Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Alicia Machado

Alicia Machado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should the article concerning Alicia Machado mention her appearance in court accused of being an accomplice in an attempted murder, and the allegation that she threatened to kill a judge? (RS are available) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@NPalgan2:. Of course not, because she was neither indicted nor convicted. Because she was mentioned in the Trump/Clinton debate last night, this article has been subjected to a wave of very ugly BLP violations and at least one IP editor has been blocked. I hope that many experienced editors will keep an eye on this article to prevent it from being transformed into a hit piece. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: "WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN." This is not "tabloid gossip". Machado was a well known Latin American actress and celebrity and (in the words of the LATimes) has been "publicly campaigning" for months in the US election. Thus the murder trial and the judge claiming on national television that she threatened to kill him are notable and part of a balanced article that mentions the fact that the charges were dismissed. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Alicia Machado was recently in the news, because Hillary Clinton said she told her that Donald Trump had called her "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeper," which she says caused her (Muchado) to develop anorexia and bulimia. Clinton congratulated Muchado when she became a U.S. citizen this year and recently arranged for a press conference for her. Machado was Miss Universe and had a career as an actor. There are however several controversial items in her background: as a reality show contestant she engaged in sexual intercourse while being filmed, and prosecutors alleged she had a child by a Mexican drug cartel lord, assisted in a murder and threatened to kill a judge. She denies these allegations and they have not been proven in court. All of these stories have been covered in mainstream media. Are we allowed to mention them, or does BLP protect her? TFD (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:. Our BLP policy protects every living person without exception. We do not include tabloid gossip, thinly sourced and unsubstantiated allegations, politically motivated attacks or gross violations of personal privacy. There are no exceptions. None whatsoever. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

TFD, this is EXACTLY the kind of crap that BLP is suppose to prevent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of BLP is to prevent unsourced or poorly sourced information. All the information provided is well sourced, mostly having been reported by news wires such as AP. Wikipedia is not a tabloid means "details about an individual that have not been published in the mainstream media and are not widely known." This is not "tabloid gossip" but information has been published in mainstream media. So the test is, are the allegations widely reported in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually unsourced or poorly sourced information needs to be removed from ANY article. That's just WP:RS. BLP is stronger. And yeah, this is tabloid gossip.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying that but are misrepresenting the policies and guidelines. Reliable sources not you determine what to print. IF you think AP and other mainstream sources are tabloid gossip, what news sources do you recommend. TFD (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If accusations have been reported in reliable sources, and she has denied them, then the accusations cannot be included in a BLP without also including her denial. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out....If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

But whether to include her denial is not the point at issue - her denial was already included (I believe) or could easily be added. The discussion here seems relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_examples_for_discussion#Example_1:_Allegations_Against_an_Entertainer NPalgan2 (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it is the primary point. If she denied the charges and we omitted the denial, then removal of the entire material is justified, until such time as the denial is included.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that the all the information should be provided - the allegations by the judge and prosecutors and her denials. TFD (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why not, as long as there are multiple reliable sources reporting the allegation, and we include that she was not prosecuted or convicted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, at the moment I don't agree, so hopefully this will be discussed on the talk page first along with the relevant sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't agree with what? That she denied the accusation? That we should follow the portion of BLP policy that I quoted? That the info can be included if there's adequate sourcing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

For myself, that there's adequate sourcing to include any of it. The article has other BLP problems as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was clear. I don't agree that all the information should be provided until the sources are presented for discussion. Of course that means developing consensus for the sources and the added material. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I already discovered two sources that are not adequate for the material covered. Two gossip magazine sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean this is already in the article - but it is in lock down so I can't remove the material or the sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, it has been reported in the Daily Mail,[1] the Inquisitr, CNN,[2] the Daily Beast,[3] and the LA Times,[4] The story was carried in The Economist[5] and Associated Press[6] (reprinted in the Daily Mail in 2016) in 2008.[7] Those are just the first sources I found on Google news search. If you want to suppress the story, you are too late. TFD (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Which of those sources provides a sober historical overview of the entire case instead of tossing out some sensationalistic unsubstantiated claims that were never proven? Why is it that editors who favor inclusion have no interest in summarizing her denial? This incident happened in the 1990s. We should rely neither on breaking news stories published back then, nor on sensationalistic stories published in the last 24 hours. We need thoughtful, comprehensive sources published months or years after the original incident, soberly placing the matter in context. Do such sources exist? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, all I am seeing is these accusations sandwiched in between stories about Trump, Clinton, gaining weight, American citizenship, and so on. None of these have in-depth coverage of this - and it seems they are all repeating the same two or three factoids. I can't see how these support that type of highly charged material. I think this would be going into wp:undue territory (or wp:weight). All we are left with is repeating sensationalist or titillating claims. And anything negative we write impacts the person we write about. Just look at her strong feelings about Trump's remarks about her weight, and the press conference with cameras rolling that he held while she was working out.

In an Anderson Cooper interview (CNN video), she says that she was only 19 and her self esteem dropped to the floor. We would really need better coverage in sources to place unproven accusations in a Wikipedia article. Maybe it's best to keep in mind, most of our articles are in the first ten listings on any Google search. What we write has that kind of impact on another person's life. And believe it or not there are possible liability issues for WMF - please see: Outside view by New York Brad ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• FYI, the OP has also posted this: WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Public_figures_with_charges_against_them_not_found_guilty_and_never_conclusively_resolved. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The facts around this incident are just so shaky. If you follow it back to the original news report of the alleged death threat, it's not even clear whether the alleged victim of the relevant murder case was even dead. As for the coverage by mainstream media, it's just the same blurb repeated over and over about the accusations - none of these many sources seem to have actually done any independent reporting, they are just repeating each other. So in fact, I would consider the coverage to be totally insignificant from an NPOV perspective, which combined with BLP makes it completely inappropriate for inclusion, even if we also added Machado's rebuttal. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The facts are not shaky. Reuters, AP, The Economist, El Tiempo, all agree on the claims made against Machado, her denial, and that the shooting victim survived with brain damage. They do not repeat the same blurb, if they add new details as the events happened chronologically throughout Jan/Feb 1998. She was asked on CNN about the claims today, and only responded that she was 'no saint girl'. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not on the sources that are listed here. Please present them. Checking all that's listed here, only the Economist goes into any detail. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alicia_Machado#Article_protection Scroll down for my suggested, sourced version. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Has any news source gone to the bother of reporting how this got resolved? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This story is really outdated - it happened 18 years ago and no new information has surfaced. This doesn't seem to be useful for a biography article on a living or dead person. There is nothing there - just innuendo and accusations. I think it is a big so-what, who cares, and what difference could it possibly make. I agree with Someguy1221 - the facts are so shaky and the current sources are an echo chamber, and the coverage is not significant anyway. It is almost passing mention - a few sentences inside a much larger topic or subject. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the incident is worth a mention, but I think we need to be careful in how it is presented. I do think there are enough reliable sources now to be able to put together a more straightforward, yet brief, paragraph that includes the incident, Machado's alleged involvement, and what Machado said about the matter. As written previously, the section over emphasized statements from a prosecutor and a judge. Knope7 (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Given how the attempted homicide and death threat cases are no longer current events, I would be uncomfortable including them at all without a source that states how these matters were concluded. If everything was later dismissed, then by not including that we are committing a rather large BLP violation by omission. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

May we assume that the discussion about her weight should also not be included, since it isn't a current event either? If you argue for its inclusion because it came up during the Presidential campaign, you'd have to argue for inclusion of these accusations of serious crimes as that came up during the Presidential campaign as well. 2601:602:9802:99B2:3091:69:7ADE:127B (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you missed the point, or I didn't explain it right. These accusations happened 18 years ago, and so we can assume the issue is resolved or has at least been updated since then. Accusations to this level don't just vanish into the aether, there is some conclusion to them at some point in time (or maybe not, do criminal accusations regularly vanish into the aether in Venezuela?). Actual arrests were involved, so something must have come of this. If the attempted murder case were a current event, then there would be no expectation for a firm conclusion, and we might conclude we have presented all relevant facts. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

She was never charged, so as to Machado that's the resolution. Like I said, I think that there are sufficient reliable sources that a brief, relevant summary can be written. I would see how respected news sources are summarizing the incident now. Knope7 (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328, Someguy1221, Knope7, Volunteer Marek, Steve Quinn, and The Four Deuces: Any more input you all could provide on the article talk page would be much appreciated. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

House intelligence report on Edward Snowden

I'm writing to solicit feedback on these 4 edits to Edward Snowden by Brian Dell. Brian is quoting the following source and treating it as reliable:

• "Executive Summary of Review of the Unauthorized Disclosures ofFormer National Security Agency Contractor Edward Snowden" (PDF). United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 15 September 2016.

However, this source does not appear reliable to me in any way, and citing it approvingly or giving it equal validity as reliable sources, effectively smearing Snowden, appears to be a gross BLP violation. The source has been harshly criticized, most notably by Washington Post national security journalist Barton Gellman who called it "aggressively dishonest" and "verifiably false" and pretty much dismantled it piece by piece, at least in my view. The dispute between the House intelligence committee and Gellman has been covered by U.S. News & World Report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you're treating the other side not just as reliable, but so reliable so as to, in at least one case, make attribution unnecessary and unchallengeable by the particular source I've introduced. There's one of the two us that is fine with presenting both of the competing narratives and it's not you. Gellman is not infallible: I am more than happy to point out false statements Gellman has made about Snowden and provide the evidence for that. But let's just take the first item at issue here for a starter, which concerns Snowden's claim that he broke both legs in a training accident. The House intel committee report says that isn't true. The committee surely must have tried to fact check the accident claim before saying it's false. They fact checked it and then decided to lie after discovering Snowden's claim was true? All 23 Committee members, Republican and Dem Congressmen, then proceeding to sign their name to this lie? That's a rather significant conspiracy, is it not? But even before we get there, when Gelman steps into the Snowden vs the Committee explanation for the reason Snowden was discharged, what is Gelman's basis for declaring that the Committee statement is "verifiably false? Why, it's that the Committee says "shin splits" while the Army paperwork Gelman has seen apparently happens to (also?) mention "bilateral tibial stress fractures". Now what do medical professionals say about this difference? "Medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) [is] commonly known as “shin splints"... MTSS and tibial stress fractures may be considered on a continuum of bone–stress reactions...." So where the Committee says Snowden washed out because of the repetitive stress to his legs that training posed and uses the vernacular term "shin splits", Gelman steps in to call the Committee liars because the shin splits happened to to in fact be a severe form of shin splits. This somehow vindicates Snowden's broke-legs-in-an-accident claim? Should Snowden not have to at least claim that there were repeated "accidents"? I invite others to comment on whether the paperwork Gelman cites in fact proves Snowden's narrative is accurate or on the contrary shows that the Committee's account of Snowden's discharge is closer to the truth than Snowden's.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I never proposed citing Gellman's rebuttal. But it's potent evidence that the committee report is unreliable, particularly on the high school diploma bit, where Gellman cites specifics. This is apart from the fact that congressional reports are never reliable. They are written by politicians to sway public opinion, and in no way meet our reliable sources guideline. As for the shin splints vs. stress fractures, just because a source says stress fractures and shin splints may be considered to fall along a continuum doesn't make them the same thing or one a "severe form" of the other. Your arguments about whether Snowden's narrative was accurate or not have little to do with the subject of this discussion. We're talking about the appropriateness of quoting the committee report. Insert another wall of text below. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You're pointing to Gellman as your proof that the Congressmen are liars. In a he said, she said, which is what we have here, by the way, contrary to your assertion that "Snowden's narrative" is irrelevant, the credibility of both is an issue. Gellman does not cite any specifics at all with respect to where he got his documents. If he got something directly from Maryland officials as opposed to from Snowden why doesn't Gellman say so? Because he's got to protect the Maryland government as a source? Where do you think the Committee got their documents? " congressional reports are never reliable" Please cite where you find that in Wikipedia policy. Can you even cite a WP:RSN discussion that concludes that they are so unreliable they are unusable even with attribution? If you feel so strongly that stress fractures are not a form of shin splits then why don't you change the Wikipedia article saying "stress fractures are also common forms of shin splints", Doc? That's not the issue anyway, of course. The issue is which account of Snowden's military discharge is more accurate. According to you, the Snowden narrative is not just more accurate, but readers are not to be informed that it's been disputed.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the issue isn't which account of Snowden's military discharge is more accurate. The issue is whether inclusion of inclusion of unsubstantiated, extremely damaging factual allegations should be parroted in an article about a living person. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is the issue. If one account is more accurate and only one account is to be presented to readers, then the more accurate account is the one that is presented.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Says who? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Says basic logic. Start with the premise, your premise, which is that only one account is to be presented to readers (which is something on which you are now against consensus, Doc, per Safehaven's comment). Now what's the next step in terms of writing the article when we've got two competing versions of why Snowden was discharged? As Wikipedia editors we have to choose one or the other. Do you feel no responsibility to give the more accurate story to readers? Is Snowden more important than them?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue I see with this content relates to WP:IMPARTIAL, specifically "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." I assume we can agree that the U.S. government and Snowden are in a heated dispute. So we shouldn't be quoting directly from a congressional report. If we include information from this report, which may be noteworthy (I don't have a strong opinion on whether it is), we also must include reliable rebuttals of the report (including the Gellman report), per WP:BALANCE. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86, I agree, but it's not just a matter of WP:IMPARTIAL, it's also a matter of BLP and false balance. Politicians are levying serious, unsubstantiated factual claims against a living person, claims that are seriously undermined by Gellman. This is potential defamation, and we should not be parroting it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

So when NBC News writes:

"The public narrative popularized by Snowden and his allies is rife with falsehoods, exaggerations, and crucial omissions," said the report by staff members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

NBC is "parroting" "defamation"? Better be sitting down, then, when I tell you that ABC actually has "serial fabricator" in a headline about this report. That's just two of the legion of RS that found the House report noteworthy. With respect to balance, we've already looked at just one matter, the miltiary discharge, and if there's any false balance it would be from including Snowden's entirely unsubstantiated "broke my legs in an accident" claim alongside the essentially-substantiated-by-the-actual-documentation House statement.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The magnitude of the errors in this report absolutely disqualify it as a reliable source. We can't look at something with such blatant errors in fact and pretend it was well fact-checked. It honestly doesn't matter who wrote it, or who published it, or how many media sources report it. Now, it is certainly notable, and I think it should be mentioned, but in the context of all the other sources coming out now talking about the errors. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The most "blatant errors in fact" are, in fact, in the various tales spun by Snowden and his supporters but I'll leave that aside to note that the blanket statement "doesn't matter who wrote it, or who published it, or how many media sources report it" is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. For starters, with respect to "how many media sources report it", policy states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Pretty much everyone and his dog has called attention to this House report. If you are OK with noting what the House report claims, but only "in the context of all the other sources" then that settles it, because I have no problem at all with giving both sides of the story. What we could use right now, in any case, is your opinion on specific edits at hand as opposed to sweeping generalizations. The bio currently says the subject was "discharged after breaking both legs in a training accident". Is that the story, and only that story, that should be presented to readers?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to suppose that there are any reliable sources on intelligence matters. Thincat (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to say something. It's our job to try.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Galeotti and Klintsevich on Edward Snowden

I'm writing to solicit feedback on this edit to Edward Snowden by Brian Dell. Brian is quoting statements made during the following NPR interview:

• Kelly, Mary Louise (June 29, 2016). During Tenure In Russia, Edward Snowden Has Kept A Low Profile. NPR. {{cite AV media}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

In the interview, Mark Galeotti, a Russian security expert, said that Snowden "was bought and paid for," and Frants Klintsevich, a Russian politician, said he thought that "Snowden did share intelligence" with Russian authority. These allegations were never fact checked by NPR or anyone else. In my view these unsupported allegations should not be repeated per WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPCRIME. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

NPR is notorious for publishing spurious material in your view? The byline here is that of Mary Louise Kelly. She's not a legit journo? You've reviewed her work and then came to the definitive conclusion that it was not up to your fact checking standards, did you? You're stepping up to the plate to block material that NPR's editor failed to? How about this for compromise: the NPR cite stays in but you can do your level best to try to smear her reporting by having a mention of it immediately followed by the views of partisan critics like you did for the Sunday Times report. Speaking of which, are we going to get a repeat of the Sunday Times antics here? Last year you edit warred to suppress the Times story claiming BLP violation and out of 8 editors besides us who give us an indication of what they thought about its inclusion you got support from just one of them for your BLP violation claim. It eventually took admin intervention to shut down your edit warring and force you to leave a mention of the Sunday Times report (a report independently backed up by the BBC, by the way) in this particular bio. By the way, WP:BLPCRIME is supposed to apply when WP:PUBLICFIGURE does not so you should pick one of those two instead of trying to run with both.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• NPR argument: Your logical fallacy is... strawman. I never said NPR is unreliable. But, just because NPR interviews someone doesn't mean we get to quote what the interviewees say as fact. You're a smart person, so I'm sure you understand this concept. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Then stop edit warring to suppress material cited to NPR if NPR is reliable. It is absolutely false that I have ever suggested we cite what the interviewee says here as fact. Indeed, that's a strawman if there ever was one. We instead attribute it exactly as NPR attributed it. You know what the "fact" is here, Doc? It's that the Russian official and spokesperson told Mary Louise Kelly what he did. You may not like what he had to say but the fact that I, and I think the editing community, will stand by is that he said it. It's theoretically possible that Kelly and NPR just made up the quote, but for Wikipedia purposes the source here is reliable--Brian Dell (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This line of reasoning is patently contrary to our BLP policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Is that so? Then prove it by quoting the relevant policy back to me Doc. That should be pretty easy if it's as "patently" obvious as you say. You do realize that when all we are reporting is the same thing that NPR is reporting, that NPR is equally guilty of the same offence? Here's another question for you, Doc: is Donald Trump a reliable source? No? Then why aren't you purging WIkipedia of every Donald Trump quote? I mean, he's an unreliable source, is he not? But never mind other Wikipedia articles, what are the statements of Anatoly Kucherena doing in this bio? We've got two Russians here, but the one that passes your fact check screen is the one whom reliable sources have specifically identified is the unreliable one. Can you explain that paradox to us?--Brian Dell (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Easily explained. One is potentially extremely damaging to a living person's reputation, and the other isn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a "pillar" of Wikipedia. And you've just flatly rejected that principle of neutrality in favour of slanted editing. You are now frankly admitting that relatively unreliable material is to be included while relatively more reliable material is excluded if that gets you to the particular bio-, in this case Snowden-, friendly POV you want to push. I have challenged you to quote back to me the relevant policy, Doc. Are you going to do that or is WIkipedia policy just whatever you say it is? By the way, what's the motivation of a Russian official to damage Snowden's reputation anyway? Wouldn't he working at cross purposes to the other Kremlin-affiliated guy, Kucherena, in that case? Why doesn't some other Kremlin figure set the record straight about which of these two spokespersons is speaking out of turn?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sunday Times argument: Your logical fallacy is... tu quoque. Has nothing to do with the merits. I do not accept your so-called compromise.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the fact you've cried BLP violation before against a clear consensus is relevant to the question of whether readers here would be wasting their time telling you they don't see a BLP violation in this case. What makes you more inclined to respect what other editors have to say this go round? If you are going to speak of the merits, then how about addressing them by producing some evidence that NPR in unreliable. Think about the fact that the Sunday Times at least had some critics yet ultimately still stayed in after all your edit warring to keep it out. Who do you got criticizing NPR or Kelly's reporting? Anyone?--Brian Dell (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I respect your substantive arguments; I just don't agree with them. I don't respect your distractions and ad hominem attacks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You are under obligation to do more than just state that you don't agree, Doc. You are under obligation to discuss, and address my points, as opposed to edit warring. I have asked for evidence that NPR is unreliable. .Instead of producing that, you are just edit warring. I have asked you several specific content related questions that you continue to refuse to answer--Brian Dell (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no evidence that NPR is unreliable. Editing at Wikipedia requires a minimal level of competence, and part of that is the ability to listen to what your fellow editors are telling you and to drop the stick when someone informs you you're making a straw man argument. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That settles it then. The material at issue here is cited to NPR and you admit you have no evidence the cited source is unreliable. The next step is to stop edit warring. By the way, I suggest you start providing some evidence - in the form of answering the questions put to you - that you are listening to what I and others say before lecturing others about listening. Making snide remarks about my "competence" does not help you meet your obligation to discuss the content dispute at hand. Neither does simply repeating false claims like that I'm "making a straw man" when it's been shown to you why that's false. Is there any question of yours that I have ignored or otherwise failed to address?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have explained my concerns and they are not about WP:RS. At this point you are being disruptive. Please stop. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Doc, you are the party who is being disruptive. You admit you have no concerns about the reliability of the sourcing and yet you continue to to edit war. You've been asked to cite chapter and verse of the policy you are appealing to and you refuse to. All we know is that it's supposed to be from some part of WP:BLP other than WP:BLPSOURCES. Is it going to take yet another admin intervention to put a stop to your behaviour?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with DrFleischman on this one. It doesn't matter which media source carried the accusation - it was framed as an accusation, cited to a couple people who are speculating. This is a serious accusation, and the sourcing simply doesn't rise to inclusion in a BLP. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

First off, I think the settled policy matters and policy should be quoted specifically as opposed to making everything a matter of opinion. Otherwise what's the point of settled policy statements? Do you have any evidence that Klintsevich is speculating or are you just speculating? Are you aware that he has access to many state secrets by virtue of his status as deputy chair of the Russian senate’s defense and security committee, which oversees the special services? Why did the journalist pick this particular "speculator" out for comment and why didn't she inform us that he's merely speculating? Or are you privy to info that she and NPR are not? Whose statement could be called to the attention of readers if not Klintsevich's? Is there anyone? If it's not possible to find someone who could make the statement then why does policy not just say there is a total and complete ban on suggesting people have supplied classified info to foreign governments? I mean, how could one prove that to your satisfaction when the evidence can only come from one or another intelligence service? I would dispute, by the way, that Klintsevich's comment is "framed as an accusation". It sounds quite matter of fact to me and I frankly don't see the rationale for a Russian official to "accuse" Snowden. Finally, I have to ask you the same question I asked Doc: how much Trump related material in WIkipedia would you have to suppress if you were to enforce your view across Wikipedia consistently? I think you are confusing informing readers about what notable subjects have said and Wikipedia endorsing those comments.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"Let's be frank," he says. "Snowden did share intelligence. This is what security services do," adds Klintsevich. "If there's a possibility to get information, they will get it." It's a possibility that Snowden's lawyer, Ben Wizner of the ACLU, denies. That sounds a lot like speculation to me. If you want a quote from a policy, I would point to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures, If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative. Speculation from two people, I don't consider that noteworthy. And, Trump...I don't know why you're even talking about him. I don't edit any Trump articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objections to advising readers of Wizner's reply, even it's 100% "speculation" on Wizner's part (just how is Wizner in a position to make even an informed guess, never mind a definitive statement of fact, about what transpired behind closed doors in Russia? Is he a Kremlin insider? A Russian security and intelligence practices expert?), and that's primarily because it's not my job as a WIkipedia editor to second guess NPR's editorial judgement's about what's noteworthy, relevant, and of sufficient reliability to be presented to readers. I also understand that giving Wizner's reply does not mean that Wikipedians fact checked Wizner such that we'd be putting Wikipedia's credibility on the line by noting what he says. You evidently disagree with respect to second guessing the editorial decisions of RS since you believe that it "doesn't matter which media source carried" the material, if the source thinks the material is noteworthy and you don't, it's out. Now don't get me wrong, if NPR reported Snowden's shoe size I wouldn't be arguing that absolutely had to be included, but that's because the article length has to stop somewhere and we should accordingly limit ourselves to what readers are most interested in. The material at issue here is deserving of significantly more attention than Snowden's shoe size.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Randy Spears Interview

Randy Spears has appeared in a number of interviews on Youtube used as sources on his page. [8] An editor believed one of these, published by "Fightthenewdrug.org" [9] constituted a WP:COPYVIO, with the argument that it was a different uploader than the one who had created the video. The editor later retracted this statement, having realized that he had mistaken a hashtag for the uploader's name and that the video had in fact been uploaded by "Fightthenewdrug.org" (the organization whose name appears in the video at 06:23). Another editor then claims that the video fails WP:RS with the same argument, namely that since the uploader is genuine, it is a "self-published" source. [10] My contention is however, that it is not a legit argument since it is an actual interview conducted with Spears and is valid as per the rules of WP:INTERVIEW. Please advise.Holanthony (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewees said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what they said." There is no sign that the interviews cited in the article have been factchecked in any way, and one conspicuous claim, that the subject played a year-long role on a major soap opera, is uncorroborated by IMDB or by any identified reliable, relevant source. Other claims are little more than self-aggrandizing puffery. Holanthony simply lacks basic competence in evaluating sources (see this ANI discussion [11]) and merits a topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The interviews have been checked by the editors at "Fightthenewdrug.org", that is pretty plain to see. Also, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz keeps making frivolous disruptive edits in spite of there not being a resolution to the matter. Would someone please advise him on the rules in this regards? You need to reach consensus BEFORE you act. He tried pulling the same thing on the Charles Laughton page but was fortunately stopped.[12] Also, again, Wolfie, if you insist on bringing up past irrelevant posts on other wikipages, then why don't you also bring up all the times YOUR NAME had been brought up on the ANI list?[13] Or all the times YOU'VE been warned and suspended?? Or all the times you've been slammed for bullying and harassing other users? You have HUNDREDS of incidents reported on you so far so try not to call the kettle black next time would you? A topic ban might actually be in order for you, considering your track record. Holanthony (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yikes. This spiraled out of control pretty quickly. I regret my part in it. There'd already been one round of delete-and-re-insert before I came on the scene. I concluded that that the whole paragraph was poorly sourced and started a thread on the talk page for discussion. I listed three reasons. A) Copyright violation as to a youtube interview, B) Non-reliable source as to IMdB, C) Non-reliable gossip as to adultfyi.com and nextshark.com.
I botched the argument against the youtube video, so when my error was pointed out, I struck that part. I got stuck on copyright when, as was later made clear, the problem with this particular youtube video was one of reliability.
After that... well just read this thread and you'll see what happened after that. It's not pretty and I regret my part in getting it re-started. I still think the paragraph is sourced pretty dreadfully, but knowing that there had been a prior fiery tussle over far more serious BLP issues in this article recently, I ought not to have fanned the embers over a somewhat less important reliable source issue. David in DC (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this guy also a bald-faced liar. In lack of tangible arguments, he invents his own "reality", such as the Ryan's Hope appearances being "uncorroborated" through IMDb. You know what? I actually took the trouble to look through FULL cast list from Ryan's Hope on IMDb, and guess what? Spears' name IS RIGHT THERE, appearing in five episodes in 1989 as -you guessed it- a BARTENDER! [14] Corroborating every word he said in the interview and more so! If we assume good faith, we must deduce that the guy can't read, or assumes facts without checking the source, the alternative explanation is that he is willfully attempting to mislead fellow editors by lying in the hope that no one will check the source. In either case, it raises serious issues as this editor clearly is not competent to edit the page in question and has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a topic ban is in serious need for the editor in question! Holanthony (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For all of Holanthony's blustering, incivility, and personal attacks, the basic facts here are clear. The article credits Spears with roles on multiple soap operas, including "a one-year stint on Ryan's Hope in 1989". IMDB lists him only with a single, uncredited, one-week role (and that item was added quite recently, apparently while this dispute was pending). That;s not corroboration. That's contradiction. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't believe that YouTube videos are generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. IMDb is generally considered a reliable source though for filmographies, although the soap opera acting credit appears to just be a (recurring?) bit part. AdultFYI.com is a "self-published site" and generally "not considered reliable for the purposes of BLPs". Guy1890 (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Guy1890: You are a dependable editor and I have nothing but the utmost respect for your work and you bring up relevant points, which I will try to address. The operative word regarding the AdultFYI.com source, and the BLP link you bring up, is "generally". I.e. there is no "blanket ban", which means that the context and the way the source the use is what matters. You would definitely have a point if that site had reported events in Spears' life in a general sense. However, in this context the point in question is an interview with the subject himself, meaning it falls under WP:Interview. In this context, the site is to be considered a secondary source and thus reliable. The same also goes for Youtube interviews. There is nothing that suggests that the web channel in question does not exercise editorial review, which means that interviews conducted can be considered legitimate and reliable, as per WP:Interview. Holanthony (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"Generally" means "pretty much always, but someone might find an exception." I suggest that YouTube videos are very rarely usable for anything on Wikipedia. If something is important, it should be found in a reliable secondary source. Collect (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, as per WP:INTERVIEW and WP:VIDEOLINK, this "exception" is fairly clearly stated, namely that the site should exercise editorial control of its videos, which is safe to say it does in this case. Holanthony (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Interviews is unfortunately not a Wikipedia policy, and I noted (when recently editing the article in question here) that most (if not all?) of the AdultFYI.com citations in the article appeared to be interviews. I would definitely try to use the Wikipedia interview template when trying to cite interviews in the future. I don't have anything further to add about the supposed YouTube videos, except to say that we really need to use the absolute best sources available for these types of Wikipedia articles & video links almost always aren't going to cut it. Guy1890 (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton cattle futures

Is it SYNTH to assume that the abstract of this article refers to Hillary Clinton? Don't want to pay $$$ to see if her name included in full article. "This paper investigates the odds of generating a 100-fold return in the cattle futures market. We employ cattle futures data for the period October 11, 1978, through July 31, 1979," http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02920493 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy#blatant_synthesis NPalgan2 (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

"Is it SYNTH to assume..." <- I think you just answered your own question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: I have access to the full article. It contains does not contain the word "Clinton" anywhere, let alone "Hillary Clinton." Fyddlestix (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It does contain the numbers 1,000$ 99,541$ and the correct dates. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that if you read between the lines (and know the context) that it's pretty clear they're talking about Clinton. But the article doesn't name her. I honestly have no idea where that leaves us, I need to go read WP:BLP again and think about it before taking a firm position on this. Although I would lean towards Marek's point of view I think - they didn't name her for a reason, and I think it's likely that this can't be used in the article for the same reason. You can't infer that someone was guilty of market manipulation. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/11/8383593/hillary-clinton-2016-campaign "one analysis estimated that even under the most generous of assumptions, the odds of a return that large during the period in question are about one in 31 trillion." Vox vouches for the Springer link referring to Clinton, so they make the synthesis for us. Do we have consensus now to add this back in? NPalgan2 (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please point out the words in the Vox piece that says that the Springer analysis referred to Hillary Clinton. Because I do not see that stated explicitly but rather only hinted at. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

"That gain [i.e. Hillary's] came in for considerable scrutiny during Bill's presidency; one analysis estimated that even under the most generous of assumptions, the odds of a return that large during the period in question are about one in 31 trillion." Vox explicitly cites the Springer paper when explicitly discussing Hillary Clinton and the cattle futures. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed it too at first. There's no in-text citation - they link to it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, Fyddlestix, Someguy1221, and Cullen328: I propose readding the information, citing Springer and Vox, to the article. Marek, also see talk page. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@NPalgan2: Your pings did not work (at least I didn't get one). I've removed your most recent edits to the article pending the outcome of this discussion - so far I don't really see a consensus to include it. Would appreciate it if others could weigh in here. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Don't know why the pings didn't work. Also, do you really still think this is SYNTH? I just directly quote the Vox article on Hillary. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Reping @Volunteer Marek, Fyddlestix, Someguy1221, and Cullen328: NPalgan2 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ping worked that time (for me, anyway). As for whether it's SYNTH - I'm honestly not sure. But I am quite uncomfortable with using the article to imply that Clinton must have been doing something unethical (ie, that it's almost statistically impossible for to have done this "on the level") when the article doesn't even mention Clinton. It just seems... odd. I am happy to defer to what others think here but given that this is controversial I think we need a clear consensus before restoring it. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, odds an economist's model not right >> than 31 trillion. But it got through peer review and is unquestionably a RS that should be there for balance. We could not mention the actual number? NPalgan2 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think what Fyddlestix says is key - if the article doesn't mention Clinton, only insinuates it, then there is a reason for that. And it also means that it's not good enough for a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

But at this point we're discussing whether to add the Vox quote from an article which is published in a RS and explicitly about Clinton. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Kongobeats Record Producer

Hey i would like to know why my article is getting deleted. Can someone please help me or revise it please.... Its Kongobeats (Record Producer)....Please can someone fix it up for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C3:4301:5C56:0:0:0:6699 (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey there. It would be helpful first if you signed in with either your real username - or another that you may be using to edit (if that is that case) -- since this one seems to have just been created, so we could tell if you are closely related to the subject within the article under a different username. This may aid in making a connection for deletion as stated in the tag. Often when dealing with WP:BLP, the first most important issue is WP:NBIO or in your case WP:NMG and whether the subject meets the criteria for inclusion. Also, if you visit [15], you will find your article's entry with submissions for either delete or keep and the reasons for doing so. Last, you can contact the editor directly on the talk page for a more in depth reason other than the one he gave initially. Hope this helps. Maineartists (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

In further review of your article, content and sources, I have noticed several red flags (notability aside). First, your sources are not in keeping with Wiki standards for reliability.

• #1 references and cites a YouTube video that is not a reliable source due to [WP:V].
• #4 does not support the claim that the subject "released his first instrumental mixtape in 2011", let alone that "which lead to many artists recording songs over the beats".
• #5 / #6 reference and cite another subject all together that really has nothing to do with the article and does not mention the named subject at all.
• #7 a link to a mixtape is not a notable resource. If instead there was a link to a notable music publication that reviewed the release that could be cited in its stead, this would help in claiming some notoriety for the subject.
• #8 & #9 are not reliable sources since they are promotional blogs created by the artist (or subjects closely related) and do not support the inline claims.
• #10 YouTube self-promotional source directly related to the subject.

It seems that all linked sources rely heavily on videos, mixtape listings, and the subject's own personal accounts (twitter, soundcloud, instagram). The only link even closely salvageable might be #3, in that it is an actual publication that reviewed the subject and mentioned him with a somewhat notable air: "Producer Kareem “Kongo Beats” Tatem Is Ranked Among MTV Artists", and listed artists that he has worked with ..

If an editor can find more notable publications in this vein, and perhaps reveal one or two guidelines met from WP:NMG, then perhaps your submission might stand a better chance of remaining. However, as it stands, it has several grammatical errors, nearly ever line requires an inline citation, the discography needs better presentation (see [16]), and clean-up is recommended, since elaboration for many of the statements given is necessary.

I hope this helps! Maineartists (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Ban Ki-moon

I reverted the anonymous editor who insisted on adding text citing Ban Ki-moon as the worst secretary general of the UN twice from RC patrol because the cited sources are opinion pieces and it isn't a factual statement; it's also inappropriate for a BLP. He's added it back and is kind of arguing with me on talkpages. Anyone else have a viewpoint or a good course of action on this? FalconK (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Odd choice to use sources other than The Economist to discuss what The Economist said - here is the actual source. Note that it doesn't say he's "the worst" just "among the worst." Much softer in tone than the edits to the wikipedia article suggested. Note that the content is also already in the article - it's quoted in the last paragraph in the "criticism" section. I've removed the new additions as they don't seem to ad anything over what was already in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Cyriac Pullapilly

So I've been editing the article Cyriac Pullapilly, and have tried to organize and expand the article. However, the problem is, there is only a couple of reliable sources which even mention the subject. The majority of the sources are poorly sourced material from self published student newspapers and flyers, and I could not find any material anywhere else regarding this subject. In addition to this, the poor sources are also not even accessible as they have been taken down. I could not find any sources to replace the existing ones, and would like to expand the article. However, the lack of reliable content also makes me question if this subject is notable at all? Any assistance is much appreciated. Vagbhata2 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not one of the project team members, but I saw your posting and thought I'd chime in. That is so strange. I tried to use wayback machine to retrieve an archived versions of the first two sources and that's coming up empty. The New York Times article is about Gita and just has "The bride’s brother, Anand Pullapilly, who became a Universal Life minister for the event, officiated with the assistance of their father, Cyriac Pullapilly, a former priest of Syro-Malabar Catholic rite." The last source, the pdf comes up - but I don't know what page the info about the award might be on from the table of contents.

There's a little info here, and here, here. And, there's an article on page 4I think you raise a good question - I'm having a hard time finding good biographical info. I'll take a couple of more stabs and see if I can come up with something else.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the best, by far. There's info here, it's just a little hard to sort out the OCR text (bottom of the page). I'm not sure if this would be considered a reliable source, but there's info about his program that might help back into info from a RS.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Malia Bouattia's racial identity

The subject is a student politician who identifies as black based on North African heritage; as the black British article shows, black often has a wider usage in the UK than the US, and can encompass North Africans. ("The term "black" has historically had a number of applications as a racial and political label, and may be used in a wider sociopolitical context to encompass a broader range of non-European ethnic minority populations in Britain.") She is referred to be almost every mainstream media source to comment on her race as black. Therefore we should describe her as black, while also citing the minority opinion--from a single RS, which is fairly charitable to Bouattia and makes reference to, but criticizes, the broader definition of black to which she is appealing--that questions her race. After all, our job is not to "seek truth" but to reflect the opinion of reliable sources.

User: Phantom147 keeps deleting all references to her being black. He says he is committed to doing this regardless of what sources say because "I think we should reflect what is true even if RS are false." (See 2) Defensible though his position on Bouattia's race may be, this is obvious OR; and Phantom's commitment to OR is even more problematic given his desire to use OR to disparage a BLP. Phantom refuses to listen to citation of the rules and thus I have the unhappy task of reporting him here.

There is a controversy over her race; but the solution is not to take sides on the controversy. We should describe her as black (per almost all RS), note her heritage (Algerian), and discuss the criticism from the two sources that question her blackness. If we want to avoid confusion, we could call her "black British" rather than black, which has a different technical meaning than the US usage of "black."

In any case, the first solution needs to be topic-banning Phantom, who is openly disregarding the rules (follow RS) in pursuit of "truth," despite weeks of warnings from other users. Steeletrap (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted, this issue was already under RFC. The RFC took my side, saying we should represent both views and not say that she is black, because it's taking a side. This is why i removed his edits and even when we discussed the issue he kept edit warring with me before the issue was resolved. In my opinion, saying she is black IS talking a side (also the RFC concluded this is the case), not saying she is black and explaining the issue as the article does right now is the right way. But in any case, there is not reason to topic-ban me because I was only trying to bring the article to it's initial state before Steeletrap edited it AFTER it was already settled in RFC and was again in dispute on talk page. I do not see any wrong doing on my side. After the issue would have been resolved I wouldn't have reverted anything, but it was not resolved yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom147 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not "taking a side" to reflect a person's ethnic identity as expressed in reliable sources. We do not give equal validity to "both views" of an issue if "both views" are not equally represented in reliable sources. We may note contrary claims, but if those claims are a minority or fringe, we do not treat them as if they deserve equal credence in articles. This is particularly important for claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I will note that the statement in the lede that she is "the first black Muslim president of the NUS" is supported by half a dozen reliable sources which explicitly use that phrasing, including The Guardian, the BBC, IBT, etc. If the BBC says, without qualification, The National Union of Students has elected its first black Muslim woman president, Malia Bouattia, that is pretty much going to settle it. We're talking about gold-standard sourcing here. Up against this BBC article, @Phantom147:, what sources do you have to support the claim that she is not black? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Were any of these sources published since the discussion two months ago closed by an admin in Phantom147's favor? Otherwise I don't see a need to relitigate this so soon. Participants should be reminded: as this is a BLP addition of any material requires clear consensus. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually yes, I noticed it a few days ago and was going to post a reference on the talk page but forgot about it. See "Ms Bouattia, the first black Muslim to hold the post of NUS president". The BBC has now on multiple occasion's directly confirmed her as 'Black' even while covering the controversial issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A single-purpose editor devoted to smearing Malia Bouattia (as Phantom147's user contributions effectively demonstrate they are) should not be editing their biography in the first place. BLPN is precisely the place to draw broader attention to such issues and gain a broader consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't view inclusion or exclusion as a "smear" and I don't particularly care about any editor's history. I care if editors appear now to be abusing process. Can you address my question: were any of the sources you cite published after the closed discussion? (You might also want to remove the personal attack.) James J. Lambden (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

We should examine how reliable sources describe Bouattia in order to develop a clearer picture of how to give due weight to what each reliable source says, and to avoid giving equal validity to minority or fringe claims. I have opened a thread on the article talk page and invite interested editors to search the sources for this purpose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The RfC was not closed with any sort of consensus. Moreover, an RfC cannot override NPOV ,RS, and BLP.

The motives of Phantom--a user who states that he is committed to telling the "truth" about Bouattia regardless of what RS say (yes, he literally said this)--are relevant and need to be discussed outside the context of ad hominem attacks. Steeletrap (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories

Could use some outside opinions on whether this article contains BLP violations. One example is this paragraph in the lead that begins with: Another type of theory is that the murder could have been committed by a family member. Evidence appears to rule out John Ramsey as a person culpable for the murder, but there are theories under which Burke or Patsy may have killed JonBenét, generally thought to have begun accidentally. - OK, where do these "theories" come from, who is saying this, where is the attribution and sources to back this up. Because in 1998, Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said Burke Ramsey was not a suspect, and again in May 1999, Burke is not a suspect, Burke Ramsey...Police and prosecutors say he is not a suspect., Burke Ramsey was cleared by both Hunter and Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, and again in 2008, The Boulder district attorney's office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. The main article just underwent a requested move for an article title change based on these theories, and I don't think we need an entire article about conspiracy theories that include family members that originated from recent TV specials about her murder.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The sentence that you mention is a summary for the article intro. There are notes [f][g][h][i][j][k] that explain the reasoning and the info is very well cited.

This summary sentence was written before I added all the info to the Death of JonBenét Ramsey [adding: and this theories] article about Burke being ruled out as a suspect. That did resurface, though, in a recent documentary that I find to be somewhat troubled and ignores a lot of evidence.

I'll take a stab at rewriting that summary/intro sentence to rule Burke out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done, edits made to Death of JonBenét Ramsey and Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories. To your question below about Burke being ruled out - again, yes, I saw that. I typed it in last night. This is the one I made to the main article. I also made the same edits to the theories article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "I don't think we need an entire article about conspiracy theories that include family members that originated from recent TV specials about her murder." Did you by chance see the numbers of investigators, experts, pathologists, etc. that have been cited in the article? If you're saying that I need to replace the "The Case of" sourcing with better sources, though, I can get behind that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

And did you by chance happen to see the links above that say law enforcement/prosecution no longer consider Burke or other family members suspects? Because you added conspiracy theories about family members that imply they could be culpable.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

See 1st above  Done comment.--CaroleHenson (talk)

• That article needs to die. It's a dumping ground for speculation of a level not sufficiently important to make it ot he main article. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

As an FYI, this wasn't done in a vacuum. I started a conversation about this before I put days of work into it. See Death of JonBenét Ramsey#Two theories. I asked before I started if it would be considered for deletion.

I don't get how it's a "dumping ground for speculation" - other than my ill-advised use of the The Case of source too much, which as I say I'm happy to rectify. What do you think is in the article that is a "dumping ground for speculation"? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

In addition, one of the options mentioned in that discussion was moving some of the uncovered info over to the main article. Nobody commented about it after that, but I'm happy to look at that, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Lastly, I wrote up a summary for consideration of what information might be consolidated into the main article in Consolidation opportunites. It might be best to keep the comments there, so it is maintained with the history of the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I did mention that I didn't think that a "Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories" article should be created, but I was also clear that I wouldn't nominate it for deletion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Denis Coderre

Denis Coderre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After Montreal City Council enacted a controversial animal control by law last week, Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre's Wikipedia page is consistently being vandalized. Can we please limit the ability to edit this page to people with confirmed logins (ie NOT ip addresses?)

Much thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwquinn (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it and suggest that others do the same. I'm not sure the disruption meets the threshold of needing page protection just yet but will happily file a WP:RPP if it continues. The article needs work - way too much focus on controversies and many basic details about his political career missing. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

As of now, there was enough further disruption that I thought semi-protection was needed. I agree with Fyddlestix that the article needs work. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Manuel Locatelli

he is not the son of former player Tomas Locatelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.120.103.105 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, that detail was just recently added. I couldn't find definitive online-information about it either way, although some forum discussions seem to agree with your concern. But as biographical information about a living person it should have a reliable source, especially when disputed by other editors -> removed for now. By the way, you can remove such unsourced controversial or disputed information from biographical articles yourself. Please make sure to provide a clear edit summary to explain the removal in such cases. GermanJoe (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Matt Yglesias

An editor wants to keep the phrase "He does not have a degree in economics" in this article about a journalist who writes about economics and politics. I consider this so obviously inappropriate that I'm noting it here rather than waste time with him on the talk page. TiC ^(talk) 21:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO, It seems that there are three problems: 1) The source is not a reliable source, 2) the source does not say that he doesn't have a degree in economics, and 3) the article already states that Yglesias's degree is in philosophy. The reader can conclude for themselves that they don't have a degree in economics.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this strikes me as non-neutral original research--a misuse of a primary source. The source doesn't say that Yglesias doesn't have an economics degree, and it's not noteworthy unless it's been reported on by at least one independent reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

John Basedow

John Basedow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing AFD for the BP of John Basedow where editors are claiming the article isn't adequately sourced, even though every sentence has at least one RS. Anyone here care to weigh in?StonefieldBreeze (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The editors at the afd, of which I am one, are not claiming that. We're claiming that in twelve years we have been unable to produce a neutral article on this marginally-notable person due in large part to paid editors and admitted sockpuppets like StonefieldBreeze; and that blithely continuing to assume that it'll somehow magically happen is not optimism, but madness. —Cryptic 23:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer and the Nation Policy Institute

I am current in a dispute with another editor over Richard B. Spencer and his National Policy Institute which is pretty much the same thing (it's virtually a one man shop). The dispute is detailed here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_B._Spencer Basically, Spencer holds the position that white nationalism and white supremacy are different things. (supported by relevant wikipedia article) but the two positions are commonly conflated by non white nationalists/supremacists. Spencer denies being a white supremacist but identifies as a white separatist and white nationalist. There are a number of in depth profiles, interviews from RSs of Spencer. They mostly tend to note his denial of the supremacist label, talk about his views, note that he is closely associated with people who identify as white supremacists, and then let the reader make up their own mind. my position is that we need RSs that are at the very least cognizant of the difference spencer claims and that reaffirm that he is a white supremacist before the two articles declare in wikipedia's voice that he is a white supremacist. The other editor disagrees. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm -- I've offered feedback at the article talk page, but it seems it wasn't welcome... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that mainstream sources in the US don't really recognize any significant difference between "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" — they are both viewed as extreme racist positions. Spencer may hold that position in good faith, but mainstream reliable sources basically reject it. "The two positions are commonly conflated by non-white nationalists/supremacists" for good reason, in other words. His opinion should be noted, but if mainstream reliable sources describe him as a white supremacist or as promoting white supremacist views, he should be so described. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

As you say, they are both viewed as extreme racist positions. WP:LABEL and WP:BLP requires we introduce the subject in a dispassionate tone and give contentious labels in-text attribution. Zaostao (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad,Depictions of Muhammad

Not a BLP issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is requested that Muhammad(P.b.u.h) is respected and followed by all Muslims around the world. the problem i am facing is there are pictures of Prophet is uploaded in this article which violates muslims ethical and islamic values as no one is allowed to draw or refer any picture as MUHAMMAD(s.a.w.w) So i request u to allow me the access so i can remove that material and make it according to our beliefs. Its misguiding people and against our beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan murtaza (talk • contribs) 11:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)