Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by S806 (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 15 March 2018 (→Christina Hoff Sommers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:

    David Newman (political geographer)

    I came across these edit summaries in the article's history, apparently by the subject himself:

    • "It is my name which is being slandered here and I would exect you to publish a balanced and accurate account of the story. As I mentioned previously I am willing to let you, or any neutral adjudicator, to have all the official documents to read and reach a decision, on the condition that they would not be published as I do not intend to infringe university regulations of non publication."
    • "This is an extremely one sided version of events and does not reflect, in any way, the actual rulings of the disciplinary committee. A previous edit (not by me) gave a much more balanced account. The new references do not reflect what is written in the account and it is clearly published, systematically, with the intent of further damaging the reputation of Newman and , as such, I make no apologies for inserting the changes myself. This causing much personal damage. I am happy to let the adjudicator see official copies of the rulings (although it is prohibited from publishing them) for them to make their own decisions. You would then see how innaccurate the latest edit is and how one sided. I respect the right of the public to know but this is part of a personal campaign being waged against me and causing me a great deal of anguish. It distorts the entire entry and I would respectfully ask that it be removed, or an agreed balanced and accurate version be inserted."

    Given the sensitive nature of the allegations, I wonder if an experienced volunteer could have a look at the article. Judging by the editing history of Special:Contributions/Newmanthfc, this appears to be an auto-biography, so there's a concern there as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked two of the recent WP:MEAT accounts and semi-protected the page for three months (consistent with the previous protection; there appears to be history of socking at this article). I'll leave scrutinising of the content to somebody else. Alex Shih (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi K.e.coffman and Alex Shih. I have trimmed this article in 2009. Isn't user:יניב הורון yet another puppet of the same puppeteer? I see continued edit warring and similar summaries in several entries. Also extensive knowledge for an account opened a week ago. gidonb (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    K.e.coffman and Alex Shih, just refreshing tags. Alex, thanks also for the recent DYK! gidonb (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gidonb: I agree, but I am not sure which account it is related to. I'll keep a close watch too, thank you for your work on this, and no problem! Alex Shih (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Shih: Thank you for caring so much about WP! It looks to me as one of AndresHerutJaim's puppets. This would further show that the extensive and severe inclusion of BGU's disciplinary findings and related coverage is based on the political enmity of an actor in Israel's far right (whether living in Israel or not) to an author and speaker on Israel's moderate left. By punishing one's sock puppets and not all the others we are left with a BLP problem which is how K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) started the discussion. I believe that the disciplinary section needs major trimming and the rest of the text is too fluffy and far from current as there was lopsided interest by all recent editors. This is how content grows in all directions except towards a better Wikipedia article. BTW we see this at all Israel and Palestine articles. Topics get buried under well referenced and ever growing content from "right" and "left" to the extent that little else of the people, locations, and histories can be seen. Bottom line is that I could work on this 9 years later but do not look forward to the potential edit warring. gidonb (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Brock Pierce

    I just removed some WP:BLP content that appeared to me to be agenda-driven, and largely not about Pierce. Would appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also !admin, can we get a rev del on BLP grounds as well as the fact that the content appears to be copied and pasted unattributed excerpts from the sources. GMGtalk 20:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the worst section --- IMO it is intrinsically violative of a bunch of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and appears to be intended to attack a person rather than provide encyclopedic information of value to readers. Collect (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Ruckman

    Regarding the BLP for Peter Ruckman, apparently his son PS Ruckman Jr. committed suicide right after possibly shooting to death his own two sons in the family home the other day. You can see this information has been added to the Peter Ruckman biography at the tail end of the personal life section (first section in the article). Two questions: 1) Should we be concerned about having that statement before the authorities conclude their murder investigation, and 2) if confirmed, do we keep it permanently in the article? Just so we're clear, my guess is that it's true and he probably did kill his kids, but also keeping in mind that PS Ruckman Jr. is not the main subject of the Peter Ruckman BLP. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Acts of progeny are not generally of encyclopedic value for their parents. If the progeny are notable, their acts belong in their articles. Note that we do not, for example, list "drunk driving" cases of children of notable persons either. The article about the notable person is about that person not children and grandchildren. Collect (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to elaborate on what was said above, if the child is not notable enough to have their own article, something about them needs to be significant to the parent, other than merely listing them. Bill Cosby's son was murdered and there was significant coverage and impact on Cosby to warrant an article on the murder (Murder of Ennis Cosby), although not for an article on the son himself. Another concern would be Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS. This just happened and the impact is unknowable. Per BLP, there are too many questions that can't be answered for this to be mentioned at all in the article. freshacconci (✉) 14:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that WP:BLP still applies to the son as the events are recent. The excision I made was instantly undone by an editor who has repeatedly added nugatory material. This biographical article appears, alas, to be basically in the nature of "Peter Ruckman was an evil religious bigot who managed to get his own son to be a murderer" sort of material. Even most of the cites have lengthy quotes about Ruckman which are an eensy bit less than charitable. Will someone please join in there? Collect (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For interested parties, please see Talk:Peter Ruckman#Death of Ruckman's Son. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mudar Zahran

    Mudar Zahran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I'm seeking other editors' opinions. Zahran is a Jordanian-born Palestinian. He was criticized—in very harsh terms—by Caroline Glick, a prominent and influential editorial columnist (and deputy managing editor) for the Jerusalem Post. Under normal circumstances, we would cite her column, attribute her opinion, and call it a day.

    The problem is that Glick didn't publish her views in the Jerusalem Post, but on Facebook. Her Facebook post was cited the next day by Elder of Ziyon, a blog. Two weeks later, an opinion columnist in Globes, an Israeli business newspaper, wrote about it. The Globes column was re-published the same day by Glick's paper, the Jerusalem Post.

    Can Glick's views be included in Zahran's BLP? Clearly Elder of Ziyon, a blog, cannot be cited. Can Glick's Facebook post? What about the Globes opinion column? Does the fact that the paper where Glick is an editor republished the Globes column give it any added credibility?

    If you think this question is better suited for WP:RS/N, please let me know. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tal Schneider (in this case writing in Globes) is one of Israel's leading political commentators/reporters - possibly more than Glick - and in this case it is not an opinion column, the original Hebrew is [1] (which Jpost probably translated 5 days later, and then this got republished by Globes in English - Globes English being a reprint of a reprint in this case). Some additional news here [2].Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Globes itself (in Hebrew, the English version is very scaled down and lower frequency (weekly?) translation of a small portion of the daily Hebrew) has been Israel's leading business paper for many years. In terms of RSness it would be similar to Haaretz in Hebrew, with the advantage of not having a pronounced political slant. Schneider herself would probably be labelled as mainstream left (i.e. Zionist Union's vicinty) politically.Icewhiz (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ahmet sik

    Ahmet Şık (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Related article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmet_Şık The following link is not a valid websites and redirects to a porn web site. Please remove it from external sources section.

    Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekabeyler (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s been removed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    David McGimpsey

    The apparent subject of this article has been edit warring to remove information about about an alleged sexual misconduct that has been reported by the CBC. Given that he is a relatively unknown person, however, I think it is worth reviewing whether the considerations of WP:BLPCRIME come into play and whether mentioning it is giving it undue weight at this point. Bringing it here so uninvolved editors can review. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    BLPCRIME doesn't come into it. What's being covered here is a university inquiry, and the administrative matter of his teaching assignments. There's no obstacle to including this material, given the quality of the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would BLPCRIME not apply here? He's not well-known, and these are currently just allegations. Vermont | reply here 12:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that sexual misconduct is a potential criminal allegation, even if it is being handled administratively. BLPCRIME involves material that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime. The CBC article is completely ambiguous as to what the actual allegations are: whether we are talking about making a hostile environment through dirty jokes or some form of sexual assault. Sexual misconduct opens the door for the later interpretation when we do not specify what it is, so I think BLPCRIME does come into play, as there is the suggestion that a crime may have been committed, especially when one considers that the sourcing doesn't specify the allegations. I'm not arguing one way or another for inclusion (I'm leaning against it currently, but not enough to strongly object if consensus is otherwise), but I do think we would need a consensus to include it, and consider if we should exclude it per the principles behind BLPCRIME. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's being investigated as a crime and that's what an editor wants to write about, then we should consider BLPCRIME. If what reliable sources report is that it's being handled administratively (not as a crime), then BLPCRIME is irrelevant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It matters the substance of the material, which in this case is highly sensitive and could imply criminal wrongdoing, and that is covered under BLPCRIME. It is a complete perversion of the intent of the policy to say that it is fine to report on things that are potentially criminal if no charges have been brought, but it becomes not okay to do so when they are filed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "Sexual assault" is a criminal offense in the jurisdiction involved. In short, it precisely fills the bill for falling under BLPCRIME. Suppose someone was "being investigated for mass-killing" - no rational person would hold that the claim did not fall under BLPCRIME. "Sexual assault" is a crime in Canada. No matter who is "doing the investigation." In fact, it is likely that the issue is more critical if the investigator is not specifically trained in investigative work. Collect (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    John Draper

    I noticed that a new user removed their post at this noticeboard. The post can be seen at the bottom of 09:09, 8 March 2018. The article has a lot of details concerning allegations of inappropriate behavior, with half of the lead devoted to the topic. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No big mystery here guys. I'm attempting to have libelous information removed from John T. Draper's page. I've followed Wikiepedia's instructions and am waiting for the info to be removed. If Wikipedia editors won't follow Wikipedia's policy, then further action will be taken. This is a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue of defamatory information being allowed by Wikipedia to remain published to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMP Bart (talk • contribs) 04:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EMP_Bart you've identified yourself as his manager, that could violate Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. Second, in your original post you call this information libelous, and now you're calling it defamatory, uh, you could explain why it's showing up | over at this website that's not a blog, has editorial oversite and likely qualifies as a reliable source? It appears on others as well, Slashdot, dailydot, etc... and it's been an open secret for years. I'm personally old enough to remember him being mentioned in TAP magazine, and back when the original phrack was still being published, even then it was an open secret, the only difference today, is, now he's gotten him self banned from a very well known hacker con because of it. That being said, if you can cite reliable sources to the contrary, you may have a case, but as it stands, the information , as long as it's reliably sourced, should stay.  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  13:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    First, it doesn't matter what my relationship to Mr. Draper is, the material is defamatory. Second, libel is a sub-species of defamation. It's a little concerning that you're being standoff-ish about that fact. Third, you sound bias yourself, so maybe that is a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. You could possibly be receiving money to keep this information up? I identified myself and relationship with Mr. Draper in order to be 100% transparent, so maybe you should do the same. And finally, it doesn't matter how many times and places the information has been repeated as it is defamatory. I'm making a request in good-faith for the editors to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and remove this libelous information. This is my fourth request and have even gone so far as to show how the information meets the legal standard for defamation (of which libel is a type).

    Please remove the libelous information about John T. Draper.

    Sincerely yours, [User:EMP_Bart] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6113:5500:95F3:A566:40F5:A744 (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, User:EMP_Bart/User:2605:E000:6113:5500:95F3:A566:40F5:A744 Are you talking about me, in regards to getting paid? I sure hope not, you'll need to back that up with something called proof. To be sure, your relationship with Captain Crunch does matter, please take a look at WP:COI and you'll see what I mean. That being said, claiming material is "defamatory " or "libelous" can't be used as a trump card on Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources that say that he doesn't do the things he's been accused of, post them, also , be careful of throwing around accusations about people. For the record, I don't personally know anyone associated with this post, nor am I getting paid or receiving any compensation in any form to keep the article in it's current state. Finally, please login with your regular user ID, not logging it, while not in and of itself a violation, might look like one .  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  14:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd never heard of Draper before I just read the entry, through the link on this noticeboard. Content is well sourced, relevant. It is debatable whether it should be featured so prominently (right now it's several sentences in the lede) but there is no legitimate reason for it to be removed completely.Bangabandhu (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The WEIGHT given to each and every allegation approaches UNDUE in the body of the BLP, and the lead definitely exceeded that standard. Collect (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mumia Abu-Jamal

    Black Panther member Abu-Jamal was convicted for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. As detailed in our article in sections Appeals and review and Popular support and opposition, Abu-Jamal's conviction, guilt, and status are all controversial.

    On 19 February, CityOfSilver added this text to the first sentence of the lead:

    Mumia Abu-Jamal is... a convicted murderer...

    This was reverted by Bbb23. The edit has been edit-warred over continuously since, with current iterations making "convicted murderer" the very first description of the lead and article.

    This edit was originally made by an IP 18 months ago [3], though I promptly reverted them [4] at that time. As far as I can tell, since the article's creation in 2001 it hasn't attempted either to label Abu-Jamal in this way, nor to declare that wikipedia has discovered the WP:TRUTH of his status as a "murderer."

    I think it's clear that given the incredible controversy over Abu-Jamal's case, and his own insistence on his innocence, that we cannot describe him as "a convicted murderer" in Wikipedia's voice per WP:LABEL, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. This would be wrong anywhere in the article, but in the lead, and in the first sentence, this editorial mistake is especially egregious.

    More eyes on the article would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article had been semi-protected by @CambridgeBayWeather: yesterday. Given that the same revert war returned with registerred accounts today, I have upped the protection to full-protection. Discussion should occur on the article talk page, and once a clear consensus emerges, we can remove the protection. --Jayron32 19:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mumia is a convicted murderer, he was convicted in court and the conviction was upheld every time. Therefore it is 100% acceptable to say that Mumia is a convicted murderer. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the place to litigate this 1) Please use the article talk page to discuss article content issues 2) Repeating the same points over and over again is unlikely to helpful. Your position is clear from your comments on the article talk page. Let others weigh in. The weight of consensus lies not with the person who repeats themselves the most times. --Jayron32 19:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm responding to a BLP/N comment. The claim was it's a violation of BLP to call him a convicted murderer. I am posting on the BLP/N page to state that it is not indeed a violation of BLP. We are not calling him a murderer, we are calling him a convicted murderer, which he is and therefore there is no BLP issue. (I also don't think your protection should have been put in place after his edit, the discussion is now whether to remove or keep, but the consensus as current is to include and thereofre if you are going to fully protect the page, it should be as it was yesterday, before his edit. ) Sir Joseph (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:WRONGVERSION. The article is protected in the state it is in when it is protected. I will make no attempt to decide whose version is correct, I don't really care. There were additional reverts applied after the semi-protection was used (indeed, pretty much all edits after the initial semiprotection was applied have been reverts of the same nature, back and forth) and as such, the full protection was necessary. I will not be editing that article in any way. AFTER you have achieved clear consensus at the article talk page for any particular text, THEN we can talk about unprotecting it. Not before. --Jayron32 19:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jayron32 and CambridgeBayWeather: this article has been around for a long time — since 2001 — so with or without protection, and with or without the right/wrong version, I'd love for outside input from this board and other experienced editors (which is not to say those involved are not experienced, as they certainly are). -Darouet (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think that would be a wonderful idea. I will not be holding any opinions or giving any input, as I have protected the article and am acting solely in an administrative role in this capacity. WP:3O, WP:DRN, and WP:RFC are all good resources to attract interested editors. You can also ask for input at related Wikiprojects. --Jayron32 12:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Melania Trump

    The article (infobox, specifically) contains a claim about her citizenship without citation. Should be provided or the claim removed. 75.172.227.168 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the issue? The infobox states she has duel citizenship. She was born in Slovenia and would have become an American citizen after marrying an American. Is the issue concerning whether she retained Slovenian citizenship? freshacconci (✉) 19:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the lead states she became a US citizen in 2006, with two sources. Is the issue concerning the status of her Slovenian citizenship? freshacconci (✉) 19:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course that's issue. 174.19.229.79 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that's a BLP issue -- she was born in Slovenia so it wouldn't be controversial to claim she's a dual citizen. It's about sourcing. The two sources that are there say she became an American citizen in 2006. It could be just an issue of someone mixing up citizenship/nationality/ethnicity. We could just remove Slovenian citizenship until a source is found confirming it. freshacconci (✉) 15:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I found online, Slovenia does not revoke citizenship for those who become citizens elsewhere. As the US permits dual citizenships, she probably has dual US/Slovenian citizenship by default. Even is she "renounced" her Slovenia citizenship it would be merely symbolic as Slovenia would still consider her a citizen. However, there are no sources that directly state that she has duel citizenship. It may need to be removed even if common sense tells us that she would be (a dual citizen) because she can't not be. freshacconci (✉) 15:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree it is non-controversial, and as such, doesn't have to be removed. I would add a CN tag on the Slovenian part and see if someone can dig up a source. I just did a good-faith google search, and it's hard to find any definitive statement one way or another. --Jayron32 16:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything that I found online that was a legitimate source was only about how she became a US citizen, which isn't of concern. According to one source, there is no question that she is now a US citizen; it's just a question of how. Anything I could find on dual citizenship was on sites like Quora and Reddit. freshacconci (✉) 16:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Claiming someone is a citizen of a country when he or she is not is extremely controversial and offensive. I will remove it by next week if left without sources. 174.19.229.79 (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That's your call. I just don't see how this would be offensive. She was born in Slovenia. To claim she holds Slovenian citizenship is hardly libelous. If your concern is in regards to the controversy surrounding her emigration to the US and her pathway to citizenship, in this instance it's irrelevant as all legitimate sources state that she is a US citizen. As well, there are no rules regarding the citizenship of a First Lady, so her legitimacy as First Lady is not in question. I can't find any sources that help, so by all means remove it if you feel you need to. I would say a citation needed tag would suffice but it's not important either way. freshacconci (✉) 16:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't find this offensive, but it is very obviously WP:OR to be analyzing Slovenian law, US law, and Meliana's life story to determine that she has dual citizenship. It might be difficult to find a more text book case of WP:OR. This should absolutely be removed and not restored without sourcing. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps something could be found in Slovenian sources? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    We have citations to say she is Slovenian, she was born there (when it was part of Yugoslavia). We never need a source that says that someone who was born in a country is a citizen of that country. We have citation to show she was naturalized as an American citizen. IMO, at this point we would need a citation that says she renounced her citizenship to remove Slovenian. ~ GB fan 12:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hang Yin (scientist)

    Hang Yin (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The IP address (14.141.50.250)based in Delhi, India has been repetitively inserting libelous, unsourced contents to this page since Nov, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.196.66.35 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • An admin has blocked the IP for 31 hours for vandalism. If they carry on in the same manner once the block expires, they can be blocked for a longer period. The IP never makes constructive edits anyway, so they'd be no loss to the project! Neiltonks (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ismail ibn Musa Menk

    Ismail ibn Musa Menk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Name of Article Imail_ibn_Musa Menk


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_ibn_Musa_Menk

    The references given for this person have been falsified in an attempt to defame a person and cause harm. It identifies the subject Ismail_ibn_Musa_Menk which he has never self-proclaimed to be. This user profile GorgeCusterSabre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorgeCustersSabre) aims to put the subject in a negative light , the person writes bad things about people who don't belong to his sect of Islam. His views re not neutral in their tone. He repeatedly deletes any additions on the page even when they are referenced proeprley without explanation I want to know is this something Wiki pedia is encourages and allows ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindmind (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually Kindmind, I merely want the article to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. What value will this article have unless it is neutral in tone, accurate and well supported by reliable third-party sources? I have no position on Mufti Menk (for or against), and you do not know my sect of Islam, if I even have one. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Isabelle Nuru

    Isabelle Nuru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    None of the information on the wiki seems to be true and she's mentioned almost nowhere on the internet despite supposedly selling millions of records. It looks like Isabelle Nuru has been inputting fake information about herself and then citing this wiki elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.139.22 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The page has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabelle Nuru. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And it’s been deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    David Ogden Stiers sexuality RFC

    There is an RFC which may be of interest to the members of this wikiproject Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#RFC_regarding_the_sexuality_of_David_Ogden_Stiers ResultingConstant (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nucleya

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

    The author is subjective in his account, no citations for claims, poor quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.55.241.54 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have cut this back and removed large sections which were hopelessly promotional. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    nabil gholam

    reads as a formal press release/paid advertisement with little to no verifiable sources.

    Nabil Gholam has been tagged since 2012. Trimmed it right back and tagged it for notability. Could be expanded and he is probably notable enough to survive AfD, but I've no time/interest to expand it. Edwardx (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sole source is SPS from his firm in the first place. Not even close, unless we let every architect auto-qualify as notable. Collect (talk)
    Poor sourcing is not a valid deletion rationale. WP:BEFORE applies, and quick searches of Google and Google Books (other search engines are available) suggest that there is enough out there. Edwardx (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture#Nabil Gholam to take a look at this. Agathoclea (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Seth Meyers

    Seth Meyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I recently removed some content from this BLP that I felt was not reliably sourced enough, and other content that did not seem to be reflected by the source. This revert was recently undone, and I wanted to know other editors' opinions regarding whether the content that I removed and which has now been restored complies with BLP. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the information for being WP:UNDUE and having poor sources. Meatsgains(talk) 01:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yuka Kuramochi

    Yuka Kuramochi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article needs a LOT of help. I happened upon it and it's nearly nothing but trivia about her and non notable appearances. Her appearances list is longer than some A-list celebrities. Also a lot of it is in broken English. "Sentences" like "Because her hip size is large, some swimwear and the swimsuit wearing with the passage of time into the butt flesh quickly into nature and always going to "T-back state", so the charm point is called "fully automatic T-back" and has a distinctive commitment such as "T-back never wears"." I don't even know where to begin to fix this, so I'm asking for some help by folks more knowledgeable. That or nuke the thing. As it stands now it's a mockery of Wikipedia. --Tarage (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually nearly every article created by User:CrisBalboa is a mess. Taking this up with ANI here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:CrisBalboa --Tarage (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is certainly a mess. I'm going to go through and remove most of the unencyclopedic content. Meatsgains(talk) 01:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proper for Japanese Wiki - maybe. Not notable for Wikipedia AFAICT at all. Collect (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You're gonna have to look at all of his articles. There are many just like this one. --Tarage (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at small handful, and you are correct. Everything I've seen is very similar to this article. The user has created well over 700 of these articles, of people who are mostly unknown outside of Japan.
    I would suggest refining your request at ANI to include more examples, especially since Meatsgains has done some clean-up to this one. At ANI, though, you'll want to be very clear that this is more than just some bad grammar, but we have a lot of BLPs without any sourcing, some are just lists without any real info whatsoever, and where there are sources almost none are in English. I have to agree with Collect, that most of these people are not notable outside of Japan. Zaereth (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do my best, but I'm not super familiar with BLP stuff so it's hard for me to find examples. I'm going to copy what you said here though at ANI and hope that I can get some more eyes on this. If you wanna stop by and echo my statements that'd be helpful. --Tarage (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is simply post some of the various articles there, so people can easily look them up. (You'll get far more replies that way than by simply saying, go look for yourself.) Zaereth (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome! Thanks for your help with this Atlantic306. Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jane Golden

    Jane Golden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The first paragraph of Jane Golden's listing contains this completely unsourced statement: "She is the only hold out to keep up a wildly reviled mural of former Philadelphia Mayor and notorious homophobe and racist Frank Rizzo. Despite public outcry and several vandalisms, she is pushing for the mural to be kept up."

    I don't believe this is accurate, but in any event there is no source for these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:700:171:41CC:3C7C:AE04:B5FC (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted the obviously non-BLP-compliant statement recently added by another IP user warned them on their user page. Thank you for the notice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnny Antonelli bio

    Johnny Antonelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Your bio of Johnny Antonelli states that the Giants traded him along with Harvey Kuenn to the Cleveland Indians in 1960. This is not correct regarding Harvey Keunn. Keunn was in fact traded to the Indians by the Detroit Tigers for Rocky Colavito. Keunn was the 1959 A.L. batting champ and Colavito may have been the 1959 A.L. home run champ. This trade was very unpopular with the Cleveland fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.59.202 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Floyd McKissick Jr.

    Floyd McKissick Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Was wondering if some others might take a look at content that IP 96.10.12.142 has been continuously trying to add to the article. The content has to do with an incident between McKissick and his former wife. A source is cited, but it seems quite WP:UNDUE and might be a case of someone trying to WP:RGW. If this incident is inded something meriting a mention in the article, then I think much stronger sourcing (at least more than the brief mentionin the indyweek source) should be provided. It would help though, to know what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that the content that the IP (and others before them) is attempting to add consistently lacks the information that the subject was acquitted of both of the criminal charges that the IP is trying to introduce to the article, despite the fact that their own sources report the acquittals. The IP is clearly interested primarily in damaging the subject's reputation by incompletely reporting the facts surrounding the claims. This has been going on since May 2017. General Ization Talk 22:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another problem is that the cited source seems to be (indirectly) quoting McKissick with respect to both the incudent(s) and the claim(s) of acquittal. It does not seem to me to be a factual reporting of the incident, but McKissick’s explanation of it and the reporter does not seem to have tried to confirm what was said (at least, that’s how it kind of reads to me). Now, if someone feels making such a distinction in the actual article content would fix things, then maybe including it could be agreed upon; however, that still seems a bit UNDUE to me and citing secondary sources which better discuss the incident(s) and basing the article content on such sources would be much better In my opinion. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may be reading a bit much into the source that may not be there. I only interpret the first sentence of that paragraph as being in the subject's voice. The remainder of the paragraph seems to be in the voice of the reporter, whom we have no reason to suspect failed to verify the material they wrote. (E.g., does not say that McKissick pointed out he's "been cleared of other accusations"; it states that as fact). Likewise the unambiguous "He was acquitted in both cases". In the absence of information to the contrary, I think we have to assume that was verified by the reporter. We agree it should stay out, but not because the source is questionable. General Ization Talk 01:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be misreading it, but I think the "And" at the beginning of the second sentence is what's causing me concern because it does seems to connect the two sentences. Regardless of whether it's a case of misinterpretation or poor writing, I don't think the source is automatically bad for that reason; I just think it has to be used a little more carefully and that corroborating sources should be also cited. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP editor appears to now appears to be engaging in WP:SOCK to re-add the content after being formally warned about WP:EW. A WP:RPP has been made for the article (I was in the process of doing it) but General Ization was a bit faster. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cynthia Ross Friedman

    There is a message at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#"My" Wikipage., that may require attention in terms of BLP policy. I am simply providing this information, and I do not know anything about the merits of the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Christina Hoff Sommers

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers There is contentious source material referring to Christina Hoff Sommers as an anti-feminist, and as a feminist. Past talk discussions have been unable to agree on what to put in the page. Users are attempting to shoehorn in anti-feminist comments, even though discussions going back a year have not been able to agree. The subject in question disagrees greatly with the labeling of anti-feminist. S806 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=830600209"