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.

Manny Pacquiao

A WP:BLP issue at this article has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Manny Pacquiao steroid allegations and consistent edit_warring. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sheaf of allegations clearly presented in Wikipedia's voice are now removed, and should remain removed unless and until a clear consensus in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines approves of their return. Collect (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the valiant edit warriors are still at it. Can anyone defend such gems as "The recovery process was quoted as miraculous.[109] Freddie Roach explained that Pacquiao is just joking around probably having a sense of humor while being interviewed and he's actually seeing a doctor and going through rehab on daily basis.[110]" (emphasis added) Collect (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please check out this BLP? And its prior versions. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing THREE ENTIRE SECTIONS that Collect removed that was in violation of BLP. I personally removed the initial line in the Steroid allegations section that stated "Because of his ability to move weight classes, Pacquiao has been under suspicion of illegal steroid/PED use." as while it is probably correct, it was unsourced, seemed like OR and putting an opinion in the voice of Wikipedia. Apart from that line, everything else is correctly sourced. Everything else is correctly attributed. Everything else is available elsewhere in mainstream media.

Oh and, I bow down to Collect's opinion about "valiant edit warriors" - based on his EIGHT BLOCKS FOR EDIT WARRING, he's obviously far more experienced in that activity than anyone else contributing to that article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero proof whatsoever that Pacquiao has ever used PEDs. It is important to realize that Pacquiao is a high-profile figure, so naturally there will be people who are desperate for media attention who will gossip and speculate about him. The allegations are based purely on unsubstantiated rumors and do not belong in the article. The inclusion of these allegations in the article is a clear BLP violation. Songisjust (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Just.WOW. For an account that is less than one week old and with a total of TEN EDITS, you certainly have a wonderful insight into the intricacies of BLP policy. More skeptical people might suggest that you're merely a sock account, considering that the last sock plaguing the article was indef blocked PM August 31st and this account was created AM September 1st, also that you have TEN EDITS, which coincidentally is the exact amount required to edit a semi-protected article (the Manny Pacquiao article was semi-protected) - but I'm just impressed. (so impressed I will write your name on an SPI report) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to charge anyone with being a "sock", this is absolutely the worst place on all of Wikipedia to make such charges. Go to WP:SPI as your charge here seems to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, I guess it would be wise of me to respect your knowledge on what does and does not "violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines." considering that you've been blocked from editing ten times. And actually, I filed an SPI report, however I thought that anyone reading the socks's comments here, should be aware that it is a sock. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have not had "eight blocks" for edits, and two blocks on me were basically reversed at AN/I. I have been here for over a decade, with well over 45,000 edits. Your record in a mere 18 months is noticeable indeed, with abut 10% of the number of edits. And the SPI page informs you of those rules. Collect (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a variety of problems with the section but the opinions generally seem to be attributed. Can you please be specific about the material presented in Wikipedia's voice that you are concerned with?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the entire controversy section was removed, I restored it but removed the following line "Because of his ability to move weight classes, Pacquiao has been under suspicion of illegal steroid/PED use" which was unattributed and seemed to be OR and a BLP issue. I think this version of the article : [1] has no OR, is clearly attributed, highly notable and has no BLP issues.

I'm really curious what the "sheaf of allegations clearly presented in Wikipedia's voice" were, because I saw ONE LINE ONLY. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that I asked one week ago for Collect to provide information of what the "sheaf of allegations clearly presented in Wikipedia's voice" were, and they have provided nothing, I will assume that they were mistaken (for want of another word) about this and that consensus clearly shows there is no BLP issue. I will proceed with the article accordingly. Thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above in inaccurate, and those who wish details can follow the spoor rather than allow personal attacks to be extended here. If a half dozen valid editors appears to see a BLP issue, and one does not, there is a reasonable likelihood of a BLP issue being involved, for which the complainant surely can start an RfC. My position is that where a BLP issue has been raised, that an RfC is the course required by Wikipedia. I daresay this is not an extreme position at all. Collect (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Guppy

Could someone please check my recent changes to Darius Guppy for compliance with WP:BLP. I believe everything is correctly cited, but given the nature of the content I would like to be sure (my changes have been tagged). 81.155.111.250 (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use the Daily Mail for BLPs under any circumstances, and the Daily Mirror should also be avoided. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll leave the rest out. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the "Herald" line? 81.155.111.250 (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other source that needs to go is the court transcription per WP:BLPPRIMARY - "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." AFAIK the Herald Scotland is generally okay. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I didn't add the court transcript source. The following are my changes: [2], [3], [4], [5]. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, the person is not particularly "notable" at all, and the claim that he is "known for" friendships which would not be a notable fact for anyone else given the source is not of much value in any BLP. An IP who specializes in nugatory edits on any BLP is not precisely a great exemplar for WP:NPOV. Collect (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

_{I can think of just one person notable for his friendship, and that would be Kato Kaelin. Zaereth (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Yes, it's nonsense. User:Collect hasn't explained how his concerns relate to policy, but if by any chance he happens to be appealing to WP:INVALIDBIO, this obviously doesn't apply here, since "significant coverage can be found" of Guppy, such as is evident in the citations list. The user has also said things which are demonstrably false, such as the following: "source remotely connecting Boris Johnson in any great way with Guppy, and no source at all in this BLP connecting Earl Spencer in any way at all with Guppy" This, for instance, is obviously a notable connection.

As noted in my post on the talk page for purposes of WP:SCRUTINY, I'm a retired editor, not an IP editor. You would do well to stop deliberately misquoting policy, too, as you did above with WP:NPOV, and also here, especially since you are apparently an administrator. I'm going to take my own advice on the talk from now on and ignore this. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retired editor: the idea that making personal attacks on editors is neither espoused in Wikipedia policies nor guidelines. Second, the "connection" that is claimed to make notable for being a friend of Spencer is that they know each other. I hate to say this, but "knowing someone" is not a "notable fact" as a rule. Nor is Guppy notable for being a friend of Spencer. WP:BLP is an actual policy, last time I checked. And unless you have a registered username, you are, indeed, an "IP editor." I might know a dozen Congressmen or MPs or Counts, but I am not "notable" for that at all. BLPs are supposed to give material of encyclopedic value, not material found in gossip columns. Collect (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One last go: Boris Johnson was in the press for a while after a recording of his conversation with Guppy was leaked. His insurance fraud was also widely covered, especially in the light of his connection with people like Johnson and Spencer. This is clear from the 19 sources supplied. No gossip columns are cited, only sound WP:RS. Perhaps overall his exploits aren't notable - I'm agnostic about that - but it's also a different question. Until recently the article used to look like this, and I hope you agree that what we have now is an improvement. To prevent it looking like that again (some IPs tried to restore the old version) was the only reason I came out of retirement. You're welcome to take the article through AfD for the third time (and actually, WP:NPA is a policy). 81.155.111.250 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP81: I did not suggest AfD, nor is AfD needed for BLP violations. Collect (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did say "the person is not particularly "notable" at all", though. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that I was just joking of course? Had Kaelin not gone on to do other things he would be today no more than a footnote in the OJ Simpson trial article. I see three sources for the disputed line, of which none support the claim. One of the sources actually says they were friends, yet none of the three say that is his claim to fame. Therefore, it seems to me that the article is making a connection not reported in the sources, and thus is falling into the realm of synthesis. (Not to mention that all three sources are filled with quirky little comments and the opinions of the authors, thus more resemble op/ed pieces rather than serious journalism.)

I see other problems as well, such as acronyms without any indication of what they stand for, but just don't have the time right now to review the entire article.

I've known Collect a long time, and while I may not always agree with everything he says (nor sometimes even understand it), I do have to admire his commitment to keeping very high standards in BLPs. Perhaps it would be best to assume everyone here is acting in good faith, try to keep the emotions in check, and continue the discussion in a more civilized manner. Zaereth (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made very clear why the connection is significant. The lead is supposed to summarise what is written in the rest of the article, and it should be clear from the rest of the article that Guppy is notable, if he is notable at all, for his conviction, and for being a friend of Boris Johnson, specifically in relation to the episode where Guppy solicited Johnson's help in trying to find the details of a tabloid journalist whom he sought to rough-up. There is a consensus on the talk that this is BLP compliant. As far as emotions are concerned, Collect's opening remark hardly set a very good tone for the discussion.

The ridiculous amount of pointless text this has generated has reminded me why I left Wikipedia. I'm supposed to be retired, and I'm finished here, so the talk page would be the best place for any further concerns. I agree that the opening sentences are poor, but I'm not sure what could replace them. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! The IP "knows" that Guppy is a horrid criminal who used Boris Johnson, a noted Tory, as an accomplice or attempted accomplice! Sorry - Wikipedia is not intended to right great wrongs or expose evildoers whom the editor despises.

Sorry again - I know you must be a well-known retired editor from Wikipedia, and you should have known why this attitude seems not to comply fully with the policy of WP:BLP nor WP:NPOV. Guppy knows a bunch of famous people, but the intent here is not to link that fact - but to attach aspersions on Boris Johnson to boot. ... who solicited his help in trying to find the details of a tabloid journalist who he (Guppy) wanted to rough-up. certainly makes an allegation about Johnson who, as far as I know, is a living person who has faced no charges at all. Righting great wrongs is fun, for sure, but not in a BLP. Collect (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More misquoting of others from Collect, simply to try and put others in a bad light: the other editor has said nothing of the sort, so don't lie so openly by misrepresenting others. If you are going to try to mock other editors, don't tell outright lies about what they've said (again): quote them properly if you want to dispute what they have said. You've spouted enough misleading nonsense both here and on the talk page that you either do not have enough knowledge of the subject to critically analyse what has been said, or you are being deliberately obtuse. I hope it is the former, as you would be able to remedy that with some additional research, although I doubt you'll actually do anything that constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond one final time, since Collect has deliberately misrepresented what I have said. Neither I, nor the article, suggest that Johnson committed a crime. Johnson meets WP:WELLKNOWN per WP:BLPCRIME anyway. This is also besides the point, since the lines are very well sourced (two citations from The Independent, two from The Telegraph). This incident definitely took place - the sources show that both Guppy and Johnson admit to it - and I agree with the user above that Collect's failure to properly look into this is the cause of a lot of wasted time. As for the following: "certainly makes an allegation about Johnson who, as far as I know, is a living person who has faced no charges at all", the sources also make an "allegation" (which is not an allegation, since both parties freely admitted to it) about Guppy, which you don't appear to be worried about. The incident is also covered in the article on Boris Johnson.

You've attempted a number of lines of argument here; your first: "there is no source remotely connecting Boris Johnson in any great way with Guppy" would suggest you hadn't initially read the article fully. The second argument concerning whether Guppy's notability derives from being a friend of Johnson entirely misses the point. At the moment, this would appear to be an ad hoc argument intended to keep Johnson out of the article. The article obviously shouldn't be a vehicle for attacking Boris, but unless you can justify why the incident involving the tabloid journalist shouldn't be in the article, Boris Johnson must feature somewhere.

User:Zaereth: I would question whether Collect is applying his high standards in BLPs in this instance, or whether he is presently attempting to remove well sourced material from an article with no sound basis in policy or guidelines. He also needs to revisit WP:AGF. 81.155.111.250 (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Poverty Law Center Blog

Closing as WP:SNOW with a dead horse. Multiple editors expressed view that SPLC and its blog are fine for user in BLPs. Perennial issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claim: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) blog must not be used as a source for material about a living person. I will say "Support" myself and hope any repliers will be equally clear.
Support. The BLPs include Jared Taylor, Lydia Chassaniol, Brian Nieves, Steve Sailer, Michael L. Weinstein. The blog is splcenter.org/hatewatch (the rest of splcenter.org may also be unreliable but I'm trying to focus). Cites showing that SPLC itself and others agree it is a blog are here. WP:BLPSPS statement "Never use self-published sources ..." applies for "group blogs". The WP:BLPSPS exception -- "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." -- does not apply because (a) SPLC is not a news organization it is a lawyers group, (b) there is no evidence of full editorial control and there should be a burden to produce such evidence, (c) the blog writers apparently are not paid journalists which is a probable meaning of the word professional, (d) there is no newspaper. This was a side issue on a WP:RSN thread Southern Poverty Law Center As Source For Labeling Someone a White Supremacist which was archived without consensus; commenters then who actually addressed this topic were Neutrality, NorthBySouthBaranof, Richard Arthur Norton, Guy Macon, Kyohyi, Nblund. If mentioning an idea of what a blog is, please explain why it trumps dictionaries. If mentioning a non-BLP policy or guideline, please explain why it trumps WP:BLP. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again? This issue has been discussed to death on multiple talk pages and Noticeboards. SPLC (including hatewatch) is well respected and frequently cited by both academic and major news sources. There is nothing wrong with noting their views in a BLP, although in cases where SPLC is the only source being used to label a group/person a hate group, it should obviously be attributed. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fyddlestix. This has been repeatedly discussed, and the idea that it cannot be used has been rejected, because it has no basis in policy.

The SPLC's publications, such as its quarterly Intelligence Report, have won multiple press awards, including the Utne Independent Press Award (2007) and two Society of Professional Journalists awards (2003, 2005). The SPLC's former senior fellow Mark Potok, who was with the SPLC for many years, spent 20 years at major newspapers, including USA Today, the Dallas Times Herald and The Miami Herald, before joining the group.
The SPLC is often relied upon and cited by experts and scholars. This is strong WP:USEBYOTHERS. See, e.g.:

- Chen 2006 (SPLC is an "authoritative source")
- Hoffman 2006 (SPLC is "one of the most authoritative grops" monitoring militia movement);
- Perry 2001 (SPLC provides "invaluable service for the public")
- Neiwert 2013 ("the Southern Poverty Law Center ... remains the most assidous, detailed, and dependently factual of all the organizations that gather and publish information on the radical right in America")
- Spitzer 2001 (SPLC is "a nationally respected organization devoted to tracking domestic terrorist and racist groups").

A relatively small, but determined, number of editors have deep antipathy toward the SPLC. They are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to banish a well-respected group. Give it a rest. As for in-text attribution, that can be determined case by case, but I of course agree with Fyddlestix's general approach in cases of biographies of living persons. Neutrality^talk 15:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this has been brought up again, and again no one has shown the SPLC having independent reviewers of it's own publishings. All we get is how it's well-liked, and praised. And that to me only shows that it's an expert in it's field, which allows situational use as a self-published expert source. The statement that it has no basis in policy obviously overlooks the definition of what self-published means in WP: SPS. I'll say this again, demonstrate that the SPLC has independent reviewers, if not it's a self-published source. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent reviewers" is not the standard -. Newspapers do not have "independent reviewers," they have editors. The SPLC clearly has editors, clearly has editorial policies, and clearly has a system for correcting and retracting errors. That is what is required. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go read WP: SPS keynote 9. Independent reviewers is the standard. Newspapers have an explicitly called out exception to that standard. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand that the SPLC is not a self-published source; it is an organization which publishes media. Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. The SPLC's website is not a "personal web page" any more than the Anti-Defamation League's website is a "personal web page." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC's postings on it's own pages are very much self published sources. From note 9 "Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos:". The common note of all of these, is that they are published in a medium that the organization itself owns/controls. The SPLC controls it's own web-site, so any thing it posts there are self-published. Just because you like them doesn't mean they aren't self-publishing. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

″A relatively small, but determined and conservative leaning, number of editors have deep antipathy toward the SPLC.″ <---- FTFY

I'd say that this has more to do with politics than anything else, considering that most of this fiasco has popped up over the SPLC saying negative things about conservative public figures. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The SPLC's opinions should be attributed as per Fyddlestix, but they are a perfectly acceptable source. The SPLC meets reliable sourcing guidelines — they have identifiable editorial structures and policies, a strong (if not perfect) record of accuracy with their publications, and they acknowledge and correct errors where discovered (c.f. their retraction of the listing of Ben Carson). They are certainly an opinionated source, but that does not render it unusable any more than we consider the Hoover Institution unusable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the author of this proposal posted this discussion on the Jared Taylor talk page and also cited Taylor's article as an example above, presumably because he doesn't like that Taylor is described as a white supremacist. Well, in addition to all of the excellent points raised above, the Taylor article is an excellent case study: the SPLC is one of many, many sources that describe Taylor as a white supremacist. I too have seen many editors (almost always with new accounts) come to that page and challenge the description; the discussion goes on for a while and then those editors disappear. Then another new account shows up a few days or weeks or months later and makes the same argument: SPLC is no good because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's not rooted in policy. Rockypedia (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per NBSB and others. There's clear editorial control, so generally does not met the concerns of why we have the SPS language. Assume it has its bias/not an independent source, its statements as claims that should be attributed (and if necessary, weighed per UNDUE), but otherwise appropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is suggested that it is a general user blog when it clearly is not. —Paleo Neonate – 16:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fyddlestix. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - WP:BLPSPS does not say "never use blogs" any more than it says "never use books". It says not to use self-published blogs, and the SPLC blogs are published by the SPLC. I quickly checked a few of the author names, and beyond those articles listed as "staff" were ones written by established journalists such as Bill Morlin with 30-some years of experience and David Neiwert with his National Press Club award. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fyddlestix's statements are unsupported by any pointers to a settled discussion or a policy. Neutrality's statements are irrelevant since they are not about splcenter.org/hatewatch. NorthBySouthBaranof statements are merely assertions without evidence. Rockypedia's statement about me is false, this has nothing to do with white supremacy labels. Masem and PaleoNeotate seem to be acknowledging it's a blog but refuse to accept the consequence. NatGertler doesn't say which blog posts are by Bill Morlin, I didn't notice any. Anybody besides Kyohyi want to address the fact that WP:BLPSPS applies? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the word "blog" here is a red herring. "Blog" is merely a particular type of publishing platform. The mere fact that something is called a "blog" is not dispositive of whether or not it is a reliable source in any context. What matters is who is responsible for publishing that blog and whether there is identifiable, responsible editorial controls involved in the publication. In the case of the SPLC's blog, the organization is responsible for publishing it, there are identifiable, responsible editorial controls and we treat anything published upon it as a reliable source for expressions of the SPLC's opinion, where that opinion is deemed relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"NatGertler doesn't say which blog posts are by Bill Morlin, I didn't notice any." It's not real hard to do. If you go to http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ and look at the list of articles, they include an author field. At this moment, the sixth one on the list is marked as "by Bill Morlin". That's one by Bill Morlin. Or, if you go to the search field above the list and type Bill Morlin into it, then click the button to the right, that will take you to a list of articles written by Bill Morlin. A quick check of the list suggests there's about 600 such articles there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I had no reason to assume you meant blog posts used for the Wikipedia articles. Sorry. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/C)Comment The OP's unsupported claim that SPLC has no editorial control makes absolutely no sense. The SPLC is the one who will get sued for libel, should they libel anyone because the SPLC has complete and official publishing control.[6]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such claim. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. You said in the OP they have no editorial control, which is nonsense, or you did not even bother to look. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I can find is this: "there is no evidence of full editorial control and there should be a burden to produce such evidence" which is not "The SPLC has no editorial control", it's "evidence has not been provided that the SPLC has full editorial control". Two different statements. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then oppose, the OP demonstrates ignorance not just about editorial control but about who works there, and what kind of real publishing constraints they operate under. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is pretty much irrelevant. If it is a contentious issue, then we need multiple sources. Otherwise at best (or worst) we must attribute findings to the SPLC. Furthermore, there isn't a reliable source out there that will report SPLC's findings as "fact". They too use attribution. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we need one of those "Check what issues have been extensively discussed already before making a proposal" boxes, with this issue as one of the perennial ones. But yeah, Oppose. Volunteer Marek 17:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I know its been suggested before but we need something like a RS/NPOV casebook for general sources, akin to what the video game project does for sourcing WP:VG/S, to track these types of discussions and research so that such debates don't get rehashed. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per neutrality and others. I'm not sure why this question warrants yet another noticeboard post, virtually all of the issues raised by OP were raised in the previous noticeboard posting, there's no reason to think that more quibbling over policy minutiae will change the outcome. Nblund^talk 17:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and sort of bar on citation uses in BLPS. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a well-respected organization when it comes to identifying hate groups and extremists. Suggestions otherwise are dead on arrival. ValarianB (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all of the above, and the issue is really getting tiresome. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. This issue hinges on the question of whether Wikipedia's mission is to present articles that are credible and accurate. It isn't. The mission is to reiterate whatever silliness academics and pundits are trying to pass off at present. I could hardly think of a more appropriate source for Wikipedia than the SPLC Hateblog. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion that sarcasm might be involved here but must take you at your word and count this as a real "oppose". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: While I strongly disagree with ValarianB's assertion that "The Southern Poverty Law Center is a well-respected organization when it comes to identifying hate groups and extremists" (It used to be, but no longer is) and with NorthBySouthBaranof's assertion that they have "a strong (if not perfect) record of accuracy" (they used to, but lately have listed groups that don't exist, citing as "evidence" a post on a Nazi website by a self-confessed internet troll, and refused to admit that the group doesn't exist or provided evidence that it does). That being said, this proposal is the wrong way to address the problem, and the policy being cited does not require that the SPLC not be used as a source for material about a living person. See WP:DAILYMAIL for an example of a source that is not be used as a source for material about a living person or anything else. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not SPLC it is their hatewatch blog, and the policy does require that a blog not be used as a source for material about a living person, but I must take responsibility for somehow not getting that across. The Daily Mail can be cited for opinions but that's another topic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Oh yes, let's give aid and comfort to bigots while sullying the reputation of Wikipedia. (Sarcasm.) Perennial complaint. Can we get a bot to respond the next time it pops up? (Not sarcasm, only wishful thinking.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose with reservations - as others have already mentioned, a BLP requires multiple RS for any material that may be challenged. SPLC is a questionable source at best. We had a pretty thorough discussion about it at RSN. See the list of articles provided by Macon at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_230#Southern Poverty Law Center As Source For Labeling Someone a White Supremacist which explains why SPLC lacks credibility. Also keep in mind, they are a self-published source (see WP:SELFSOURCE#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves), they have a COI as paid attorneys, they are a biased or opinionated source, (their findings are based on their POV and they have been dead wrong from time to time). ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given your arguments, I'm surprised that you oppose, but oh well. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Summary. Support: 1, oppose: 16. Several opposers suggested that this has been discussed multiple times, though they provided no evidence. One opposer named journalists who have contributed to the blog. Other comments were that SPLC in general has done good work, and that there are editorial controls. The overwhelming majority opinion is that the blog splcenter.org/hatewatch can be used in BLPs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gulutzan, my iVote was a weak oppose with reservations followed by an explanation. A BLP requires multiple RS for any material that may be challenged. Biased sources can be used with inline text attribution. I also provided a link to a recent prior consensus which was not closed in support of SPLC. I don't know how many times we have to go through this but I don't agree with your "possible summary". Consensus does not overrule NPOV policy, BLP policy, RS guidelines, or any other related policies. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:SNOWBALL with or without your waffling. What's the difference? Rockypedia (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme: I'm involved, my possible-summary post has no more significance than a post by you or any other editor. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this horse is not just beat to death, it is in smithereens. SPLC and its blog are fine and people who keep flogging this horse are going to end up topic banned. That is what we do when people keep trying to force the same conversation in many places and fail to get consensus every where they go. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - snow - Déjà vu. Objective3000 (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dan Huberty

This article has been problematic for at least a month. The subject may have exhibited some questionable behavior, but his fans and detractors are using (a) primary sources and (b) dodgy websites that support some POV problems. The edits are at times obvious and in other cases insidious (like inserting religion to the infobox and gratuitous inclusion of minor childrens' names and [religiously affiliated] club memberships). We need to put some protections on the page and look at individual behaviors. Rhadow (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is adding religion or childrens' names, that's a straw man. The entire disagreement is over a video of Huberty that Rhadow keeps deleting that showcases the subject fighting with police and staffers as an elected state rep. The other disagreement is over the inclusion of a recent controversy that the same state rep demanded his trash be picked up at the expense of ongoing rescue operations, for which he was widely criticized. Rhadow keeps deleting huge blocks of text, where the editorial consensus on the talk page is to keep both items. Rhadow has been bypassing the talk and discussion on this article completely, and has been engaged in repeated bulk deletion. It needs to stop. Flatoncsi (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for inclusion on the talk page as you claim. Furthermore, in this edit [7] an admin stated that the sources provided were insufficient for the fighting claim, and in this edit [8] another admin stated that the sources provided were insufficient for the trash story. The continual edit warring on this point needs to stop. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus appears to be remove. But, this looks under control now anyhow. One of the editors adding such info received a short block and there is an open WP:SPI. Objective3000 (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody was adding kid names, wtf are you talking about? The issue isn't 'resolved' - you had an admin block one person for 24 hrs because they took sides in the dispute, and then you had 2-3 other people keep bulk-reverting without building any consensus on the talk page. There are several people who clearly point out this is relevant, and I think, like me, are offended that they keep getting talked down to about it, and their arguments entirely mischaracterized. Whether Huberty was once drunk is irrelevant, it's how he acted. it has been covered in mainstream outlets, it caused other competitors to come out against Huberty, it's so obviously relevant here, and yet repeated work by a significant number of people keeps getting rudely reverted and the talk page ignored. The admin arrogance, along with some long-time editor arrogance, is causing 90% of the problem here. Flatoncsi (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained repeatedly, if you want to add material to a biography of a living person, as you did in for example [9], you will need a reliable secondary source supporting the edit. The source you have just provided appears to be linked to the Houston Chronicle, and so looks reasonably promising. However this source doesn't support the statement that Huberty was drunk: at most it could be used to support a statement along the lines that Mtchell Bosworth criticised Huberty for drinking. And making edit summaries like "fuck Alex Thie" isn't really helping your case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Freidman

Evgeny "Gene" Freidman is known as the Taxi King of New York City. In his long career, he has attracted a lot of press coverage and, unfortunately for him, a lot of legal trouble. This case requires a short introduction to properly understand the issues. The article Gene Freidman was created in 2015 by an editor who (in 2017) was found to have been part of a sockfarm. It is quite possible that they were paid to create the article. That editor made a total of two edits to the article. Two years later, I more than doubled the size of the article. It was nominated for deletion by User:TonyBallioni because of the connection to the sockfarm. The AFD closed as no consensus.

TonyBallioni has removed two parts of the article, claiming they are in violation of WP:BLPCRIME. One of the removed sections is about the arrest of Freidman and his business partner following an investigation by the New York Attorney General. The arrests were announced by the NY AG and follow on from prior cases already included in the article. There was no implication in the removed material that Freidman was guilty of the charges. TonyBallioni also removed the entire section about Friedman's personal life. This section included an allegation by Freidman's wife that he had assaulted her. According to press reports, Freidman admitted to the incident and plead guilty to charges of harassment.

I believe that TonyBallioni is mistaken in his interpretation of that section of WP:BLP and our discussion on the talk page was fruitless, so I am bringing it up here to get some more input now that the AFD has closed. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[10] is the edit at issue. "In April 2015, it was alleged by Sandra Freidman that Evgeny Freidman had assaulted her in March 2015" is clearly a contentious bit of celebrity gossip which might pass muster but the person removing it acted in reasonable belief that this is something which requires an actual positive consensus for re-insertion in the BLP. Start a "Request for Comment" on the BLP talk page if this is a matter of importance to you. Collect (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I included it because the assault charge comes up in a lot of the more recent reporting on Freidman (for example, this profile from Bloomberg) so it seemed odd to leave it out of the article. The incident also appears to be the impetus for his wife filing for divorce. Do you see anything wrong with the rest of that section if the assault part was left out? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor raised credible objections. The "hoops" are per Wikipedia policy, so it is not I who is making you jump through them. Collect (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anything wrong with the rest of that section if the assault part was left out? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect:, there was an entire personal life section removed, do you see anything wrong with the rest of that section if the assault part was left out? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure stated is to follow WP:CONSENSUS and note that WP:BLP requires that any consensus to re-insert the removed material must be strong at the very least. I am not the person who decides. Collect (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect:, you seem to be suggesting that the only way to restore the material removed is through an RFC. Most of that material was uncontentious biographical detail as found in most biographies. The assault was covered in two sentences. The remainder of the section should never have been removed. You are advocating for unnecessary and unusual procedure for no reason. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material was removed with the assertion that it violated WP:BLP. Read that policy about contentious material which has been removed. RfC is not an "unusual procedure" at all. Collect (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a false assertion. As TonyBallioni has admitted below, BLPCRIMR does not apply to the "personal life" section. Even if it did, I am asking you about the remainder of that section, minus the assault. The material is not contentious. Process for the sake of process is not helpful in building an encyclopedia. Repeatedly dodging simple questions is not a good way of working to improve articles. Although, if your intention is simply to stymie someone else's efforts, it is a very popular tactic here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, again, I was not the one who originally removed that section and BLPCRIME was never claimed to justify its removal. It is instead a weighting issue for potentially prejudicial material in a BLP when he did not plead guilty to criminal conduct but instead to a civil violation. That still falls under BLP policy, and such content should be removed until there is consensus to restore. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to WLC for bringing this here. I do appreciate it. Unfortunately the AfD became a debate about paid editing and notability. It was unclear one way or another whether outside of his criminal actions (alleged and otherwise) this man was notable. I still say no: the non-criminal parts are excluded by WP:SPIP as typical self-promotional stuff, but thats not relevant to BLPCRIME. The question here is whether or not he is a public figure: to which I would say a resounding no. He holds no elected position, he's at most a relatively minor business figure in the grand scheme of NYC, and its unclear whether he is notable or not.
He's a private businessman who tries to promote himself, he's not a celebrity, politician, or head of a major publicly traded company who has accountability to the general public. This means two things: one, the stuff about his wife is gossip and undue weight, two he is entitled under WP:BLPCRIME to the presumption that his crimes will not be reported in Wikipedia because he is not a well known public figure. The fact that the state attorney general filed the charges doesn't change it. If he were the head of the largest pizza chain in NYC and got indicted for money laundering by the US attorney the same presumption would apply. The BLP policy covers Mr. Freidman, even if he seems to be a rotten guy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, let's not replay the AFD here. If Freidman were not notable, the AFD would have been closed as delete. WP:BLPCRIME says "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured". We can disagree on whether or not Freidman is or is not relatively unknown but in the case of the alleged assault on his wife he admitted to the incident, was convicted of harassment, and agreed to conditions. How does BLPCRIME apply? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD closed as no consensus to the question of notability: meaning its not clear one way or the other. I'm not trying to replay it, simply showing that its not even clear if Freidman is notable, and it is certainly far from the case that he is a public figure. Its relevant to that discussion. Re: your specific question, as Jytdog has explained below, its a question of weighting and whether it is in fact relevant to the article. Per WP:ONUS, we don't have to report on everything that is written about someone, and for BLPs on issues such as these, we typically require a positive consensus for inclusion. I'm not entirely convinced including a domestic dispute in any form would be an okay weighting, but the formula mentioned by Jytdog below would be the most that should be in there if we do have it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, you removed the section with the claim that it violates BLPCRIME. You stated it again here. Please explain how BLPCRIME applies. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such claim re: the domestic dispute and BLPCRIME (that I can find, and if I did, I didn't mean to.) I only reverted you when another editor challenged that inclusion per BLP and NPOV. I'm agreeing here that it was a good faith removal and that we do need to consider in light of the weight, if any, it should be given under BLP and NPOV. My BLPCRIME claims were and are meant to more explicitly deal with the AG investigation, where it does apply as he is a private individual who has not been convicted. I think they might have some corollaries with the domestic dispute (I don't believe he actually pled guilty to the assault but to harassment, for instance, but I could be mistaken there.), but the domestic dispute is primarily weighting and whether it is unduly prejudicial to his article meaning that it wouldn't comply with NPOV and BLP and weighting. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's ok with you, can we deal with one issue at a time to keep the conversation focused? It seems like you agree that BLPCRIME does not apply to the alleged assault. It also seems like the issue here is how much weight it is given. Fine. Can we also agree that there are no issues (either weight or BLPCRIME) with the rest of the personal life section that you removed? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who originally removed the entire personal life section. That was Power~enwiki. I reverted your restoration of it because it did contain content that reasonably could be seen as undue weight. Re: his marriage I would like to hear other's thoughts on that. We do have some BLPs where we refrain from including a personal life section because they are not public figures: Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.

Since his wife is not relevant to his claim to notability, there is a case under BLP to not include her. The addition of his family life would need a strong positive consensus for inclusion, and if it were included would need to be in a limited fashion as Jytdog has pointed out below. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing my best to assume good faith in these discussions but this is getting farcical. It is very common to have "personal life" sections in biographies, including those of people who are not public figures. This article is not special in any way. Please stop being needlessly obstructive. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPNAME, whether or not we include the name of a family member who is a private person is an issue of discretion with the presumption being in favour of privacy. In this case the wife has filed for divorce, was in a domestic altercation with him, and his article already includes a significant portion of negative information about his businesses that she probably wouldn't want to be associated with. Unless we determine that the assault should be included, it isn't necessary to include her in order for the reader to have a complete picture of the subject, and since we can reasonably assume that she wouldn't want to be connected with him, the BLP policy favours her privacy. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my take. I generally find "personal life" sections icky and beneath our mission, unless personal life stuff is somehow important (like JFK's severe back problems for instance). The kind of thing we are talking about here, is gutter crawling trash and is generally driven by BLPCOI situations. But at most something like "he married X; pled guilty to harassing her and admitted in court to pushing her against a wall, and they divorced.". But again, WP is NOTGOSSIP. Bottom line, the proposed content is gutter crawling trash. 08:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The section that was removed also includes simple facts about his marital status and children. You may find that "icky" but it isn't "gutter crawling trash". What you have proposed here isn't really very different from what was removed, but I'm not sure I understand if you are saying include it or don't include it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Jews

Currently has an extensive section (and sub-article) stressing that American Jews are "White." [11] shows the re-insertion of the problematic material.

The overwhelming majority of American Jews identify as white. In 2013, the Pew Research Center's Portrait of Jewish Americans found that more than 90% of Jews who responded to their survey described themselves as non-Hispanic whites, 2% as black, 3% as Hispanic, and 2% of other racial or ethnic background.

The issue is whether this sort of section belongs in any article on Wikipedia, or on any BLP-compliant article on Wikipedia. I note that no such section is found in any other article on Wikipedia that I can find, including Arab Americans. I note, for example, that Wikipedia requires self-identification for race, religion or ethnicity, and that this re-inserted material violates that by implicitly labeling anyone whose BLP links to this article or related articles as "white".

One may also rice that this article states "facts" about American Jews verging on stereotypes, including With to the Jewish penchant to be drawn to white collar professional jobs and having excelled at intellectual pursuits, many Jews have also become been remarkably successful as an entrepreneurial and professional minority in the United States, In the business world, while Jewish Americans only constitute less than 2.5 percent of the U.S. population, they occupied 7.7 percent of board seats at various U.S. corporations, and a few other "facts" which are possibly not neutrally worded.

In short, the question is - does this article follow WP:BLP and other policies of Wikipedia? Note that there has been extended discussion over a long period on the article talk page (well, since 2006). I rather think this should be brought to a head, with the "Jews as White" explications being removed. Collect (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bolded text is problematic, given the methods of the Pew survey. The statement about the survey is fine (and Pew's a respected source), it establishes it is not necessarily an accurate number. But the conclusion from that that "overwhelming majority" is a SYNTH violation (and thus fails BLP by default).

The white collar line is sourced to a SPS forum. It definitely should be nixed.

The 2.5/7.7 stats line actually is fine, sourced to Mother Jones (though that should be given a date in prose). It's similar stats as one would demonstrate a wage gap or similar ideological group disparages from the general population to a specialized population. If you take away the white collar line above, this statement is neutrally worded. (It's in context of that line that is looks wrong). --MASEM (t) 15:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merely linking to this article doesn't assert that any statements about what is true in what percentages apply to any particular person. Maybe such a person is one of the 90%, maybe they are not. As to not finding this in any other article, I don't think you searched much: Native Americans in the United States#Racial identity, White Trinidadian and Tobagonian, White Hispanic and Latino Americans. Identification as white is obviously a valid topic for discussion, not sure what the thinking is here. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rossi (DJ)

I've done some pruning already (arrests and stuff) but this really needs more help than I can give it right now--thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also condensed the Viral fame and cheating accusations section by removing WP:UNDUE content. Meatsgains (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Peper

This biographical article was created by and contains substantial edits by a user named Repep (Peper reversed). Moreover the article reads like a short resume. Most likely the article was created by the subject himself. The subject of the article is of questionable notability, although that is a separate discussion. Such an abuse of the Wikipedia for purposes of self-promotion is a detriment to the perception of the Wikipedia as a unbiased source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.38.96.187 (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Repep has been blocked for sock puppetry, so the question of what to do about him is moot. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Easterbrook

Hi Wikipedia,

This is a minor request. I wonder if you might add to my entry, in any manner that seems fitting to you, my latest book - from 2015, noted below -- and the fact that in 2017, I was elected to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences https://www.amacad.org/content/members/newFellows.aspx?s=a

http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/book/the-games-not-over/9781610396486

Many thanks, Gregg Easterbrook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg Easterbrook (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregg Easterbrook: No problem, done. Don't really want to encourage posting here though; this probably should've gone on the article talk page. This is a noticeboard for issues with articles. "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." —DIYeditor (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

davy russell

Why have Wiki removed all mention of his recent animal abuse? This information should be included in his entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8A2:2600:F5F4:1C8D:B2AA:7525 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trenhaileae:There really isn't centralized control of wikipedia pages, it's just editors like you and me who add and delete material, there are policies and guidelines which are followed, so I would ask the editor who removed the material.(who I have pinged here) Tornado chaser (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to reply for another editor, but @Trenhaileae:'s removal of the allegation was fully compliant with the policy on biographies of living people. Unsourced material such as what was removed must be immediately removed from articles. This is particularly true when the unsourced material concerns allegations of possibly criminal actions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you just have to punch a horse. It was unsourced and so subject to removal correct. However the Irish Turf club have officially sanctioned him for "acted in a way that was prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horse racing". Which was pretty much a given once video footage of it surfaced online. Now its uncontroversial that he did indeed punch a horse and get a ban, if a single horse-punching incident should be included in the biography of a jockey is a WP:UNDUE issue since it can be well sourced. Its *not* an allegation of criminality as it was written, however if it did lead to a criminal prosecution (for cruelty to animals for example) it would probably pass to be included in the article. Likewise if he had a history of abuse (in horse racing, given the use of the whip, there are actually specific sanctions for over-use) it might be worth including. As it was, he probably had a long hard day, the horse provoked him and was asking for it... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Sudfeld

Nate_Sudfeld

Death date of Sep 7, 2017 entered. I can find no reference to this through a Google search and he is still listed on the Eagles roster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.57.135 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was reverted by user NorthBySouthBaranof. Meatsgains (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Toscano

Edits are repeatedly being made by a former political opponent of David Toscano on his page. The opponent's first account (Orwellianlocksmith) was disabled and he has since then created another account (Nairncrosstrees) solely to make edits to that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsygeek (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Kissi

Hello Wiki admins

I've just realized photographer and creative entrepreneur [ Joshua Kissi ] wikipedia was taken down - why? There's plenty of sources within the article which states his Biography context from reputable resources such as the New York Times & The Huffington Post - can we have the page reactivated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RafJohnson (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was deleted as G11, unambiguous advertising, meaning the whole article was written like an ad, so there probably wasn't much good content. However, if you want to recreate the artical, you can do so if the subject of the artical meets WP:N, and the article complies with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP. You should also be aware of WP:COI. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Niemeyer

There is some discussion over the images in use in this article. An IP posted at the Helpdesk that the commons image was not his official photo. This prompted some scouring, and it appears that the commons image is a photoshop of at least three others, but it's hard to tell which is the original. Most of this is outlined on the talk page, but to summarise:

EXIF data identifies (including the Oiginal Doc ID) commons image as being a completely different image for a different person
There are now two images on commons claiming to be the "official" image - one is obviously a photoshop, if not both File:Lucian Niemeyer official photo.jpg and File:Lucian Niemeyer official portrait.jpg
Looking at the image photoshop artifacts can be seen - his right shoulder is particularly obvious where his suit meets the flag with the line being overly sharp - until it meets the near edge of the photo and the crop marks can be seen.

What is Wkipedia policy for images when obvious photoshoppery is evident - in this case the entire top of his head has been changed.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Photoshopped copyrighted images" are still copyright violations. Collect (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both are photoshopped. My concern would be whether all the elements of these composite images comply with the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. If we can't be satisfied that they do, we can't use the images. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Nyanzi

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella Nyanzi. Perhaps I handled it wrong and should have used a BLP speedy instead, but I don't want to propose one myself at this point. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did it right, I just removed some of the BLP issues. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The massive "Ten Million Shilling" fine ends up at the $2600 level. And I fear the name-calling ("a pair of buttocks") seems a tad mild in this world. Collect (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly something missing in the translation.--Auric talk 20:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Hong Lu

Would appreciate additional eyes on Jun Hong Lu. There is an IP user who is attempting to add unconstructive and POV language throughout the page. I've reverted twice and so has David Biddulph as well. Meatsgains (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy Bear

Regarding this [12] and this [13], would someone like to explain to Jimmyb10 that BLP does apply to that page, and that they shouldn't sow conspiracy theories about living people if the best they have is CounterPunch? Geogene (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Harper

[[14]] Someone or many someone's continue to chage Hill's birth name to Francis BUT it is Frank. I worked for him for close to 4 years and I have seen his birth certificate many times and it says Frank Eugene Harper. Hill has asked me personally to find a way to stop this from happening. If this is not the proper forumn, can someone please direct me to where I can report this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HillHarpersFormerAsst (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have him contact the Volunteer Response Team by going here. This is the proper place to have these concerns expressed and handled. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Rochester and Joel Seligman

Can someone more experienced with BLP please take a look at recent edits to University of Rochester and Joel Seligman? There are allegations being made against a professor at that university (Seligman is the university's president) and the allegations have reached (and been fueled by) the national media e.g., Inside Higher Ed, Mother Jones. The national attention may mean that the issue warrants some coverage in the relevant Wikipedia articles but I'm very nervous that so far there are only allegations. ElKevbo (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising the issue. The Joel Seligman page is resolved, not on basis of BLP. In the case of University of Rochester the offender is not identified in the added section while the allegation nature of the added information is clearly outlined in the section title. The allegations are well referenced to multiple credible media outlets as well as a 113 page EEOC complaint wiled against the University. [15] GGthefactchecker 05:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GGfactchecker (talk • contribs)

There's sufficient reliable sourcing addressing the issue that I feel something should be included, but I completely agree with ElKevbo's removals on the grounds of BLP; GGfactchecker, you need to understand Wikipedia's reliable sourcing criteria. Petitions and letters hosted on Google Drive are not in any way, shape or form acceptable as sources for claims about a living person, full stop, the end. You need to read the Biographies of Living Persons policy before editing these related articles further. We are to write about living people sensitively and with great care to avoid sensationalism, reject gossip and treat unsubstantiated claims with the measure of skepticism that reliable sources apply. This issue should be discussed further on the related talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something needs to be added. The coverage by RS - newspapers, television and radio, national magazines - is not only extensive, it features a substantial number of direct quotes from Seligman himself. There is no need to include non-RS letters, petitions, and the like. Although the issue is ongoing and likely to remain so for an indeterminate time, ignoring it seems to me un-encyclopedic. I will attempt to revise the material accordingly. And yes, let's move the discussion to the article's talk page. I will start a section presently... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John_Merritt_(public_servant)

Why do I care where this guy honeymooned?

Why is his birth year unclear and yet listed? Is he some ancient sage that we want to revere in that we don't know when he was born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.133.63 (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2017‎

I don't know, why do you care where he honeymooned? If you have an issue with the content of a biography that is not a violation, the place to take this is the article's talkpage. Dates of birth where the subject's age is known at the time of printing can obviously (depending on the time of year and absent a definitive DOB) mean that the subject was born in one of two years by working backwards, which is what I assumed happened here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Hutton, born 1947, requires basic biographic information to differentiate the wiki article as factual from purely listed for political purposes

With no reference to "Drew Hutton" as associated from any part of Australia in particular, nor any reference to his ancestry or early history, the article appears to be nothing more than a legitimising internet reference for political purposes. Apart from promoting only the positive and exaggerated achievements of the man, without citation, the article appears to be nothing more than the abuse of wikipedia for propaganda rather than a legitimate source of balanced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimmyAU (talk • contribs) 13:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh... Can anyone translate this? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TimmyAU: I didn't understand the problem either, you need to be much more specific. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TimmyAU: - reping, you can't fix a saved ping. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Rashid Bhat

Andrea Wallace

The picture attached to the Wikipedia entry for Andrea Wallace is not the Andrea Wallace Runner referred to. I am struggling to see where the existing image comes from and how I can show you a correct picture. You do not make it easy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.254.74 (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Andrea Wallace article has never contained a picture. Are you thinking of some other article? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint comes up a lot when a name is googled. Google will put up the Wikipedia article and nearby they place a photo of the person. Sometimes the two don't match, but that is something controlled by Google not us. However, 82.17..., if you have a photo, and you either own the copyright or have written permission from the owner, you can easily upload the picture and place it in the article yourself. Just click the "upload file" link on the left and follow the bouncing ball. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public figures under mind control?

An editor has been writing in the talk page of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that various American public officials are under mind control by the Russian government, or somehow controlled by a "psy-ops" campaign. For example: [16] [17] [18] [19]. This seems to me to be a BLP violation, even on a talk page. I also don't see how any of these comments are related to improving the article. I'd appreciate if an uninvolved editor could take a look and give their opinion on whether such comments are admissible on the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except that's not what this editor is saying at all. I don't see anything in there about mind control. You're making that part up. Way to misrepresent somebody's words. Psy-ops: Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. Volunteer Marek 04:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for input from uninvolved editors. Anyone can read the diffs and make up their own minds. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Marek is right, you are totally misinterpreting things. Psy-ops is short for "psychological warfare", not "psychic warfare". Understandable mistake, but time to move on. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Psy-ops" is short for "psychological operations." The comments specifically say the psy-ops campaign has gotten inside the minds of US officials and is causing them to act in certain ways. Especially without any reliable sourcing, that sort of claim is not one I think should be made anywhere on Wikipedia - even in the talk pages. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distill that scary sounding statement down to it's meaning: agents of the Russian government attempted to influence the opinions of Trump campaign officials by talking and writing at them. That's such a vague and harmless statement it's essentially impossible for it to violate BLP, even if it's a pretty dramatic way to say it. Really, this is nothing to get upset about, especially since there are no specifics in the diffs given. At worst it's just an unhelpful contribution to the overall discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved editor -- there is no violation of BLP here. This is normal discussion on an article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psy Ops is largely the dissemination of propaganda, not Men Who Stare at Goats. It is always good to err on the side of caution with BLP policy, so no harm in filing the report IMO, but I think this is fine. ValarianB (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not the way that SPECIFICO is talking about it. They're specifically talking about Russia having "messed with the minds of the Trump circle," causing them to behave in certain ways. At best, the posts I linked above (which I encourage people commenting here to read, rather than simply commenting on the meaning of "psy-ops") are disruptive nonsense. I think they're more than just disruptive, and I don't think we should be tolerating source-free accusations that people are under manipulation by foreign powers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the post immediately below this is an example of the type of nonsense we have to put up with on talk pages where this user is involved. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's this ...

SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pardeep narwal

he is born in Haryana please update in the box . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakravarthy0612 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chakravarthy0612: Since the article is about a living person, we require a reliable source to support the change. Since you have not provided one, the article has correctly not been changed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of court filing as source in article on gang

Comment invited at Talk:Lunada Bay Boys. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote on that page - but Wikipedia has long frowned on any court documents, and "filings" are self-published under Wikipedia definition as they are not vetted before the filing. Useful as Angel Soft. Collect (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanatan Sanstha

There seem to be some BLP/edit war issues at this article. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allie X's Scandinavian accent

Hello. I've read the Wikipedia article on the Allie X, and it claims that she was born and raised in Oakville, Ontario, which is at 43.4675° north latitude and 79.6877° west longitude. At this location, people who are native to this area do not have a Scandinavian accent. Take the song "catch" for example. the J in "just wait until I catch my breath" soudns like a mix between a J and a Y sound (like the y in you). This is typical of some Scandinavian accents, in particular those closer to the arctic circle. Other elements of the Scandinavian accent are present both in Catch, as well as her other songs and her speaking voice. I'd like to know, if she's Canadian, what's with the Scandinavian accent? there may be some errors either in Wikipedia or else the source that claims she was born in Oakville ONtario, Canada. Now this is not ot say she is not a Canadian citizen, she likely moved to Oakville after a time, but I'm saying to keep it on the table that she may be Norwegian, Swedish or Greenlandic, not Canadian.

Thanks.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would need a WP:RS to support this, your interperataion of her accent alone is WP:OR. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time finding a source that says she was born in Canada. I found one that says she lives in Oakville, but not born in Oakville. Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources challenging the subject's own statements and reliable sources all saying she is from Oakville, OT?

Oakville, OT is sourced in the article. Every reliable source I can find has her "born in", "hailing from" or a "native of" Oakville, OT. She is quoted as saying she was born and raised there. Without reliable sources, we cannot say that several young women have lied repeatedly about their birth places being in Canada and the UK rather than Norway, Sweden and/or Greenland. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBC News. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a biography investigator who believes in total acuracy. The way you're wording it yuo make it sound like I am going after speciffically women. No. I go after anyone who seems to have a descrepency in terms of birthplace or accent. Partially bassed on my life story, i have decided to investgate biographies.

Funny you mention CBC, my wife Hekla is currently being called by a woman named Wendy mesley who clais to be from CBC regarding my long time investigations of various celebrities in terms of their birth dates, places of birth or birth names. She brough up Thair Cruse and Tara McDonald. Anyway I'm bringing it up because I heard a Scandinavian accent in Allie X's voice, and it caught my ear both as an investigator and as a curious person. Forgive me for questing the status quo of various self-made statements. Would you believe I was bornin Ankara? not if you heard my voice you wouldn't. You'd have good reaso for saying I am from Aberdeen. In the same way, Allie X can say she is Canadian at birth, but i have good reason for believing she is Scandinavian bassed upon her accent.

True, I do not yet have a reliable source for this, hence why I did not edit the article at all, and won't until I get a good suorce. As an investigator and as someone who believs in total acuracy regardless of personl views, I will do my best to find a reliable source. But if I do find a reliable source that says she was born in let's say Stockholm, Sweden, then you have to consider it. Otherwise Summer's whole thing on RS will be useless at best. thanks

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring up another example. yes it's a woman, shut up feminists. Mariah Carey and her mother have both said she was born on March 27, 1970, yet yuo guys keep 1969 because of other sources. By this logic, why then should I consider the subject's own statements in regards to her birthplace?

Andre Nicholsw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you find an RS yes in needs to be considered, all I said was not to edit the article without an RS, and I don't think anyone accused you or anyone else of sexism. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at you Tornado Chaser, atSummerPHDV2.0

the wording Summer used made it appear like a feminist, because I've seen how these discussionson th einternet end up.

I'm not saying summer is or is not a feminist, but I am saying her tone reminds me of feminism. (summer, i'm just guessing your gender, no need to cry about it).

Anyway I am going to be taking a bit of a break from this discussion until I can get some concreet proof that SummerPHDV2.0 is not (Redacted).

Hekla and I are somewhat scared, and I just got grilled because of this call.

I left a notice about this on her talk page.

thanks.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hekla? Anyway, you should read WP:PRIVACY before you speculate about real-life identities of users. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm concirned because I got this call from a CBC reporter who mentioned my Wikipedia edits to Tara McDonald. SOrry, but Hekla and I are scared. that's all I'm saying. also don't redact a public figure's name.

Andrew

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards