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.

Gavin McInnes

• I have challenged this close as not properly assessing the consensus of the discussion. See here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Challenge withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

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

---

• Gavin McInnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been placed in Category:Canadian white nationalists despite there being no RS supporting this, and the subject denying it. Could use discussion here, or more opinions at Talk:Gavin McInnes#White nationalist. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

He founded a white nationalist organization that regularly commits acts of public white nationalist violence while he hangs around waving a sword fFS. The sky is blue and McInnes is a bigot. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

BLP is very strict and there is a difference between attaching a WP:LABEL which requires multiple sources, especially for a BLP, and noting that he is the founder of a group that is considered white nationalist/white supremacist. This is definitely not a WP:SKYBLUE situation and WP:RS would have to be added to the article that support inclusion in the category.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No, he's definitely Canadian, the sources are clear. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I totally get what you guys are saying but almost all the sources I am finding are about the organization. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Almost all. Not the same as "all", is it? --Calton | Talk 06:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

[McInnes] actually leans much further to the right than the Republican Party. His views are closer to a white supremacist's. "I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of, he said. I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life."- The Edge of Hip: Vice, the Brand" by Vanessa Gigoriadis, New York Times, 28 September 2003

Nope, no reason to think he's a white nationalist AT ALL. --Calton | Talk 06:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Can you tell us if your comment above can be taken as a support for inclusion? I am staying neutral so if we have 3 support, 1 against I think we would be heading towards a consensus. Personally, I don't want to oppose, but I haven't seen sufficient sourcing to support yet. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Guy's remark was to say that it's clear that McI is a white nationalist, so the only possible area of dispute is whether he is Canadian or not, and Guy answers that by commenting that he definitely is. At least, that's the way I read it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

And if we're counting noses for the purpose of consensus, Koavf, who added the cat originally, and PeterTheFourth, who restored it once, should be counted in support, and an IP editor who removed it should be count in opposition. With Guy presumably in support, that would make 6 supports and 4 opposes (Kendall K-1, Seraphim System, Galobtter and the IP) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is absolutely correct. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. This fails WP:CATDEF; some sources describe him as perhaps being like a white nationalist, but I haven't found a source that straight up says "Gavin McInnes is a white nationalist"; he is regularly described as far-right or as having far-right views so Category:Far-right politics in Canada is a perfectly valid category, but White Nationalist? Not so much; If one wants to add the category, find enough sources to add "Gavin McInnes is a White Nationalist" in the article - I note that most of the other articles in the category straight up call the person a white nationalist/supremacist etc in the lead sentence, as they should for the category to be applicable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Support inclusion - The evidence is quite clear from the sources in both articles that the Proud Boys represent its founder's personal ideology, so adding this category -- which is quite mild -- to the article is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Support inclusion - Leader of a white nationalist extremist group, and I'm reasonably sure he's Canadian too. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion - he disavows white nationalism whenever the topic is addressed, and he isn't associated with any key figures of the movement. Is there an advantage to categorizing people who have made racist statements, as white nationalists (which is a political movement), when they disavow the movement, and are not associated with its advocates? Avaya1 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comments Fascists usually deny being fascists when they're asked. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  His denial isn't relevant but that there aren't much (if any sources) explicitly calling him a white nationalist is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Even if you could read both articles given to claim he is a white nationalist, that is two articles, which is nowhere close to a bar for inclusion within the category. Labels like this only should be applied if there's a clear overabundance of direct association given. --Masem (t) 15:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. It's actually less certain that he's Canadian than it is that he's a white nationalist, whatever PR spin he attempts. --Calton | Talk 16:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - He admits he's the founder of an extremist group with ties to white nationalism, apropos labeled by the FBI, and he's Canadian, according to that source. And he certainly talks like one. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Obvious support for inclusion of this, a clearly defining category. He is best known for his association with the white nationalist terror group. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Obvious oppose. Clearly not appropriate for this category. The article cited above is excellent but it doesn't support what some editors seem to believe it supports. The only thing I support is blocking several editors above for the BLP violations at the BLP noticeboard. I would rather discuss this with the biggest POV-pushers than with editors who have zero regard for BLP. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Wumbolo: What, are you that sensitive about someone being called Canadian? --Calton | Talk 15:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Obvious oppose adding a BLP to the white nationalists subcategory without reliable sources. Anyone saying we should doesn't know WP:BLP or they're such ridiculous povpushers they don't care. 2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, and the edit summary for that comment makes you look competent. No, my mistake, it makes you look like a 13-year old. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, the adults are the ones throwing jars of urine. NPA is still policy and your comment hurt my fee fees. 2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The sources are rather telling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per many of the sources on the page, but especially this one. Advocating closing the borders and letting everyone "assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life" is a clear white nationalist agenda. Bradv 20:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• support he's been described as a hipster racist by Vox and Media Matters for America. This NYT piece says:" His work is often inflected with a tone of crass, satirical bigotry that leaves him just enough room to declare it all a joke. While Mr. McInnes insists that the Proud Boys are “a normal fraternal organization like the Shriners,” the sentiments that unify its members are often tinged with disrespect for nonwhite culture. Of white men, he once wrote: “We brought roads and infrastructure to India and they are still using them as toilets. Our criminals built nice roads in Australia but aboriginals keep using them as a bed.” Hence the "hipster racist" thing.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• • Hard oppose. BLP is the area of Wikipedia where the most care is and should be taken. I think it's clear that McInnes is a racist, but if he has disavowed being a white nationalist, and there are no good clear RS identifying him as one, then it is not up to us as editors to judge that since we think his attitudes and actions are those of a white nationalist, he ought to be put in the white nationalist category. Simply leave him out of that category and let the article describe his racism and readers can decide.Happy monsoon day 00:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Obvious oppose - McInnes has denied on numerous occasions that he is a white nationalist and has actually spoken out against white supremacy and nationalism. The two references above are invalid-- Media Matters is not a neutral or reliable source and the Vox article does not call him a white nationalist. IAFIS (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Sock, see here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• The above editor is most probably a sock of User:Carpatho / User:Perspex03. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is a smear made by Beyond My Ken without any evidence. How do I go about reporting him in the proper way? I just checked and those two other users have a long history of editing on topics related to white supremacists. I just joined Wikipedia last month and all of my edits so far have nothing to do with alt-right or white supremacist figures except the Gavin McInnes page (who isn't even a white nationalist, he seems to identify as more of a libertarian or "new right"). All of a sudden two editors Calton and Beyond My Ken jump all over me accusing me of being a sock based on zero evidence. I believe what is going on is these two users have political agendas and are trying to smear me as a "sock" to prevent me from contributing and editing on Wikipedia. IAFIS (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Sock Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Who amongst us doesn't recognize typical sockish behavior: account created on Nov. 6, didn't edit until Nov. 16, then made 10 trivial edits until Dec. 6, when, with 10 edits in 30 days they should have become autoconfirmed, just in time to edit controversial articles which may become semi-protected, like Gavin McInnes, which they immediately jumped into editing. POV sock- or meat-puppet behavior, practically a dictionary definition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Media Matters is not a neutral or reliable source...
• 1) Sources are NOT required to be "neutral", whatever the hell that means; 2) "Because I said so" is not sufficient without evidence: a glance through the reliable sources noticeboard archives for "Media Matters" suggests that statement is flatly untrue.
• ...Vox article does not call him a white nationalist'
• The article is EXPLICITLY about white supremacists and how they're trying to repackage themselves. Hell, the section on McInnes is called "The fallacy that racism can be 'merely' performance" and outlines his "hipster racism". It takes an amazingly tortured interpretation to claim it doesn't call him a white supremacist, and your "oppose" is the very opposite of "obvious". --Calton | Talk 13:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Personally, I have no doubt that McInnes is a white nationalist and his denial is irrelevant. I don’t think there is any problem with labeling the Proud Boys as white nationalist, which he founded. But, he distanced himself from them. I am concerned with WP:CATDEF disallowing controversial inclusions and am unable to find RS that outright say x is a y; although they dance all around it.. (Definitely drinks Molson). O3000 (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion The SPLC notes that McInnes rejects white nationalism rhetorically while espousing some of its central tenants. McInnes is certainly a racist and a fellow traveler for white nationalism, but he really does occupy a slightly different "space" in that movement relative to people like Paul Fromm, and reliable sources don't explicitly call him a white nationalist. Nblund ^talk 18:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Baked Alaska (entertainer)

Baked Alaska (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Calton is restoring a Gizmodo article which describes the article subject in a defamatory way. wumbolo ^^^ 07:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles we link to are allowed to describe the subject in insulting ways. Neutral point of view is not a requirement for our sources. Meanwhile, it looks like neither of you have taken this content matter to the article talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The last time I posted a news article with such an insulting headline to Talk:Sarah Jeong, I was almost blocked by Abecedare. I don't want to discuss it on the talk page, and then blocked for linking it on the talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 18:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I added another source, but see no reason not to include the Gizmodo source too. Bradv🍁 18:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If you are capable of discussing it here, then you're capable of discussing it on the talk page. I would suggest avoiding the term "defamatory", as defamation refers specifically to false factual claims, and the appellation in the headline that is pretty clearly being used in a figurative rather than literal sense. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The last time I posted a news article... That's an amusing rewrite of history: you posted garbage from Breitbart, The Daily Caller, and The Western Journal and tried to pass them off as "news articles". -- Calton | Talk 23:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You don't say, that's what we do, see WP:Press coverage 2018. You're the one using garbage from Gizmodo as a reference for an extraordinary in an article. wumbolo ^^^ 13:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

:You don't say, that's what we do...

You mean use garbage sources as an attempted end-run around BLP policy -- especially since, as garbage sources, Wikipedia doesn't count them as legitimate press?

You're the one using garbage from Gizmodo as a reference...

Gizmodo IS a reliable source, unlike what you tried to palm off as such. That it's inconvenient for your whitewashing is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 13:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a terrible Gawker blog. It's beyond me that you accuse ME of whitewashing, when you're the one whitewashing a garbage website. Perhaps you need to tell yourself this exact comment you directed at me. As another source was added in the interim, I'm not responding here any further, in order to avoid wasting my time with this discussion in which you repeatedly say false statements and cast aspersions. wumbolo ^^^ 14:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

...in order to avoid wasting my time with this discussion in which you repeatedly say false statements and cast aspersions

You already wasted everyone's time with your ridiculous use of "defamatory", your self-serving redefinitions of "reliable sources", and your attempt at free-speech-martyr status by rewriting history. Do better. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Abdollah Nouri

Some MEK affiliated sources [1][2] (see the authors) are saying that Abdollah Nouri, once an intelligence service official in Iran, have admitted that 1994 Imam Reza shrine bomb explosion were carried out by Iranian government himself, not MEK. I can't find any dependent sources supporting this fringe theory. I think having this challenging material in articles are violations of WP:BLP. Any more insights? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a claim that is properly attributed to the organization (assuming it's also in the book, which I can't see). If there is a contrary point of view, then that can be included as well. It may be WP:UNDUE if those are the only two sources, but it's not a WP:BLP violation.- MrX 🖋 13:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Interesting question - Alireza Jafarzadeh is associated with NCRI which is possibly associated with MEK and has been published by St. Martin's Press ... However, if we were to redact sources possibly affiliated with MEK (when they make assertions involving BLPs associated with the Islamic Republic) - are we to redact sources, on the same grounds, which make assertions on MEK personnel when those sources are affiliated with (or under the control of) the Islamic Republic? This is a slippery slope indeed..... I would think that WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies here. Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Mr:Well, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE the allegation or the incident should be "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented" and it should be left out if there are not "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident".--Mhhossein ^talk 17:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein, the full context is "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." That section is talking about BLP privacy and negative material about a subject. In the case you raised, it is simply referring to something that Nouri is alleged to have said. I don't know whether that claim reflects negatively on Nouri, or not. If we were discussing one or two sources saying that Nouri eats babies, the outcome would be clearer. - MrX 🖋 18:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: The case is certainly reflecting negativity on Nouri, given the words attributed to him. Needless to mention that no third party reliabe source is found the allegations and all the sources I've seen were authored by the MEK members. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how that could be the case. You will probably need to argue that point on the article talk page. As I said before, this may fall under WP:DUEWEIGHT if there are only two sources.- MrX 🖋 13:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Thanks for the replies. I've given it a try. I couldn't find a third party reliable source for this claim. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• More comments are welcomed. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

John Leslie born John Leslie Stott.

John Leslie (TV presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article reads that Jonathan Ross divulged the name of the acquaintance that allegedly , according to Ulrika Johnson, raped her. It was NOT Jonathan Ross. It was Matthew Wright on the Channel 5 show the Wright stuff.

You need to amend that as all of these people are still living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.48.43 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The article says "It became known that the man was a TV presenter after comments by Jonathan Ross on his chat show. Amid media speculation, television presenter Matthew Wright disclosed on The Wright Stuff that Leslie was the alleged perpetrator." This means Ross started the ball rolling and Wright confirmed.--Auric talk 14:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Grossly excess weight given to details of charges of which the person was cleared. We can say charges were filed, and that he was cleared, but excess details muddy any BLP. Collect (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Fry

Ryan Fry may have WP:undue and/or too much text about a recent event. 96.55.104.236 (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done: I agree, and have significantly edited down the content[3]. AGK ■ 20:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Aguirre

Can I get some eyes on Jessica Aguirre? An editor with a changing IP address is repeatedly trying to insert trashy content about her appearance. I don't think anyone is watching this page. Zagalejo^^^ 14:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC of interest

There is an RfC at RSN [4] on whether sciencebasedmedicine.org is a reliable source and if it is a self published source, given the fact that their are BLP issues with self published sources, this RfC may be of interest to the editors here. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Scott Israel - the pro-gun control Parkland sheriff

Scott Israel was the sheriff who handled the Parkland shooting, and who became a target in rightwing media shortly thereafter for his advocacy for gun control. Most of his page currently focuses on supposed scandals and incompetencies that he and his department has allegedly been involved in, much of it sourced to non-RS. This series of edits[5] is troubling in particular. I don't have time to look at the page properly right now, but I'm just calling for your attention to what looks like BLP vios at a glance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

This is not a "neutral point of view." I attempted to remove language that is intended to create bias in the mind of the reader, but it was immediately restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.104.231.183 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Three editors appears to have reverted you. The next step is to discuss this on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. A fairly recent discussion can be seen here: Talk:G._Edward_Griffin/Archive_10#Biased_and_Unbalanced. For what "neutral point of view." means on WP, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Since you only edited the lead, see also WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Jim Rash

• Jim Rash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The IPs used Jim Rash's Instagram post to verify his sexuality. However, I could not find any other source that would help the info comply with WP:BLPCAT. What can be done about the info? I tried removing the info, but somehow another IP reinserted it. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting

The discussion at Talk:2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting#Lonewolf terrorism may interest the community here (this affects a number of other pages + terrorism categories as well). The BLP perpetrator has been convicted for murder and attempted murder. He was not charged nor convicted for a terrorism related offense. Multiple RSes refer to the event as terrorism or lone wolf terrorism (the event, being an early lonewolf event, is studied quite a bit in academic literature on the subject). The question is whether BLP policy precludes us writing and categorizing the event as terror. Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ledima Ole Kino

Senator, Narok County, Kenya. You have noted on the page that this text seems to have been written by someone very close to the subject. I would say its probably written by the person himself. It flags up a series of purported achievements, this should be severely edited and scrutinised/fact checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.245.186 (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you be more specific to which page you are referring to? There is not currently a page for Ledima Ole Kino, unless it was deleted since you posted to BLPN. Meatsgains^(talk) 21:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Olekino Ledama

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

Correction from the previous post, this name appears on Wikipedia not as Ledima Ole Kino, but as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.245.186 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I have removed most of the content from this article as it was unsourced and contained an substantial amount of puffery. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Radovan Karadžić biography

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

It appears to be an error in the biography of Radovan Karadžić:he is supposed to be born in 1945 and went to study Psychiatry in 1960 ... at age 15??? I think he was born in 1935 a t least! there was no way to anticipate studies in the former Yugoslavia and the currricula for psychiatry included the previous doctoral degree in medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.220.82 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• He can't have been born in 1935 as that would make his mother 13 years old - I suspect the date that he went to Sarajevo University is wrong - a number of sources claim he moved to Sarajevo in 1960, but received his doctorate in 1971, suggesting that he didn't actually start studying at the University until after that date. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Source says he moved in 1960 for a high school (for medicine?) and then studied medicine at the university. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

In Education in the Soviet Union high school ended at tenth grade (16) - things behind the curtain were different. As for the source (following what we have written in Education in Serbia#Secondary education) - page 27 - he moved to Sarajevo for a specialist high-school (gimnazia) of medical studies - and then moved on to the university. So the move was for medical studies - but beginning with a high-school for medical studies. 08:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Gerhard Meisenberg

• Gerhard Meisenberg

Article reverted to previous versions even though new edits provide valid sources and additional information about the subject while not removing, but only reordering, previous valid information. Reason for editing document provided by user include unprofessional comments such as: "Whitewashing. Update according to reliable source, not primary puffery". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangw29114 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The article certainly needs more attention and reliable sources, but whitewashing and WP:CSECTIONs are not the proper solution. Meisenberg is notable for exactly two things: an academic textbook he contributed to, and his involvement in scientific racism, such as Mankind Quarterly. Mankind Quarterly is not a reliable source, and accurate, sourced descriptions of should not be WP:WEASELed as easily-dismissable criticism. This is WP:FRINGE topic which needs to be handled carefully. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gmeisenberg, as well. Grayfell (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I also notice that this edit adds Meisenberg's birth date without any reliable source at all. In addition to violating WP:DOB, this is a big red flag that Evangw29114 has first-hand knowledge of this person, which is consistent with the article's WP:COI history. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Neil Degrasse Tyson

There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at [[6]] ResultingConstant (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Cardinal Pell

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

He is listed as a convicted sex offender. This is most offensive, and it would be wise to wait until the outcome of an appeal. He is not a sex offender, but rather the target of a vicious and calculated anti-Church smear campaign witch hunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.195.12 (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A reliable source states that he was convicted. If his conviction is under appeal, and if the appeal goes in his favour, then it can be stated that the conviction was overturned on appeal. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly not a BLP violation since the fact that he was convicted is neither un/poorly sourced and even if he is later exonerated and this was proven to be a complete witch-hunt the original conviction would still be mentioned along with the fact that it was later overturned. Also we will need something stronger than a unsourced claim that unknown people have organized in a concerted effect to frame this person which if ironically is the closest this to a BLP violation in this discussion.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Mathew L. Golsteyn

1. I prepared a new article on Mathew L. Golsteyn.
2. An IP contributor cut the article back to a stub, with the edit summary "Stub out for numerousBLP issues. Specifically the account of the killing of the bomb maker (NY Times says bomb maker was released, not taken off base) and the obvious BLP1E issue. This is news, not encyclopedic biography."
3. That IP contributor seemed to be using the same approximate range as a perennial wikistalker who was indefinitely blocked last year, so I reverted them, but, after reading the advice of an administrator, who I had asked for input, I agreed to undo my reversion. I said I would seek more input, because I didn't agree with the administrator's advice.
4. I re-added a paragraph the IP contributor removed. I don't think they bothered to really read the article, or its references. The paragraph in question covered how, during the period the Army was investigating Golsteyn, that scrutiny found he had called Will Swenson, another soldier, who was about to receive a Medal of Honor, a "friend". Golsteyn's friendship triggered an inquiry into Swenson that resulted in his friends and family being interviewed, and delayed his receipt of his Medal of Honor for a year. Since this is covered in Sempson's article it seemed absurd to excise it from Golsteyn's article.
5. I added short paragraph to the Duncan Hunter article, about his support of Golsteyn. This google news search hits over six dozen articles, over the last three years, showing Hunter's efforts to support Golsteyn.
6. I added a subsection to Donald_Trump_on_social_media

So, does BLP really recommend the excision the IP contributor made?

We show deference to individuals who merely face allegations. But the Army conducted a three year inquiry into Golsteyn's confession to the CIA. His Board of Inquiry determined he should be discharged. If I am not mistaken Golsteyn could have disputed the Board's determination, if he disputed the underlying facts it was based on. I have seen BLP discussions where those arguing to protect non-notable individuals who face allegations should not have them covered in their articles, until a trial convicts them. Golsteyn's three year inquiry wasn't a trial. But, surely its determination establishes he did kill an unarmed prisoner?

Further, Golsteyn openly acknowledged killing the prisoner on national TV, during his 2016 Fox News interview. He wasn't tricked into this open acknowledgement. So, following an open acknowlegement is there any actual BLP justification for shying away from covering the killing?

The administrator I asked for advice voiced a "one event" concern.

I know there is a range of interpretations as to what does, or doesn't constitute an event. In my reply on that administrator's talk page I listed over half a dozen things I thought should be considered events, so I disagreed that ONEEVENT applies.

Yes, some, like Golsteyn being awarded a Silver Star, in 2011, fall short of establishing enough notability to justify a standalone article, all by themselves. But very few of our millions of BLP articles had their notability established by a single factor. But almost all of the subjects of our millions of BLP articles had their notability determined by a kind of notability calculation of the fractional notability established by multiple factors.

In my opinion the wikipedia works best when articles are richly linked to related articles. Our readers may want to traverse the information in our body of content in unpredictable order, best served by richly linked articles.

Golsteyn should be linked to articles on Duncan Hunter, Donald_Trump_on_social_media, Will Swenson, the battle of Marjah, and several other articles. When an article is really only linked to one other article, arguments that one topic should be merged, and covered in a subsection of the other article have more strength. But when an article is related to multiple other articles, those arguments make less sense.

If everything we covered about Golsteyn was shoehorned into a subsection of the article on Duncan Hunter, the coverage of Trump's tweets, or Army scrutiny on Swenson, would be off-topic. Each of those other articles probably needs a sentence, or two, to provide some context, to give the reader guidance as to whether they should jump to the Golsteyn article. But the details of Golsteyn actually belong in an article on Golsteyn. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The event is Operation Moshtarak and should be covered there as part of that event. The biography should be deleted as the person is not notable beyond that. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Everybody, 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 is the anonymous IP contributor who made the big excision I mentioned at the top of this section.

1. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001, in point number 4, at the top of this section, I noted that your big excision removed the last paragraph I added, the paragraph that linked to Golsteyn's friend Will Swenson. I wrote there " Since this is covered in Sempson's article it seemed absurd to excise it from Golsteyn's article." Is there a reason you haven't responded to this point?
2. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001, on 2010-02-18 Golsteyn, and a confederate, removed the prisoner from the base, and killed him. Two days later, on 2018-02-20, Golsteyn and other GIs were being fired upon by a sniper. Comrades were killed or wounded. Golsteyn was credited with serving as the spotter who guided the artillery or aerial bombardment which dispatched the sniper. Golsteyn was awarded a Silver Star for this.

   By my count, this is two events, just at this battle. Geo Swan (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Geo Swan raised this with me at User talk:Nick-D#your assistance please... (I'm the admin noted in their post above). The IP editor was entirely correct to reduce the article to almost nothing given that it contains negative BLP material not supported by any source, with their edit summary correctly stating why they made this change. Geo Swan was totally out of line restoring this material. As they have an extensive history of violating WP:BLP, I'm seriously concerned about this conduct. As also noted, this person doesn't meet WP:ONEEVENT: the incident is probably notable, but the person is not. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Nick-D, you wrote that the initial draft contained "negative BLP material not supported by any source". Is there any way you could be specific about what you consider is not properly supported by sources?

  Do you mind if I ask you how much attention you paid to the Fox video clip?

  I transcribed it.

  The interviewer explicitly asks him "Did you kill the Taliban bombmaker?" Golsteyn nods his head, and directly answers "Yes".

  The interviewer asks him "You willingly offered up these details at the CIA?"

  Did you think his open acknowledgment of killing the Afghan was unsubstantiated? If so, does the transcript alter that opinion? Geo Swan (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  • The material not supported by sources was totally obvious - half paragraphs of negative statements about this person not ending with any references. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... It seems to me that the most commonly used method of referencing is to place a reference only once, per paragraph. Surely you have participated in AFD where those favoring delete have mocked the use of a reference for every sentence, calling the extraneous links redundant, and a kind of reference spam, and an attempt to trick readers into thinking the topic was more richly referenced than it actually was?

Consider the following paragraph, where only the first sentence is followed by a reference. The second sentences starts "According to the BBC". Since the reference that preceded it was to the BBC, readers understand that that reference applies to the second sentence of the paragraph, as well.

Golsteyn attracted the support of high profile supporters, including Congressional Representative Duncan Hunter.<ref name=Bbc2018-12-16/> According to the BBC News, Hunter called the charges a "'retaliatory and vindictive' inquiry into 'a distinguished and well regarded Green Beret'."

I am pretty confident that the vast majority of wikipedia contributors would regard that paragraph as adequately referenced.

I would still appreciate you being specific as to which aspects you think were poorly referenced. If you are too busy to read any of the article's references, how about picking the first passage that you think was not properly supported, naming it here, and asking for someone to explain how it was supported?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This clip includes the footage from the 2016 interview, interspersed with narration from FOX's Pentagon reporter, Jennifer Griffin. The clip is just over 4 minutes long...

time stamp	speaker	speech
0:05	Brett Baer:	In tonight's whatever happened to segment, new developments in the case of an elite military operator accused of killing a Taliban bomb-maker.
0:15	Baer:	You saw his declaration, or confession, right here on Special Reports. National security correspondent Jennifer Griffin has our update tonight, from the Pentagon.
0:25	Jennifer Griffin:	The US Army has charged with alleged murder a once decorated Green Beret, who received a Silver Star for valor, but later admitted killing a detainee during an interview with FOX News's Brett Baer in October 2016
0:40	Baer:	Did you kill the Taliban bombmaker?
0:45	Golsteyn:	(nods) yes
0:46	Griffin:	Major Mathew Goldsteyn was a US Special Forces soldier attached to a Marine unit that faced heavy fighting in the Battle for Marjah in February 2010. He later acknowledged, during a polygraph, when he was applying for a job, at the CIA, that he had killed an alleged Taliban member, who they had suspected of planting a bomb that killed two marines, Sergeant Jeremy McQueery and lance corporal Larry Johnston.
1:10	Baer:	You willingly offered up these details...
1:13	Golsteyn:	right
1:13	Baer:	...at the CIA?
1:15	Golsteyn:	That is correct.
1:17	Baer:	And that is where it all starts?
1:19	Golsteyn:	(nods) Pretty much.
1:20	Griffin:	According to a Senior Defense official Golsteyn told the CIA he killed the Afghan offbase, placed his body in a pit and burned it, but reached by telephone Golsteyn told FOX News, "I made a lawful engagement of a known enemy combatant on the battlefield."
1:34	Griffin:	He says the rules of engagement were so strict, at the time, that they were only allowed to detain and process Afghans for drug crimes. Golsteyn says that, following the suspected bomb-maker's release, he tracked him down, and killed him.
1:50:	Griffin:	Golsteyn said he believed that, letting go of the insurgent, meant the man could target Afghans who were helping US troops.
1:55	Golsteyn:	If you construe a law enforcement mindset...
1:57	Golsteyn:	There's limits on how long you could hold these guys...
2:00	Baer:	(apparently paraphrasing) ...So we would pull these guys out. We would say "clearly these are enemy combatants... these are Taliban... these are bad dudes..." We'd pull them out, but we wouldn't have anywhere to hold them. So, eventually we would let them back, and they would cause terror to the community, again.
2:13	Griffin:	A Senior US Defense official confirmed to FOX News the Army's Criminal Investigation Division Command reopened the investigation, based on new evidence, that includes the Green Beret's public statements.
2:25	Griffin:	The Defense Department's Inspector General investigated the Army's original handling of the case, which found not enough evidence to prosecute Golsteyn after a six day hearing.
2:35	Griffin:	California Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former Marine, who served in Iraq, has championed Golsteyn case. He wrote the following letter to Army General Mark Milley, quote: "Golsteyn is an American hero - a true warrior, in fact. Why the Army is hell bent on destroying a combat hero's carerr is truly astonishing. I'm confident that Army CID has more important things to (sic) than investigate Golstyen again, and you both have the to fix this stupidity."
3:05	Baer:	What is it like going from war hero to accused war criminal? Are you angry?
3:11	Golsteyn:	(looks away, takes a deep breath, looks back at Baer) No.
3:16	Golsteyn:	It has been incredibly painful... and very difficult... over the last year, years, everyone who served with me, stood by me, and so (shakes head), it's over, and it is time to move on.
3:36	Griffin:	Sources tell me, that when Golsteyn admitted killing a man, in cold blood, on television, the Army investigators had no choice but to reopen the case.
3:43	Griffin:	Major Golsteyn says strict rules of engagement forced him to release the alleged Taliban bomb-maker, who had been fingered by an Afghan informant, and that he had no choice but to act, as he did. But those to whom I have spoken, here at the Pentagon, say he did have a choice.
3:58	Griffin:	And now Major Mathew Golsteyn has been charged with premeditated murder, and could face a death sentence... Brett
4:04	Baer:	Jennifer Griffin, at the Pentagon. Thank you.

• ONEEVENT applies. Delete the blp, replace it with a redirectt to the appropriate section on Operation Moshtarak (name may be a searchable term). --Masem (t) 15:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Masem, lots of RS are reporting that the way Golsteyn killed the prisoner looks like a war crime. Even FOX News has acknowledged experts at the Pentagon think it looks like a war crime. The IP contributor, and Nick-D, seem to be saying that the killing should be treated as an unsubstantiated allegation, and therefore BLP requires the article to be heavily stubified.

    I've asked for opinions, since Golsteyn openly acknowledged the killing, during an interview on nationwide TV, whether the policy barring covering unsubstantiated allegations really applies. Is there any way you could see your way clear to addressing that issue? Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

    • Just because lots of people think its a war crime doesn't make it a war crime. And just because he said he killed the person doesn't mean it was murder or a war crime, that's what the trial will be determining. What is presently said on Operation Moshtarak seems sufficient until the trial is held and more details can be determined, as much of this remains word of mouth of what happened. --Masem (t) 19:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with Masem. This is clearly WP:BLP1E, covered only in the context of the murder accusation, and, frankly, even the murder accusation isn't that high profile. And, frankly, that he said he killed the person isn't the be all and end all, considering the seriousness of the statement; the number of people that have said that they killed someone but then turned out not to, is not negligible. That said, though, there is an excellent chance Trump will interfere, in which case this will become noticeably high profile, so just deleting the article outright seems silly. I recommend, per WP:1E, that we rewrite the article to focus on the event, rather than the person, and see how it plays out over the near term; if there is a quiet acquittal or conviction, we merge it into Operation Moshtarak, if there is a pardon foofarah, we keep it as standalone. I don't see it being left as a biography that isn't actually about the person, though. --GRuban (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. Golsteyn is clearly notable, and at present is well beyond ONE EVENT territory, due in considerable part to the apparent intervention by Trump. I think it may have been anyway, but Trump's posting is enough to make it a national political matter. Possibly at some point we could call it Court Marital of Golsteyn , but the courtmartial has not yet taken place. It occurred during a specific campaign in a specific conflict, but the at does not mean it's only incidental to the campaign or the conflict--at least not presently, for it's being written about independently. To a considerable extent we go by the media, and they are devoting multiple separate stories to this. Without myself drawing conclusions, I imagine the general interest was initially because of the situation with respect to the Rules of Engagement, which would seem to make it a matter of general interest. Again without myself drawing conclusions, the involvement or threatened involvement by Trump makes it a general issue about command influence of a court martial, and the NYT and elsewhere ha ve discussed it as such. (I can imagine some of the editors here who keep trying to make as many articles on Trump as possible wanting to even split this into one article about Golsteyn and one about Trump's possible defense of him, but I think that's way excessive at least at present).

That leaves several questions. First, how much detail should we give--but this is one of the cases where the specific detail would seem to be necessary to describe the journalistic and historical interest. Second, whether we can call in murder, and we cannot until after a verdict (if I understand the charges, he has specifically been accused of murder, and if so we can say that. Similarly for war crime--we can say it has been reported as a war crime, for it has been. Third, how much emphasis should be given to the information about Swenson in this article. I think it should be included, but not in detail. The detail belongs in the article on Swenson.

I'm really puzzled by anyone calling this one event. I thing it would do as a classic example of when a possible routine investigation that might be originally thought of a 1E becomes of encyclopedic interest. I certainly knew of it from the NYT, and so have everyone else who pays attention to either the nYT or Fox, which between them probably includes everyone with any itnerest in US politics. It's one of the times when an objection to an article leaves me puzzling about the motives. BLP1E overreach has become very common around here To still call it 1E is totally uprooting the reason for the rule, which is to eliminate making articles about someone accused of a minor crime which happens to make the papers, on the grounds that this isn't fair for an encyclopedia , which is a matter of permanent record. It has more recently also been used as a reason not to cover some publicity-oriented coverage of someone winning a minor award. It doesn't apply to people who have been engaged as the central figure in matters which are of genuine public concern for reasonable grounds DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason I would consider it one event is because everything involved stems from the single incident, even if these happened at diverse times (between the Operation, between his CIA interview, and between Trump's involvement). There has been yet anything to show any notability for him outside of this entire situation, at least at this point. One point of matter that I see from briefly glancing at sources is very little care about anything about Golsteyn's life outside the event itself; compare this to some people that perpetuate significant crimes, that people try to dig into their past to understand why they did it, showing potentially some notability beyond the event. The situation with Golsteyn might change, just at this point, we should be more cautious about what to include in a vague situation. --Masem (t) 02:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Amelia Warner

Amelia Warner Personal Life

There are malicious people continuously changing her personal information. Jamie Dornan and Amelia Warner are the parents to Dulcie and Elva and are expecting their 3rd child in 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmensandiego62 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, shouldn't the names of the children be left out of the article, unless they've done something to make them independently notable? —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Carmensandiego62: Also, per what reliable source are they expecting a third child? As the article stands right now, the mention of the children should be struck from the article altogether for lack of sources. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Likening Ryan Zinke to the Teapot Dome scandal

An editor has edit-warred[7] to re-insert a header and text that likens Ryan Zinke, a scandal-plagued Trump administration official, to the Teapot Dome scandal, which is arguably the most prominent corruption scandal in US political history. The text is sourced to a couple of op-eds. There is one TIME article that's cited which explicitly says, "Depending on what the investigations ultimately conclude, Zinke’s exact place in the history of Cabinets marred by scandal is to be determined". The editor has been repeatedly notified of the insufficiency of the sourcing and the absurdity of comparing an official who has not been charged with any crimes (as of yet) to the most prominent corruption scandal in history. This strikes me as a clear-cut BLP vio. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Added six WP:RS sources making the comparison. User:Snooganssnoogans keeps changing his reasoning to eliminate this. First it was not enough sources, then it was no section warranted, and now WP:BLP.

Nobody in Wikipedia in these edits has said that Ryan Zinke is allegedly a crook or is about to be indicted, however reasonable that inference might be. Rather, many (at least 10 as documented in the article and on the article's talk page) news and other organizations have made the comparison. That is an incontrovertible fact, and should be noted in our article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I did not "edit war" and deny that allegation as untrue. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Calling out one example when the claim is that there is several is a bit of a POV (and by connection, BLP) issue. I don't question Zinke's case is being compared to Teapot, but the text in our article suggests there's more, so calling out one case seems to be trying to shoehorn in the name. As long as one or two other notable cases can be added, that should solve the issue. --Masem (t) 19:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I was unaware of the one revert restriction on the article. I meant no offense, and did not deliberately edit way. I am done with the article and the talk page, and will let WP:Consensus control. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, on my talk page I was informed that the sanction banner was a post hoc addition to the article talk page, and that the accusation was wrong. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Mittu Chandilya

Mittu Chandilya A user on Wikipedia AKS.9955 has been contributing references articles that are newspaper reports that are not fully accurate and not proven in the court of law. It defames the person as nothing has been proved. the user AKS.9955 is in the same industry as the Biographer article and perhaps points to some professional jealousy, he has taken time to particularly target this biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.10.181 (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Juan Darthés

Juan Darthés is an Argentine actor. There was a scandal recently, as the actress Thelma Fardin said that he forced her to have sex back in 2009 (she was 16 by then), and started a local version of the Me Too movement (you can check here for more info). I used the phrase "child sexual abuse" to describe it, but user Irn insist to call it a "rape" instead. Being a highly sensible topic, I prefer to ask others about the right term to use.

I also think that Página 12 should not be used as a source. It is a highly controversial newspaper, and there is a better reference with the New York Times anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

We should go with how the sources are describing it; the New York Times describes it as rape, and say that what the complaint lodged in Nicuragura is for, so best to stick with that.

RE Pagina 12; As I cant speak Spanish, not really familiar with that site/paper and its hard to judge using only Google translate. The rest of the article is in urgent need of some refs though. Curdle (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk Page for WP's Neil deGrasse Tyson article, archive 7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson/Archive_7

On this page Objective3000 makes this false statement about a living person, George W. Bush:

"So, Tyson got the quote wrong. A quote suggesting that the President made religious comments that were divisive. But, on other occasions, on the same subject, in the same time period, it is well-documented that Bush made religious comments that were divisive. Basically saying that God told him to kill a lot of people of another religion. Bush made comments to the same effect as those claimed by Tyson. So, what is all this gnashing of teeth about? Why does this belong in an encyclopedia? Objective3000 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)"

Here is Tyson's claim. That within a week of 9-11 George Bush attempted "to distinguish we from they."

Bush's actual 9-11 speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. Exactly the opposite of the xenophobe demagogue Tyson falsely portrayed. Tyson has admitted his account is false and apologized to President Bush.

So far as I know, Bush has never made comments against the general Muslim population. In fact he, his family and members of his administration have repeatedly condemned anti-Muslim rhetoric.

President Bush has condemned Muslim terrorists. This is not remotely the same as condemning the general Muslim population. Objective3000's accusation is false. It is libel against a living person.HopDavid (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Considering the latest post in that archive was made in October 2014 I doubt any action will be taken now.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Amit Singhal not "cleared"

Article mentions Amit Singhal was "cleared" of harassment claims, but the references make no mention of this, and I can find no evidence via Google search that he was "cleared". This false statement diminishes the seriousness of the allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjnichol (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I changed the wording because I couldn't find any sources to say he was cleared either; it seems Google just paid him out and let the matter drop after he resigned. Curdle (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Amber Heard

Users have been adding quite controversial relating to domestic violence on the Amber Heard article, which seems to be media sensationalism. There are also multiple overall BLP issues on the article. IWI (chat) 22:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)