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 Luridaxiom (talk | contribs) at 19:53, 9 May 2016 (→‎Yassin Kadi). 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:

    George Campbell Jr.

    Much of the material reported here under the heading "Cooper Union controversy and investigation by New York state Attorney General" is incorrect, as is much of the material in the Attorney General's report which merely regurgitates a lawsuit filed. The citations here are politically motivated or biased comments by an alumnus with a strong bias and which are potentially libelous. A section of this bio challenging the attorney general's report, published in the Chronicle of Higher Education has been edited out and should be re-added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.13.1 (talk) 16:54, April 2, 2016‎

    Ramy El-Batrawi

    Ramy_El-Batrawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The entry is not neutral at all. It reads like a PR person's work.

    "Ramy El-Batrawi is the Owner, Managing Member of X LLC , El-Batrawi is a deal Maker and an effective negotiator, known for his expertise in structuring winning transactions. He is noted for his adherence to the principles of protecting his investors to the best of his abilities, and for being an entrepreneur, investor, and humanitarian"

    "In 2000 Ramy El-Batrawi was honored through his selection to participate on the entrepreneurial panel in GB2000, The Graduate Business Conference hosted by UCLA’s Anderson School of Management."

    "-In August 2015 Dr Claude A Ruffalo, Ph.D a top clinical physiologist Ph.D. who has 3 Post-Doctoral Degrees did a neuropsychological test of Ramy El-Batrawi.

    The neuropsychological test results:

    Verbal Comprehension. Mr. El-Batrawi verbal comprehension functioning was measured by the WAISA-IV verbal Comprehension Subtest, which measures verbal practical judgment. His score on Comprehension Subset was at the 91st %ile in comparison to his age group with an IQ estimated equivalent of 120 in the Superior Range of functioning. Vocabulary. The Vocabulary Subset of the WAIS-IV is considered to be one of the best single measures of verbal intelligence. Mr. El-Batrawi English language Vocabulary was measured by the WAIS-IV Vocabulary Subset which resulted in a score at the 98th %ile in comparison to his age group with an IQ estimate of 135 in the Very Superior Range. This is a particularly high English Vocabulary score given that he was not born in the us, but in Geneva, Switzerland and left home and school at about 12 years of age.

    Abstract Verbal Reasoning and Conceptualization. Mr. El-Batrawi score on the Similarities Subset of WAIS-IV which masseurs abstract verbal reasoning and conceptualization was at the 91st %ile with a IQ equivalent of 120 in the superior range.

    Discussion of test results. Mr. El-Batrawi score on the WAIS-IV Verbal Comprehension, Vocabulary, and similarities Subsets combine to provide very strong and compelling evidence that Mr. El-Batrawi has exceptionally high (Superior to Very Superior) verbal reasoning abilities. '"

    These are just some examples of the PR tendencies.

    Furthermore, the grammar on the page indicates the writer's first language is not English. It needs significant work.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverinethad (talk • contribs) 12:45, 6 April 2016‎

    Article seems to have been deleted. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    West Ridge Academy

    Currently there are links to Court Filings for three court cases in the section West Ridge Academy#Litigation and controversy. Does anyone know if these fall under the part of WP:BLPPRIMARY where it says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."? Also, it appears to me that the text for which the court records are being cited goes beyond what can be found at the linked justia.com web page, for example the allegations and status of first case, the allegations and connection to WRA in the second case, and the status of the third case. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Eckhard Wandel

    Hi, this article was created a while ago as a direct translation of an earlier version of de:Eckhard Wandel after the German community had decided to remove information about the subject's criminal conviction according to its rules regarding BLP. Can you take a look at this article and check if he is even notable by the standards of English Wikipedia? If yes, do the sources given count as verifiable here? Thank you very much! --Gnom (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Pam Bondi

    Pam Bondi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Single purpose IP insists on repeatedly adding material that makes strong implications that the subject did something illegal and/or unethical. [1]. This may be a situation that merits addition later, but at this point, it's more defamatory than anything. A PAC that she doesn't control took a contribution. There's currently no investigation, no charges, no direct link to the subject. Just some implications. Again, it may evolve into something later, but right now inclusion is probably a BLP issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Gordan Cosic, rodjen 1956 godine u Cacku. 1975 Zavrsio skolu za graficki dizajn a od 1976 zivi i radi u uzicu kao graficki dizajner. Dobitnik priznanja RK SSO "Smeli cvet" za stvaralastvo 1085 godine. Pored grafickog dizajna, bavi se slikarstvom i fotografijom. Sa svojim radovima ucestvovao na nekoliko kolektivnih izlozbi medju kojima je izlozba minijature u Gradskoj galeriji u Uzicu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciklus (talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Niteshift36 insists on repeatedly deleting info about the plainly controversial close ties between Bondi and Trump, which are newsworthy because Bondi decided not to involve Florida in the lawsuit over Trump University fraud after her PAC received a large donation from Trump. Niteshift36 has obsessively been deleting this info when posted by various editors since 2013, always accusing the other editors of improprieties or edit wars. He has also been deleting any other info about Bondi that might be construed as unflattering. He is a self-described Republican partisan. His "it may yet evolve to something important later" and "Bondi hasn't been convicted of anything yet" is disingenuous given that Bondi is Attorney General in FL and will not be investigating herself for this conflict of interest. He has also claimed repeatedly that he is deleting negative info about Bondi because it is small potatoes and may be forgotten eventually. It's just a series of evolving justifications for deleting other editors' additions if those do not flatter the Republican office holder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.220 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There is nothing wrong with the content in the diff presented by the OP. It's reflective of the source—a source that easily passes WP:RS. Ideally, additional sources would be found to demonstrate that the content meets WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 19:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good news: here are some additional sources: [2] [3] [4][5] [6]. This easily passes WP:DUEWEIGHT. Omitting it would violate WP:NPOV in my opinion. - MrX 19:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's more to this than simply having sources discuss it. The question here isn't whether there are sources or not. It's whether it belongs in Bondi's bio or not. A Trump organization made a donation to a PAC that supports Bondi. Bondi doesn't control that PAC. It's not hers, it just supports here. There has been demonstrated involvement by Bondi herself. There's no investigation. No charges. The only actual complain I see isn't filed against Bondi or the PAC, but against Trump's organization. As I said in this edit summary [7], this issue MAY be relevant in the Trump article, since a complaint was actually filed against him. But at this point, there is nothing but innuendo that the contribution to a PAC that isn't hers got money from Trump, so it must have influenced her decisions. Without more of a connection to her personally, including it in her BLP is problematic because it implies she did something unethical or illegal without any substance or even an actual charge.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Niteshift36 is simply lying over and over again when he claims that the PAC doesn't belong to Bondi and she doesn't control it. She made a legal filing in FL stating that she "established" and "maintains" the PAC (called "And Justice For All"). It is her PAC. Absolutely bizarre for Niteshift36 to keep arguing that an illegal donation to Bondi's PAC has nothing to do with her. This template must be substituted.
      • Now you're lying about what the newspapers are stating about the PAC. Fortunately, there are legal filings which we can consult to determine whether the PAC was created by and is maintained by Bondi (it is), without the need to parse the words of journalists. Or the need to depend upon Niteshift36's lies about the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.249 (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
      • You haven't provided "links". You provided a single relevant link to a newspaper article that MIGHT be construed as you wish, plus other links that prove nothing. I have pointed you repeatedly to a legal complaint filed by CREW which goes through in detail the legal situation of the PAC in question. You have refused to address it. Absolutely and utterly ridiculous that someone who just makes things up to justify his obstructionism is allowed by WP to drag this debate out for days (after years of deleting the info from Bondi's page). What does it take to update Bondi's page, a dozen other editors as strong-willed as Niteshift36 determined to force him to relent? Because he is never going to acknowledge the facts.
    • Once again Niteshift36 is shifting the goalposts. It's no longer just innuendo. It's innuendo that belongs on some other page but just not on Bondi's - because presumably nobody in Florida is talking about Bondi's integrity in this controversy, right? MrX above is right, omitting this information is an expression of a political point of view.
    • Try again. I have never moved from the innuendo reasoning and I made the suggestion about the Trump page 6 weeks ago.... before you ever started editing the article. I'm sorry you can't follow the edit history. Apparently you also struggle with knowing how to sign your posts. Learning to do both will be helpful. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I could easily have provided other news sources discussing this controvesy, had Niteshift36 ever cared to ask. But, then, he has been deleting various attempts since 2013 to add this newsworthy information and therefore knows it is being widely discussed in Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.220 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

    • Are you serious? I asked you MULTIPLE TIMES to discuss it. You never did. You only discussed your half-assed conspiracy theories about my intentions. I started this discussion and invited you to it. You just kept reverting. So don't even pretend like you tried to discuss it my SPA friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You never asked for further cites to demonstrate that the controversy was in fact a controversy. I saw no point in discussing it with you because I knew that you already knew it was a controversy - because you have been deleting every mention of it by multiple editors since 2013, under a variety of pretexts. And in fact your contribution to this discussion thus far has just been to point fingers at me and complain that I'm not playing nice to you. It's not a conspiracy theory to mention that you are a Republican whose every activity on the Bondi page has been to delete factual information that might tend to embarrass her. That's where you're coming from, and it's directly relevant to assessing your opinion that the Trump controversy should be suppressed because it is no big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.220 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

    • I didn't ask the question you wanted so you chose not to discuss it? That's really brilliant. 100% of your edits on Wikipedia have been about this. 35 out of over 33,000 of my edits have been about Bondi (and not just this single issue). Your agenda is obvious. Again, do you have anything to say on the actual issue or do you want to keep making up baseless allegations? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aha, so the guy who keeps lying about the PAC in question, pretending it doesn't belong to Bondi, has no agenda at all. The editor that guy knows nothing about has to have an agenda, however, because he's getting all factual and stuff. This template must be substituted.
      • Ha ha ha ha. You keep making outrageously false claims about Bondi's PAC to excuse deleting the info over and over again, and you think you're going to win this dispute by charging the other guy with exposing your lies as lies? hoo boy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.249 (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
      • All you've done is parse the words of newspaper articles, one piece in particular, to draw the inferences you want to pretend are facts. I did provide you with a citation, which yoiu have refused to acknowledge so far, the CREW legal filing which discusses the legal structure of the PAC in question. Here is the link: 3429baca6f958ccc07_nvm6yx60v.pdf Once again, it states unequivocally that the Bondi filed a legal form in FL stating that she herself "established" and "maintains" the PAC. But you know better, huh?

    Professor Alexia Thomas

    Dear Wikipedia volunteers,

    Please be aware that the biography of Alexia Thomas (activist) is on the whole fictitious. The information it contains cannot be verified from reliable sources and, in fact, the person it relates to has been convicted of criminal offences relating to the services that she claims to be able to provide (referred to in the page).

    Rather than edit the page, I felt it would be better to draw this to your attention as the page should simply be removed as it is entirely misleading.

    Many thanks,

    Rebecca Morris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.23.236 (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dangerous links also, take care clicking on them. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This does not sound unlikely to me. The page was promotional from the get-go. I have not checked the references to any great degree, but we have had sockpuppet problems here before, which is why I requested that the page be protected, after which the apparent attempts at self-promotion dwindled to some degree. Anybody else have any opinions on this? H.dryad (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    rachel alejandro

    I am the husband of Rachel Alejandro. We got married in 2011 not 2012. Please correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.155.203 (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     Done-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Teresita Fernandez

    Hello,

    Excuse me if this isn't the correct forum for this, but I was unable to add any notes to the artist Teresita Fernandez's "Talk" page. There are a number of lists I think it would be key to add her article too, which I've listed below. Thanks for any assistance, or if you could point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it.

    List of female sculptors List of sculptors List of Latin American Artists List of Cuban Artists List of Cuban Americans (Visual Arts section) List of Contemporary Artists List of VCU alumni (Art section)

    Full disclosure, I am affiliated with a commercial gallery that represents Teresita Fernandez and know the artist professionally.

    Thank you, Armchaired (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Armchaired[reply]

    Draft:Andrew Miltenberg

    We have draft at AfC about a lawyer who "currently represents a number of male students who have been wrongfully accused of campus assault and denied due process rights". The article goes into some detail on a current court case, and makes many statements like "falsely accused" about others. I looked for advice on how to handle the description of current and recent legal cases, but didn't find any. I am uncomfortable that this article appears to make judgments about court cases, but I don't have policy to point the editor to. The BLP issues are not about Miltenberg but the people involved in the various court cases. Any ideas? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia covers the Columbia case - I do not see any unsourced contentious claims about living persons on first reading here. The most you could ask is that the article say Miltenberg believes the unnamed persons were wrongly accused - as opinion. Collect (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Voris

    This article is getting a lot of temporary attention due to the guy admitting that he used to be gay, despite his long held opposition to the homosexual agenda.

    As you would expect it's been a bit of a magnet. I've cleaned it up (I think) but as most (probably all) of the unhelpful edits come from anonymous IP accounts, could we have a semi-protect for a couple of months? That should get rid of the worst of it, although I suspect there will continue to be drive by edits after a couple of months - mostly it will have died down.

    JASpencer (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashley van Haeften

    User:Luridaxiom, who appeared out of nowhere less than a month ago to campaign for the deletion of the biography of former WMF chair Florence_Devouard, has created Draft:Ashley van Haeften, a curiously selective and rather one-sided biography of the former Wikimedia UK chair. It's evident that User:Luridaxiom is somebody's alternate account, with a great deal of experience here, and it's more than probable that the van Haeften piece is a sort of campaign bio to be used in bringing Wikipedia infighting into mainspace. No good is going to come of this, and while I've made the draft a bit more balanced, I suspect this is disruption best nipped in the bud. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    While remarkably puffy, nothing in the draft is a BLP violation. Not remotely Neutral of course but since it is not a live article that is not actually a problem at this stage. If it was an attack page (and one could be written easily) it would be another matter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason that the draft BLP is one-sided/ puffy is because an earlier (deleted) version was deemed to be an attack piece on van Haeften with poor quality sources. The issue here is the BLP subject's notability for an article, ie. significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (something which Devouard's BLP still seriously lacks after 4 AfDs). How do my edits qualify as disruption, and what happened to civility and good faith ? BTW, Wolfowitz thanks for your editing inputs there. Luridaxiom (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yassin Kadi

    I am a member of Yassin Kadi's legal team, and have previously made a number of edit requests via this article's Talk page and my own, with limited response to these.

    I am concerned that several parts of this article do not comply with BLP policies, in particular as to balance, association fallacy, unsourced or poorly sourced material, no original research and misuse of primary sources. I should be grateful if an editor or administrator would review the article and consider how it should be edited to bring it in line with BLP policies, particularly as it contains serious allegations. In the first instance, I would suggest that the section headed "1993: Al Qaeda moves to Boston" is association fallacy and ought to be removed, and that the section headed "Continues to work for National Commercial Bank" places unwarranted reliance on a primary source - a district court complaint document.

    I believe the subheadings "Tied to Muslim Brotherhood" and "BMI" also place undue reliance on primary sources (court documents) and blog articles, or reference material that does not support the article. For example the first of these sections refers to “Dr. Ahmed El-Kadi” and the “El-Kadi” family of Cairo. Mr Kadi has no relation at all to that family, and in fact the referenced source does not even suggest that he does, yet this is still included in the article to suggest linkage to the Muslim Brotherhood. Please would an editor/administrator review these issues? Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't act on behalf of an organisation, sorry. In fact, I'm surprised that Carter-Ruck, the well-known UK libel lawyers, are even operating in this manner - they usually just slap a writ on someone if the stories in Private Eye are anything to go by. I think you will have to find another way to deal with this. Someone with more experience of the technicalities may be able to assist. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now now Sitush, this is a BLP and there are concerns. The last paragraph is certainly worth a closer look. Terrorist-by-association doesn't reflect well on us. Although of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is a political party... Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it wasn't. But we don't usually allow accounts to represent organisations and I'm not even sure that this is in fact Carter-Ruck. The matter should be raised via other WP channels, probably utilising a formal Carter-Ruck email address. I'm not sure how familiar you may be with the firm in question. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for intruding, but Sitush is spot on. This is role playing Sockpuppetry calculated to overawe us with smoothly implied legal threats. The community cannot be expected to deal with such pricey lawyers on talk pages or noticeboards. Would we react in the same way if this was a small legal firm representing Joe Average ? Luridaxiom (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I work for one of the largest UK financial institutions ;) What Sitush means CR is that we don't allow group users - one account one editor. So 'Carter Ruck' would not be acceptable, but Dave@Carter-Ruck would be. I'm not up to speed on renaming procedures so someone else will be along shortly to run through it with you. As it stands the article does have issues from a brief look, but I wouldnt be able to go into it in any depth until Thursday. If anyone can take a look sooner. Oh and Luridaxiom we do actually treat small firms the same, both re usernames and BLP issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The older secondary sources are solid (considerable OR/Synth though) but possibly overtaken by more recent events, thus requiring community to essentially compare apples(primary) and oranges(secondary sources). Since verifiability not truth is our standard, IMO, CR should approach "legal_AT_wikimedia_DOT_org" directly. Luridaxiom (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Na shouldn't be necessary. It does need a much bigger rewrite though - later events have overtaken previous ones. At the moment due to the incremental nature of editing it reads like 'and then and then and then'. One place to start would be grouping the material related to the legal cases in one section as descriptive prose rather than the extensive list as it stands. It might be worth taking the time later to explain on CR's talkpage that absent an outright obvious violation, changing an article of that size will take time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Kadi still remains a US designated global terrorist, so this is a WMF legal issue and the community should not be holding this potato considering the UK law firm involved. Luridaxiom (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=719453772"