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 210.56.28.174 (talk) at 10:56, 12 October 2015 (Addition of citation.). 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:

    Vani Hari (Food Babe)

    Seems like the discussion really has finished. I close this section. Thanks. More balance does appear to have been restored to the article. SageRad (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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 came across the article on Vani Hari and found it to be extremely slanted toward smearing her, in my assessment. I've been following the controversy about her, voices in favor and against her, and critiques of her work as well as people who praise her work. I made an effort to edit the page to change some of the most glaring bias, and was promptly reverted and shut down by a small group of people who in my reckoning have occupied the article in an effort to make it into a soapbox for her critics, which is not what Wikipedia should be. I would appreciate some attention by uninvolved people, and hearing your comments on this. You may notice the recent edit history contains several edits by myself, and reverts by other editors, and plenty of dialogue in the talk page. Thank you for any time and attention you bring to this. SageRad (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As an uninvolved editor who was brought to said page by an earlier RfC by SageRad, I would say I did not find the same bias that's being claimed. Further, I read through ensuing talk page discussions (since you posted the RfC) and disagree that you are being stopped by a small group of people "in an effort to make it into a soapbox for her critics." As I see it, I would say you are likely too invested in this article and keep trying to post unsourced claims against consensus. I might recommend you take a step back from this article and just be willing to let this one go dude... Sorry to be so blunt, but I don't have a dog in this fight and someone should give you a frank analysis of the situation. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 18:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a sourced claim, and it was reverted. I'm not "invested" in the article, but rather i'm invested in Wikipedia having space for editors with differing perspectives. I don't have a window into other people's minds to know their motivations, but the circumstantial evidence seems pretty clear to me. You don't know my motivation, either. Thank you for your opinion, but i'd still like to hear others and i maintain my position that the article is occupied by a group who have essentially locked it into a single direction. Thank you also for your input into the RfC. Wish there were more people who would follow the bot and offer their view. SageRad (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In its previous state the article seemed a bit unbalanced in opposition of Hari, to the point where it made scientifically inaccurate claims that contradicted the sources to add to the ammo against her.[1] The article also distorted a source to claim that Hari thought baking soda was a dangerous chemical!!!!!!! (thereby portraying her as stark raving mad) when the source clearly said no such thing.[2] This article had some seriously skeezy BLP problems. I've made quite a few changes to the article but one, removing a laundry list of bullet pointed accusations against Hari based on a single source was reverted based on a "consensus" which seems incredibly dubious (both in terms of numbers supporting inclusion and the strength of their arguments).[3] What do the wise folk of BLPN, think of the validity of including such a laundry list? Brustopher (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have returned that bullet list to the article, in a different way, hopefully to satisfy your objection to the over use of one source. The illustrations of her strange approach to facts is a vital part of her BLP. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am thankful to Brustopher for the careful and thoughtful work. The article does indeed look much improved to me. SageRad (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and yet no thanks to me for improving further? Why not? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit uses the word "sell" whereas the source uses the phrase "she recommends—and earns an Amazon.com affiliate commission from". Your claim in the article is that "Hari claims that aluminium in deodorants leads to breast cancer" whereas the source reads "Hari links aluminum in modern deodorants to horrific diseases such as breast cancer and Alzheimer’s" and when i go to Hari's own writing on which this is based, i find she actually wrote this: "I researched the ingredient Aluminum, and found out it is linked to all sorts of diseases, including 2 that I sadly personally have witnessed in close friends and family members – Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease. The link of aluminum to these diseases is hotly debated, some studies find a low risk factor (probably those funded by the chemical companies) and some find horrible results, like those studies that find aluminum accumulating in breast tissue or breaking the blood brain barrier leading to Alzheimer’s." So, there seems to be two levels of some distortion going on -- from Hari to the source, and then from the source to the Wikipedia article. Each distortion leans toward making Hari look bad. And the issue of weight. That's why i have some issues with your edits, Roxy. Hari does appear to have made a mistake there, and does recommend a deodorant that does contain alum, which does contain aluminum. That is certainly a mistake. But it seems that the use of this is mean spirited. SageRad (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Along a similar note, i made this edit as it appears to be a claim on a secondary source level (review statement) regarding human health, which would require MEDRS sourcing standard, and this source is definitely not up to par in that regard. Also, the claim is flawed anyway. It's based on this sentence in the source, which is an op-ed style essay: "It’s important to stress that experts in science and medicine have time and again debunked Hari’s claims that the ingredients discussed in this piece are as dangerous as she claims." Well, as i stated about Hari's clim regarding aluminum and disease, the source distorted that claim's magnitude as i have shown in the previous comment, and her claim does hold some truth. Aluminum has some link to breast cancer, and to Alzheimer's. Neither is definitive, but Hari does not claim that. This is emblematic of the nature of the bias that i see in the article, especially as it stood a couple days ago before some corrective edits were made. SageRad (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't find the article "extremely slanted toward smearing her", however there may be too much detail and quote mining in the criticism section, and probably some WP:NPOV concerns. The sentence "d'Entremont received death threats for her criticism of Hari following her article." and the phrase "... and in a 2011 Twitter post stated that flu vaccines have been used as a "genocide tool" in the past" are poorly sourced and should be removed. [4] and [5] are primary sources. They should not be used for the contentious claim "The statement became widely controversial... with public organisations promoting science, such as McGill University's Office for Science & Society and the American Council on Science and Health.". The last paragraph in Marketing strategy depends on one source and seems WP:UNDUE. The source is also somewhat biased.- MrX 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A few days ago, the article was substantially different. Much progress has been made at restoring some balance, thankfully. SageRad (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the sort of biased crap that this article has to put up with: SageRad hiding behind MEDRS to strip content they don't like. Our cliche "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" does not mean that we demand the "extraordinary" level sourcing to support basic claims of common sense, just because they are uncomplimentary to Hari. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean you have to "put up with" another editor who insists on good sourcing as per Wikipedia guidelines, and who also doesn't like to see Wikipedia used as a soapbox for people to slander their enemies in a BLP? I'm sorry for your troubles. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are not "insisting on sourcing per WP guidelines" you are making highly POV and ridiculous edits, then hiding behind an irrelevant policy in a feeble attempt to justify this. Your edits overall speak for your huge bias in this article, and in your other edits.
    Vani Hari operates by making stupid statements and untruths, hoping that her fans don't notice them (Aluminium in anti-perspirants is bad. My anti-perspirants contain alum. Alum is not aluminium.) Very simple sources suffice to support this debunking. Yet you are demanding sources to the same standard for simple statments like "Water is wet" as we would (reasonably) for the truly extraordinary claims like, "Nazi microwaves make water toxic." You leave Hari's outlandish claims unchallenged, but you strip the simple stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment above on this edit. The claim in the article was a biomedical claim that "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous have been strongly refuted by experts in science and medicine" which is a blanket statement that is not well-bounded, for one thing (which claims of Hari's), is based on a simple assertion in the source for the claim, and is definitely a biomedial claim about human health, which does require MEDRS. I'm not being technical or semantic here to push a point of view. I am removing POV pushing that was already present in the form of a bad claim, which essentially claimed that any link between aluminum and breast cancer or Alzheimer's is "strongly refuted by experts in science and medicine" as well as any claims as to potential effects of potassium sorbate, and any other claims that Hari has made that might be mentioned in the source document. It's a false blanket statement being attributed strongly to "experts in science and medicine" and present in a Wikipedia article. That was not a good situation. Furthermore, i have shown in detail how the source distorted Hari's original claims, and how Roxy's edit had distorted the source's version. The devil's in the details. I am paying attention to details. SageRad (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There will never be a systematic review of Vani Hari's claims to satisfy MEDRS because no one will write it. Per WP:PARITY, we can use reliable but less-than-unassailable sources to counter fringe claims such as Hari's. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes her claims fringe? For example, her claim that science suggests that there is a link between aluminum exposure and Alzheimer's? What makes it fringe? SageRad (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is a link between aluminium and Alzheimer's, I read it years ago when it was first published in Nature. But, to this day we don't know if the increased concentration of aluminium is cause or effect of the disease. Perhaps you have heard the mantra "correlation does not prove causality". We only have correlation, we don't have causality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew nothing about Hari before seeing this thread. But yes, anyone who can write "water that was microwaved did not form beautiful crystals – but instead formed crystals similar to those formed when exposed to negative thoughts or beliefs" and not burst out laughing is fringe. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Does Hari have a right to respond to accusations in her own article?

    Quick summary:Hari said something about fish bladders which the press deemed as fear mongering. In a blog post Hari responds to these claims. I added her response to these accusations to the article, because it's her BLP and I believe she has a right to respond to serious accusations. User:JzG has removed her response claiming she is a serial liar who can't be trusted.[6][7] From BLP policy standpoint, who is in the right here? Brustopher (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We're here to create encyclopedic content first, and not to provide anyone with a soapbox. Hari's claims are deep into pseudoscience and fringe territory, so it's unlikely she'll ever accept encyclopedic content about her beliefs. Given we've reliable sources about her attempts at hiding her past claims, she probably shouldn't be seen as a reliable source about anything other than WP:BLPSELFPUB content that is not contentious an any way. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not asserting that what she is saying is true. The idea that Hari's article is a soapbox is laughable, as it accurately calls out all her pseudoscientific or exaggerated claims. We are not asserting her claim as fact, we're allowing her to provide her own opinion about what happened. If a BLP has published rebuttals of highly negative accusations against them (such as being an ignorant fearmonger), then we ought to use it. Otherwise we could be smearing a BLP. Brustopher (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but adding her responses is indeed using the article as a soapbox, in addition to violating BLPSELFPUB, and NPOV for that matter when using such sources to "balance" those from independent, reliable ones. --Ronz (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that she has a long history of making clueless comments and then trying to undo the damage after the fact without actually admitting she was wrong. That means we should leave all analysis of her statements to third parties. This is not a newspaper, we don't have an even notional "right of reply", we report the consensus view of reliable independent sources, we don't then "balance" that with the subject's own special pleading. The solution to her problems is for her to take more care over accuracy and clarity. I know you want to be fair, but as my old schoolmaster said, "don't go expecting life to be fair, 'cos it ain't." There is very little recent commentary on Hari that paints her in a good light, and there is only one person to blame for this: Vani Hari. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We report the consensus of reliable independent sources, as determined by the consensus of the editors evaluating those sources, and in a case such as this, we seem to be split about including Hari's response to various allegations against her, such as her "any chemical, ever" comment. Her reply to that one was that it was taken out of context, and i tend to agree with that response. She's given to hyperbole but in the context that one made sense, and she explained why in her response. It was in a chapter about endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and therefore in the context of high potency modes of action, where indeed there is no safe level of any of the relevant chemicals.
    There was some positive coverage of Hari, and i added it, and it was promptly reverted by other editors here. In that source, a U.S. Congressman praised Hari's efforts to bring some light to chemical additives in food, and whether or not they are all necessary. SageRad (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So it sounds some editors are ignoring BLPSELFPUB and specifically cherry-picking "positive" coverage to include? That would be a BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wow, you are so quick to jump to a snap judgment that favors one side of this conflict. The article was highly slanted toward denigrating Hari, and i engaged in discussion at the talk page, and it was suggested that if i knew of positive coverage, to include it, and i did so, and it was promptly reverted. What's your beef, Ronz? Balance in coverage is a good thing. There was coverage both positive and negative, and the article included almost solely the negative and spoke in Wikivoice the claims of those who hate her. That's a violation of BLP, a serious one. SageRad (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At best it merits a 'although Hari has responded/denied this' at the end of the section with a source to her response. Her actual response would not be covered in detail due to it being, well, rubbish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite judgmental, and your own judging of her words as "rubbish" shows your proclivity in regard to the article. This attitude of hatred for Hari among those who are editing the page is the source of the extreme bias that was there and still remains to a large degree, in this BLP. There is a contingent of editors who really seem to hate Hari who are editing her page and attempting to lock it down in a negative way, and blocking people who want to move it the other way. SageRad (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:FOC and try to refrain from using this forum (and the article) as a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not using this forum as a battleground, sir. I am pointing out that the Vani Hari article is a battleground and that this is a bad situation. Do not shoot the messenger. Do not confuse the messenger with the message. The battleground dynamic is highly relevant to the content that is created in an article and therefore it is relevant to the content. I am focusing on the content, but to do so, one must diagnose why the content is so biased. SageRad (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense: "you are so quick to jump to a snap judgment that favors one side of this conflict" "What's your beef, Ronz"
    Good luck at ArbCom. I think a ban is in order. --Ronz (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, can you not even see your bad behavior? Do you really think "Good luck at ArbCom" is an appropriate comment here? My comments that you quote above were a direct response to your insinuating comment as follows: "So it sounds some editors are ignoring BLPSELFPUB and specifically cherry-picking "positive" coverage to include? That would be a BLP violation" wherein i believe that you were saying that my addition of one single piece of positive coverage of Vani Hari (which was promptly removed by another editor) was "cherry-picking" and i did in fact see you as snapping to judgment favoring one side in this conflict. Now you are saying that i'm creating a "battleground" by saying that i thought you snapped to judgment in a biased way? Ok, then. I'm done with this thread. You've targeted me here, wrongly. Please take your own advice and focus on the content, and speak with substance and integrity. Please cease from trying to frame me as wikicriminal just because i brought up an issue of bias in an biography of a living person that seemed to be an attack informercial against her. Don't shoot the messenger. Talk about the substance, if you have anything to add. SageRad (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I took "Ok, then. I'm done with this thread." as an indication you were, done. What is the nature of your BLP emergency? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest closing

    I suggest closing this thread for two reasons: first, there is discussion on the article talk page which seems in the most part to have converged on a consensus version witht he exception of two minor elements over whihic I have started RfCs; second, this article is related to the ongoing arbitration case on GMOs, and SageRad's presence there is primarily in furtherance of his agenda on GMOs, so encouraging him to continue arguing here risks tempting him to dig an even deeper hole for himself. Guy (Help!) 06:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest that we continue to talk as long as there are relevant things to say, and that there is no need to close this dialogue. And please get off your targeting of me. You're onerous, sir. You're out of line. I bring up issues that seem relevant to the integrity of Wikipedia, and you attack me as a result. I'm not here for any agenda except to restore some balance and integrity. You're confusing that with something else, apparently, and you have taken to a pattern of attacking me with ad hominem remarks like this for the past month or so, and i am seriously tired of this behavior of yours. Please cease. Let's talk about the topic at hand if you have anything to offer regarding it. I created this thread for good reason, and it seems to be serving to foster discussion about the topic of the Vani Hari page and whether there is bias on that page. Let's not shut this discussion down just because you want to. SageRad (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Why the rush to close this thread?

    I am really wondering why this thread was closed when there remains the possibility that further discussion would be useful. That was an inappropriate closing of an active thread.

    The reason given by the editor who closed it was "Since SageRad is done here, so are we all. Related Arbcom case will likely have direct influence for future editing." There are problems with this:

    • I'm not done here necessarily and i just stated that plainly in my response to Guy/JzG.
    • This is not about me. I opened this thread as an editor on Wikipedia for other editors to also discuss this issue and this has happened, and is still happening. People have been discussing this issue, despite the harassment and bad behavior by several onerous editors here.
    • The mention of the ArbCom case, just like Ronz's comment above, is threatening language and inappropriate here. SageRad (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread explains itself, and its purpose was and still is to discuss bias in the Vani Hari article. Give it enough time to complete naturally. Strange to see the impulse to shut this down, and the reason being given that "SageRad is done here" and also the very strange off-topic reference to the ArbCom case. Discussions take some time and it's usually apparent when a discussion is completed because people are no longer contributing to it. There is room for discussion on Wikipedia. The presence of this thread does not impede or hurt anyone, does it? Where i wrote "i'm done with this thread" i meant the sub-thread in which Ronz was going ad hominem -- i didn't mean this whole discussion section. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I had just replied to JzG that i would prefer to keep this section open for the time being as i see it having been and still being useful. SageRad (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread has been open since the 22 September. There is no indication there is a pressing BLP issue, information in the article is reliably sourced. Your main complaint is that the article is overly negative and positive information (eg, Hari's response to criticism) is not being included. That the majority of reliably sourced information from secondary sources is negative about Hari is not a BLP issue when reliably sourced. Your complaint that positive information from Hari/elsewhere is not being included is a content issue currently being discussed (where it belongs) on the article talk page. Unless there is actually a BLP issue that needs to be resolved this conversation really is done. What outcome do you expect from further discussion here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no particular problem in providing SageRad with WP:ROPE. "Ok, then. I'm done with this thread" was confusing at best. But no big deal -- except that if things degenerate into unproductive bickering I'll close it myself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Rope" comment inappropriate -- threatening/insinuating language not welcome here. The article still appears to suffer extreme bias to me, and i am still interested in others seeing this and evaluating whether this seems to be an issue to them. Wikipedia works by diversity of perspectives and by good dialogue. Please engage in helpful dialogue or refrain from dialogue. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I suppose there's nothing to learn from the fact that everyone who has evaluated it has come to the same conclusion. That's the difficulty here, of course -- your notion of "helpful" dialogue has a particular meaning. With that in mind, I hope you won't continue to try to discourage others from participating -- the same way you want not to be discouraged from participating yourself... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first sentence is not correct. The rest, i don't really understand what you mean. Anyone can participate, of course, as long as the guidelines and ideals of Wikipedia are respected. SageRad (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Ahmed Mohamed clock incident

    Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    In Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, sources uses the colloguial term of "arrest" for when Ahmed was taken into custody. texas law and the Attorney general make clear that 10-14 year olds are not arrested and if asked they can truthfully answer "No" to the question have "Have you ever been arrested?" In addition, all records of custody including photographs and fingerprints have been destroyed as no further proceeding have occured. Since "arrest" has real-world implications for future jobs and the eternal nature of wikipedia, it my position we should use "taken into custody" so as not to contradict his possible future answers on job apllications and what not. Those arguing that it should be "arrest" in wikipedia's voice seem to agree that "taken into custody" is equivalent to "arrest." It seems we should err on the side of caution and attribute the word "arrest" to the source, and in Wikipedia's voice only use "taken into custody" because of the above mentioned concerned. --DHeyward (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The relevant detail to support "taken into custody" is provided by the Texas Attorney general interpreting the laws of Texas here[8]. On page 6 in the section called "Taking a Child into Custody" where it explains the terminology. I have yet to see an argument from those advocating "arrest" that "taken into custody" is different than "arrest" but I very clearly see the AG stating that "taken into custody" allows juveniles to later state they were not arrested. It seems obvious when given the choice between to colloquially identical terms, we should use the one with least harm. --DHeyward (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Notwithstanding the nuances of Texas law as it pertains to juveniles, all the sources covering the incident, including LA Times[9], NYT[10], WaPo[11], CNN[12], ABC[13], CBS[14], The Guardian[15], and many others, describe the incident in the context of an "arrest", i.e. Arrest, when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension of a person or the deprivation of a person's liberty . DHeyward is arguing for the application of Original research, and asks us to dismiss the overwhelming number of sources that describe the arrest of the 14-year old in non-ambiguous terms. As for the concern of "harm for future jobs", Ahmed Mohamed will always be known as the 14-year old that got arrested by bringing a clock to school, given the massive coverage of the incident and the use of the term "arrest". - Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    in addition to the first class sources from around the world, the TEXAS sources use "arrest" to describe what happened. Houston Chronicle: "The 14-year-old Irving ISD student was arrested. " Dallas Morning News: "Irving’s police chief announced Wednesday that charges won’t be filed against Ahmed Mohamed, the MacArthur High School freshman arrested Monday after he brought " Austin Statesman: "Irving police arrested MacArthur High School freshman " El Paso Times :A 14-year-old Muslim boy has been arrested in North Texas . If there were in fact any peculiar Texan distinction between police officers dragging a 14-year-old in handcuffs to the police station from "arrest" they would know. We do not utilize WP:EUPHEMISMs or WP:JARGON. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the action/event in question as an "arrest," and so should wikipedia. The argument that RS are wrong because a particularly narrow interpretation of what "arrest" means (and of Texas law) suggests that he wasn't "really" arrested is WP:OR, as far as I can tell. And it contradicts the vast majority of RS on the subject. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This *is* an encyclopedia, there is nothing preventing us from describing it as an arrest (as that is what the reliable sources use) and also pointing out the Texas law enforcement opinion on it. Its certainly interesting that someone 'arrested' by any common usage of the word can reply that they havnt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Referring to Texas Law, when there are no sources discussing to that law in the context of the incident, would be a violation of WP:NOR. Now, if sources emerge that make that connection, we can surely add a mention if and when that happen. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's obvious that reliable sources are fudging things and that there is potential harm to a 14-year-old child, then I agree we should err on the side of caution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What harm are you referring to? This kid is now a media sensation because of this incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no 'harm' in stating he was arrested, since that is what happened and that is what reliable sources have reported. The harm was the reaction to the kid, not the reporting of that action. This is just a smokescreen by DH. It's original research and synthesis. Not some altruistic way to protect the kid. Dave Dial (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldnt even say fudging to be honest. The main issue would be that in many jurisdictions being taken into custody is an arrest. That it is not necessarily in Texas is unlikely to cross the UK Guardian editor's mind. If the police put handcuffs on you, take you to a police station and lock you in a cell, you have been arrested by any common language definition. That you might not officially been 'under arrest' is a minor point. But to be honest, all this rubbish would be resolved if the damn article had been deleted as a clear BLP1E like it should be. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I offer no opinion on the substance of the matter because I've commented on related disputes as an uninvovled admin (though I agree that deletion would have been in the best interests of the project), but just FYI, one can be 'detained' by police in the UK (for example to be searched for drugs)—a process that can involve handcuffs and being taken to a police station and placed in a cell, but which does not necessarily involve formal arrest (so the detained person could be released if found not to have drugs, and there would be no record of them having been arrested). Just food for thought; I don't know (and am not particularly interested in) whether "arrest" is the appropriate term here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell:, that is what happened to this fellow...legally he was detained is all. I don't have any rationale to not use reliable sources which refer to this as an arrest, but it should be clarified as to what that terminology means under Texas law if reliable sources discuss this matter.--MONGO 04:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is false that no other sources refer to it as "taken into custody." The police press release scrupulously follows the Texas AG guidance. There is no police report or release that refers to an "arrest." That is not political, it is the law. It is not a rare occurrence that breaking news misses the details that would be provided in a refereed journal. All of the sources of news are "primary sources" under the guidance of using breaking news coverage. Once the police press release came out, the language used there should be used in the article as it is the most accurate of all the primary sources and has the backing of the secondary source of the AG's interpretation of Texas Juvenile law. Don't defame and libel him by saying he was arrested. He was not. --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be worth noting that the news media in Texas regularly applies the term "arrested" to people who are the same age (and who aren't Mohamed). See:[16][17][18] for a few examples. Even if it's not technically an arrest, "arrest" appears to be common parlance, even in Texas, for what happens when the police take a 14-year-old "into custody." Fyddlestix (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it is colloquially an arrest. There is no colloquial distinction between "taken into custody" and "arrested." If we want to get even more technical, it's a "seizure" within the meaning of the fourth amendment. The point though is that is no colloquial difference between "taken into custody" and "arrest." Wikipedia can use either term and it has the same colloquial meaning. No one has argued that "taken into custody" is different from the word "arrest." They are colloquial synonyms. However, in a legal context, they are different in Texas law as applied to juveniles. Just as the offence that predicated taking into custody is "hoax bomb", the charge would be "delinquency" in juvenile court. In 20 years when the news has long faded, and Ahmed applies for a job and the question "Have you been arrested?" comes up, we should not be in disagreement with that answer. More to the point, if they toss his application in the bin for lying because Wikipedia has dead link sources to his "arrest" we are doing him a great disservice. I think everyone agrees that "taken into custody" is a an acceptable descriptor of the action by police. But not everyone agrees that "arrested" is okay to use in this case. Choosing "taken into custody" doesn't change the nature. He was taken into custody, put in handcuffs and transported to a juvenile detention facitlity. That is just as accurate as "arrested". as an aside, the software police use for writing reports in Texas does not allow the word "arrest" for disposition of 10-14 year olds that are taken into custody, only adults are "arrested." That's personal knowledge though but the distinction is real in legal documents just as "delinquency" charges instead of criminal charges is real. It doesn't hurt the article or change its meaning to use "taken into custody." The police press release carefully uses "taken into custody." --DHeyward (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The uproar was about a 14-year old being arrested for bringing a clock on a box to school, and the article describes the response to the arrest. Given that the overwhelming number of sources describe it as an arrest, so shall we. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Breaking news stories are primary sources. Use the language in the police press release. It is the most accurate. We are not news and defaming a 14 year-old kid by sayin he was arrested when both the AG and the police department dispute it, is not acceptable. --DHeyward (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The same (primary source) document written by the Texas AG's office that DHeyward uses to try to justify the assertion that a child cannot be arrested itself uses the phrase "a child's arrest" to refer to the sort of thing that happened to this child. In this case the child himself and his family have also repeatedly said he was arrested, and there are roughly 50 reliable secondary sources cited in the article that universally apply the word "arrest" to what happened. None of those reliable sources that discuss this incident, as far as I know, say that the word "arrest" does not apply – the word is used universally without comment or question or clarification in those sources. If we look up the definition of "arrest" or the article about Arrest, we see that it is defined merely as "the act of depriving a person of their liberty" by law-enforcement authorities (that's person, not adult). To avoid applying this word to this incident, when it is used so universally in the reliable sources, would be a textbook case of WP:Original research. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said, there is no colloquial difference. There is a technical difference which is quite apparent when Ahmed can truthfully answer that he was never arrested. My question to everyone clamoring for arrest: 'What's the difference between "taken into custody" and "arrest"?' If nothing, why not opt for the AG guide that allows him to answer "No, I have never been arrested?" If there is a difference, please explain how "arrest" is a different descriptor than "taken into custody." I choose the least harm to juvenile which affords him the privacy and dignity to answer "No, I've never been arrested." (and no, it's a secondary source with expert interpretation of Texas law regarding juveniles. The primary source is statutes.) --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "toe-may-toe". All of the sources say "arrested". We follow the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If they mean the same thing, why use the term that the AG has expressly said he can deny? There are plenty of examples where we use phrasing that is more favorable in a BLP when they refer to the same thing. All the Olympic record books, for example, refer to "Bruce Jenner" yet we use "Caitlyn Jenner" because they refer to the same person despite "all the sources." Why are you intent on causing future harm to this boy by using a term colloquially identical to "taken into custody" but also a common question on job applications, security clearances, credit applications, etc, etc. He can answer "No" when asked if he's ever been arrested. Wikipedia shouldn't be saying "Yes, he was arrested." We are not news nor are we robotic word salad spewers. "Taken into custody" can be used in place of "arrest" and sourced to all the articles that use "arrest" because it's an acceptable, equivalent, colloquial paraphrase but with very different implications as a term of art. Please explain what is gained by using "arrest" over "taken into custody." I've outlined the harm. You haven't provided the benefit. Specifically, what information is being conveyed to the reader to justify this harm? --DHeyward (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The mere fact that you have put Bob's name as "Dr" Bob shows your prejudice. You say "If people are cancelling speaking invitations upon learning that "Dr" Bob's doctorate was granted by an unaccredited institution, then I'm not sure this amounts to a serious concern for us." There is that "unaccredited" word you use so often. You are assuming that that is why people are doing that, with absolutely no basis or information proving that. Do you know the difference between and unaccredited institute and an accredited institute? Your use of the word unaccredited demeans the work of those institutions. Many colleges do not seek accreditation because they must comply with government regulations, which in the case of many seminaries and Bible schools, go against their fundamental teachings and beliefs. You seem to use the term "unaccredited" quite often and your intent implies an insult. The fact that people have cancelled speaking engagements for Bob Cornuke as a direct result of looking at your information on Wikipedia is very important, although you seem to dismiss it. The entire article is slanted and unflattering to Dr. Cornuke. It is laced with personal opinions and insults. That is why the people have uninvited him to speak at several places. They have all said it was because of the negative information that they saw about him on Wikipedia. This should not be a difficult thing to do. Write a journalistic report on him, if you will. Remove the insults, the negative accusations, the inferences and the quotes from people who disagree with him. This is tabloid and you should "have a serious concern" how damaging this is to the career and income of Dr. Cornuke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessmm (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



    Bob Cornuke

    I am a colleague of Dr. Robert (Bob) Cornuke. The information contained in the Wikipedia article "Bob Cornuke" is full of personal "opinons" and remarks that has been and continues to this day to be damaging the career of Dr. Cornuke. If you carefully read the article, it is a full scale attack on everything that Dr. Cornuke has ever done. The articles that are presented of peoples "opinions" have been cleverly weaved to paint Dr. Cornuke in a highly unfavorable light. This article has directly caused Dr. Cornuke financial loss. Dr. Cornuke has been contacted for speaking engagements over the years, only to have them cancelled when they read the article in Wikipedia. Instead of this article being one that is biographical in nature only, it is a total assault on Dr. Cornukes character, research and professionalism. I am upset that Wikipedia even allows this type of character assassination to be on their site. Please consider removing this article, for the sake of journalistic integrity and fairness.

    Thank you for your consideration,

    Jeffrey Harbuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessmm (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If people are cancelling speaking invitations upon learning that "Dr" Bob's doctorate was granted by an unaccredited institution, then I'm not sure this amounts to a serious concern for us. That said, the article could use some cleanup. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I think this complaint deserves a better response than this. Yes, the subject lacks academic credentials, and yes, his claims are fringe. But this article deviates greatly from a neutral point of view, and draws heavily from proselytizing sites for criticism. I'm going to stub it down the the reliable sources. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Xymmax, great job on the cleanup. I did some myself but the numerous problems with the article became mind-numbing. Czoal (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The mere fact that you have put Bob's name as "Dr" Bob shows your prejudice. You say "If people are cancelling speaking invitations upon learning that "Dr" Bob's doctorate was granted by an unaccredited institution, then I'm not sure this amounts to a serious concern for us." There is that "unaccredited" word you use so often. You are assuming that that is why people are doing that, with absolutely no basis or information proving that. Do you know the difference between and unaccredited institute and an accredited institute? Your use of the word unaccredited demeans the work of those institutions. Many colleges do not seek accreditation because they must comply with government regulations, which in the case of many seminaries and Bible schools, go against their fundamental teachings and beliefs. You seem to use the term "unaccredited" quite often and your intent implies an insult. The fact that people have cancelled speaking engagements for Bob Cornuke as a direct result of looking at your information on Wikipedia is very important, although you seem to dismiss it. The entire article is slanted and unflattering to Dr. Cornuke. It is laced with personal opinions and insults. That is why the people have uninvited him to speak at several places. They have all said it was because of the negative information that they saw about him on Wikipedia. This should not be a difficult thing to do. Write a journalistic report on him, if you will. Remove the insults, the negative accusations, the inferences and the quotes from people who disagree with him. This is tabloid and you should "have a serious concern" how damaging this is to the career and income of Dr. Cornuke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessmm (talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yu Tsai

    Yu Tsai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Almost all of the content is unsourced, and virturally all of the sources and external links are junk. Czoal (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since there was no input, I did the best I could to clean it up. Czoal (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ricardo Azziz

    Has any body read this?? It is purely a PR piece by the subject or one of his minions. I don't think I have ever read such a blatantly self promoting piece in Wikipedia. This guy has been tremendously controversial, something you would get only a whisper of from this piece when it mentions in one sentence how "problems" in his admin were resolved. He "strong armed" a very controversial change of name at the merger of MCG and Augusta College (to the asinine "Regents University" which was genuinely felt to be an incredibly sycophantic offering to the Georgia Regents) and which has now been officially reverted back to the much more reasonable "Augusta University." I am no fan of this guy and have strong feelings of negativity about him and admit my prejudice--but come on now, can't some one other than one of his office interns write his biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.105.69 (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the most gratuitously promotional sentence from the lead of the article. I have offered some advice at User talk:Lhubbard2203a, the editor who recently added that sentence. I have added a template to the article indicating that there are current issues with it resulting from the conflict of interest editing that has taken place over a long period of time. I suggest you head to Talk:Ricardo Azziz to discuss what should be included in the article that currently isn't. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kent Hovind

    I have been looking at this article for several years without attempting to edit it. I have noticed, whenever anyone attempts to re-write it with either a neutral or positive point of view of the subject, the user is either banned or blocked under the guise of "edit warring" or "sock puppetry". This has clearly happened in the case of the user Lonestar1776, who was accused of sock-puppetry despite the fact his IP address showed otherwise. The article has been hijacked by those who entertain an unfavorable view of the person being written about, and does not follow the criteria for :NPOV:. Corrective measures would be appreciated Rolusty33 (talk)

    Hmm -- you are at risk of being blocked for edit-warring. If I had seen the edit you were trying to implement, I would have reverted it as well. There's no BLP violation currently; discussion can take place on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Your edits were reverted by three different administrators, presumably because you are trying to water down the subject's fringe positions. The advice to go to the talk page with you concerns is well-taken. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 09:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor told one Admin "I see this article has quite the array of meat-puppets to keep it in good order. Bravo". And changed the date of a post from someone who had reported some edit-warring 4 years ago to make it look as though it had been reported today. Doug Weller (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The level of disruption caused by Rolusty33 in such a short space of time would suggest that some level of sanction should be implemented. I suggest a topic ban might be in order. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article reads as unfavorable because the mainstream science community (as well as some who might by sympathetic to Hovind's views) has dismissed the subject's theories as junk science. There's also the matter of his well-covered tax evasion and prison sentence. --NeilN talk to me 12:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jennifer Grünwald

    Why is there a wikipedia article on Jennifer Grünwald. It is clearly a self promotional article, relying too much on references to primary sources. Basically crap. Watcherchecker (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason why there's an article: Somebody thought it worth creating, and after creation it survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Grünwald. Do you have a suggestion for the article? -- Hoary (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I insists that the article is self-promotional and that is does not need inclusion in a encyclopedia. Jennifer Grünwald is not a notable person. The article needs to be deleted, as happened the other day with some foreign editor. That page was deleted as well, not even sure why but still. Delete this one too. Or is Wiki discriminating on real life persons when they have a non-western background? I will keep looking for more self-promotional pages. Watcherchecker (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that the outcome of the deletion discussion above was No Consensus, there would be nothing to stop you from following the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to nominate it again if you believe it is clear that the individual is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and can demonstrate that. Complaining about it here, especially about "western backgrounds" whatever that means, will not get that done. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    The world is divided as we all know. Saudi Arabia is not a western region, is it? South-America is not a western region, is it? It is not my duty to educate you on this. Look it up yourself. Jennifer Grünwald does not belong on Wikipedia, the article on her does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. She is not some authority in her field whatsoever. Other pages were deleted, even recently, based upon article A7. (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) So why not this page? I will nominate the Jennifer Grünwald page for deletion, again. Watcherchecker (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Watcherchecker. You can nominate the article for deletion if you wish, but I believe you need to due so via WP:AFD. I'm pretty sure that WP:PROD cannot be used in this case because the article has been previously nominated for deletion via Afd once before. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Shonda Rhimes

    Shonda Rhimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Someone keeps calling Shonda Rhimes a life ruiner

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shonda_Rhimes&diff=cur&oldid=684701887

    Thanks. Semi-protected for three months, and I blocked a named account that looked to be behind at least some of it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 10:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Preparing two proposals that would change transgender policy

    A recent proposal at the Village Pump: Policy about how to refer to Caitlyn Jenner in an article about the 1976 Olympics ended with the recommendation 1) that MOS:IDENTITY's policy on transgender individuals be revisited and 2) that the issue of how to refer to transgender individuals who are mentioned in passing in articles of which they are not the principal subject be addressed directly in the MoS.

    We are preparing two separate proposals for the Village Pump, one about whether the main MOS:IDENTITY should be kept or changed, and one about drafting a new rule for transgender individuals who are mentioned in passing. Here's where we could use a little help: We don't want this to confuse anyone or to have too many moving parts. You guys have probably worked on more articles about transgender subjects than the MOS regulars have, so you probably know what issues actually come up and what just looks like it would. We don't want to ask the community "Should we have bananas or apples?" if half of them have been yelling "Oranges! Oranges!" for six years.

    For Proposal 1, are the two options that we're offering actually what the community wants? Are they phrased well? Are they easy to understand? Did we leave anything out? Could we trim anything back?

    For Proposal 2, are the four/five options that we're offering actually things that people say they want? Should any of them be discarded? Are they easy to understand? Are the examples easy to understand? Did we leave anything out? Could we trim anything back?

    Your contribution is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    david forst

    Dave Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?

    corrections to his biography.

    Steve Cotterill

    An Idiot has placed disgraceful remarks about Steve Cotterill on his Wikipedia write up, please remove them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.120.33 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. [19] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Quint Studer

    Quint Studer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Hi there. I am seeking help reviewing some changes for businessman Quint Studer's article and also to see whether the {{POV}} tag can now be removed from that article. Since editors from here have previously commented on the page, I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to look again? I'm proposing two drafts: one focuses on Studer's investments and the other details his baseball team ownership. Similar content had previously been in the article, but was inadvertently edited out as other improvements were made. There have been no responses to my Talk page message, so I'm hoping an editor here can take a look. I will not edit the article myself, because I wrote the drafts as a paid consultant to The Studer Group, Studer's company. Regarding the tag, I'd originally added it some months back due to concerns about the article's tone and content (this is the only direct edit I've made and will make to the article). Since then, editors have made a number of improvements that I feel have fully addressed those concerns. I'd love for someone from here to take a look and see whether it would be appropriate to remove it now. All input is welcome, and I'll be watching the article's Talk page. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I had never heard of Studer prior to reading the article just now, but it appears to be an over-the-top résumé essentially being used as a promotional piece. It seems like a good portion of the content should be removed. So, no, I don't feel the POV template should be removed. Czoal (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It still reeks of puffery and self-adulation. It is possible there is a salvageable article under the detritus, but I'm not sure. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dorian Electra

    I came across this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_Electra, while looking at the entry for Shimer College.

    This individual does not appear to be particularly notable. It appears that she is a college student who made a moderately popular youtube video in 2012. The page is an extensive resume including the high school she went to. I believe this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.209.4 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Chai Vang

    Chai Vang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Lance616168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an SPA who obviously has an agenda, just made these rants/remarks on the talk page about the victims of the incident (diff). I won't repeat the offending remarks here but the last two sentences of this subsection about two surviving victims definitely violate BLP and the whole rant should be rev del'd IMHO.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vivek Lall

    The article on Vivek Lall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek_Lall) seems more like a personal advertisement and seems to violate NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooliebun (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Page still needs some work but I made a series of edits removing promotional tone. Meatsgains (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dinesh Singh (academic)

    I'd appreciate it if someone would drop by Dinesh Singh (academic). In the past few days, that article has doubled in size, with content exclusively added to the "Controversies..." section. It does not appear to be neutrally worded, and could use some work. Sławomir
    Biały     21:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Piers Gaveston Society

    Bluelinks David Cameron twice. The basis is what appears to be a single anonymous allegation, and a non-anonymous denial by a person in that society, that Cameron was a member. I suggest that if he is kept as a prominent member (alleged) in a table, that the table should also include the counter claim (cited) that he was not a member. Or if the later (second) bluelink for him is kept, that the bluelink in the table is then redundant. Ought a questionable allegation be given such prominence in this manner - listing himtwice? Collect (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The whole section is "alleged" members. Whether that's a good idea in general is an open question, I suppose. But there's no reason to worry about Cameron any more than about the others -- especially given the extent of sourcing about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A Village Pump thread has opened (link) to determine how the Manual of Style should guide editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves. Concurrently, a thread has opened (link) to determine how to guide editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Javanese people

    I read a list List of Javanese people, and I found a name, Ahmad Dhani, which I found disputable to enter this list.

    I'm sorry I haven't got a written proof to mention here, but I've heard himself (Ahmad Dhani) saying that he is a Sundanese. In his words, it said that "Saya orang Sunda yang kesasar di Surabaya" (meaning "I am a Sundanese who got lost in Surabaya (East Java)"). He said in X-Factor singing contest, aired in television in 2015.

    It is true that he speaks Javanese, and I haven't heard or read anywhere that he spoke Sundanese or wrote in Sundanese, but I don't think that it can overrule the fact that he a Sundanese descent, not a Javanese.

    The article Ahmad Dhani has correctly written that he is a Sundanese.

    I want to erase the name from the list and move it to the article List of Sundanese people, but I don't think it is polite or conforming to Wikipedia rules, so I write in this talk page.

    Djauhari136 (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Djauhari136[reply]

    Khawaja Asif

    Concerning Mr. Khawaja Asif's page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja_Muhammad_Asif

    1. Educational info is incorrect; He attended Government College University, Lahore (BA in History and Politics), he attended Punjab University (LLB). He did not study business administration, he did not attend the LSE, and he does not have a masters degree. Educational data can be confirmed from his nomination papers submitted to Election Commission of Pakistan (cited on the Wikipedia page for Mr. Asif) http://ecp.gov.pk/ScanNF/RECORD%20OF%20RETURNED%20CANDIDATES%20WITH%20ANNEXURES/NATIONAL_ASSEMBLY/GENERAL%20SEATS/NA-110/KHAWAJA%20MOHAMMAD%20ASIF.PDF

    2. He is not a "conservative thinker". No citation has been provided for said distinction.

    2. News article given as source for "Differences seemed to develop between Khwaja Asif and Nawaz Sharif when he offered to resign alleging that he did not have control over his own ministry.[4]" is speculative, and does not belong in biographical data.

    3. His ties to the PMLN go back to his days as a young political activist during his father's political career. Any claim regarding his relationship with Mr. Agha Hassan Abedi is speculative, and without citation.

    4. His first job in the UAE was not at BCCI. His career in banking also preceded that relocation.

    5. He returned to Pakistan and won his first election prior to his father's death

    6. He contested his first National Assembly election in 1993, from which point on he has been the representative of NA-100 till the present day.

    Said changes have been made by me, but few have taken effect. Although the biography section of the main page has removed the mention of LSE and the master degree, the same correction has not taken effect in the summary box on the right of the page.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=685353943"