Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.235.133.43 (talk) at 12:58, 15 August 2015 (→‎Rick Alan Ross (consultant): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:


    Mark Riley (journalist)

    The contents of his article were challenged a while ago regarding claims that the subject was one of the media folks that victim-blamed Leigh Leigh for her own murder. Pinging Freikorp, who originally added the material. There were originally three sources used to support the claim:

    1. Carrington, Kerry (24 July 1998). Who Killed Leigh Leigh?. Sydney, New South Wales: Random House Australia. pp. 129–135. ISBN 978-0-09-183708-2.
    2. Carrington, Kerry; Johnson, Andrew (August 1994). "Representations of crime, guilt and sexuality in the Leigh Leigh rape/ murder case". The Australian Feminist Law Journal. 3 (29). Taylor & Francis: 14.
    3. Morrow, Jonathon; San Roque, Mehera (1996). "In Her Death She Remains as the Limit of the System" (PDF). Sydney Law Review. 18 (4): 479.

    I requested and received images of the relevant pages in #1 and I can confirm they do criticize Riley as per the article's wording. I also have a copy of #2, and while it is basically about the same thing, it only mentions Riley's work in a citation. It is also written by the author of #1. #3 also cites Riley's work but does not criticize him directly. Originally I left this alone after a discussion in the talk page but today I realized that the inclusion of this admittedly serious criticism by a single author is very much a case of WP:UNDUE. The Leigh article already includes Carrington's material, which to me is a more appropriate place since she does not limit her criticism to Riley in any case and seems to be a decent source for that particular angle of the case. I am asking for consensus on whether or not the material should remain, or we should wait until more widespread criticism of the subject appears in reliable sources, by authors other than Carrington. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also pinging @Materialscientist, Yunshui, and Rsrikanth05: who were involved in the talk page discussion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Murder of Leigh Leigh If you remove this you should also consider removing the comment from the heading of the murdered girls article - The media coverage of the murder has been cited as an example of blaming the victim [3] Carrington, Kerry (24 July 1998). Who Killed Leigh Leigh? A story of shame and mateship in an Australian town. Sydney, New South Wales: Random House Australia. ISBN 978-0-09-183708-2. and [4] Morrow. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govindaharihari: I disagree, Carrington's treatment of the Leigh case is fine in the Leigh article. It's just undue in Riley's because it comes only from Carrington. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Its the same citations exactly, carrington and morrow - and if it's not notable in his article it is not notable on hers either. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can argue all day about removing the material that singles out Riley in the Leigh article, but I'm not going to. In the Leigh article they're just part of the overall narrative, here they're serious undue weight. For all practical purposes we could redirect Riley's article to the Leigh case since we feel that's the only thing he's notable for, and only because one lawyer wrote two papers about his work? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The same User:Freikorp added the same material using the same citations to both articles in this edit to the death article Govindaharihari (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to oppose the removal of the criticism form the Riley article. I have, however, reverted User:Govindaharihari's removal of the content from the Leigh article. I agree with FreeRangeFrog opposition to this edit, and I strongly believe consensus should be reached before removing a significant chunk of the lead from a featured article. Freikorp (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @FreeRangeFrog: Maybe I'm confused. I was looking at Mark Riley (journalist), where it says "His journalistic approach came under fire in 2011, when he was accused of ambushing the then Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott" Based on the above discussion, it sounded like at least one of the Carrington sources supported this article-text. I see the article uses this Sydney Morning Herald piece, which also looks ok to me. Because the reporter's treatment of the issue is the subject of the entire article, not just mentioned in passing, I think it warrants inclusion. But the current article-text is not very neutral at all. CorporateM (Talk) 16:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @CorporateM: Sorry for the confusion, this is the material in question here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That also looks fine to me, as it is supported by BLP-compliant sources. Unless both sentences were included - in that case it would be redundant. CorporateM (Talk) 17:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Keshav Prasad Sharma

    Keshav Prasad Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    check this page...it is written in hindi language....and it is filled with promotional material lacking any reference or notability...and a tag is attached to it stating it ll be moved to hindi wiki...i request, need not move it to hindi wiki as it is promotional material...and should be deleted....Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I PROD'd the article because it is a BLP and unsourced. Meatsgains (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    RooshV

    Roosh V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A user has recently added some unsourced allegations of criminal behavior to this article, both in the article text and in edit summaries. I removed the relevant text but can't do anything about the edit summaries, it may need a rev-del. Roosh V is very much "in the news" in Canada atm, and very controversial. Please help watch the page. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also it occurs to me that this user may be named after or impersonating David Futrelle, so that may need addressing too. Futrelle is an anti-mra blogger who has blogged about Roosh V very recently, and the editor has only edited on the topic of Roosh V. (note, I'm emphatically not suggesting that the editor is actually Futrelle here). Fyddlestix (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's already at WP:AE Brustopher (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: User has been blocked by an admin, the offending revisions have been rev-del'd. Discussion & disruption is likely to continue over this article though, more eyes & opinions welcome. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    William X. Wang

    An impressive vanity autobiography, both in terms of commitment, which seems to span five years, and content, which is mostly unsourced and largely promotional. Language difficulties don't help, but that's not the main problem. Half a decade is probably long enough for this to have grown to its current shape and condition. I may begin to chip away at the article, and further assistance would be appreciated. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:F51F:3422:6AAA:30D0 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William X. Wang.--ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    George Ranalli

    This professor is currently the active subject of a sexual harassment lawsuit, and his article is attracting some attention because of it. It has been heavily edited by his self-proclaimed wife, User:Annevalentino, but I believe that in the aftermath of an ANI discussion her edits likely conform to WP:COI.

    It has also now been visited by three people who seem likely to be either the same or related - User:Women3001right, User:Realcampisifamily and User:FightLikeHell - who are very interested in adding content related to the lawsuit.

    Some of this material has been removed as unusable under WP:BLP (including citations to a tabloid and a primary source link list), but the latest source - Gothamist - seems reliable. (I don't have a lot of time to look and would welcome correction there if I'm wrong.) I've accordingly just moved the content from its undue prominence in the lead. But I'd appreciate additional eyes. There seem to be a bunch of people with a conflict on keeping this article neutral and policy-compliant.

    There's a note on the talk page with a bit more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Editing as a different IP, I first brought this article to Moonriddengirl's attention a few weeks ago, and offer a half-hearted apology for getting her into the mess. But her efforts in following-up have been exemplary. My snapshot take is that this merits mention now only because it's prompted his leaving the position--in other words, a sentence or two. Until and unless he's convicted of the charges, WP:BLP and the attendant guidelines on crimes would seem to discourage us from adding more. COI parties aiming to either play this up, or delete the leave of absence altogether, ought to be dealt with appropriately, and page protection would be in order if socks blossom. 2601:188:0:ABE6:F51F:3422:6AAA:30D0 (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed even that one bit. WP:BLPCRIME is clear about this. There is no significant coverage about the issue as of yet, and no legal outcome. When and if that happens then it can be included. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you've done some cleanup in the past. Thanks. Yes, I'm sure your time is limited: you're about to miss your lovechild's third birthday. He's growing into a fine young human. He likes trucks; I think he's been raised in too masculine a way, MRG. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Russell Maroon Shoatz U.S. held Political Prisoner

    Text from external Web site

    'Russell Maroon Shoatz' is a dedicated community activist, founding member of the Black Unity Council, former member of the Black Panther Party and soldier in the Black Liberation Army. He is serving multiple life sentences as a US-held political prisoner/prisoner of war.

    P e r s o n a l B a c k g r o u n d

    Russell was born in August, 1943, in Philadelphia. He was one of 12 children. At the age of 15 he became involved in a gang and was in and out of reform schools and youth institutions until the age of 18.

    As a young man he married and became the father of seven children. In the mid 1960s, Russell became active in the New Afrikan liberation movement. He founded the Black Unity Council, which merged with the Philadelphia chapter of the Black Panther Party in 1969.

    Tensions were high in Philadelphia in the summer of 1970, as Police Chief Frank Rizzo had ordered a crackdown on militant groups in the run-up to the national convention of the Black Panther Party, scheduled to be held in the city on September 5, 1970.

    Tensions intensified when police killed an unarmed black youth. A retaliatory attack was carried out on a police station, killing officer Frank Von Coln and injuring one other.

    The shooting of Von Coln prompted a 2 AM raid on the Black Panther headquarters in North Philadelphia. After the raid, police officials allowed news photographers to take humiliating photos of the Black Panthers being strip-searched on the street.

    Russell and four others, who became known as the “Philly Five”, were immediately charged with the attack.

    L e g a l C a s e

    In January of 1972, Russell was captured. He was convicted of the attack on the police station and sentenced to life. L i f e in P r i s o n 1977 Prison Escape

    Russell escaped with three others from Huntingdon State Prison in 1977. Two were recaptured and the third was killed during the escape. Russell remained at large for 27 days, leading to a massive manhunt by local, state, and federal forces, as well as citizen recruits from nearby white, rural areas.

    From his capture in 1977 until 1989, Russell was shipped from state, county, and federal prisons, kept in long-term solitary confinement the vast majority of that time, principally due to his work with the Pennsylvania Association of Lifers to abolish life-without-parole sentences. In 1979, he was forcibly transferred to the Fairview State Hospital for the Criminally Insane. While at Fairview he was forcibly drugged, which in one case lead to him being hospitalized when he was overdosed.

    1980 Prison Escape

    In March of 1980, Russell escaped prison with a fellow revolutionary after a New Afrikan activist smuggled a revolver and sub-machine gun into the institution. Three days later, all three were captured after a gun battle with local, state, and county police, and FBI agents.

    Camp Hill Prison Riot

    In 1989, Pennsylvania prison Camp Hill erupted in a riot because of overcrowding and inhumane conditions. Despite being held in a Dallas prison and having nothing to do with the incident, Russell was implicated in it, and as a result, was transferred to the notorious Marion Supermax prison over 1,000 miles from family and friends.

    Supporters fought to have Russell removed from solitary confinement in Marion and released into general population. They were finally successful in December of 1989, when Maroon was released to the general prison population at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas.

    Russell Returns to Solitary Confinement

    Unfortunately, Russell was placed back into long-term solitary confinement in 1991, at SCI Greene in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. He would remain in solitary confinement for over 22 years, where despite being held in 23 hours-a-day lockdown, his commitment to New Afrikan liberation never wavered.

    Russell seeks relief from Administrative Custody

    Dan Kovalik, human rights and union labor lawyer in Pittsburgh, filed for relief on May 23, 2000. The case Shoatz vs. Horne sought to relieve Russell from continued placement on AC status – administrative custody, a.k.a. solitary confinement. Unfortunately, Russell’s legal fight to relieve himself from confinement in administrative custody was unsuccessful. Read the full decision here.

    Russell Returns to General Population

    The struggle for Russell’s freedom was reignited in 2013 when his legal team brought suit on the grounds that he had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that prison officials had deprived him of his procedural and substantive due process rights for keeping him in solitary confinement without meaningful review and on insufficient grounds.

    The campaign to release Russell from solitary confinement also continued to gather international attention, including the support of five Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa among them. Several U.S. civil and human rights organizations endorsed his release from isolation, as well as growing number of clergy. In March of 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Juan Mendez, called on the U.S. government “to cease the prolonged isolation of Mr. Shoatz.”

    Finally, in February of 2014, Russell was released into the general prison population at SCI Graterford in Pennsylvania.

    www.russellmaroonshoatz.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.53.107 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @74.109.53.107: What is the point of posting this text (apparently copied from a Web site) on this Noticeboard? We already have an article concerning Mr. Shoatz, at Russell Maroon Shoatz. However, please note that much of this information cannot be posted at all on Wikipedia without including citations of reliable, published sources. General Ization Talk 19:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And if it's from a website, it's almost certainly copyright so we can't use it for that reason either.--ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sylvester Turner

    Sylvester Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lots of edit warring going on at this article. One user has removed lots of content from the article and claimed that the removed content was sourced to opinion pieces and has accused the editor who keeps restoring the removed material of "citing opinion pieces, work proven false and misinterpreting readings." See here, PrimeNotice's talk page, and my own for examples of this. As there is a question about whether this content, in a BLP, is reliably sourced enough to include, I am bringing it here. Everymorning (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A Betancourt (Still not resovled)

    Below Conversation is still not resolved. Righteousskills (talk) Righteousskills (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked for new reliable sources to reference if the BLP is under an actual investigation since the article was published almost a year ago. Since I received no answer, a few days latter I removed the content I deemed non encyclopedic for the BLP due to reasons mentioned above.

    In the past I have reverted several questionable contributions from righteousskills ( see summary on his talk page). One of this contributions was adding to the lead that the subject of the BLP was under a criminal investigation using that same source. The article was protected and the editor was reminded of WP:OR by an administrator (see at the end of this section)

    More than a month after my edit was done righteousskills added it back without any previous discussion of the matter in the talk page. He also added an unrelated reference and a phrase already covered elsewhere in the article. I reverted it twice asking him to reach a consensus first before changing the article. He has ignored my requests and added the content again.

    Even though this is not a very relevant article for the encyclopedia, I would appreciate it if someone could take the time to look into this in detail. I think it is worth a look because Derwick Associates's page has been edited by at least one paid editor (see here) on behalf of the company and various sock puppets have been uncovered. On the other hand it also had various IP's proxies blocked that were doing negative contributions very similar to those of righteousskills on both the company and the BLP (this are some accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff). Righteousskills after a year and a half of inactivity, requested an IP block exemption claiming he could be hacked (see here). After that he created or contributed on all the pages related to the WSJ article before it was published, and then did clearly biased contributions like (this edit) in all those articles just the moment it got published.

    I can't prove if this is the case, but while one civil suit for defamation with charges of bribery against the company and the BLP has been dismissed , there is another one that is still active, so there might be economical interests at play for both sides. I try to reach consensus whenever possible, but in this case we may be dealing with a conflict of interests. so I would appreciate it if other editors that want to invest their time could take care of this one. Thank you.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

    Isn't THIS the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it? Please refrain from this accusatory tone if you would like me to do the same. Any administrators viewing this should take note that the now blocked editor, FergusM1970, and the vast majority of the now blocked socks, made edits in line with Crystallizedcarbon's. I will place my same talk page comments here to reiterate my points. Here http://pubsys.miamiherald.com/2014/03/27/4023508/lawsuit-filed-in-miami-accuses.html : "The lawsuit, filed against Derwick Associates Corporation, Derwick Associates USA, and their owners, alleges that tens of millions of dollars were paid under the table to high-ranking Venezuelan officials in exchange for their acceptance of overpriced invoices from the companies." And here translated from Spanish: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/09/actualidad/1407540747_507459.html : "Perhaps the most representative bolichicos are the young owners of the utility Derwick -Peter Trebbau Alejandro Lopez and Alejandro Betancourt who have been subject to fierce scrutiny by public opinion....The newspaper The Wall Street Journal on Friday joined a new headache for them. Federal and state prosecutors in New York are investigating the company, which became one of the leading import and construction of power plants during the government of Hugo Chavez , for possible violations of banking laws of the state and the payment of bribes for advantages to doing business, prohibited by Corrupt Practices Act Abroad..... The US investigates whether excessive profit margins may have hidden reported paying bribes to foreign officials." And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelan-energy-company-derwick-investigated-in-u-s-1407516278 : "The lawsuit alleges Derwick and the company's owners, among others, obtained contracts to build power stations in return for paying multimillion-dollar bribes to senior Venezuelan officials." And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578640351169881218 : "A former top U.S. diplomat filed a lawsuit against three young Venezuelan businessmen whom he accuses of bribing senior Venezuelan officials in exchange for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars." Its pretty clear that the investigation are into both the company AND its owners. And to reiterate, 11 months is not that long for investigations like this. It often takes a decade for decisions to be reached. Another important item to recognize is that Reich's civil suit was dismissed due to jurisdiction. Righteousskills (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Hello, It seems that you are deliberately trying to mix the two separate civil suits that do involve the BLP and the company with the preliminary investigations claims that involve only the company. Both those civil suits mention the company and the BLP and are included in the Controversies and legal disputes section of the article. The first dismissed and the second one is still ongoing. The alleged preliminary investigation claimed by the anonymous sources only mention the company, Never the BLP. As I just mentioned el Pais just cites the WSJ as its source and also mentions the company and not the BLP as the target of the possible investigation. You were already told this almost a year ago by an administrator that labeled your claim that the BLP was under investigation as WP:OR (see at the end of this section) you were asked to find a reference to source your claim and your answer from August of last year was that you will continue looking into it. There is no new evidence to indicate that any investigation is taking place on the company let alone the BLP. It is only this last paragraph that should be removed following WP:BLPCRIME recommendations including the last phrase you added to the paragraph trying to mix it again with the open civil suit since it is already mentioned in that section.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I forgot to mention that I of course encourage any user to review our respective contributions to both pages. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I believe you are confusing incidents. The content you removed roughly a month ago was not what was in question over a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC) It was that same information sourced from the same referece. At that time the information you and the now blocked IPs inserted was that the BLP was under criminal investigation. you were told by an admin that inferring that the BLP was under investigation by authorities using the existing sources at that time was WP:OR. Your claim when referring to the WSJ material was "...Criminal investigations are into the executives of the company! Civil suites can be into a company, but criminal means that charges would be against persons..." and a few answers latter your were told "There is no current RS that states Betancourt is under criminal investigation, yet you believe there is reason to state Betancourt is under investigation? WP:OR wants to have a word with you. I haven't read of any allegations that Betancourt personally committed bribery, corruption, banking violations or any other crimes (except by you). Huon (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)". And the paragraph was reworded eliminating the explicit mention of the BLP as the target of the claimed preliminary investigation. At the end you agreed to continue looking into it. I have restored the article to follow WP:BLPCRIME recommendations pending any new input from experienced editors or administrators. I ask you to please refrain from adding back the controversial information until it is determined here if it conforms to the recommendations of our policy, or until you can find a reliable source to establish your claim that the BLP (not the company) is under an actual investigation by federal or state prosecutors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Again, you are confusing incidents and edits. What you removed in May of this year was not the same as what was done a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Allegations by anonymous or unnamed persons are rarely a great idea in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

    Covered in The Wall Street Journal ? And these are not allegations from anonymous people; anonymous people reported the the US Justice Department is investigating. Theres a substantial difference there. Righteousskills (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC) I think the content meets our standards for inclusion. The reasons given by Crystallizedcarbon above are weak at best. A high-profile investigation of a company is relevant to the biography of that company's CEO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC) That does not seem to be the case. What the RS reported is that Anonymous sources claim that the company was a year ago under a preliminary investigation. They also said that it may or may not become an actual investigation. Those allegations were denied by the company itself, and there have not been any news in the last year to substantiate that an actual investigation did or is taking place on the company. According to WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of events, a possible future investigation denied by the company is newsworthy but it is not necessarily suitable for inclusion. Still, it is included in the company page, on top of the questionable enduring notability there is the issue that the editor that pushes for its inclusion insisted adamantly that the text infers as well a criminal investigation into the BLP himself. WP:BLPCRIME should be followed pending any new and more tangible sources. I also agree with Collect. The primary source of the article is anonymous so it is not a good idea to use it in this BLP regardless of who they claim may be investigating or which reliable source reproduces their claims.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC) WSJ is not anonymous. Please stop accusing anyone of "pushing". Your edits could be called the same thing; especially since I am arguing the page stay untouched and you are the one who wants it altered. Righteousskills (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Bump. Righteousskills (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

    There is no need to "bump" threads here - we can all see that this is apparently still unresolved.--ukexpat (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

    No one has addressed it yet. I have argued that the content should be added back. One user agreed with me. But I am not prepared to make any changes without more support or a user making a change there self. Righteousskills (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: I feel I should comment, since in the discussion pasted above you have kept links to articles you used to make your point but you have removed all other relevant links, for example:
    • The five blocked IPs that where doing similar contributions to the article (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff)
    • The summary of pages created and edited by you prior to adding the information (see inside this section) in a biased way (see here) by using the term criminal and including the subject of the BLP as the target (WP:OR).
    • Here you were asked to stop edit warring, and at the end of this section you were told not to do original research.
    There is detail answer above to the user that agreed with your claim, but you also forgot to include the comments by Collect who also thinks that "Allegations by anonymous or unnamed persons are rarely a great idea in any BLP."
    In summary: As explained above WP:BLPCRIME should be followed as readers could infer that there is a criminal investigation into the BLP himself. The information is already included in the company page. It is not suitable for the BLP even if it is covered by the WSJ because its primary sources are still anonymous people, it is about an alleged preliminary investigation. One year ago it was said that it may or may not end up in an actual investigation. The company denied it and there have not been any news since to back up the anonymous claims. According to WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS there is no enduring notability to justify its inclusion on a BLP pending new and more tangible sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As I understand it, this is the fourth time the same issue has been raised here: [2][3][4]. If the two involved users are really having that hard a time settling the issue, and aren't getting a resolution here, I suggest starting an RFC or following other avenues for dispute resolution. Clearly the three previous posts here have not resolved the dispute. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Mike Rossi

    I just nominated this BLP1E for deletion, but looking it over, and looking at some of the sources, and I wonder if it shouldn't just be deleted on the spot as a violation. Your input is appreciated. Any admins, if you think it warrants deletion, go for it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xymmax has pulled out all of the attack stuff, and I don't see that it's a suitable A7 candidate (I knew I'd read about the gentleman when I read the first sentence of the article). Probably better to let it die a natural death via AFD I think. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Rapper Nzulu Biography please help

    I want to do my biography i am Hip-hop artist but i am struggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.210.83.12 (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:AUTOBIO for why this is a bad idea, and alternative suggestions. General Ization Talk 18:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jenny Kee

    There have been a number of recent edits to this page by a new editor (whose username may or may not be a coincidence). Most are minor but unsourced, but content about a possible relationship with John Lennon has been changed from 'she claimed' to 'she said' and does not appear to be borne out by the source (previously in the article). Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The entire page needs some help but I went ahead and removed some unsourced content from the page because it is a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Balkany

    The article on Patrick Balkany is woefully inadequate. Specifically, it doesn't mention his long record of apparent criminal activity. The French version has a good listing of his achievements in this field. The English version should be updated, as he played an important role at the highest levels of the French government. The look should be extended to his wife, Isabelle Smadja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.50.189 (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the place to discuss inadequate biographical articles, but problematic ones. If you can propose improvements to the article, please do so on the article's Talk page. General Ization Talk 16:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Desmond Howard

    Appears his BIO has been altered and included such things as in the intro he was involved in "crack pipe walking" and list things he lettered in in high school it includes "cheese rolling and wife carrying" just in various places throughout seems like someone has hacked the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.108.253.253 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism reverted. Thanks. General Ization Talk 18:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Marietta Voge

    Marietta Voge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    An IP has raised an issue at WP:Help desk that probably should have better been raised here, pertaining to what the IP describes as false claims at this biographical article (though seemingly not a living person, and possibly a candidate for AfD). Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Margietta Voge. General Ization Talk 02:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The reference cited in the article does suggest that someone with that name was listed in the Venona Papers. I think this should be AFD'd though, the coverage in RS is super minimal as far as I've been able to find so far (still looking). Fyddlestix (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Struck bit about AFD, she's independently notable as a parasitologist even if we removed the spy stuff. She's the author of a major textbook, there are enough sources to hang a decent article on. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This article may also present a problem BLP-wise. Lots of people listed with this as the source. Looks pretty dodgy. The source is unpublished, and the list article specifically states that being listed does not mean they worked for the Soviets. But if you look at the articles linked, at least some of them do say that the person spied for the soviets, with no or a very poor source to back it up. Rebecca Getzoff is another example. Still parsing it here but this may require considerable cleanup. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hate to forum hop, but since Voge is dead and this is really an issue of source reliability more than anything else, I have posted what I found looking into this and a request for feedback here, at RS/N. Please come comment! Fyddlestix (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I'm not sure that Voge is dead; I made the assumption that the OP's grandmother Gusti Stridsberg, Voge's mother, about whom claims were made at this article, was no longer living because of the era in which she lived, but the OP didn't say. General Ization Talk 11:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I see the obit now. General Ization Talk 12:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it seems her first name (or perhaps the name she used here in the US or in her professional life) was actually Marietta, not Margietta, but will wait to move in case there are other eyes on the article at this time. General Ization Talk 12:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah the name is spelled wrong in the title, every source I've seen say Marrieta. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I probably retraced your steps and I put in the shell of a better-sourced biography of Voge as an academic and author. General Ization Talk 13:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    She is quite dead (1984) [5]. It is covered in several sources that she was mentioned (with code name "DAUGHTER") in the USSR archives, and that should be the fact stated. Yale University Press is considered an academic publisher of sufficient repute for use on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, her UC obit is already mentioned above. However, the information that someone born in a former USSR satellite who by that time was or was on their way to becoming an accomplished American academic was mentioned in some context by the KGB (as, I speculate, a potential recruit, but there is no known evidence that she signed on) is the flimsiest of evidence to declare them an American spy for the USSR (and Yale University Press did not do so). This is being discussed at WP:RS/N. General Ization Talk 13:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Collect: What other sources did you find (that support the Soviet connection)? The only other thing I could find was copies of the cables themselves. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You mentioned "several sources". Can you identify another one, other than the brief mention in the appendix of Haynes' and Klehr's book? General Ization Talk 13:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I changed my mind and moved the article to Marietta Voge (from Margietta), since the original (though disputed) source for the article mentions her only by this name, as does every other source found thus far. Redirect was left. Have modified the heading and {{la}} above to match. General Ization Talk 15:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The translations and interpretations of which are secondary reliable sources per Wikipedia definitions. As are the NSA and related articles. Venona project reports are widely accepted as a source by academics, and the primary material is cited by 58 academic articles (including current Russian sources). [6] By the way, Yugoslavia was not a "USSR satellite" in 1918 - when Voge was born. Nor did it become one until well after she was apparently involved per the Venona documents. The claim in the BDP should, of course, read that the source is the Venona project proper. Collect (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gemma Chan article

    68.231.26.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is WP:Edit warring at Gemma Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), over whether or not Gemma Chan is an attorney. More opinions are needed on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And even if she is an attorney, she's clearly not WP:Notable for being one. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    wrong use of WP:Notable - "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article" - I have in no way stated she desearves a separate article for being an attorney - nor further am I argueing whether her article should even exist in wiki - these are the things that you are stating by saying that the word "attorney" is according to you not WP:Notable.--68.231.26.111 (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep citing WP:Policies and guidelines wrongly. Do read up on them better than you have. I stated that "she's clearly not WP:Notable for being [an attorney]" as the reason that, if she is one, it does not need to be listed in her infobox. Her Wikipedia article exists not because she is an attorney, but rather because she is a WP:Notable actress. And like FreeRangeFrog stated when reverting you, "Having a law degree does not mean you are an attorney." Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP should desist until and unless they can produce a source that supports the claim that the subject is a practicing attorney or lawyer, because without that, she just has a law degree. That should be noted somewhere in the article of course, but in the infobox we only list the primary activities. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    St Patrick's College, Goulburn

    St Patrick's College, Goulburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Could someone please review the recent history of the "Notable staff" section? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed in its entirety - completely unsourced.--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mandy Santos

    Mandy Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Hi, I’ve been trying to make a few changes on this article somebody made about me on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Santos cause it contains WRONG INFORMATION (age, label etc..)due to a fake bio someone leaked years ago but I can’t, and now it’s blocked ..

    I would like it to be deleated or at least let me modify it..

    this one is ok:

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_santos

    please help me

    Thank you very much (unsigned)

    Where the year (1992 or 1993) is what is in dispute, the year should simply be removed. Sony ATV is not a record producer in itself - but a "music publisher" which means "Blanco y Negro" records does, in fact, release some of the Sony ATV catalogue. Also the "official website" is a "deadlink" now, so that should be removed. [7] shows one song on a Sony Music Entertainment album, and three uses in ByN compilations. The name "Amanda" does appear to be the right one AFAICT. I trust an admin will note this. Collect (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jazz Jennings

    Jazz Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Should the "real"/legal surname of Jazz Jennings be included in her article? It appears that Jennings is a pseudonym and a few sources have mentioned her legal surname. It should be noted that Jazz is (1) a minor and (2) a trans girl. I, personally, am against its inclusion due to privacy concerns. This information is not widely reported and it seems the family has made an effort to keep it hidden. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The information is widely available on the internet, providing one knows where to look. Plus, I know of at least one other Minor celebrity, whose full legal name is used on their Wikipedia article. May I propose a compromise?: My proposal is this...... Return the legal surname of Jazz Jennings to the article, as it is true, verifiable, and, arguably relevant, as it is a fact concerning the subject of the article; but continue to omit the family's location from all subsequent edits of the article?JessicaFaith84 (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What we need to remember here is (IMO at least) the subject appears to fall under our definition as a "little known person", so if they choose to go under a pseudonym, then we should respect that wish, especially if they have tried to keep it out of the public domain. I mean, this is a practice which I'm aware is used fairly regularly on other articles (eg. adult film stars), so why should we not use it here? While it may be true, I'm not particularly convinced by the source, nor the encyclopaedic relevance of this. Mdann52 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; I see little encyclopaedic value in including Jennings' legal surname. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 11:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree with you, Zumoarirodoka. It has inherent encyclopaedic value because it is a fact concerning the subject of the article.JessicaFaith84 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    chic (band) credits page

    Chic (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    My name is Luci Martin and while collecting qualifying information for royalty issues, I notice that the biography section is correct, but the cast of players is not. I am not listed as one of the Lead Vocalist which is funny because it is my face on every album cover and not Norma Jean Wright. As bio indicates, Norma was 1st female, I was added to group prior to Alfa but was not replaced. Norma left prior to our second album C'est Chic to pursue a solo album,replaced by Alfa Anderson who joined me as the other lead vocalist until we disbanded in 1983. This information can be verified by every album cover done by chic, as well as vocal credits on sleeve and photos. Please correct the information. you may also visit Nile Rodgers web page, the founder of the group for further verification.

    Thank you, Luci Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.183.4 (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

    Jeffrey Allen Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The original authorHell in a Bucket consulted me about this on my talk p. discussion here My immediate reaction was to delete the entire article as an attack page and BLP violation, because the actual conviction was over a minor crime only, and brigadier generals are not usually otherwise notable. Moving a little too fast perhaps, I did that. But it is perhaps not that clear that his original version should necessarily be deleted, so I restored it and am bringing it here. There are two questions: 1/should the entire article be deleted, either speedy or at AfD, and second, whether the intermediate versions by LovinTheSunshine be revision deleted. I'm going to let other discuss it & decide. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me start by saying the additions were well sourced and well written. I had a mix of concerns with the username and the nature of the subject and then the great graphic detail. Wikipedia isn't censored but neither do we need to graphically report on an alleged rape. It was a undue amount of attention to this part of his career. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Sinclair passes notability for being a flag officer. He has served as the Army operations officer and chief of the Plans and Training Division in the Joint Special Operations Command, therefore meaning he had a significant command within the army. Definitely should have some sort of article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My sense is that WP:BLP1E applies here. What sources exist on Sinclair prior to the scandal? Only if there was sufficient sources for that, should the article exist. In the current article, there are only two putatively not-scandal sources. One of them is a bio at awordpress site used by Time - but the only place that bio is linked-to, within Time, is an article about the scandal (see this search - the bio is linked from the "Military Misbehavin" article). The other one is a currently dead link on another Wordpress blog. here - the mainpage of that blog is here. Its a blog so fails RS/SPS in any case. In my view, this article would not survive an AFD Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Military guidelines are met by him being a flag officer and in charge of a division. You are mistaken about the source too I clicked it and it works see [[8]]. Did it come up for you that time? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry for the trouble that my edits have caused, as that was not my intention. My intention was not to smear either party and I attempted to do this by posting articles that spanned the entire length of the trial. I was concerned that if I omitted certain portions of the time line, it could be perceived as being biased towards one party or the other. As a member of the military community, I can say with confidence that this was, and will remain, a very notable case, with the initial charges being significant. For almost two years, Sinclair was facing jail time amongst other things. Please feel free to do as you see fit with my edits, but I ask that original article remain. Thank you again for your help and patience as I learn the Wiki ropes.Transplated User:LovinTheSunshine comments by Hell in a Bucket (talk)
    in charge of a division - where is that mentioned in the article? Hamish59 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure where you got the idea that brigadier generals aren't notable. They are general officers and have thus have always been considered to meet WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    the bio from time works; the bio from biographysx.com does not work. Nothing you have written addresses what I actually wrote. I see the article has been put up for AFD - i will go support deletion there. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

    I suggest that the title of the bio be changed form Rick Ross (consultant) to Rick Alan Ross (consultant) to avoid confusion with the rapper Rick Ross. Also there is not need to mention fees of $5,000 twice under the section "Consultant, lecturer, and deprogrammer" in the second paragraph. Moreover the number of 350 interventions is out of date and more than a decade old. A more recent article published puts the number of interventions at 500. See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-brf-church-0715-20150720-story.html#page=1 These issues are being ignored at the Talk page. Please make these edits.96.235.133.43 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=676209396"