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.

Rockin' Rebel: Dead or alive?

Bit of a tussle between sources and doubt at Talk:Rockin' Rebel. Also a subplot about professional wrestling integrity versus police authority in America, and a marital murder mystery complicating what (I assume) would've otherwise been a straighforward reflection of the exact same reporters' reports, rather than a locked-down article. Strange case with potential for strange precedent, but a rather obscure celebrity, so I invite the board to ponder it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, June 3, 2018 (UTC)

Emily Care Boss

This is my bio page. Some relevant items which could be added follow:

Career: Add to - "Her company Black & Green Games is best known its romance-themed indie games, Breaking the Ice, Shooting the Moon, and Under My Skin." ", which she collected into one volume as the Romance Trilogy in 2016. The Romance Trilogy was nominated for the Diana Jones Award for Excellence in Gaming in 2017." citation: http://www.dianajonesaward.org/the-2017-award/

Change - "She was on the programming team for the Living Games Conference in 2014 and helped with the Living Games in 2016 as well." to "She was on the programming team for the Living Games Conference in 2014, helped with 2016 and chaired the conference in 2018."

Personal Life: Correction - "Boss resides in Plainfield, Massachusetts.." change to "Boss resides in Greenfield, Massachusetts..."

Roleplaying Bibliography: Correction - "Under my Skin: Who do you love?" should appear as "Under my Skin"

Add - Romance Trilogy, compendium of Breaking the Ice, Shooting the Moon and Under my Skin with hacks and mods, 2016. https://books.google.com/books/about/Romance_Trilogy.html?id=4Po8vgAACAAJ https://www.evilhat.com/home/inside-the-hat-emily-care-boss/ https://books.google.com/books?id=ix9WDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT166&lpg=PT166&dq=romance+trilogy+emily+care+boss+2016&source=bl&ots=8uxdPYv8BU&sig=fDO3Zb7YjfYgiUB5G0ptpIdZFl4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn3er-3JfcAhWDc98KHY41Dgc4ChDoAQhUMAs#v=onepage&q=romance%20trilogy%20emily%20care%20boss%202016&f=false http://file770.com/2017-diana-jones-award-shortlist/

Publications: Additional work - "Beyond the Game Master: The Rise of Peer Empowered Tabletop Roleplay." Emily Care Boss, Ivan Vaghi and Jason Morningstar. States of Play: Nordic Larp Around the World. Juhana Pettersson (editor), Solmukohta, 2012. pp. 163-169. http://www.nordicrpg.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/states_of_play_pdf_version.pdf

Honours and Awards: ENnie Gold Best Family Game 2017 (Bubblegumshoe)

Niall O'Dowd biography

> Dear Sirs/Madams > My name is Niall O'Dowd. I have a biography on Wikipedia It . has been . turned into an attack article by three hostile persons to me using source which is the person doing the attacking's blog. The most > dreadful charges, that I am .a racist, that I am a spokesman for the IRA > based on utterly manufactured evidence from blogs and written by three arch > haters of me has been allowed to stand Since July 7th. I plead with you to > set the record straight and remove these hideous and utterly false > calumnies.I also want to ask where are the editorial standards for the > original allowing of such dangerous charges to be made with apparently, no > evidence other than the blog of an arch-enemy of mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thurles22 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A first glance shows some highly POV editing to this article. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fergananim: please could you explain why you're adding massive walls-of-text quotes from critics or opponents of the subject of the article? To conform with WP:BLP we would need to just remove these sections entirely, unless someone is capable of re-writing them neutrally. MPS1992 (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992:I removed three sections of the bio that were mainly abuse of the bio subject. It is unclear how relevant any of the three sections are to an understanding of the life and contributions of the bio subject, but if any are relevant they need a substantial, balanced rewrite. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC

@HouseOfChange: thank you. It seems there was something similar going on here on an article about a book written by some other BLP author, last year. MPS1992 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the unwarranted attack material. Much appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thurles22 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, its quite the sanitised article now, isn't it? First, who was this person? We have no proof it was Niall O'Dowd. Second, so what? Nothing I put up was false. It was all sourced and true. Quite happy to see it edited , yet it was as factual as I could make it, and based on O'Dowd's own source material and actions. As it now stands its just a PR page. Fergananim (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

First, I don't care if the above person is O'Dowd, a representative of O'Dowd, or someone completely unrelated. Article subjects should not have to come asking for the articles to be fixed so they don't look like attack pages with walls of text quotes from their opponents. Wikipedia editors should be responsible enough not to do that in the first place. Second, if we need to establish whether someone editing here is who they say they are, there is a process for doing that. Third, the article is not going to stay either as a PR page nor as an attack page. Controversies need reliable independent sources that cover them in detail as controversies, not immense cherry-picked primary source quotes. The article must treat relevant aspects of the subject's biography with due weight. I have removed your added and re-added material, please do not add it again. MPS1992 (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

But changes are been made to the article purely because of someone purporting to be O'Dowd objected to the material, not because of any editorial issues. I am happy to see that material edited to conform to Wikipedia practise, but not because the so-called subject of the article takes issue with it. O'Dowd's role in these other affairs are part and parcel of his public life, so should be included. If editors can find a way to do that, fine, but removing it entirely is bowing entirely to this person's intervention, not Wikipedia guidelines. That's bowing to censorship. So, can we find a way to include them, please? Fergananim (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I am the editor who removed most of the ugly, biased, attack material from the bio. I did so based on reading the article, reading the references being cited by these sections, and determining that these sections were inappropriate for a BLP, being very POV and in many cases misrepresenting the sources cited. I do a lot of cleanup on BLPs. I have no connection to O'Dowd and had never heard of him until this article showed up at BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Even as several editors are working together to remove the unencyclopedic vitriol from O'Dowd's BLP, Fergananim is working to add similar PAs to other articles. [1][2] I think a topic ban would save us all some work. HouseOfChange (talk)
  • Accidently placed this on the other article first, but here is where I meant. Anyway. Folks as I said from the outset I was happy to see the input of any other editors. That remains the case. Plainly other editors hold I contravened rules concerning bios of living people. That was NOT my intention - but I accept that it was seen as such, and though not intentional, actually so. My reasons were as I said, that these issues are part and parcel of O'Dowd's public life and deserve to be a part of the article. Nevertheless, as a gesture of goodwill and remorse towards other editors, I will not do any further edits on this article for the forseeable, and will abide by any topic ban imposed on me. Sorry. Fergananim (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Justin Rowlatt

There's been another minor "controversy". At first I tried to amend the article Justin Rowlatt to reach NPOV. Then I realised it was all kicked up by the Daily Mail. Would someone else be able to have a look, and if need be, strike out the section? There is a very bad-tempered comment on the talk page too. Thanks. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:GreenMeansGo seems to have removed the section. I looked a bit, and can't find coverage beyond the Daily Mail, so per WP:DAILYMAIL we leave it out until other sources are found. --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The claim has been re-added, sourced this time to a paragraph in an opinion column in the Shropshire Star, just after the expression of the desire to rip the head off an irritating character in an advertisement.[3] It seems to be a re-telling of the Daily Mail piece. Is this appropriate for a BLP? "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Majid Adibzadeh

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

It appears that user:Pareparvaz has created 7 Wikipedia pages (in 7 languages, including Arabic, Azerbaijani, English, French, German, Persian, and Spanish) about himself, Majid Adibzadeh.
By the same token, this user took the same approach on Wikimedia and Wikidata, and there were other attempts to expand the number of languages covered (in Hebrew, Russian, and Turkish), but apparently, the pages were removed (or abandoned). See user:Pareparvaz global account information. Although failure to disclose the conflict of interests is important; however, that is not the main issue here.
The true issue is the systemic manipulation of the system for including the biographical information of someone, who certainly does not meet the Wikipedia notability criteria for a living person.
As an academician in Iran, I can confirm that Majid Adibzadeh he does not meet the notability criteria per se. He does not have any academic affiliation, does not have a history of employment in a higher education institution as a member of the faculty or research, and does not have an ISCED level 8 degree.
In addition, after looking him up in both Iranian and international research repository and indexing services, it can be confirmed, he does not have publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, likewise doesn’t meet the highly cited scholar criteria.
It appears that he is credited as the author of 6 books; none of the titles were published by an academic or scholarly publisher. Being relatively familiar with the concept of writing book synopsis, review and criticism in Iran, the coverage of his publications is not truly independent, and most importantly they do not cover the author. It is also worth noting that many academic journals, media outlets, and forums publish book synopses, reviews or criticisms; that does not essentially guarantee the book’s significance.
Finally, I checked all the authority records related to Majid Adibzadeh, and these records do not imply the adequate notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. It should be noted that both predatory and on-demand publishers can also deposit the bibliographic metadata. For instance, Amazon’s CreateSpace, although not predatory, technically publishes almost any content and the metadata would be deposited to the relevant authority records databases and libraries.
I believe this issue should concern all the inter-related pages, otherwise, the removal of the English page and the survival of the article in other languages remains problematic. Rahiminejad (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

For the English Wikipedia you could suggest a speedy deletion under WP:A7 but I am not sure that would be uncontroversial: see WP:SIGNIFICANCE for the criteria. Alternatively take a look at proposed deletion via WP:PROD. None of this would or could solve the problem of other languages as each Wiki has its own processes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability..Pareparvaz (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

and see: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pareparvaz (talk • contribs) 18:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

But there is no evidence that Majid Adibzadeh has "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" or that he meets these other criteria. That's the point. And given your pattern of editing you should declare the nature of your links to him. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

He is a writer. look at this reviews: [4] [5] and other resources in farsi:[6] [7] and more resources in farsi [8]Pareparvaz (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Merely being a writer does not make him notable. He doesn't seem to meet the criteria at WP:AUTHOR or at WP:ACADEMIC or at WP:BASIC. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A significant number of articles and reviews (secondary sources) of his works have been covered.Pareparvaz (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Passing mentions by sources like Iran Book News Agency don't count. And given your pattern of editing you should declare the nature of your links to him. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Iran Book News Agency is notability. Or Sehepunkte is so notability. Plus so many independent articles and reviews (independent secondary sources) in Persian (Including deep resources and reliable sources). In Wikipedia:Notability Said: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and in any language." Pareparvaz (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Pick the two or three sources which you think most clearly demonstrate that this person is notable. These should be sources which meets the criteria at WP:IRS, such as "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." and "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.". Then explain how this contributes towards demonstrating notability: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Provide a quotation of the precise passages from each source which you think demonstrate notability. If these passages are not in English then provide translations as well as the original text. Note that sources which merely establish that an author exists or that certain books were published do not establish notability: you have to provide evidence of significant discussion of the topic. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:AUTHOR: 3. "The person has created ... such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Like these:

Hossein Farasatkhah, "knowledge and the political: Refers to the idea of democracy knowledge" Etemad newspaper, number 2070, Persian date 14 mehr 1388 (6 October 2009).

Zohreh Khorsandi, "Majid Adibzadeh: Fertile Modernity and Unproductive Thinking", sehepunkte magazine 14 (2014), Nr. 5 (15. 05. 2014)

Iran Book News Agency, "Adibzadeh surveys humanities and modern enlightenment institutions in Iran" Thursday 15 November 2012, Story Code: 154520.

M. Dehbandi, "The Humanities in the challenge", Ketabe Mah Tarikh va Joghrafia magazine, Persian date Shahrivar 1391 (August 2012), No. 172, pages 51 to 55.

M. Hoseinzadeh, "The Genealogy of scientific thinking in Iran", Ketabe Mah Tarikh va Joghrafia magazine, Persian date Ordibehesht 1393 (April 2014), No. 192, pages 63 to 65.

Iran Book News Agency, "Modern rationalism in Iran", Sunday 29 November 2009, Story Code: 56069.

Etemad newspaper, "The history of modern rationality in Iran", Persian date 20 esfand 1392 (March 11, 2014), No. 2919, page 7.

Shargh newspaper, "Iran's new order" year 11, No. 1960, Persian date Sunday 4 esfand 1392 (February 23, 2014), page 8.

Farooq Maghsudi, "on the sidelines of the release of the book The uprisings of the rationalization at the dawn of modern Iran", farhikhtegan newspaper, Persian date 29 bahman 1392 (18 February 2014), No. 1317. p 12.

Or:

[9] and [10] and [11] and [12] and [13] and [14] and [15] and [16] and [17] and [18] and [19] and [20] and [21] and [22] and [23] and [24] and [25]

He is a writer and significant independent secondary sources covering his works and his thoughts. deep and reliable sources.Pareparvaz (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That's just repeating the style of the article, spamming a pile of links in the hope that one of them might work. Pick out two or three of these sources which you think most clearly demonstrate that this person is notable. Explain how these sources meets the criteria at WP:IRS. Then explain how this constitutes "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Provide a quotation of the precise passages from each source which you think demonstrate notability. If these passages are not in English then provide translations as well as the original text. Note that sources which merely establish that an author exists or that certain books were published do not establish notability: you have to provide evidence of significant discussion. And, of course, the right place to do this is at the article itself, or on the associated talk page, not here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think deep covering his thoughts And deep covering his works is enough in Notability for writers. Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Category:Iranian writers. Pareparvaz (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And see notable libraries in the world: Harvard University and Princeton University and Princeton University and Princeton University and University of Chicago and University of Chicago and University of Chicago and www.idref.fr and National Library of Sweden and WorldCat and Library of Congress and Sudoc and Open Library — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pareparvaz (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Mark Wnek

User Anaclysma has added summaries of court material to the biography and argues on the help pages that this fulfills 'Neutral Point of View', and 'not research' WP guidelines. I think it's contentious material. The entire article very is poorly sourced and not very neutral, I will try and make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frakkler (talk • contribs) 15:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Frakkler: you don't get to write a hagiography like that on Wikipedia. Fix it, or someone else here will. We do not need all this nonsense, but nor do we need the current material. MPS1992 (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: I would appreciate the help in cleaning the article up, now that I have added sources and removed some of the ost obvious non neutral phrasing. Not sure how long the article has been like that. Thank you. Frakkler (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Frakkler: I found a lot of non-neutral phrasing still there, and I have culled the worst of it. I suggest you restrict yourself to adding wikilinks (see WP:WIKILINK) in what is left. There are several missing. Someone might visit your user talk page shortly to say many angry things about possible WP:COI. MPS1992 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Thank you for doing that, the entire page needed an overhaul so I started with adding the missing references which were easy to find. To be clear, I wrote exactly zero of the current page. I guess trying to fix a page is enough to be accused of WP:COI? I have added obviously missing wikilinks to the page now, which in turn lead me to more messy biogrphy pages I will clean up. This is a neglegted area. Frakkler (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I may have mis-read your earlier involvement in the article. MPS1992 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Bradd

Jacob Bradd has attracted news coverage in Australia recently, having just turned 18 and graduated with Honours in Mathematics and is moving to the US to start a PhD at Penn State. He was doing algebra at age 5 and calculus in year 3. Coverage in the last few days from ABC News with photo and video content, and from the Illawarra Mercury, covers his achievements. He was the University of Wollongong's youngest undergraduate and received news coverage from the Sydney Morning Herald in 2014/2015. He was also covered in articles in 2012 on Pedestrian TV and again in the Herald. He's been discussed in the light of supporting highly gifted children and made comments on the differences in education at schools and uni (quoted in SMH).

From this quick search, there are multiple reliable sources independent of him that focus on him, over several years, and so he meets guidelines for inclusion. On the other hand, he's only recently turned 18 and apart from his age, his achievements aren't remarkable. I'm asking for some feedback on (a) whether he qualifies for a bio and (b) if he does, whether one should be created. I note that Mangoe has mentioned AfDs in this area above but without examples, and so specifically invite comment from that perspective. Any and all opinions / comment invited. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you with regard to, in particular, the achievements. He has an undergraduate degree in what, for some systems, would be two or three years early. That's it. All sorts of good or bad or amazing things could be in his future, let's discuss the good or amazing ones when they happen. MPS1992 (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally AFD's in this area are about minors rather than adults. While the press coverage is there, it needs to be assessed in context - Australia is still a relatively sparsely populated country compared to most, so achievements (albeit justified) tend to get exaggerated in local news. Finishing a degree 3 years early is impressive, but its not that rare. While it technically would pass GNG, a biography would pretty much be of the 'quite clever, graduated early' kind at this point. And if they never do anything else of note, would you want a biography on wikipedia stating you were a semi-prodigy? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Application of BLPSPS to YouTube videos that aren't technically self-published?

I made this edit before I was fully aware of WP:BLPSPS. I don't think it technically applies, since the statement is attributed to Martin but was published by Yale Divinity School, but I'd kinda like a second opinion anyway, especially given this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been wondering about the same issue, Hijiri 88, which has recently recurred for me in the situation I described above (permanent link). Statements by the subject (especially verbally in video-recorded lectures and speeches) seem to be the strongest possible primary source, including for information about the subject. Regarding whether the source qualifies as simply a self-published biographic source, I think that has more to do with whether the source is considered reliable. WP:BLPSPS is just a stricter form of WP:SPS, which is about prohibiting a type of unreliable source. Given that Yale Divinity School is a reliable source, I don't see why the source you used should be avoided on those grounds. The only relevance then is whether the source is officially from the school.

In situations like these (but probably not this situation), it seems the most compelling consideration would be whether it violates the subject's privacy, since the speech or lecture may be recorded without their consent or knowledge and thus an otherwise private symposium in which private details are shared is treated as public information. That is, for example, the crux of concern for the issue I'm facing, whose source is also a video speech published on YouTube (though mine was published by an obscure independent video producer that covers local community events).

Ultimately, I would not exclude the source you provided on verifiability or WP:BLP grounds. It's basically a biographic primary source. If the subject were to publish it, the source would arguably be considered an uncontroversial self-published autobiographic source (unless a friendship claim is a "claim[] about third parties"). For your edit, I think the determining considerations are whether it is noteworthy enough to mention, whether it is sufficiently non-private information which is not so obscurely published that it may not respect either subject's privacy, and whether it is adhering to WP:BLP policy as applied to the other subject (in this case, Dale Martin). So long as it is, what policy or guideline basis is left for justifying exclusion? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC); revised 01:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Macuja-Elizalde

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Macuja-Elizalde

Who named Lisa Macuja-Elizalde as prima ballerina? Source and name of the person who named her as a prima should be noted. One can only become a prima if named by another prima ballerina, or a prima ballerina assoluta. For example, Maniya Barredo was named a prima ballerina by prima ballerina assoluta Margot Fonteyn.Qwerty dvorak (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please provide WP:RS for your claim that "prima ballerina" is a title awarded only by other prima ballerinas. According to Wikipedia it can denote someone who has been a company's principal dancer. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Its both a term of art as well as literal rank within a company. Its also used differently in different countries depending on the context. Ballet dancer has sort of a description of it. I think Querty is correct for some countries (it wouldnt surprise me if Russia was more formal about the rank being conveyed) it would require something of the sort. But I dont think its universal. But the only sources in the article just state she is one, but not when she became one. Which is sufficient for our purposes but not fantastic. She was the principal dancer of the Kirov from 84 - 86, so in terms of skill and prestige, she would certainly be prima ballerina level. Its also trivial to find sources that refer to her as a prima ballerina. But they do tend to be used in context as an accolade. When they refer to her career they tend to use the more specific principal dancer. This may not necessarily be true in other language references. But again for our purposes, her description as a prima ballerina is easily sourced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (II)

Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article to large extent is only based on primary sources and doesn't offer much of secondary sources I invite any of you to have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latifa_bint_Mohammed_Al_Maktoum_(II) , which is strongly connected to the Herve Jaubert article. This article is beyond poorly sourced and over-quotes what is essentially the same source via proxy sources countless times. More or less all information in this article is only dependent on a (!)youtube(!) video of the person in question and posts made on the website "detained in dubai" - as far as I can see all other sources are derivatives of these. That is almost every "secondary" source quoted has as its only source said youtube video and a website of the company "detained in dubai" that is strongly involved in this case, too, and therefore a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E914:6C00:F1AB:EEE7:6B05:1757 (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above account seems only to be used to draw attention to this issue, the article does indeed seem to be a hotchpotch of allegations derived from primary sources and based on a single media report and its proxies. It could really do with being looked at by an experienced editor? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC) @Alexandermcnabb: the article borders on incoherency -- very unclear sometimes as to what it is saying or implying. Until quite recently it was WP:OWNed by a pair of editors, one of whom is now indefinitely blocked due to perhaps unrelated issues. I had earlier given up on making sense of it, as pretty much every edit I made was reverted by one or other of this tag team. (Not to mention the mess on the talk page). Other editors seem reluctant to get involved. Perhaps the experienced editor who can improve this article is you -- with help from others here? MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe we are still having this conversation, not too helpful to delete it! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This page got damaged some edits back, and then incorrectly restored, so some edits may have been lost. If any of your edits have been lost then probably best just to restore them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No, we're good - my last comment above was from the period of the great deletion, when I was trying to work out quite what was happening and why someone would want to delete so much of the page! However, the request for someone experienced to look at the Latifa Maktoum page stands - I don't think it's me, I don't have the BOLP experience to unravel it, IMHO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Entirely agree that it's a mess. I tidied up the early parts of the linked Hervé Jaubert article, but when his story gets to this point I just gave up in despair at trying to work out what actually happened. Clearly something major did happen, but nobody authoritative is prepared to say much on the record. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (the 'Off-Guardian letter')

I would counter that the quoting of the Dr Stephen Davies letter directly [26] constitutes an abuse of primary sources contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY (as seen on the pro-Russian propaganda site 'Off-Guardian' [27] [28] [29] [30]), not to mention of course copyright violation as it was quoted "in full"! The letter was also (informally) confirmed by a Salisbury-based named Blogger (Rob Slane) [31] (with Dr Davies himself, personally) as having been subsequently edited by the Times, rather than Dr Davies's original letter published in full. [32] -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

It was an open letter, which means copyright is a red herring. Also as he is a recognized professional in the area so it is not a violation of Primary, as his is an expert opinion. So the only issue is BLP, how does it violate it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Except it was NOT a quote "open letter" unquote (which is usually unedited and is usually reproduced in full), but a "letter to the editor" (which is usually edited primarily for the reason of space and is usually NOT reproduced in full), that's the whole point! Do you even know the difference between the two?! (Here in the UK, medical and patient confidentiality means actual 'treating' (front-line) doctors are not allowed and would not be allowed to issue any such so-called quote 'open letters' unquote anyway!)

Confidentiality: NHS Code of Practice

Under normal circumstances there is no basis for disclosure of confidential and identifiable information to the media. There will be occasions however when NHS organisations and staff are asked for information about individual patients. Examples include:
• Requests for updates on the condition of particular patients, e.g. celebrities;
• In distressing circumstances, e.g. following a fire or road traffic accident;
• In circumstances where a patient or a patient’s relatives are complaining publicly about the treatment and care provided.

Where practicable, the explicit consent of the individual patient(s) concerned should be sought prior to disclosing any information about their care and treatment, including their presence in a hospital or other institution. Where consent cannot be obtained or is withheld, disclosure may still be justified in the “exceptional” public interest. In distressing circumstances, care should be taken to avoid breaching the confidentiality of patients whilst dealing sympathetically with requests for information. Where a patient is not competent to make a decision about disclosure, the views of family members should be sought and decisions made in the patient’s best interests.

Where information is already in the public domain, placed there by individuals or by other agencies such as the police, consent is not required for confirmation or a simple statement that the information is incorrect. Where additional information is to be disclosed, e.g. to correct statements made to the media, patient consent should be sought but where it is withheld or cannot be obtained disclosure without consent may still be justified in the public interest. The patients concerned and/or their representatives should be advised of any forthcoming statement and the reasons for it. There is a strong public interest in sustaining the reputation of the NHS as a secure and confidential service but there is a competing interest in ensuring that the reputations of NHS staff and organisations are not unfairly and publicly maligned. Disclosures need to be justified on a case by case basis and must be limited to the minimum necessary in the circumstances. In some circumstances a “dignified silence” in the face of media enquiry, may be the best approach for the NHS to take, depending on the nature of the case involved.

© Crown Copyright - HM Government 2003 (Department of Health, 7 November 2003, Page 44 (48/52)), [33]

-- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Where does this claim of "propaganda" fit in? Doesn't that letter just contain some useful facts? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that ONE SINGLE letter (which was 'compressed' (edited) by the Times BTW rather than the actual letter) has been given vastly disproportionate prominence... there is no particular need or reason for it, unless, you are following what 'OffGuardian' https://off-guardian.org/ (aka the Russian Embassy, London) been telling you and have been following their narrative, 'rather what 'the Establishment' wants you to know' and all that guff... The fact also is that even Deborah Haynes, one of the two original authors of the Times article reporting the (supposed) 'open letter', has since openly attacked on Twitter the Russian Embassy (and letting it be known to them) for repeating twisting her and her paper's work. Just for the record, do you personally consider RT and RT Ruptly as no more and no less reliable as say the BBC or Sky News?!

Wrong. Mr Wallace was referring to PA article about several suspects having been identified. Not our article about GRU. Another distortion (by you).

[34]

-- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you've over-reacting. Yes, source may be primary, but it's basically just facts. Whatever Deborah Haynes has done or said since, on Twitter, is really of no consequence here. This seems to be now turning into WP:FORUM. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed the forum to decide on the veracity of a particular quote in relation to BLPs, I think you got that right there! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"PLEASE SHARE TO HELP COMBAT SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP"... [35] -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not shout ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I was merely repeating what those pro-Russia trolls on Off-Guardian have been saying. Why are you twisting my words here?! And see also [36] (Page 2 of about 25,270,000,000 results (1.47 seconds)) and also https://www.stopfake.org/en/putinatwar-trolls-on-twitter-battles-on-twitter-over-the-skripal-poisoning-case/. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I just wanna tell you that shouting is no good. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

So just exactly what do you have to say about that letter, and the fact that it had been deliberately and maliciously circulated 25 BILLION times on the Internet in order to push a particular narrative?! Well?! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your "25,270,000,000 results" equates to "maliciously circulated 25 million times" (or even 25 billion). You're starting to rant now. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

A reference was given for The Times, a secondary source. "Blogger (Rob Slane)" is not a WP:RS. Reproduction of the letter is allowed under fair use for quotation, critique or review; it has no financial impact on the copyright owner; and we have given acknowledgement to Dr Davies. Firebrace (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying Rob Slane should be quoted on the article (again, twisting my words again here!) ... WP:RS does NOT prevent the use of supporting material, outside of the main article space, in order to challenge the veracity and reliability of sources cited in the main article space ... WP:WikiLawyering ... Do you at the very least concede and accept the fact that that was in fact an edited 'letter to the editor', rather than an unedited 'open letter'?! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what difference you think it makes (if the letter has been edited). All the relevant facts are in the published letter. Firebrace (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Also do with have an RS (or the person concerned) saying this letter was altered in a substantive way?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

All this talk of propaganda and stuff is incredibly confusing. Frankly I had no idea what you were complaining about after reading this whole discussion and our article. Only reading the blogmire link above made me appreciate what I think you are complaining about. As I understand it, your concern is that the specific part of the letter that is quoted in our article has been misread by some to mean that the 3 people i.e. Sergei and Yulia Skripal and the police officer were also not affected by the nerve agent. If this is true, that's unfortunate but I don't think there's anything we can do about it, especially if the only sources we have for it are the blog and any wacky conspiracy sites that make the claim. Our article is abundantly clear that those 3 people were affected. Frankly I don't think excluding the quote is going to affected what people who believe such nonsense believe. Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The original source is from The Times, but it is behind a pay wall. So, the conspiracist's website is used simply to give the reader free access to the quote. I'm not sure what the IP editor's exact concern is either. The letter to the editor is an official statement from that emergency department to clarify the degree of public risk/exposure. I'm also not sure the IP editor understands that a letter to a newspaper for publication is not private, and furthermore that since specific identities of the 40 other people was not revealed, that confidential information was not released. MartinezMD (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Marcus Bastiaan

Can we please have some more eyes on this article? It has been attracting one or two determined political opponents of his throwing in poorly sourced stuff ranging from trivia to outright defamatory, and they're endlessly reverting several people from WT:AUSPOL. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have now learned Australians use "Victorian" or "(Victoria)" a tad inconsistently. Interesting, in a way. Collect (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I know we're heading off-topic, but as a Victorian, I'm interested. Care to elaborate a little? (Go to my Talk page if you think it more appropriate.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of the stuff that seemed irrelevant, promotional or intrusive. I reordered some of the text in the section about his political career. I'm not actually certain this person is notable, they haven't held significant public office and I'm not certain the coverage firmly establishes it either. Sometimes the best way of dealing with BLP issues is to remove the article completely... Shritwod (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shritwod: I've nominated the page for WP:AfD here. Feel free to discuss. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, we can test the notability question then.. Shritwod (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

McCafferty (band)

McCafferty_(band)

This article violates the policies regarding the biographies of living persons, as one user continuously has been inserting defamation-related comments and gossip about a living persons in the article and using broken Twitter links as their source. After numerous attempts of trying to revert the edits, the user continues to edit the false information into the article. This article should be protected to prevent this false controversy and any other edits to the page from being made. The issue is that a registered user is the one making the defamatory comments, so a full protected was requested from the living person themself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1127:1B6:9423:14B3:C147:A073 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The article has been page protected by Black Kite Jim1138 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

James Gunn Tweet Controversy: Two Paragraphs in Question.

I do not think that of all websites, Wikipedia should "shoot the messenger" by noticing in two paragraphs, one at the beginning of the James Gunn page and one at the very end, that a person who was Right Wing found these tweets which centered on Gunn being a child molester, and not even notifying anywhere that he's joking, which is part of dark humor, writing bad things as if they are true. Gunn also knocked Transgender people and homosexuals, two groups not usually linked to Trump or anyone who is in cahoots with him or his administration. Here are the two paragraphs, the first:

In July 2018, social media personality Mike Cernovich retrieved a number of tweets that Gunn had written between 2008 and 2009, mainly jokes relating to rape and pedophilia. These tweets were met with substantial criticism, and led to Walt Disney Studios severing ties with Gunn and firing him from the upcoming third Guardians of the Galaxy film.[3]

It really shouldn't matter who uncovered these tweets. It's amazing to most that Twitter would even allow such content in the first place. The real news here is that he wrote those tweets, and he apologized.

This paragraph is the biggest problem.

Disney's decision received criticism; actors Dave Bautista, Selma Blair, and David Dastmalchian, comedian Patton Oswalt, director Joe Carnahan, musician Rhett Miller, and Rick and Morty creator Justin Roiland, among others, all defended Gunn.[42][43][44][45] A fan petition urging Disney to re-hire Gunn gathered over 210,000 signatures.[46] Several media outlets noted the strong support Gunn received, due to the tweets being a decade old, the apologies he had made both before and during the controversy, and the controversy being caused by an alt-right activist in response to Gunn making critical comments about Donald Trump, with We Got This Covered stating "Of course, that’s not to say the studio will reverse their decision, but it’s clear that there’s an overwhelming amount of support for James Gunn right now."[41][42][47][43][48]

It goes right into backing up all those in support of Gunn, which is just opinion. Even using quotes, this has little to do with the problem at hand where a celebrity writes about being a child molester and knocks homosexuals.

You guys need to really check about putting political bias on articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefearmakers (talk • contribs) 10:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We are not at liberty to judge what the original tweets meant or implied, that violates OR. So we can't assume he was serious or not. We're to document the controversy which means 1) identifying the notable figure that brought them up, the reaction by Disney to kick him off GotG 3 for them, his response and apology, and those that supported him. None of the text in the two paragraphs suggest a biased view of how this has been documented, and simply stating events that have happened without issuing any judgement. The only thing I see really missing is talking about the side of the story that compares the situation to someone like Rosanne, but that's a NPOV-ish issue, not a BLP issue. --Masem (t) 16:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is a BLP issue it isn't that we have too much material on his defenders (as Masem says, that would be a NPOV issue), it's that the controversy ballooned in the article to occupy about a third of the lead and a section so big it was about the same size as the section about his 20-year high-profile film career. I've substantially cut it down, but I suspect we'll see a lot more activity from both sides working to expand it in a particular direction. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

True, there's potentially a weight issue, but part of that is lack of coverage of the 20-yr career, and just a tad bit of recentism on the controversy. But it's not so far off to call the article broken or is desperate need of BLP intervention. --Masem (t) 16:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Cassandra_Clare

A controversy section has been added once again, with weak justification, by an account that has no other edits in the past three years and a blanked talk page. Would be good to review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.65.123 (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Pakistani propagandists category

Now that there is a highly controversial election campaign underway in Pakistan, a new Category:Pakistani propagandists has been created. Thus far two television hosts have been added to it. Shahid Masood in particular doesn't seem to have any sourced mention of his being a propagandist in the existing article about him.

I'm not sure that being a controversial television host commenting on political matters, or even having worked for the government in media roles, makes one a propagandist. To draw a comparison, the corresponding category Category:British propagandists has justifiable inclusions like George Orwell (who worked as a propagandist), but it doesn't include people like Philip Gould, Baron Gould of Brookwood, Peter Mandelson or George Galloway.

Is the inclusion of television hosts in this way, compatible with WP:BLP ? MPS1992 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The name of the category seems very POV and inappropriate to WP:BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I've emptied the category which could be nominated for deletion. Jonathunder (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• mutter* Creating categories should be an advanced user-right... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

David Zingler

I created this page for myself back in 2005 under the username Dlz28 (I have forgotten the password and can't access that account). I do a moderate amount of free lance work in the Twin Cities area, but the money is minimal and it is not my full time job. When I created this page, it was kind of a joke between a friend and I. I am not a journalist and believe the page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlz75 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You apparently weren't logged in at the time. It's somehow managed to dodge WP:A7 all this time. I've gone ahead and deleted it on those grounds. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Carla Ortiz Wikipedia page, section headed "Syria" is propaganda and defamation

The section of the Carla Ortiz Wikipedia page headed "Syria" is propaganda designed to discredit and defame Carla Ortiz regarding her documentary film and video work in Syria, and her interviews about Syria. It is not a neutral and fair account of her work in Syria and of the interviews and talks she have given about Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonofToronto (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Section removed as it was non-neutral. GiantSnowman 15:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems notable though. I have proposed a more encyclopedic version on the talk page. What do people think? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean are you even checking what the sources are?! Two questionable reliability, one definitely not... GiantSnowman 09:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Luke Nash-Jones

• Smartin Mellner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly a vandal, who deleted almost this entire article, with many references to credible third party news pieces and other articles, and leaving in place a few inaccurate lines.

The name Smartin Mellner is a reference to Martin Sellner, who leads a white supremacist outfit Generation Identity that failed to launch in the UK and is known for aggression towards Nash-Jones. Clearly, "Smartin Mellner" has taken offence to this accurate sentence, and seeks to censor the truth:

"However, he is despised by the actual far-right, for his objection to their calls for an 'ethnostate' white homeland." [37] [38] [39]

Sunni Dawah is a real person - he's a prominent UK advocate of Sharia law, as can be seen in the referenced video.

That window cleaner doesn't look like Luke Nash-Jones - spurious claim. No evidence he has the name Benjamin. He has been referred to in the article as "Luke Anthony Nash-Jones". [40] However, his actual name is Luke Menasheh ben Jochanan. He is a Jew, and hence the anti-Semitic hate towards him here on this Wikipedia page. [41] Grandparents Polish which he speaks. Often waves Israeli flag at rallies in London. Videos of him cheering for Israel at US embassy protest. He shortens "MeNASHeh" to Nash. The Hebrew word "Nasi" means for Prince, hence he claims to be the "Prince of Kekistan". [42] He works with popular Jewish activist Avi Yemeni [43]

Nash-Jones stood for election [44]

The tweets posted above don't refute that Nash-Jones is the nephew of the UKIP NEC member Elizabeth Jones that he is often seen with, speaks at his events, and who often features in his YouTube broadcasts. There is much to suggest they are releated: [45]

Nash-Jones is a Zimbabwean if he is the "son of a Rhodesian". He has clearly stated more than once that he is "African", for example this video at 1 minute 15 seconds. [46]

• Auric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) see above, regards Smartin Mellner - both are anti-Semitic trolls.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibossmaninit (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Before I look into anything else, as an immediate solution you can develop the article in your userspace. Simply create a page like User:Wikibossmaninit/Draft. Short of WP:BLP violations, you generally get to decide who can edit there. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Response

The name Luke Benjamin Jones

This is a snapshot of Luke "Nash-" Jones's LinkedIn profile. It's clearly him, look at the picture and the history at Birkbeck, University of London. Note, too, that he states he works at Tamesis Data Ltd. Here's a snapshot of Tamesis Data Ltd's website, containing two pictures of Jones. Here's the Companies House entry for Tamesis Data Ltd, showing that the sole director of the company is a Luke Benjamin Jones, born April 1985. No "Anthony", no "Nash".

Window Cleaning

Here's another picture of Jones from the window cleaning website. Taken a few years ago, but a striking resemblance to Luke "Nash-" Jones.

2018 local elections

Here are the results for the May 2018 local elections in Basingstoke and Deane. Nobody named Luke ran as a candidate; the only Jones was a Doris Jones who ran for the Liberal Democrats in Brookvale and Kings Furlong. Of the two Brighton Hill wards, Brighton Hill North had no UKIP candidate and Brighton Hill South was contested for UKIP by Michael Phillip Thompson.

Relation to Elizabeth Jones

Jones the second most-common surname in England and Wales. There are no reliable sources that Luke Jones and Elizabeth Jones are related, and Luke Jones's Twitter account has ridiculed the claim on three occasions. Burden of proof is with the claimant, etc.

Zimbabwe

The claim removed from the draft article was that Jones was born in Zimbabwe, not that he was of Zimbabwean descent. One of Luke's Gab accounts has stated that "Both sides of Luke's family lived in Wales for centuries".

Ad-hominem attacks and accusations of anti-Semitism toward me and another user

Baseless. Smartin Mellner (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ramesh Balwani

• Ramesh Balwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Wikipedia Team:

The page, Ramesh Balwani, does not adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. I believe it is a personal attack.

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesh_Balwani

The entire article is negative, focusing on one aspect of this person's life. It is slanderous and reveals personal information regarding the person's date of birth.

Please remove it immediately. Thank you for your expeditious resolution of this matter.

Kind Regards,

Danielle Gaines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgaines2000 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dgaines2000: I've removed the year of birth, because there was no reliable source cited for this information. The rest of the article appears to be based on a book about Balwani or articles in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other similar newspapers. Accordingly, I don't see the BLP issue. It is also not written anywhere near the tone of a personal attack. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on the following statements from the biographies of living persons policy, kindly remove the page 'Ramesh Balwani': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesh_Balwani

This page has clearly been created to disparage the subject and reads like a sensational, news article -- clearly in conflict with the BLP policy. It is not a true, living biography. It is unfair and unbalanced. The tone is completely negative and some of the writing is framed to put a negative bent on all subject matter. For example,

1. "Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani is the former president and chief operating officer of Theranos, a privately held health technology company founded by his girlfriend Elizabeth Holmes." She is no longer his girlfriend. This is a false statement.

2. Also, "He cashed out his shares in Commerce One, pocketing nearly $40 million shortly before the company went out of business..." The wording paints a negative and inaccurate picture of what actually occurred and over what period of time.

3. And, "...Balwani's reported behavior. He was described by former Theranos employees as overbearing, uncompromising, demanding and so secretive and worried about industrial espionage that he verged on paranoia." This statement is purely conjecture, based on subjective viewpoints.

4. Etc. -- The page is strewn with this type of inaccurate and negatively framed writing.

I repeat myself, this page has clearly been created to disparage the subject and reads like a sensational, news article -- clearly in conflict with the BLP policy. It is not a true, living biography.

Per Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy:

"Attack pages Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see #Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking. Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgaines2000 (talk • contribs)

The author of the book, which is used for the source about the description of Balwani's behaviour at Theranos, has written for the Wall Street Journal. I am thus inclined to assume that his interviewing techniques comply with responsible journalism, and that his book is reliable, unless you can provide specific evidence to the contrary. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Emma Husar

I am having difficulty including well sourced and policy compliant material to an article. As a fairly new editor I am being constantly belittled by a couple of editors one in particular User:HiLo48 who think they know best and have for some reason taken a personal dislike to me. I have read policy a few times now and cannot see why the edit was reverted. Admittedly I have made some mistakes while learning, but I have genuinely tried not to edit war and when I've been wrong quickly admit it. I'd appreciate if some very experienced Wikipedia editors could decide if this sentence is able to be included. It is this diff that was reverted. [47] I simply added this sentence with 3 reliable sources. "It has also been alleged by former staff that Husar used the taxpayer-funded limousine service inappropriately" I thought it was a decent edit as this story is headline news around the country. I didn't think you needed consensus for every edit before making it. It was a new edit. I had never made it before. I Spent quite a while sourcing it. I risk being further belittled by a couple of editors here which makes me nervous and I risk them focusing on me rather than content but it's a good edit and I'm hoping there are some experienced editors here that can determine based on policy if the edit should go into the article.Merphee (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

At the least, WP:NOTNEWS. Will it still be in the media in a year or two when discussing her? We don't know and it doesn't necessarily seem likely (which isn't our place to guess at anyway). This is an encyclopedia not a summary of news stories. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

First off, its only an allegation. Even if proven to be true, it still does not seem notable enough worth including. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Should we remove allegations of workplace bullying as well then? The story has been running in Australia as headlines news for ab a week now. The limo allegations are being covered almost as much as the bullying allegations.Merphee (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that Merphee took the idea of adding this content to the article's talk page. Nobody there agreed with adding it. (Not just me.) Yet Merphee added it anyway. I have no personal dislike for Merphee, but I will revert edits made when there is a complete absence of consensus to do so. In bringing this here Merphee is simply WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Can somebody else please tell this user how things work here. He ignores me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please User:HiLo48 just focus on content. You are incorrect and once again come straight on here and start attacking me personally with falsehoods and assuming bad faith without providing policy. Other editors have supported the limo allegations inclusion. The Drover's Wife's supported the inclusion of the limo allegations here with this comment. [48] I take offence to your belittling, aggression and sarcasm, as well as focus on editors personally as if it is somehow funny to do so, that's all. As I said The Drover's Wife has agreed with the limo allegations being included and we are just trying to get the wording right on Talk:Emma Husar in a civil way. Merphee (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You can just fuck off with your "focus on content" bullshit. You have found one comment out of many that partly supported your goal of adding more negative content to the article on a politician you despise. My apologies for missing it, but it was just earlier today. That is NOT consensus. You have repeatedly abused me and other editors because we have tried to apply policy to your application of political hatred. I cannot forever ignore being insulted by you, as in the opening comment in this thread. Was THAT a focus on content? No fucking way. Now grow up, and be honest. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You have obviously pushed it too far User:HiLo48 with your lack of civility. You should be reported. The only person who disagrees with including the limo allegations is you. The Drover's Wife just commented on Talk:Emma Husar with this edit [49] and appears to be in support of the limo allegations being included. I do not appreciate being told to fuck off and think you need to be reported. I admit to a few comments back, but 9 out of 10 times I have tried to ignore you and focus on content. However you appear to be a law unto yourself on here.Merphee (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

In the past 48 hours you have worked on one topic on Wikipedia. I have worked on around 60. Can I seriously suggest you give Emma Husar a rest, and get out and see how the rest of Wikipedia works - how consensus really works, how patient editors are about adding the latest news. You are new here. That's fine, but be willing to learn. An obsession with one politician will never allow that to happen. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said User:HiLo48, I do not appreciate being told to FUCK OFF. You should be reported. There is no excuse for this kind of abuse or language toward other editors.Merphee (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What's your excuse for your typical behaviour of attacking me in the first post of this thread, then moving on to your "focus on content" bullshit? You have shown this hypocrisy repeatedly. Please think about it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Merphee Please take conduct issues to WP:ANI, this is not the place to discuss them. I agree that maybe all the news story info should be removed from a BLP if it is allegations and it just came to media attention this week. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I probably will take it there no editor should be told to FUCK OFF. Thanks for your opinion too to remove from the Emma Husar article the entire story about her bullying and misuse of entitlements allegations. Interested in what others think about that. Are you sure none of it is WP:NOTNEWS though and should be removed from the article entirely? It seems to be covered very widely for about a week now? Have you read the sources before giving that opinion?Merphee (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Merphee - You're talking about me again, and I am not the topic! HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course you are the topic are you kidding. DIYeditor just told me where to report you after telling me on this exact page to FUCK OFF. Obviously any human reaction would be to tell you to fuck off back, but I would prefer to keep civil and report it to the appropriate noticeboard. If we got into a go fuck yourself discussion where do you think that would lead or how would that be helpful. There is no excuse for telling other editors to fuck off. And by using appropriate noticeboards to help resolve disputes and misconduct is valid.Merphee (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Usually people are not so clueless. If you want to add muck about Husar stick to that topic and forget about telling experienced stuff they learned (from listening to other users) years ago. If you want to seek retribution against HiLo for calling you out, do so elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Already said I was going to do that. Now Johnuniq and even though I'm tempted to abuse you back for your "clueless" comment I won't because I'm sure you want me toi directly abuse you back like you just did. My experience with Wikipedia is that it really doesn't matter how long a editor has been here but how they stick to content editing and policy. Now have you got any comments on content on this question I've raised here or on the emma husar talk page?Merphee (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

So I checked the policies/guidelines again to see where I think this should fall. Husar passes WP:POLITICIAN as being elected to national office but barely has any coverage in the article beyond that. These allegations seem to (marginally) pass WP:PUBLICFIGURE - "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article ..." The other question is WP:NOTNEWS which says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." So I guess the question is whether this will be significant years from now when discussing the person. Would there be any harm in waiting a week, two or a month to see developments and how it plays out? If the limousine allegation turns out to be unfounded, or totally falls from coverage, then the mere fact it occurred would probably not be notable. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond and it is great to see actual discussion on content. The problem is the allegations about her misuse of entitlements are being reported on now as much as her bullying claims. And I don't think that the bullying claims should be removed nor should they remain in isolation from the misuse of her allowance allegations. On the talk page we've agreed the allowances should be included as well and are just trying to work out wording. You're welcome to comment there.Merphee (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll go there but I'm not sure I have much more to add or a very strong opinion. What I will say is that the urgency to cover current events is often a sign of bad editing in my fairly limited experience. There is no race to update articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. I have wondered about that.Merphee (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Another clue arises when a significant portion of a short article is devoted to negativity. The 15:53, 25 July 2018 version was almost half bad stuff. If someone is convicted of a crime, almost all of their article might be bad stuff, but when the subject is a politician such an imbalance is a certain sign of POV pushing. If the subject is convicted or suffers some other real-world setback, the information should be added regardless of the bad-stuff scale. However, until then it is just another case of a politician getting muck which should not be unduly recorded in Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed.Merphee (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

David S. Cassetti

David S. Cassetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The information being placed on this wikipedia page may be considered libelous and slanderous. In addition, the y are referencing an individual d Musante who has a learning disability and using him as a subject matter to support their politically motivated efforts to defeat Mayor Cassetti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heehee1313 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me like you keep removing properly sourced information. It perhaps needs some re-writing, and one might wonder about the score-settling involved -- but if you keep reverting multiple editors you'll likely end up blocked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked them as a sock with no comment on the content dispute (and original account remains unblocked - for now...) GiantSnowman 13:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of sock or not, I do find it troubling that more than half of a stubby article is related to controversies of the person. The content may be legit, but at the current size, it definitely is a problem in the spirit of BLP/NPOV. But that's probably an issue at policy to consider, not this specific example. --Masem (t) 14:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've literally just removed it, having read it properly and seen that it was added by different sock with a clear agenda. GiantSnowman 14:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

James Morhard

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

There appears to have been a COI (wp:COIPOLITICAL likely) edit at the "James Morhard" article. IP editor 156.33.241.35 appears to be a United States Senate address. This is after a similar style edit by another IP. Any thing more to be done than revert/restore RS edit? Is there a different place to go with this? X1\ (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Who Is America?

I've removed potentially libellous material from the article Who Is America? three times, each time with further explanation, so I'm now asking for further help in resolving the issue. Here is my latest diff. Further details also on the talk page. Cimbalom (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Whether that's problematic or not, it's sourced to the WP:DAILYMAIL, so it has to go anyway. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

BD Wong / Name Misspelled in Article Headline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._D._Wong

BD Wong's name is misspelled in the headline of his Wikipedia Article. There are no periods or spaces in his first name. I work with him professionally and the incorrect spelling on his Wikipedia has caused many issues in his professional life, including billing. When googling his name, the incorrect spelling appears as a result of this article. Many people look to Wikipedia and Google for confirmation, and in this circumstance as receiving incorrect information. As you can see on his IMDB page, link below, his name is spelled in the correct manner. I would appreciate your help in resolving this matter.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000703/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.200.251 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP, and welcome to Wikipedia. The "rule" (WP:COMMONNAME) in this case is that WP wants to call BD Wong what he is generally called in reliable sources. We don't think highly of imdb in this respect, but it is something. ibdb also agree, but some other sources in the article don't. Not sure of the best solution here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Add The New York Times to team BD [50]. That's good enough for me, I'm in favor of a change. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favour too. There are sources, and the guy calls himself BD Wong on all his social media as far as I can tell. Neiltonks (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The article started as "B. D. Wong", was then moved to "BD Wong" on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME and then moved back citing MOS:INITIALS, but failing to note WP:SPNC. So it should go back to BD Wong (currently a redirect). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Cody Nickson

Please take a look at this bio. I've already deleted large chunks of it for being unsourced and just plain unimportant fluff. I'm sure that more could be removed, but I'd rather have a few more opinions on it rather than me solely removing it all. And, if I've removed something that could stay or be salvaged with a source, please feel free to add it back. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Daniel (album)

Eyes are needed at The Book of Daniel (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IP edit warring, using words like "alleged," despite what WP:ALLEGED states, and going on about bad writing and neutrality. Article has been semi-protected as a result of the edit warring. But the IP is likely to continue editing the article in problematic ways, whether as an IP or or registered account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

What's the threshold to add BLPs to Persian Jews

I note that the second paragraph in the lead starts "Judaism is the second-oldest religion still practiced in Iran..." I reverted the addition of 3 names by a fairly inexperienced editor, leaving the edit summary "Lead makes it clear that this is based on religious affiliation, none of the BLPs added states that they are Jewish, and one article doesn't even mention any Jewish background" and User:Bus stop reverted me with an edit summary "David Hindawi, Joseph Moinian, and Paul Merage are Jewish according to their articles." Note that I hadn't removed Merage but Michael Moradzadeh whose article doesn't mention anything about Jewish ancestry or beliefs. The other two did mention Jewish ancestry but not religion. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The requirement is self-identification per a reliable source. Lacking such, it is clear that the category obviously includes ethnicity and religion, and thus its use is bound by the more restrictive standard required by Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller—yes, the lede says that "Judaism is the second-oldest religion still practiced in Iran". But that does not imply that only religious Persian Jews are truly and authentically Persian Jews. Aren't nonobservant Persian Jews also Jewish? And how are you making the leap from a historical assertion in the lede concerning the origin of religion in Persia to Persian Jews of the 20th and 21st centuries? (Sorry about an inadvertent mix-up between Merage and Michael Moradzadeh.) Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You would need sources for either religion or ethnicity within their articles. If it's not in the article you can't add the category. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

James Gunn, Michael Ian Black, Dan Harmon, etc.

As reported here, here, [51], etc. there looks to be a strategic feigned outrage campaign by Mike Cernovich and other alt-right twitter users to dig up old offensive content by comedians and other entertainers in an effort to have them fired or otherwise get them in trouble. It worked in at least one case, with James Gunn (how I came across the story), and has extended to Dan Harmon, Michael Ian Black, Patton Oswalt, etc.

In many of these people's articles now we've had users adding big blocks of text, reproducing the offensive content in full and otherwise making the events of the last couple days take up a huge amount of space in otherwise highly notable people's articles. There are WP:WEIGHT concerns, but also, increasingly, BLP issues. See for example: Michael Ian Black, addition of Dan Harmon-related material to tangentially related Adult Swim article, Trevor Noah (2, 3), Dan Harmon (2)... at James Gunn, things have gone in another direction, focusing more on criticism of his firing than the firing itself. I would argue that this, too, is concerning, but in lesser part due to BLP and more just to WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT.

It sure seems like we'll keep seeing more of this. To be clear, I'm not proposing that we ban this material from BLPs -- it's clearly receiving a lot of coverage. I'm more calling for more attention to this phenomenon and a discussion of how we should cover it. I guess my inclination would be to automatically protect these BLPs for a week after the material is covered, and to wait a little while before adding it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Trevor Noah is on my watch list for other reasons (there's some editing trying to turn him into an ethnic jew) and I have just been reverting the twitter shit out. It's tabloid gossip about bad jokes he made years ago. I want to see consensus that it should be in the article first. But you don't need to dig far when you see what editors (not all) have been adding yo various articles. It's basically turning enwp into the means by which these online hate campaigns are being spread. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A simple accusation (and this works whichever direction the idealogical mud is being thrown) that has no significant repercussion on the BLP's current well-being should be omitted/removed (such as the one directed at Noah as best I know at this point). If there are reactions that do impact the person's career (Gunn for example being kicks off GotG, or Chris Harwich, even with the "reset" when they were found false) they should be included, to the level of detail of "This happened to this person because of this accusation" as part of the scope of their career. RECENTISM tells us then otherwise to hold off on criticism or commentary until the event is well in the past - we're not a news service and should be avoiding covered these breaking controversies to that level of detail. --Masem (t) 00:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with everything expressed here so far. I'll watchlist the pages mentioned by the OP and try to help stem the tide. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Robertson, Canadian Poet, Teacher

I am not authorized, nor do I know how to edit. I wanted to alert someone that the photo under Wikipedia when you google "Lisa Robertson" is not the photo of Lisa Robertson, the Canadian poet and teacher. The photo shown is that of former QVC host, designer, blogger, and merchant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.167.236 (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

From what I can tell that is on googles end. Our article Lisa Robertson does not have a picture. But you are right, when you google the name it shows someone else on the right with some text information from Wikipedia.[52] I think this is the correct person? PackMecEng (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this happens a lot. Google actually generates its results from various sources but the way it's presented often makes it look as though it all comes from Wikipedia even when parts of it (usually the picture) have been sourced from somewhere else. There's nothing we can do about this, sadly. Neiltonks (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at BLP

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#The_intersection_of_BLPSPS_and_PSCI Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Theres a report saying that Jeff Fager of CBS News is named in a Harassment allegation

https://deadline.com/2018/07/ronan-farrow-expose-jeff-fager-harassment-60-minutes-cbs-news-1202435522/

There are news outlets reporting concurrently to the Les Moonves Scandal that Jeff Fager engaged in Sexual Harassment as of July 2018.