I just wanted to check that the lack of citations and apparent original research mean it would be best to gut it down to some verifiable facts. Almost all the citations that do exist on it just link to pages that don't mention the subject. He's got a LinkedIn profile for the rest of it, after all. --gilgongo (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed the unsourced material. Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert L. Gordon IV

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.

---

I have no idea why Bldfire is building a resume for this person in mainspace but can others have a look? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to look it through and fix it up a tad. Clearly messy.Soklassik (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. A brand new editor whose first edit is to BLPN and then goes to add sources to already sourced material while leaving the unsourced and poorly sourced material alone... I will again be removing this material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 29 April 2015 (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.

Brady J. Deaton

Brady J. Deaton lacks in-text citations for the first three subsections and includes grammatical errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.160.132.152 (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sama Raena Alshaibi

Sama Raena Alshaibi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biography has undergone a recent expansion, much of which was blatantly promotional, and likely involved COI accounts. It has been cleaned up, but needs further work, and is prone to continued addition of promotional text. More copy editing, more eyes, and watchlisting this will be appreciated. 2602:302:D88:E9B9:A53E:478:C58B:2E69 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lynda Bird Johnson Robb

Paragraph one states that she is the oldest living child of a US President. Even discounting the current president's children Malia and Sasha Obama, what about Chelsea Clinton? Statement should be amended or deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.237.192 (talk • contribs)

Lynda Bird Johnson Robb is 71, much older than Chelsea Clinton and the Obama children.--ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Roosevelt's, Truman's and Eisenhower's children are all deceased. With the 2013 death of Dwight Eisenhower's surviving son John, it appears Lynda Bird Johnson Robb (b. 1944) is the oldest surviving presidential offspring. Lyndon Johnson's other daughter, Luci Baines (b. 1947), is still alive. Among other surviving children, Ronald Reagan's adopted son Michael (b. 1945) appears to be the next oldest survivor after Linda Bird; Reagan has three other surviving children: Patti Davis (b. 1952) and Ron, Jr. (b. 1958). Richard Nixon's daughters Tricia (b. 1946) and Julie (b. 1948) are both still alive. George H. W. Bush's oldest son, George W. (b. 1946) is five months younger than Tricia Nixon Cox; Bush's other surviving children include Jeb (b. 1953), Neil (b. 1955), Marvin (b. 1956) and Dorothy (b. 1959). Jimmy Carter's three sons Jack (b. 1947), James III (b. 1950) and Donnel (b. 1952) and daughter Amy (b. 1967) are all still alive. Jerry Ford's four children are also all still alive: sons Michael (b. 1950), Jack (b. 1952) and Steven (b. 1956), and daughter Susan (b. 1957). Jack Kennedy's daughter Caroline (b. 1957) is actually among the younger surviving presidential children.

The youngest presidential children are Amy Carter (b. 1967), Chelsea Clinton (b. 1980), twins Jenna and Barbara Bush (b. 1981), and Malia (b. 1998) and Sasha Obama (b. 2001). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So the upshot of all this is that Lynda Bird Johnson Robb doesn't need to be changed.--ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

True. But it would be nice to have a reliable source that says so, would it not, for BLP and RS purposes? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dirtlayer1. While I agree that it is always nice to have a reliable source, my reading of WP:BLP indicates that the policy does not require it in this case. WP:BLP & WP:V do state any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source, but I am not convinced that this information falls into the "contentious material" category, nor does the OP's initial question reach the level of a "challenge". It certainly doesn't say anything contentious about LBJR herself. I'd suggest that the OP potentially misread the sentence as "only surviving presidential offspring". Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

List of people indicted in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

The list includes details on charges, trials, and sentences for everyone indicted by the ICTY. A current editor is removing alleged crimes for those who have had their indictments withdrawn (and only for this group) on the reasoning that since no trial happened it would be prejudicial to show what crimes they were indicted for. I know in the past we have had complaints about the article being incomplete if it didn't fill in all the blanks, as it were. I don't have a strong opinion but would lean toward including the information (which is still available from the linked case files in any case). Do the more experienced eyes at this noticeboard know of a standard way to handle this or similar cases? Rmhermen (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Formal court-issued indictments for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the like, are pretty damn notable/noteworthy even if no conviction was ever obtained in the legal proceedings. Omitting the indictments for such crimes from the referenced list article amounts to white-washing history. These are not trivial, unimportant or even marginal legal matters -- unlike the non-convictions for juvenile crimes, traffic infractions, non-felony drug possession, etc., we so often omit from Wikipedia biographies per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT concerns. In the case of war crimes indictments by the ICC, I believe such matters should absolutely be referenced in these persons' biographical articles in a NPOV manner and without presuming guilt. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Having now reviewed the cumulative edits that have been made to this article over the past week, I see no major problems here, and the changes include the sourced updating of the current status of pending cases and subsequent appeals, early releases, deaths, etc., listed in this article. (See [7].) In fact, it appears User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is doing a pretty respectable job of bringing this list up to date. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Beatriz Fuentes Lugo.pdf

commons:File:Beatriz Fuentes Lugo.pdf

The biography of Beatriz Fuentes Lugo.pdf was placed by mistake. That contains private information such as address and telephone number of this person, could you please delete that at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beafuenteslugo (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The file was uploaded to Commons, so you will have to ask for it to be deleted there.--ukexpat (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

FRINGEBLP question

The guideline states that fringe theories that concern living persons must comply with BLP policy. I'm on top of BLP policy - know it inside and out - but I find the following statement in WP:FRINGEBLP confusing: ...but the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise (see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:BLP#Balance). What does the guideline mean by "obscure a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise?" Atsme☯^Consult 06:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It means our article on Griffin is okay. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The outside their field of expertise bit is basically another way of saying the person is not representing the mainstream thinking of that particular field. That can mean two things. One is that the person has no training in the area, really has no idea what they are talking about, and simply aren't qualified to legitimately comment on the topic. The other is that the person may be considered an expert in the field due to formal training, but demonstrates lack of expertise because their views are not supported by evidence or reflected as having weight in the scientific discourse. At the end of the day, this means that if there is legitimate criticism out there being sourced or it is warranted from a weight perspective because of people getting out of line with fringe theories, it should remain. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, KoF. Atsme☯^Consult 19:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: A person that has no training in the area, really has no idea what they are talking about, and simply isn't qualified to legitimately comment on the topic would be talking outside of their field of expertise. You are correct here but only here. A person who has the formal training and qualification in a field, an expert, who represents something other than the mainstream POV without evidence in their field, such as a fringe POV, is still operating in their field of expertise. They may become discredited in their field of expertise but it is still their field of expertise. This policy refers only to those that have no involvement in the field in which they are discussing. Atsme, The relevant policies that help further explain this are highlighted at the end of the section you are questioning. WP:PROFRINGE and WP:BLP#Balance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I consider when someone steps into fringe territory even with training, they're no longer acting as an expert (i.e. a failing in their scientific training for instance). Maybe not an aspect people consider as much with fringe, but not something I'd really fuss over here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Rutvik Oza

The biography of the Rutvik Oza is a complete work of fiction. He is not a co-writer of any one of the films that he claims to be. He is using this fake wikipedia biography to get him name added in the credits on IMDb as well. He succeeded initially but IMDb has finally deleted all his credits. It's time wikipedia did so. You can check the links he has submitted and verify his credentials yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanyukta77 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sanyukta77: Trimmed out all the unsourced stuff. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Victor Polishchuk

Can someone who reads Russian and/or Ukranian review the sources linked in this article, especially for the "scandals" section? I've done some general ce and cleanup but am concerned that the article is poorly sourced. Input/advice welcome! Fyddlestix (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Redknapp

• Jamie Redknapp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The "Summary" isn't about his career but a persons meaning on his comment on Watford's promotion to the premier league — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotu0902 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That was recent vandalism by an IP and has been reverted. —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Leslie Mann

I made two edit to the title of the first photo "Leslie Mann". On the mobile version of the page on my iPhone the title was "Leslie Mann Juden swine seig heil". This did not appear on the normal browser page, nor the mobile version on a full PC. It also couldn't be seen in the editor, but disappered after I edited the title. In the source code for the mobile version of the page was the following:

<tr>
<th colspan="2" style="text-align:center;font-size:125%;font-weight:bold"><span class="fn">Leslie Mann Juden swine seig heil</span></th>
</tr>
<tr>

I don't know if this is a known problem with Nazi/anti-semitic vandalism. Hope this was helpful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbonish (talk • contribs)

Was vandalism from April 27, was reverted within a minute by one of the bots. Not sure why mobile would still be seeing it two days later. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, looks like a bug then. I tried to include the html that was present in the coding, but I haven't done this in a while. Maybe the bot has a bug, or maybe it was intentionally taken advantage of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbonish (talk • contribs)

Dinesh Singh (academic)

There's been a bit of back and forth over some negative material at Dinesh Singh (academic). I think the material in question is obviously unsuitable as it is written, but probably could use some more neutrally worded summarizing. Anyone want to step in? Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I protected the article for a week and invited the various IPs to comment in the talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas M. Loeb

Nicholas M. Loeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Somebody is repeatedly vandalizing this article with libelous, inflammatory, derogatory edits. Seems to have begun only today, following publication of Loeb's op-ed in the New York Times. The history of the article is revealing, and the vandalism is ongoing by the minute.

Sorry if I didn't follow the filing instructions properly - the wikilinks instructions are incredibly complicated, and I just pasted in the article and history page links. I don't know what you mean by "Use the John Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) template at the top of your entry," - where? In the subject/headline? In the body of the text before anything else?

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Satanic Warmaster

Satanic Warmaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors (despite of several undo attempts) have made it their mission to keep pushing the false impression that this extreme metal band would be considered neo-nazi by a wider audience. The artist has stated numerous times that the allegations are incorrect. Also considering the illegal nature of such ideologies in Europe, something should be done to this supposed biased activity. The German language version has even worse libellous material and hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.42.68 (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Shunaid Qureshi

Shunaid Qureshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biography on "Shunaid Qureshi" was created to defame him. Issues of legal tussles and arrest which are still in court are included. Yes, the media covered the issue as cited in the article. But, How can wikipedia be used to defame a living person? How can someone's bio be written by another to defame him? I just read through the article. It's quite defaming. I suggest the article should be edited and those areas removed. Or let it be deleted if editors agree.

Thanks Rose.Rosemaryujoh (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems a WP:COATRACK, and WP:CRIME. Redirected to Naya Nazimabad - Cwobeel (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Is the redirecting the best that can be done? Shouldn't the page be deleted entirely for violating wiki rules? Rosemaryujoh (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess the entire stuff on ""Shunaid Qureshi" should be deleted since it's purely an attack on the subject. There's no need to re-direct.Rosemaryujoh (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the article "Naya Nazimabad" is also misleading. It was written for the same purpose, just to defame "Shunaid Qureshi". If read through the heading "Chemical Dump", the same court issue and arrest were mention, all in a bid to defame "Shunaid". How can someone be contracted to use wikipedia to defame another person? That's too bad for our age! Hence, I also suggest the article on Naya Nazimabad be revisited. It violates the rule on neutrality.Rosemaryujoh (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)