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.

Edward Skyler

Hi, I’m Jennifer and I work with Ed at Citi. We noticed a recent edit to his article related to our 2018 announcement of a U.S. Commercial Firearms Policy, which contains editorialized language and therefore doesn’t adhere to a neutral point of view. As a suggestion, this should be presented with a more balanced view that captures the range of reactions from Citi employees, customers and clients. This New York Times story quotes Citi’s CEO and presents more detail on this. An alternative suggestion to edit would be to simply remove the language that follows the link to the policy. Can someone please review these suggestions? LowneyJen (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the content as it was basically unsourced, relying only on the Citigroup blog which is insufficient to say he was influential in drafting that policy and also doesn't say it was criticised. If anyone wants to add it back, they will need to find reliable secondary sources to establish both that it's something significant regarding Edward Skyler and that the criticism extended to his role. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Nil Einne. LowneyJen (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

List of self-identifying LGBTQ New Yorkers

• [[List of self-identifying LGBTQ New Yorkers]]

Was trying to start a conversation about a new article ( 11:47, October 18, 2019‎) that should be deleted our sourced but all the tags and deletion tlak was removed. Got some serious issues with zero sources here.

• WP:LISTVERIFY - Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations."

• WP:BLPSOURCE- This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

• WP:BLPREMOVE - Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced.

• Wikipedia:Libel -I t is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.

What do others think??? --Moxy 🍁 16:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No, the list and collage (of only list members) have been building for several years on LGBT culture in New York City, but the list itself has become too large to maintain on the parent page. Built by several editors over years, every single entry is either wikilinked to an article that comports self-identification as LGBT or has a separate reference cited; remember, these are all SELF-IDENTIFYING members as LGBT. Unless they have already SELF-IDENTIFIED as LGBT, they don't go on this list. Castncoot (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how it being unsourced for years somewhere else helps here with WP:LISTVERIFY. We have many protocols in place for just an article of this nature.--Moxy 🍁 16:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, is there something that you know that several editors haven't thought about and discussed over several years? If you find a single example of an unverified statement on the living person's actual page, then please remove the claim from that page first before you remove from the new page. But that's no reason to gut an entire article. As far as I know, every single entry has comported. Of course we want to build an article that meets all BLP verification standards. Castncoot (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Again not sure how old tlaks about an unsourced list helps with complying with our policies on BIOS ...can we add 100 sources...do we have them as you imply.?-Moxy 🍁 17:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

????- With the spelling and grammar fallacies in your sentence, I'm not even sure what you are trying to ask. I actually have to leave this forum for now to take care of real life matters at this time. I believe that multiple editors have been diligent and careful over the past several years. Castncoot (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• ...Lets...stick with WP:BLPREMOVE, and perhaps ponder the assumptions inherent in saying it's "defamatory libel" to say someone is gay. GMG^talk 17:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• It's a sad thing that being called "gay" is still a slur. Yes, that is part of why I removed it--the BLP issues (misrepresentation, forced outing, etc.). But more importantly, I do not believe that such a list, with all of its problems, should NOT be in an article on a topic that requires text and sources, not lists of names. It's a lazy and all-too easy form of producing content, and it's not valid content. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Guess you didn't read the title carefully- SELF-IDENTIFYING LGBTQ New Yorkers. This is exactly why we have over ten thousand list articles on Wikipedia. And who are you or anybody else to decide that gay should be considered BY WIKIPEDIA, this ENCYCLOPEDIA, to be "bad" ? Or "good"? Or a "valid" topic? The ONLY standard for inclusion should be WP:NOTABILITY. Let's inform some of the other primary/major editors of the parent LGBT culture in New York City article that this discussion is even occurring: Figurefour44, Collier09, Chrish65. Castncoot (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:PROVEIT --Moxy 🍁 23:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Prove what? Give these other editors some time to answer. Castncoot (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
        • "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations."--Moxy 🍁 23:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
        • You know, I've never heard of a spelling or grammar fallacy. However, if I may point out, your argument has many fallacies in it, including but not limited to straw-man fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam, circulus in probando (circle in proving), and onus probandi (burden of proof), if that helps. In short, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. We can't just link to another article and say, there, go look it up for yourself. There needs to be a reliable source, showing that each and every one on that list has self-identified, next to the names of each person. It's not up to me nor anyone else to click every link and scour every individual article for the source needed (if one even exists). It's up to the person who wants the info in to provide the proof.

          Aside from that, I don't see how such a list serves any real purpose other than to divide, label, and stereotype. Regardless of the good intentions, psychological studies have shown time and again that the net result is the same. Human sexuality is far more diverse than five mere letters. More diverse than all 26. An example of a good list (not a great one) would be, say, List of logical fallacies. It's informative, for the most part sourced, and provides links to the main articles where a person can learn more. (You'd be surprised how many Vulcans on Star Trek make totally illogical statements.) The list of New Yorkers doesn't really tell me anything. It's just a list of names under a vague label. Zaereth (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

          • Zaereth, thank you. I believe you are correct in many of the points you make: Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, and while we allow for lists that aren't completely verified for "notable citizens" in articles on cities, for instance, this is something else.

            Castncoot, I'd appreciate it if you yelled a bit less. Your comments here are needlessly aggressive, and this edit summary was, besides untrue, insulting. "This has been discussed before"--sure. And above you said "remove it from the article on the person if something isn't right"--no, that is not good or useful advice, and it's not how we work. You have been told by a few people now that the list is a BLP violation, and maybe you were wrong in saying that it wasn't.

            As for article writing--if 25% of an article was a list, it was not a good article to begin with. Besides, what makes one a New Yorker? Does your list contain anyone with any connection to New York? What if they didn't come out until they left Brooklyn for Youngstown, Ohio? Does Keith McDermott actually live, or still live, in NYC? And while he was there, was he in fact part of LGBTQ culture in that city? (The only reference for that BLP is a blacklisted link, which is both incomplete and unreliable, so maybe you should go through all those articles.) The NYC connection for Bradford Shellhammer is tenuous and poorly verified. [[Joel Spolsky] moved to NYC in 1995 and was said to live in Manhattan now, but there's nothing about the in-between, or about what he means for LGBTQ culture there, and those facts are verified only from his own website. Similar with Wolfgang Busch, whose NYC/LGBTQ connection is possibly verified in one of the only two sources in his article--the one published by iUniverse. I could go on, but that's not my job: it is yours.

            If I were to write an article on some culture in some place, I would make damn sure that the persons I include in the article have contributed verifiably and significantly to whatever the article is about. And that is the odd thing about the article: take out the list, and there's a serious dearth of people (it's like the copy of the city of Rock Ridge in Blazing Saddles); there isn't even a sentence on Andy Warhol. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ah. Didn't know this list had been discussed here. I've just moved it to Castncoot's userspace so that citations to the self-identification (and residence in NYC) can be made without the list remaining in mainspace, where it is in fact not okay under BLP as it stands right now. Others can help Castncoot add the citations if they wish. Risker (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That actually sounds very responsible. ...give them time to add sources. We can debate the category fork if need be later.--Moxy 🍁 02:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Why include "self-identifying"? It just makes it seem like we are casting doubt on whether they are actually what they say they are. We do use "identified as" and "self-identified" in the case of something like demographics of sexual orientation, but that's for reasons the lead of that article addresses. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, the title of the article should match the title of the main article when it comes to the initialism "LGBT." Our Wikipedia article titles use "LGBT" instead of "LGBTQ." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Erm, the term "self-identified" is repeated here because that is the term used by the original author, who is commenting in this thread. A change in title can be made if and when the article is sufficiently sourced for mainspace. Risker (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know who the author is. My question is for Castncoot as well. It's especially for Castncoot since I assume that's the title the author will want to use. It is, after all, the title that Castncoot used before the material was moved to user space. I have no issue with working other stuff out first. I won't be involved with the article unless it's about what to name it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I do have a significant issue with this as I am seeing all of this for the first time and am blindsided, and I request more discussion and reconsideration here. First of all, there was no urgency or even indication to have done this any more than with the following BLP List articles, which are simply routine examples and bellwethers of thousands of others: List of Mexican Americans, List of Turkish Americans, List of actors with Academy Award nominations, or even within the list of notable examples in LGBT culture in San Francisco or any other sibling "LGBT culture in fill-in-the-blank city" article. The vast majority of the names of notable entries from all of these BLP articles here are NOT sourced in-line but are simply wikilinked to direct to their respective subject page, where the particular subject identification is sourced (or simply uncontested). This is exactly why we have List articles in the first place, and they are supposed to function this way. This particular article is apparently being held to a different BLP standard with a significantly higher burden. I not only strongly object to this status but in fact, find it very concerning for the sake of the overall project, because "LGBT" should not be ranked for its supposed "noteworthiness" among infinite other List topics like ethnicity or race (which is also a highly multi-dimensional, complex, and variegated issue) or nationality. The only criteria for inclusion is WP:NOTABILITY, which inherently includes verifiability, and this is a binary metric- an entry is either consensused to be notable or to be not notable for the purposes of inclusion in WIkipedia. I could justifiably create an article titled "List of bald actors" or "List of actors who brush their teeth at least 20 hours per day", as long as they meet notability criteria, and the topics of these articles cannot be objectively deemed to be any more or less "noteworthy" or "valid" than other topics. Castncoot (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: I appreciate your thoughtful and courteous note and intentions on my Talk page. But that doesn't change the fact that this has been pushed to an article name that contains my User ID without even the courtesy of informing me apriori. I was waiting for the other major editors of the parent LGBT culture in New York City article to weigh in first with their suggestions toward consensus, and I ask that they be given a chance to make their views known before we come up with a consensus solution here. As I've mentioned above, there was and is certainly no urgency to have taken the article out of the mainspace while the discussion is occurring, as otherwise you might as well eliminate the entire genre of the thousands of List articles in Wikipedia altogether. Having to in-line source every single entry that has taken several years to compile will be a Herculean task for me, which I would actually have no objection to if it weren't the only List article being held to this standard. Castncoot (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I much agree with you that the term "self-identifying" shouldn't be necessary in the title, but I believe there has generally been consensus for this across the project in order to avoid the perception of outing anyone. All of the listed personalities in this article have already come out as openly queer. Castncoot (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Really? Are your obviously pre-packaged insults supposed to impress me? They don't, and they're not constructive here. Castncoot (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not an insult to point out the validity of one's argument. That you choose to see it that way says a lot. Believe it or not, my comments were designed to help, not hurt. But then again this is another example of a straw-man. Zaereth (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Castncoot, those other hypothetical and real lists you've described are not about the sexual identity of the subjects of the list. Sexual identity is a deeply personal matter, and it is very much the policy of this project to respect the privacy of the sexual identity of individuals unless they themselves choose to share this information publicly. This is one of the most hardline rules of this project, and even by moving the article to your userspace in order to give you a chance to reference it, I am bending that rule. I would delete the article before moving it to draftspace; it would have been deleted if it remained in article space. I've given you an option. If you don't want to take it, please say so now and I'll just delete it and put this whole issue to bed. I respect how much work it took to build up that article and am mostly disappointed that you didn't add the references at the time of creating each individual entry; I've made the assumption that you actually verified that the articles of each person on that list have a link that confirms they have publicly stated their sexual identity, so it shouldn't be too onerous to complete. You could probably ask for help at a suitable wikiproject. Risker (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Castncoot, I'm saying that lists such as List of bisexual people (A–F), List of pansexual people and List of non-binary people don't have "self-identifying" in the title. This is because the people listed should already have self-identified as such before being listed as such. Of course, the rules for living people are stricter per WP:BLP, but there should be strong sourcing before we list even a deceased person as bisexual, pansexual, or otherwise LGBT. I haven't seen any agreement across Wikipedia that "self-identifying" should be in the titles. The examples I've pointed to indicate that. "Self-identifying" in the title is redundant and is in poor taste because it implies "according to them," as if anyone else's opinion should trump their identity as if their identities are disputed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That stated, I can see editors arguing that "self-identifying" is needed because the list is specifically about those who have self-identified as such and it's not to include people who are simply reported as such by the media or others. If that is what you are stating, I get it. But the scope of the article can be that way without such wording in the title, especially if editors are adhering to our WP:BLP policy. I don't know why List of people with non-binary gender identities isn't at the simpler "List of non-binary people" title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, Risker, Drmies, etc... I was really surprised Risker let it stay in your userspace, because BLP rules apply there as well. I think that was a very nice gesture, which they did not need to do. It seems like an easy fix for someone so passionate about it, so I don't understand the resistance, but if you have no intention of sourcing it, then please let Risker know so we can get rid of it. And Flyer22 is right, the title itself is poor grammatical construction, or a syntax error. "Self-identifying" here is a present-tense participle, as if they are saying it right now, and that does give the connotation of lying about it, ie: "He's saying he's innocent." The past tense would be the proper participle, but is redundant per our strict BLP rules. Zaereth (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate Risker's gesture and will work on the page under that title - I was just very surprised to find it there, that's my point. Any help would be much appreciated. In the meantime, what are we going to do about lists on "LGBT culture in ..." San Francisco, Los Angeles, London, and other cities? Also, "self-identified" versus "self-identifying" aside, what Flyer22 Reborn and I were talking about was the issue of needing any qualifier at all. I would have no issue with dropping the qualifier altogther or using "self-identified." Castncoot (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about those other articles, at this point. Focus on this article and this article only. I'm going to start the clock on getting this referenced, and I suggest that anything you can't reference by 0600 UTC on Thursday October 24, 2019 needs to come out of the article. If I had to reference a list quickly, I'd pull up the list in one tab, create a new short-term page for those entries I couldn't immediately reference from the subject's article in another tab, and use a third tab to serially go through the articles about the entries. The reference sources need to be high quality (the one reference source included by someone else in this list doesn't even confirm that the subject belongs to any LGBT category) and it needs to have the subject confirming their sexual identity, at a minimum; the NYC stuff could probably come later, but it's also important to include since it's one of the two criteria for inclusion. I've picked the deadline because it's a time I should be online and will be able to verify it and move it to article space under the title "List of LGBT New Yorkers"; I will check the references too, and when it is moved, only the appropriately referenced entries will be included. Please keep in mind that there is no deadline and articles can be expanded and improved over time. Risker (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a deal. Castncoot (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmph. I would lean WP:AFD, on WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY grounds. It's synthetic, non-encyclopedic "who's who" page, what the CfD crowd call a trivial intersection.  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 11:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing issues in Billy Mitchell biography

Since late July, administrator Sergecross73 has taken a series of administrative actions that appear to me to lower the quality of Wikipedia's Billy Mitchell biography and present Mitchell in a significantly worse light than he'd otherwise be presented. Yesterday Sergecross73 closed five relevant discussions and removed them from the article's talk page. I've been planning to make further contributions to those discussions as time allows, and I'm wondering whether there's a way to have them restored to the talk page and reopoened. Thanks for your time. 208.53.226.179 (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Archiving discussions is a way of keeping the page accessible to users. Per WP:TALKCOND you are technically allowed to unarchive a discussion if you feel it was archived prematurely. However, if your goal is to promote more discussion, then you should probably let the old threads die and start a new thread for your comments. Also: make sure that you're not just tilting at windmills. If the previous consensus was against you, adding more commentary isn't going to change anything. Nblund ^talk 16:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, there's a lot of nonsense related to Mitchell and a few others coming from forums, etc. that are clearly not going to be included until reported in RSes (which given the type of comments being made -- no they will not). Mitchell is a controversal figure and we documenting the stuff that can be reported (removed high scores, etc.) but the discussions that were closed and archived were no longer about stuff that would be going on the main space page. Sergecross was fully right to archive those and restore order. --Masem (t) 16:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, there’s very little in active dispute after the page has been protected too. The IP just likes to talk circles and argue and cast aspersions. They refuse to suggest specific requests with specific changes, it’s most off-topic rambling and complaining. Every time, it’s “okay, make a request edit-request style about what it should be then”, and every time they refuse and keep complaining. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again to Nblund and Masem for your time. Since July, editor Wallyfromdilbert has made a series of revisions that seem to present Mitchell in the worst light he thinks he can get away with, and administrator Sergecross73 has taken a series of administrative actions to ensure that Wallyfromdilbert never has to clarify the reasons for those revisions or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. Removing the linked discussion of apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations from the talk page is only one recent example. Per Wikipedia's protection policy WP:PP, temporary semi-protection may be applied to pages subject to edit warring only when all parties involved are unregistered or new editors, and not when autoconfirmed users are involved. Setting aside the fact that the page hasn't been subject to edit warring, the policy says explicitly that semi-protection shouldn't be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. Sergecross73 has repeatedly violated that policy by using semi-protection to privilege Wallyfromdilbert over IP editors, citing a dubious or absurd pretext for doing so each time. Per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines WP:TPG, I'm tentatively planning to unarchive discussions of these matters that Sergecross73 has archived prematurely and make further contributions to those discussions as time allows. Does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, the page was first protected because this person (under various IP) were edit warring without a consensus for their change. The second protection came after this person, right after protection ended, forced their new proposal (more or less the same thing) into the article without consensus and was immediate reverted by another. The proposal not only has zero support, but was proposed and rescinded over the course of two days and zero input, so it was just continuing the same edit warring without consensus. The third and current protection is largely from IPs unrelated to this one and their blatant vandalism. Most of the subsequent discussions are just the IP coming up with bizarre theories as to why everyone is out to get him or the subject, when it’s as basic as what I outlined above. To be clear, I have made zero edits to the article outside protection, and have no views on the subject other than policies need to be followed. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: In the discussions you've removed from the talk page, you repeatedly indicate that you object to my initial contributions to the "Personal life" section because they consist of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflect a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach. As I've asked you no fewer than eight times in those same removed discussions, would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflects a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach? It's a straightforward yes-or-no question. Either you'd say it does, or you wouldn't. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. I did not object or revert you at any point. You asked for input as to why people objected to your additions. I gave some advice that it appeared disconnected from the subjects notability, and gave the advice that perhaps if you could tie your information into the subjects notability better, people would accept it. I did not object to your proposed compromise (nobody did, you rescinded it before anyone commented and never re-proposed it.) My comments on how you seemed to think you could “write whatever you want” was in reference to your repeated edit-warring. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: No, your talk-page comments don't say others object to my initial contributions because they appear disconnected from the subject's notability. Those comments explicitly claim, in your own voice, that "it’s just completely disconnected ideas". And as I've explained to you over and over and over, I undid exactly one (1) revision to the article without attempting to improve the content. I only did so to call attention to the fact that Wallyfromdilbert and another editor were repeatedly obliterating my contributions while refusing to clarify their objections or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever, and I don't see how a reasonably honest and intelligent administrator could continue to construe that as "edit warring". 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Fundamentally false. The page history doesn’t lie:

• You made the edit
• An editor other than myself reverted per “ WP:TRIVIA WP:UNDUE because it has 100% of *nothing* to do with this subject”
• You added it a second time
• A second editor, still not me, or the first person, reverts you saying “ this family information is unnecessary trivia that is not relevant to a biography for Mitchell. as per WP:BRD, please gain consensus on the talk page before reinserting the content, especially when it has been removed by different editors“
• You add it a third time without consensus
• You are reverted again, with the comment “Please wait for consensus on the talk page before reinserting your content”
• I protected the page

It doesn’t get any more clear than that. That is textbook edit warring, with editors clearly expressing that your content was not important to the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: No, that isn't what happened. After a discussion on the talk page prompted me to spend nearly two hours of research improving the sources, Wallyfromdilbert completely removed those sources here, and another editor removed the text itself here. I restored the sources and added new, significantly improved text here. The second editor objected to my use of the word "fame" as a violation of WP:OR and removed all but one sentence of the new content, as well as an additional paragraph of previously included content, here. The sources he removed directly contradict his claim that the content "has 100% of *nothing* to do with this subject". A day later, after five intermediate revisions, I made another contribution of new, improved text and references. Among other changes, I replaced the reference to "fame" with an explicitly sourced reference to "semi-celebrity" status and an in-line citation. As you can see from the comparison here, your claim that I'd merely added the same content a second time is blatantly false. My edit summary noted that the information was reliably sourced and that there was a relevant discussion on the talk page. At that point, while refusing to discuss the matter further on the talk page, Wallyfromdilbert completely obliterated my contributions and instructed me to "please gain consensus on the talk page before reinserting your content". Not knowing what other options were available, I directly undid that one (1) edit without attempting to improve the content. My edit summary pointed out that my contributions of reliable sources had been prompted by discussion on the talk page, and that Wallyfromdilbert was removing and ignoring those sources, and that the other editor was refusing to join the discussion at all. The diff is here. You say correctly that Wallyfromdilbert reverted my edit again with another instruction to "wait for consensus on the talk page", and you say correctly that you immediately added semi-protection to the page, but your claim that my revisions were "textbook edit warring" is absurd. In the discussions you've removed from the talk page, you explicitly claim, in your own voice, that my contributions to the "Personal life" section are "just completely disconnected ideas". Would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas"? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

How can you say “that’s not what happened”? I just gave you direct quote proof through difs. It’s plain and simple. Two editors opposed your edits. I just tried to throw you a bone and explain to you why they disagreed with you, and instead of trying to understand, you just kept arguing with me all the time, no matter how many times I’d try to explain to you that I’m not the one you have to convince. It’s just been one long case of WP:IDHT. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple unrelated editors have told you it’s best to keep the discussions archived, so this makes it rather clear that you’re more concerned about arguing and complaining than engaging in constructive discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As I'd asked above, does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I archive discussions because they ran for months and lead to zero constructive changes. They constantly devolve into arguing and off-topic ramblings. Furthermore, the IP addresses refuse to use the WP:EDITREQUEST system, and have a very hard time suggesting specific changes with specific sources, so editors rarely make changes on their behalf. It is their own fault that they never get anywhere. The messages were archived in hopes that more constructive discussions would come from it. The IPs have yet to learn that it’s rare to get new participation, or anyone reading it at all, when you add the twentieth multi-paragraph dissertation in a discussion thread. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: We agree that the discussions have often been driven off-topic by rambling comments, but we disagree about which of us is making them. My comments tend to be longer than yours mainly because correcting lies is more difficult than telling them. You keep pushing me to make formal edit requests, but you assure me that those requests will be "inevitably rejected" before you even know what they are. It really doesn't seem reasonable to trust you as the mediator of any discussion in which I'm a participant. Regarding your suggestion that I "have a very hard time suggesting specific changes with specific sources", let me provide this link to the proposed compromise that ultimately deprived me of the ability to assume good faith in our discussions. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I said that an edit request based off of that particular proposal would inevitably fail. And I stand by it - you wanted to make BLP edits according to social media handles and a free Intellius report. Those aren’t reliable sources. But there’s no rational reason why that comment should keep you from ever trying to use the system even once. That ludicrous reasoning. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: No, I hadn't made any "particular proposal" there, much less a formal edit request, and your response assures me that my "WP:EDITREQUESTs" (plural) will be "inevitably rejected". Your claim that I wanted to make BLP edits according to social media handles and a free Intelius report is absurd. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You’re missing the point. The general idea of me commenting on the fact that one singular thing you spoke about would not be successful as an edit request is not a rational reason to never try a single edit request at any point about any particular subject. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: From my perspective you appear to be the one who's missing the point. When you level false accusations against me and assure me that my formal edit requests will be "inevitably rejected" before I've even made one, it really doesn't seem reasonable to trust you as the mediator of any discussion in which I'm a participant. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to ask, do you have a COI? Because the "proposed compromise" reeks of what someone with a COI would write. It's definitely not a good solution for the article whatever the problems it may have. (Hint, this is an article on Billy Mitchell the father. Not an article on how his son is the best American footballer in the world or whatever.) And since you chose to give it as your example of when you proposed changes but were rejected, you're making me and probably others think you don't actually have good suggestions for improving the article. (Although to be fair, you almost definitely had a point on the sister issue. But this seems to have been resolved since I find no mention of a sister in the current article suggesting that the genuine problems are being resolved and your complaints over them being ignored are largely without merit.) While you're not required to disclose a COI unless it crosses into WP:PAID territory, on a personal level I may be inclined to help someone with a COI if they are honest in some ways that's one of the cornerstones of BLP. But not so much when they chose to hide it, I just can't be bothered especially when the evidence suggests their complaints are mostly without merit. Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: No, I don't have a conflict of interest. I'm a history buff with a side interest in recreational coin-op. In November of 2015, the NBC affiliate in West Palm Beach ran a feature story on the parallels between Billy III's football career and Billy Jr's competitive gaming career. WPTV News reported, among other things, that Billy Jr had turned down an invitation to a gaming convention in Australia because he refused to miss one of Billy III's football games. As I've pointed out on the article's talk page, multiple reliable sources indicate that Billy III's football career is directly relevant to Billy Jr's biography and personal life, and no one has provided a clear, policy-based reason for removing that information from the article. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Two separate editors (not me) pointed out that his family has no real connection to his notability and objected to its inclusion. You have failed to persuade either, or garner any addition support from anyone else, that it is important enough to include. As such, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS are the policies that keep it out of the article. And you haven’t opened another discussion about it since like ...July or August, so you have no right to complain. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

To the IP editor, did you make this edit [1]? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Yes, Wikipedia had Mitchell's date of birth wrong for more than five years, and before I corrected it, I'd sent his daughter a direct message on Twitter to make sure I had it right. It's the only time we've ever communicated. Did you make these edits? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: The article included information about Mitchell's family for more than four and a half years, and that information was only removed after a discussion on the talk page prompted me to spend nearly two hours of research improving the sources. Would you say Wallyfromdilbert had a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of completely removing the information? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyway regardless of any COI, if you want to make changes to the article, you should start off with making simply proposals for change on the article talk page. You need to give the actual wording you want, not just random stuff other sources say. But think carefully about the wording since ultimately if it's too promotional or simply too long, people are likely to just say so and not bother to work with you to fix it given how much time you seem to have already wasted on the talk page. Also make sure you have reliable sources cited in line and supporting whatever you are proposing. We clearly aren't going to use a Twitch livestream of an event as a sole RS for any information. It's pointless telling people there is a source but you didn't cite it, you need to actual cite this in your proposed change. In other words, your proposed change needs to be the sort of thing someone could just copy and paste into the article and be done with it. If it isn't, don't be surprised if your requests are mostly ignored given the aforementioned reason. Once you've learnt how to do this successfully, maybe you will be able to make more substantive proposals for change. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Sincere thanks for your time. For the record, I've made formal edit requests before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:21, October 23, 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, and I sincerely mean this to help you, I have no idea what you all are bickering about here, and I think that may be a big part of the problem there as well. Normally I could go to the history and look for the disputed changes, and that would explain everything, but whatever this is has been going on slowly and intermittently for a long time, so that isn't going to work. All I can glean from this discussion is that you have a problem with certain editors that you seem to think is some sort of conspiracy against you. Do I have that right?

I'd suggest taking Nil Einne's advice, and tackle this one change at a time. Be very specific about what it is you want changed, what your reasoning is for making the change ( the problem), what your proposed solution is, and why. Especially keep that in mind when coming to a noticeboard like this for outside help, because the rest of us may not easily see what ever's got you all worked up. I'm no fan of archiving talk pages, because many of my ideas for improvements come directly from old discussions I've read and agreed with, disagreed with, or just contained questions I could answer (whatever starts my engine). But sometimes it's necessary just to stop the bickering. I'm not likely to scour through the archives, and if you un-archive them I'm not likely to read a long, convoluted discussion like the one above, so you may best to start over and spell it out carefully. Zaereth (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Thanks for your time. To answer your question, I'm not sure it's a conspiracy, but I mainly have a problem with an administrator, Sergecross73, who's taken a series of administrative actions to ensure that editor Wallyfromdilbert never has to clarify the reasons for his anti-Mitchell revisions or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. Do you know whether Wikipedia has any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Outside of your own comments, which show you obviously have a very poor grasp of policy on general, what part of anyone else’s comments In this discussion would indicate to you that I’m not only in the wrong, but so wrong that I need my adminship revoked? Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Well, Wallyfromdilbert is still steadfastly refusing to discuss the actual substance of his anti-Mitchell revisions and apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations, but he chimed in here with this comment, presumably to discredit me personally by insinuating that I have a conflict of interest. That, among many other things, would indicate to me that you need your "adminship" revoked. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there someone following the discussion on this noticeboard who can tell me whether Wikipedia has formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you really not see a pattern here? These discussions go on for weeks and you never get anywhere. You never persuade anyone of any misconduct. Everyone tells you that you’re going about things the wrong way. You ignore them. You keep arguing. You keep doing the same thing. And you keep getting no where. And you blame everyone but yourself. It’s unreal. You just don’t get it. I’ve been here 11 years and I don’t I’ve ever come across this strong of a WP:IDHT case as this. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. See WP:TLDR. This noticeboard if for reporting and discussing BLP violations. I see nothing in this discussion that pertains to BLP. If you have a problem with certain editors, then I'd suggest taking it to an administrator's noticeboard, such as WP:AN or WP:ANI. Those are the types of places to report problem editors. However, if conversations there are as lacking in substance as here, then I highly doubt you'll gain any traction there either. Honestly, this is like watching an episode of Jerry Springer, where after about 2 minutes my ears are ringing and I can't change the channel fast enough.

Personally, I don't give a crap about accusations or insinuations. I might be inclined to help if you could convince me of whatever the underlying issue is here, but I've seen no attempt to do that. From what I can tell, this whole discussion amounts to, "Did not." "Did so." "I know you are but what am I?" My advice is, just let this section finally die and go the archives, because no one here is taking an interest. Prepare a proper, precise yet concise argument about whatever it is that is the cause of all this, and take it to the proper noticeboard. Keep in mind that your goal should be to convince others that your position is the correct one, not that everyone else is wrong or out to get you, because that just begins to sound like paranoid delusions. And if that fails, you can try mediation or even arbitration, but in the end, if your argument fails to convince others, you may just have to accept that consensus may well be against you. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ron Kingston (musician)

Propose deletion, non notable singer, no record label or any sale history online. Bands mentioned on his page have no mention of him on their page. One isnt even a band "vogon poetry".

no notable references from any print media. all youtube, artist direct etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.211.160.222 (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You can use the template {{Proposed deletion}} to propose it for deletion. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone removed the PROD (as they're perfectly entitled to do, of course). I've sent it to AFD for a more in-depth discussion. Neiltonks (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Felix Sater

• Felix Sater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am bringing this here because a new user (User:Silverbulldog) is removing sourced information that includes the claim that Felix Sater is "a Russian-American mobster". That would seem reasonable except this is exactly how multiple sources refer to Sater. American Interest

"By then young Felix Sater was already well on his way to a career as a prototypical Russian-American mobster."

Fullerton Observer

"In 2015, Cohen began communicating with Felix Sater, a Russian-American mobster, felon, and real estate advisor regarding the Moscow project, as Sater had numerous Russian contacts and had previously worked with the Trump Organization."

Daily News

"It was in response to Rouda questions Feb. 27 that Cohen said Trump lied in a deposition when the president claimed not to know Russian-American mobster Felix Sater."

Vanity Fair

"I spent time in each of those different kingdoms. I spent time with Chris Steele [the former British intelligence officer who wrote the dossier claiming Russia collected a file of compromising evidence on Trump] and Felix Sater [a Russian-American mobster who served as an adviser to the Trump Organization], to give you both ends of the spectrum."

I am sure there are more examples, but you get my point. The user is also removing sourced information about Sater's wife. I don't want to get into an edit war with this user so it would be nice if people kept an eye on it. Thanks. Bitter Oil (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The Fullerton Observer, Daily News, and Vanity Fair sources all post date the inclusion of the term in our article, and are passing mentions in sources not primarily about the article subject; it can be reasonably inferred that they are citogenetic. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Those were just the first few examples that came up. There are a lot of hits. If you were to leave out the "Russian-American" qualifier, I'm sure you could find even more. I don't want to spend too much time on searching out links for this, but here are a few [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. There's about a decade's worth of reporting suggesting that Sater is a mobster, usually in those exact words. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

So, I finally had a chance to look over these. The Slate source also postdates inclusion of "mobster" in our article; and, surprisingly(?) doesn't include the term itself. But it's also only passing mentions, not in depth on Sater. I'm paywalled out of the NYT & Financial Times sources; if anyone has the supporting text, and the dates of publication, then could they be copied here? The Newsweek source is in depth, focused on Sater, and the type of source that we should be relying on. It does use the term "mobster", but not in reference to Sater.

I also think that "mobster" falls under WP:LABEL, so really should be attributed, if used at all. I'm also not personally keen on describing article subjects as "convicted felon" in the lead sentence; though I recognise that this might be a different thing in US English. In this case, the conviction, for assault (with a margarita glass!) does not seem to be related to the subject's notability. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why we're still discussing this when multiple reliable sources refer to Felix Sater as a mobster. It's silly to believe that all of those journalists cut and pasted the phrase from Wikipedia. Regardless, here is where the word "mobster" gets added to the lead on 23 May 2018. The reference used was a BBC article from the same day, entitled "Trump lawyer 'paid by Ukraine' to arrange White House talks". Here is an archived copy. It states "The senior intelligence official in Kiev also said Cohen had been helped by Felix Sater, a convicted former mobster who was once Trump's business partner". Let the quibbling about the qualifier "former" begin.... Bitter Oil (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Because WP:BLP is important? Even for "mobsters". That edit is not Nick's finest work. The source provides a passing mention of Sater only, and aligns poorly with WP:RSCONTEXT - 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. The other sources which use the term are also passing mentions, postdating our use. Unless we have something else, in depth, and use it with attribution, I can't see the sourcing justifies the use of the term. And It's silly to believe that all of those journalists cut and pasted the phrase from Wikipedia.; call me "silly", but that is decidedly likely. - Ryk72 ^talk 20:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Silverbulldog left a message on my talk page. I'm going to copy it here since I have neither the time nor inclination to help them with this. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Just for the sake of procedure, I have also warned Silverbulldog about COI editing. The artcile's talk page already lists several editors who have been blocked for this. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Copy of post by Silverbulldog on User talk:Bitter Oil

Hello Bitter Oil, I'm writing to seek a bit more guidance on wiki regarding Felix Sater's page. You've realized that I'm a new user, though it's definitely indicative of the lack of credibility on my part, purely for being a new user, I was hoping you could extend to me some guidance. I also know of no other ways to have a conversation here but on a talk page, so i apologize in advance if this is a bit invasive. I have 3 questions to my 3 edits. The sources mentioned for Felix Sater being a mobster is not fully conclusive, as it's very likely they pulled their research off of Wikipedia, notably, the Fullerton article. Additionally, Daily News merely reiterated the words of Congressman Rouda during Michael Cohen's public testimony which I do not believe qualifies as a well researched source from a reporting agency. The Vanity fair article as well was written way after the original description of Mobster was added to Felix Sater's Wiki page. I would like guidance on this as to what proper citation would be needed where available online can definitely label Felix Sater as a mobster ? Because in its existing form, the moniker does not even have a citation to it. Mobster after all, is a very detrimental label to anybody. Moving on to Felix Sater being divorced. I've cited a page six article, it seems to be the only source online that shows that he was served divorce papers. Would page six be a reliable source? I've linked it here for your review. https://pagesix.com/2019/03/24/trump-russian-associate-gets-served-divorce-papers/ Additionally, none of the cited sources for Felix Sater's marriage to Viktoria explicitly mentions that they're both married. In this case, is it allowed because it is implied that they are married even though it's never explicitly mentioned in any of the sources? Please advice. Finally, The connection to Semion Mogilevich. The one source, if you read it, does NOT make that mention at all. I'm confused as to why it was accepted as a source. Doing some research online, it's listed here https://trump-russia.com/2019/07/20/time-to-put-a-lie-about-felix-sater-to-rest/ that it was entirely made up if there ever was a connection. If you read the article with a bit more research, the attorney that made the initial statement was referred to criminal contempt by a district judge, this, alongside with the fact that the entire thing was made up and the site owner had to settle for spreading disinformation, ordered by the courts. I'm trying to wrap my head around this on why my edits are being undone. It might be in large part to my non-existent history on wikipedia or I'm not following proper guidelines, but if anything, I'd like to be guided through the right steps. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Silverbulldog (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Bowraville murders

• Bowraville murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The suspect has been acquitted of two of the three killings, the third never going to trial. Last year the High Court of Australia ruled he wouldn't be retried due to double jeopardy law. His name is currently subject to a suppression order, though it was published previously. I recently removed an uncited claim that he was the "only suspect". Clearly he should at least be afforded the presumption of innocence under Wikipedia policy. I am also concerned that the title is "Bowraville murders" when there is no court finding that anyone has been murdered, and one of the bodies has never been found. Can or should anything further be done?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The suspect name is not mentioned so WP:BLPCRIME does not seem to be an issue. As far as the title, multiple sources do use the term murder so personally, I don't see a BLP violation there. If secondary sources state that there is no court findings that anyone has been murdered that could also be added to the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The suspect name is now listed, but it clearly shouldn't be, per WP:BLPCRIME. "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". He was acquitted, and it appears that the NSW AG's efforts to get a new trial have failed, so it doesn't seem at all likely that he ever will be convicted. I've deleted the person's name from the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.

1. I'm not sure removing the suspect's name settles the issue. Does this mean there's no problem with claims that he is the "only suspect" or the evidence was "strong", so long as they are appropriately cited? I removed them previously because they were uncited. However, plenty of sources continue to assert he was the killer, so I'm sure citations could be found. The entire article could be constructed into the case against the suspect. Is that OK? Anyone who wants to find out his name can do so easily. Essentially the article would then be cited that a man who was acquitted is actually guilty. Is that OK?

2. WP:BLPCRIME refers to someone accused who hasn't been convicted. Does the fact that the suspect has been acquitted make any difference? Should he still be referred to as a "suspect" after his acquittals? If he was entitled to the presumption of innocence before his acquittals, is he now entitled to an assertion of innocence?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

He was acquitted, meaning found to be not guilty either by a court of law or by the authorities who deemed him innocent, whichever the case may be. This means he was a suspect, but no longer is. Unless he's notable enough to have his own article, the name is completely meaningless to like 99.99% of people who will ever read this article, so there's no need to name him. Per BLPCRIME we should definitely not name him, but that does not prevent us from saying that there once was a suspect or that there is no longer a suspect. We shouldn't be referring to him as a suspect in the present tense, and definitely not by name. As horrible as it is to be falsely accused, an acquittal doesn't change what happened, and we can describe the gist of it without going in to all the personal details. Zaereth (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

On further examination, we only use the word "suspect" four times in this article, and only twice as a noun. In only one of those (the last sentence) do we use it in the present tense. (In comparison, you yourself are referring to him as the suspect four times in the last statement, as if he still is.) That last sentence doesn't really make any sense, like it's incomplete. I'm left wondering "continued to what?" If it means to say that attempts to prosecute are still ongoing, then we need to find a way to say that in the perfect tense, so it remains timeless. I don't know Australian law but would imagine they have something similar to double-jeopardy laws in the US, where a person can't be tried twice for the same crime. Zaereth (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I used the word "suspect" because it seemed the simplest term, but in the course of this discussion I started wondering whether it was still appropriate. The article also calls him the "Bowraville labourer" (he no longer lives there) and the "man previously tried and acquitted of the murders of Evelyn Greenup and Clinton Speedy-Duroux" (very long winded) and simply the "man". The courts have been calling him XX, so maybe that's the way to go. As I tried to make clear, I am concerned with the development of the article in the future, not just its current state. The article is currently underdeveloped, but might be expanded as a book about the case (Bowraville by Dan Box) has recently come out. As noted in the article (and mentioned in my original post), the State of New South Wales has amended its double jeopardy rules, but an application for a retrial of XX was recently refused. A politician is trying to change the rules again to secure a retrial, and that's basically what the ongoing campaign is about. The bereaved families and their supporters are not letting go of the pursuit of XX.[7] (However, I doubt there is a real prospect of conviction.) This article is partly a biography of XX, as at least half of it concerns his trials and attempts to get him retried. This has been a major part of his life since 1991 when he, a young man, was charged with murder, and the recent High Court decision. To me, that seems to be a real BLP concern.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Bilyeu

Article reads more like an PR firm entry than something constructed in an organic way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.16.32 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Haggai Carmon

Haggai Carmon has been tagged for paid editing for eight months. The creating account has been checkuser blocked. I know this subject in real life and will not edit this article and prefer not to make any significant changes to the article. However, I consider it improper to brand a BLP with a red warning template indefinitely. Could somebody uninvolved please decide whether to clean up the article or nominate it for deletion? It should not remain in limbo any longer as this may be damaging to the subject. There is no proof that he paid anybody to edit it, which is the obvious inference a reader would make. As such, the red warning template is itself a BLP violation. I would welcome a general discussion about better ways to handle this kind of situation. Jehochman ^Talk 23:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Mediaguide was blocked for using sockpuppets but just taking a look at their user talk page makes it pretty clear that they were also a paid editor. Someone using the accounts Hcarmon and Hcarmon1 also edited this article soon after Mediaguide created it. You should probably have a chat with your friend. I think the "red warning template" is intended to tell readers that because paid editing was involved, it may not be a neutral article. I don't see that as a BLP violation. Bitter Oil (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s common for newbies to edit their own bios to try to clear up misinformation. Where is a reliable source that says he was involved in paid editing? Also not my friend. We’ve never met in real life. He’s the lawyer of a client. Found this when trying to see who he was. We shouldn’t be publishing derogatory information about living people without a proper source. Jehochman ^Talk 00:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

As i said, I think the template is there for the benefit of our readers and not intended to be "derogatory" to the subject of the article. If you really think that this is a BLP issue, you should go ahead and remove the template. Bitter Oil (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I have followed your suggestion to correct they BLP problem. I changed the maintenance template so that the reader is warned about specific issues with the article, but the warning no longer casts an aspersion on the subject of the article. Other editors are invited to review what I did and modify as they see fit. [8] Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wang Zheng (pilot)

The "Lawsuits" section of this BLP about me Wang Zheng (pilot) violates several important Wikipedia policies by allowing contentious, poorly sourced material, much of which is original research and/or primary source content, some from court filings, all contributed by an interested/conflicted party, to be used by that interested party as the basis to smear me on Wikipedia. Please help me to stop it.

There are now five paragraphs of material in this section, ALL OF IT posted by the woman (or her proxies) trying steal my record and title, Chen Jingxian, in a 2016 around-the-world flight event that she lost (to me). There is a $160,000 cash prize that was awarded to me but which still has not been paid, and for which Chen has now applied, hoping she can cast the bona fides of my flight into doubt, to steal the prize and rewrite aviation history. Chen and her proxies should be disqualified from editing this page with respect to the issues that she is seeking to influence with her editing under WP:COI.

As an initial matter, some of the contents Chen has posted on the page is about lawsuits my husband is or was involved in, obtained simply by reviewing county court records. It is simply "outing" and smearing him based on allegations taken directly from county court records, which practice Wikipedia policy prohibits. Those references should be immediately removed.

The rest of the material concerns a supposed "controversy" about who is the first Chinese woman to fly around the world, a fact that is not in dispute by anyone else in the world except for Chen. Chen points to a supposed statement of event sponsor Wei Chen in mid-2018, saying that despite awarding me the event prize of $160,000 on November 1, 2016, at a public ceremony, he now wasn’t sure whether or not I’d actually flown around the world in 2016.

Chen is now dead and whether he made the statement or not will never be known. But Chen’s statement not only is hearsay and original research (it was only picked up in the Palm Beach Post because Chen’s lawyer repeated the hearsay statement to the journalist (who correctly reported it as coming from Chen’s attorney) but, in any event Wei Chen’s statement came almost immediately after my lawyers sued him, as a defense to a California lawsuit seeking to collect the event prize of $160,000, which Chen never paid. The Palm Beach Post article cited as the source, moreover, was written without any original research, relying nearly exclusively on statements and legal pleadings supplied by Chen and her just hired Boca Raton lawyer, who has no first-hand knowledge of the 2016 flight event or its aftermath. In fact, going to the PBP article shows that the statement is unverifiable hearsay being reported by Chen's boca Raton lawyer. It is hearsay upon hearsay, by definition unreliable, and no other media in the U.S. has reported it, unlike when I flew around the world and my flight was covered by the Palm Beach Post, Miami Herald, T.C. Palm (Stuart), U.S.A. Today, AOPA, Aero-News, FOX25, and others.

Bottom line is that Chen Jingxian is using Wikipedia and the Wikipedia platform to defame me, contrary to Wikipedia’s rules on BLP, primary sources, original research and protecting the privacy of individuals, by making it appear that I've initiated lots of litigation and am involved with my husband in fraud surrounding my world flight. Anyone can go through the supposed “reliable” sources to see that her claims originate with her and by her, and are then reported in a local news source by commissioning a writer to do her work. Other of the sentences are false and unsupported by any source and should be removed on that basis alone.

Below are the specific WP rules applicable to BLP I believe prohibit most or all actually of what is in the “lawsuits” section of my article, and take precedence over general principles like the LUC (which one editor relies on for not making any changes to the section).

WP:NOR No original research:

WP:BLP All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[

WP: SOURCES Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.

WP:BLPPRIMARY Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

WP:PUBLIC FIGURE If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.65.210.8.4 (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I think you're right about the court documents and will remove them momentarily. I see no reason for them to be in the article. They are not being used to clarify some mistake or oversight made by a secondary source. Per BLPPRIMARY I think they should go.

I'll take your word that you are indeed the subject. What I fear is that Wikipedia is being used to further this dispute, which is not what we are here for. If fact, that is your goal, which is contrary to our purpose, which is why COI rules exist. And given that the writing style in the article almost exactly matches your own, I'd say that there is good reason to suspect some COI on all counts. This is not a court so you can dispense with the legal jargon, like "hear-say". We are only concerned with reliable source-say.

The Palm Beach Post article is actually a very well-written article. Very professional and neutral. Ironically, the one great source, while making a point about how passionate you and Chen both feel about this, really focuses on how ludicrous this all is to the rest of us. For example, to quote: "“This record and ones like it are absurd,” said Henry Holden, an aviation historian and author who established a website to chronicle women’s achievements in aviation. Desperate for notoriety, pilots are inventing ridiculous records, he said. “There are so many ‘firsts’ being claimed that it might get to, ‘The first woman pilot to wear purple socks in the cockpit,’” Holden said, crediting the joke to Captain Lori Griffith, a commercial pilot who was the co-author of two of his books." Unfortunately, that is the real story here, and that is what the article should reflect, not about who is wrong or right but in how ridiculous this all seems to those outside your little world. That's what the gist of the source says, so we should focus on that and not cherry-pick the trivial details we think makes it better or worse in court. Zaereth (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Zaereth for the attention to my request. I disagree with your assessment of the Palm Beach Post article since you focus on that it is "a very well written article." Whether it is well-written or not is beside the point. As you correctly point out, it is the reliability of the source that is what matters. When dealing with biographies of living persons moreover the Wikipedia policy makers stress over and over again the heavy presumption against inclusion of poorly or unsourced material -- especially contentious material, which is exactly what we are dealing with here. There is no evidence anywhere of my flight being a fraud.

https://www.wfmj.com/story/40989652/palm-beach-post-ignores-public-data-of-pilots-global-circumnavigation-flight-as-it-publishes-unsubstantiated-claims-from-court-filings

Only one person is saying so and that person is seeking to cash in on a $160k prize that was awarded to me in 2016 and which I sued for in 2018. If that is not a COI then what is? The Palm Beach Post article doesn't qualify as a reliable source standing on its own -regardless of the quality of the writing - because the article was commissioned by Chen and her lawyer, and the reporter based everything she wrote about on what Chen's lawyer told her, including the statement by Chenwei that he didn't know whether or not I'd actually flown around the world. What Wikipedia editors seem to do is give lip service to the WP policy that contentious material about BLPs should not make its way into articles and BLPs privacy rights should be protected when in doubt, i.e., that there is less harm in erring on the side of exclusion.

I agree that WP is not the place to further any real world dispute on the WP platform but that means the WP editors must apply WP policy to ban such prohibited uses. If you carefully read the "Lawsuits" section you will see that none of the material was supplied by me, and you can't say I'm using the section to further the dispute. (I'm winning in court -- read below) Who then is responsible for misusing WP to further her private agenda. The entirety of it is done by Chen and her proxies with the sole purpose and intention of casting me and my husband in a false light in the service of taking the prize and title from me. It will never happen, primarily because the "fraud" she alleges is pure fiction and also because her allegations were comprehensively repudiated by a Beijing Court who tried Chen's China case against me and recently decided 100% in my favor, rejecting each and every allegation of Chen's complaint, and entering final judgment dismissing the complaint.

https://www.finanzen.ch/nachrichten/aktien/record-setting-pilot-wang-zheng-wins-trial-verdict-dismissing-libel-suit-by-ninety-nines-china-governor-saki-chen-jingxian-102861980r

The fact is that the PBP article is poorly sourced, relying as it does almost exclusively on what Chen's attorney told the reporter. Even the story lead, reporting that I initiated the "legal battle," is false. In fact, Chen initiated the legal battle by suing me, my husband, and Sina Weibo in China, on July 17, 2017, four months before I sued her in New York. (Here is the link to the complaint in Chen's original China lawsuit - Document #42, the date is on the last page. Docuemnt's one and two show the date that lawsuit was filed, November 11, 2017, four months later.)

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=5rtBAtIXg_PLUS_16ElR56V6RRQ==&system=prod. So, for starters, the entire first paragraph constitutes unsourced material and must be taken down accord.

The article's author, moreover, is biased in favor of Chen, of course, since Chen's attorney commissioned the article, which was a hit piece on me, nearly exactly the same article Chen had a journalist in her hometown write in mid-2018, with the nearly identical title, as the original vector to put Chen Wei supposed statement about not knowing either I’d flown around the world or not into Wikipedia via a reliable source.

So the second paragraph of the "Lawsuits" Section has 2 problems -the first is that the lawsuit was decided 100% in my favor and second, but no less important, is that the lead sentence "Chen Wei, the first Chinese aviator to circumnavigate the globe, put up a prize. . . " for which there is no citation, is false.

The earthrounders.com registry of around-the-word flights shows that Jeffrey Ying is the first person from China to circumnavigate the globe. http://www.earthrounders.com/singles.php Accordingly, that paragraph too must come down.65.210.8.4 (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for coming around and trying to get this taken care of the right way. The page was originally written by editor(s) with a close connection to the subject (and little understanding of our policies) which meant it read as a puff piece rather than an encyclopedia article. It was later vandalized by editor(s) with an opposite viewpoint. I'd love to help you clean up that article and rewrite it from a neutral perspective. see WP:RS for what counts as a reliable source on Wikipedia. You can respond on the talk page; {U|Zaereth}} and I will see it and other editors will probably be happy to join in if you can show where reliable information is to be found. Hydromania (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound overly harsh, but I'm just going by the sources. By "well-written" I'm not referring to simply the grammar and prose but in the sense that it follows all the good practices of journalism. If you like, I can provide you with several very good sources on journalism and on assessing the reliability of sources. For example, this source, that you provided as proof of the Palm Beach Post's unreliability, is not a news article but an opinion/editorial piece. As such, it is not a reliable source for anything but the author's opinion. In addition, the PBP story it is supposedly trying to debunk is not even the same one as used in the article, and may well be another opinion piece from the PBP. (Every newspaper had op/ed pieces mixed in with the real news.) I don't know, but it is certainly not relevant to this discussion. I stand by my assessment of the PBP source that's actually used in the article. It doesn't take sides and is just reporting on the lawsuits more than anything else, so I highly doubt anyone paid them to print it.

I agree that the section does have problems. Lots and lots of problems. I don't have time to put much effort into fixing it right now, but have taken care of the most egregious BLP problems. None of the rest I would put into the urgent category. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It's actually not even an op-ed. It's a press release from someone's lawyer according to the labels. Nil Einne (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, despite what I said about the outside world, I do very much understand the level of competiveness that exists between pilots, as the SR-71 pilot in this very funny youtube video attests. I also understand the level of national pride involved, and so on, so I don't mean to make light of your situation. Understand that many, many people won't see it in that context. I don't doubt you were the winner, but that really depends upon how you define that all important "first". It's like the debate at Talk:Dogfight about who was the first. That all depends upon how you define a dogfight; by the technical or the general definition. I've watchlisted this article and when I have more time I'll work on fixing the issues. Zaereth (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

As with Zaereth, I find this dispute incredibly boring and the fact it seems to involve COI on both sides makes even less inclined to get involved. But I'd note that we need quality reliable secondary sources here on wikipedia. If the only thing you can present are press releases (both [9] and [10] are press releases) and court documents, you're not likely to be able to convince us to change the content. While you're right that some sources are fairly careless in their fact checking and rely too much on what someone involved told them, ultimately challenging an apparent reliable source is difficult without good evidence for its unreliability. And if the only thing you have is court documents and press releases, the best you can hope for is we agree to remove the info. We're not going to add any info not supported by reliable secondary sources, such as info only supported by court documents and press releases. If you want to help, find reliable secondary sources for us. Not press releases or court documents. Nil Einne (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If I understand your comment correctly, you're claiming that [11] was "commissioned" (i.e. written for payment) by an involved party and their lawyer. I see absolutely no indication in the article that it is sponsored content, nor any indication that The Palm Beach Post allows sponsored content without clearly labeling it as such. Most importantly, there is a journalist given a byline for the story. Technically from what you said, I guess it could be suggested that the journalist was simply unaware of the payment, but this seems very unlikely. And for most journalists, participating in such an unsavoury scheme is a serious ethical violation. You've provided zero evidence for this. You've therefore come to BLPN and committed a serious BLP violation yourself. Please do not repeat this or I will ask for you to be blocked. As I said in my other response, time pressures and other factors mean that sometimes fact checking in stories is not as good as it should be, and I think it's acceptable to suggest such even though you're not going to get very far without evidence. It's quite something else to suggest a story is sponsored but not labelled as such. Nil Einne (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Zaereth for your follow-up, and Nil Einne for your comments.

Nil Einne, I read what you messaged me and I understand why you feel my description of the genesis of the PBP article goes too far. I agree that there's enough reason to get rid of these rubbish entries without going into that subject matter. I'm sorry if you feel that what I wrote violates some WP rule, I'm not even on the platform and am only reading the rules as they become applicable to the article about me, and I don't want to get bogged down in a dead-end. I won't pick up that issue again on WP. I also appreciate your expression of understanding of my point of view.

Just let me clarify a few things since I believe you've hit the main point with your comments on this page from day before yesterday. I have no interest is using WP to further the discussion of any real-world "litigation" I happen to find myself in, and I am not asking for WP editors to include more information "favorable" to me on this point. The evidence I've given you might be considered prohibited original research, or primary source material, or allegations from legal documents, etc., not sufficient as an in-line citation in a WP article but I'm not providing the material for that use. It's just real-world evidence of the real circumstances. Nowhere in the WP rules is there a prohibition against looking at facts in order to determine the reliability of a source. The ultimate point is whether the underlying factual assertion is verifiable, or not. I've read most of the rules concerning BLP and defamatory posts and I'm comfortable saying that I have every right as the subject to remove contentious material, poorly sourced, or defamatory material myself, without discussion, as the rules make clear, and the burden is on the editor who wants to restore it to prove their case. The burden is not on me to show that the offending posts should be taken down, although I think it is better practice to be in line with Wikipedians' way of thinking that there should be a consensus and to try and achieve a consensus in order to have a more effective, lasting resolution.

My point is that this "Lawsuits" section is so problematic it should just come down and that officially is my request. (FYI, the Beijing Court in Chen's lawsuit against me -- mentioned in the Lawsuits section -- after a trial in July before a three-judge panel, recently issued a 37-page decision and final judgment dismissing in its entirety Chen's complaint against me and against the blogging platform Sina Weibo. It was a 100% victory for me and the decision was harsh to Chen but I have no interest in seeing it written about here.)

The defamatory content was inserted by the very person who is litigating with me and my husband deliberately to smear us (my husband is a private person) and all or almost all of the "Lawsuits" content also violates WP policy (a) strongly disfavoring contentious, poorly sourced material and permitting its removal without discussion, even by the article's subject, and (b) "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute (legal or otherwise) with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Previous editors' comments make clear that their efforts were a vandalization of the page.

As I said in the very first line of this post a few days ago, the entire "Lawsuits" section of an otherwise rather plain vanilla article is being used improperly by a party to litigation with me and my husband to bring a real-world dispute onto WP, and to be a bull horn to highlight her baseless, defamatory claims against me and my husband, falsely making us out as fraudsters and litigious ones at that. Wikipedia policy(s) expressly prohibits this and that is the main reason why this section "Lawsuits" should come down.

Secondarily, and independently of the primary WP policy infringement, there are three unsupported allegations in the section that must be taken down:

First, the quotation attributed to Chenwei must be taken down because it violates the WP policy: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people. Chenwei's supposed quotation is defamatory since it insinuates that my flight might not be bona fide, without providing any specific reason or evidence. Whether Chenwei actuallly made such a statement before his death in December 2018 will never be known. The facts underlying his statement not only are unverified but are unverifiable since they are contradicted by the October 16 to 26th WeChat transcript of his conversations with several individuals where Chenwei himself discussed the vetting of my flight and personally approved it.

Second, the claim that I and my husband "initiated a legal battle" (first paragraph of the "Lawsuits" section) must be taken down because the facts underlying the statement not only are unverified but are unverifiable since they are false, contradicted by Chen's own complaint filed in the Beijing, Haidian Peoples District Court, on July 17, 2017. (https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=5rtBAtIXg_PLUS_16ElR56V6RRQ==)

Third, the baseless accusation that my husband engaged in a conspiracy to defraud aviation history is unverified and must be removed.[30] It directly impugn's ones reputation to be labeled asone who has committed fraud. I, as a pilot, and my husband as a lawyer, have the right to protect our professional reputations against such scurrilous accusations and have the unverified, contentious content removed. Again, this is in accord with Wikipedia policy:

"Legal and other disputes . . . The biographies of living persons policy says: "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. . . . .

"Similarly, editors should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases. . . . .

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others."

I am satisfied that Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of the Wikipedia platform to protect people like me -- notable basically for a single event -- and my husband, a private individual -- from suffering real reputational and/or financial harm as a result of persons improperly looking to bring real world disputes onto Wikipedia for their own selfish interests, not those of the encyclopedia.

This subject matter may seem "boring" or the dispute narrow to some of you. Everyone is entitled to their tastes and opinion. In the big scheme of things perhaps it is narrow. For us, however, this is a personal attack on us, on our livelihoods, employment, status among our colleagues, status with financial institutions -- a real world issue with real reputational and financial consequences. Its proper resolution depends not only on the policies of the Wikipedia founders and other senior collaborators but on the proper execution and application of such policies by you and you brother and sister line editors.65.210.8.4 (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This is another place where I'm going to suggest reading WP:TLDR. I'm not trying to be insulting by that, but, seriously, your replies are extremely verbose and difficult to parse through.

One thing you should understand is that BLP rules apply to talk pages, user pages, and every other space including mainspace. Posting court documents here, or unsubstantiated allegations against another living person, is a clear violation of that policy. Keep in mind that we are all volunteers here, and no one is bound to do anything they don't want to. This may be especially true where the parties involved appear to be litigious, because no one wants to be involved with litigious people nor their articles. Anyone in their right mind wouldn't want to touch this with a 10 foot pole. I took an interest because I have an interest in flying, but I am extremely cautious and, aside from being sick as a dog, I do have other things going on in my life that take priority at the moment. This is an article that gets an average of 6 views a day, so, while it may be important to you, it's just not the highest thing on my list at the moment. If I'm going to fix the issues I'm going to do it right, and sit down and look at every, individual source, and that takes time. Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Zaereth, I'm sorry that you're not feeling well and wish you a speedy recovery.

Of course, I've no ability to force any Wikipedia volunteer to do something they don't want to do and that hasn't been my goal. My goal was to give Wikipedians the opportunity to reach consensus to take the "Lawsuits" section down. Taking it down by consensus would also perhaps reduce the likelihood of any edit war initiated by my "arch rival" in the future (such as we had in the past).

I've done this in good faith. I've also spent a lot of time in the back and forth that could have been better spent on other things. I think that the discussion has been valuable however since you and Nil Einne and Hydromania all agree that this Lawsuits section has lots of problems and I have a new appreciation for how WP editors think about the platform. The rest of the article has been edited by others in ways that are totally unobjectionable, and I don't think the article suffers from the deletion of the "Lawsuits" section. Basically, it reads like any other encyclopedia entry. Hydromania has offered to help rewrite the article and I truly welcome all edits to the article that in good faith are trying to make it better.

So thank you all for your thoughtful input.65.210.8.4 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Grays incident ‎

In my opinion the truck driver should not be named in the article. It was irresponsible of the press to publish his name, and there is no evidence that he knew anything of the grisly cargo in the trailer he picked up. In all probability they were already dead by then. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It is generally inappropriate for a non-notable person who has been arrested but not convicted in a crime to be named, per BLPCRIME. --Masem (t) 02:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Brendan Ormsby

His first name is wrong - his given name is actually Brendon, not Brendan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:C60C:200:35C2:CCC8:F656:591A (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not move the page Brendan Ormsby as sources can't seem to agree which one is correct. However I'm leaning towards Brendon being correct so have started a WP:RM. If you have sources which definitely say one is correct, that would help a great deal. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Kevin G. McAllister

The claim that McAllister resigned from Boeing is not supported by the source cited (newspaper article). The source implies that McAllister was sacked from the company (as do other sources). This should be removed or corrected unless a more reliable source supports the current claim in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.238.214 (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Changed resigned to ousted per source. --Malerooster (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

The sources cited to support the claim that Stefan Molyneux is a “white nationalist” do not cite any evidence that he advocates for those politics. This is a libelous claim and should require strong evidence to support it. Those that seek to maintain the claim have not been willing to compromise on a single word to make the article more nuanced and neutral. It is clear from the talk page and history that there has never been a consensus on this article. See the bottom of the talk page for a lengthy discussion of the most recent disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmann101 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The last talk page discussion is correct in that there are quality RSes that call him a white nationalist. While there are issues with third-parties making claims that WP:BLPSPS covers, when RSes make those claims, that's different, and there is no requirement for the RSes to offer proof (by them being RSes, that's where WP editors have to trust that they are speaking what they know or believe is true). It is absolutely wrong to omit Molyneux's claims that he is a libertian (assuming that can be sourced to one of his writings) but this has to be pointed out that this is only for appropriate impartialness, and not to create the false balance - the coverage of what is seen as white nationalism is clearly DUE for why this guy is notable; we can't create the false balance that his view outweighs the stance of several RSes. --Masem (t) 13:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"White nationalist" probably falls under WP:LABEL. - Ryk72 ^talk 14:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be as well, to me, and I could go on about a more impartial way of saying the same thing in the article's language, but that's a wholly separate matter from whether the RSes here are sufficient to mention that, which is the OP argument. --Masem (t) 14:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"White nationalist" is a relatively well-defined term, and I disagree that it falls under WP:LABEL any more than "liberal" or "communist" would. It's a deeply unpopular ideology, but that's not a reason to eschew it when it fits. In Molyneux's case, I do think he's better known for his promotion of racist pseudo-science rather than white nationalism specifically, so I'm open to a more precise description if we can find sourcing for it, but OPs edit was a whitewash. Nblund ^talk 14:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I just don't get the right feeling leading off with potential labels as quickly as the lede currently does but would need to investigate more to offer an appropriate alternative. I am a big fan of the lede sentence not applying any type of value-statements. Eg a statement like "Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster. He is known his far-right, white nationalism views, and using his podcast to support...." or something like that feels more neutral, but that's top of the head. And getting away from primary concern here. --Masem (t) 15:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem with "libertarian" is that several sources indicate that he has abandoned libertarianism since 2016. I think his more recent self-description is "anarcho-capitalist", which is probably a good thing to add to the lead based on the SPLC source. Nblund ^talk 14:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

As long as it is 1) sourcable, and 2) a counter-point said by the individual that is meant in response to what others have said about him (eg to avoid the "unduly self-serving" aspect), it should be at least mentioned, but obviously with appropriate weight ("While X says they are Y,(source about Y) X is commonly seen to Z. (further explanation of Z). (sources about Z)" structure. --Masem (t) 15:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

So I don't think we can necessarily say that this is a direct repudiation of the "white nationalist" description based on the sourcing, and really it would be incorrect to treat anarcho-capitalism as inherently inconsistent with far right ideologies. But I think it would be fairly to just say "Molyneux has described himself as an anarcho-capitalist" based on the SPLC source and this NYTimes source. I should also mention that in some self-published statements he has directly denied being a white nationalist. I'm okay with including some minimal statement that he denies white nationalism, but I'm hesitant to include any further discussion of his fringe-y and self-serving description of the nature of white nationalist ideology. Nblund ^talk 16:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Then all you need is , after some lengthy discussion of why others give him the "white nationalist" label, just add "Molyneux denies being a white nationalist and instead considers himself an anarcho-capitalist." Add sources, that's all you need, the necessary POV balance that we can source is there, just not giving that side any more weight. --Masem (t) 17:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Which text in the SPLC source says that Molyneux describes himself as an "anarcho-capitalist"? I'm not finding it. Similarly, which text in the NYT sources says the same. I'm paywalled currently. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That the sources say something you don’t like is not a problem Wikipedia can fix. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Judith Owen - delete photo - no rights to sue use

Dear Wiki,

I misunderstood our usage rights from photographer Bernhard Kuhmstedt https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judith_Owen_photo-_Bernhard_Kuhmstedt.jpg

Please delete this photo.

Steve Lee (manager Judith Owen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldlee1 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey Worldlee1. I have requested the image be deleted on Wikimedia Commons where it was uploaded. GMG^talk 14:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I stared at the "no right to sue" header here for a while, trying to figure out just who didn't have the right to sue whom... before realizing that he'd probably just transposed two letters, and admitting there was no right to use. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Resolved deleted on Commons. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

2019-20 FC Barcelona Season

I removed {{nowrap} from this article am I violating something because I have no clue what it means Ãli999Yt^Talk

Ask @ WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HELPDESK or refer to {{nowrap}}. I don't know what it was being used for. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Exposes Porn Performers to Stalking, Harassment—And Visits From CPS" - Jezebel

This seems like a discussion worth having on this board. Jezebel published this article today: "Wikipedia Exposes Porn Performers to Stalking, Harassment—And Visits From CPS".

The basic idea is that Wikipedia articles about adult film actors often include their real name, and that opens them up for harassment/stalking. It should go without saying that no real name should be included without a citation to a reliable source. The harder matter is what kind of sourcing is needed to justify including.

The main example given is Kayden Kross. Her real name was in the article for some time, with multiple attempts to remove it. According to the article, it was eventually removed for sourcing concerns, but a closer look shows this was just a mix-up. As of a few months ago, it was sourced to the New York Daily News, which is not a great source but not one we typically automatically dismiss for something which, in so many other articles, would be trivial. One editor moved her real name from the lead to a lower section but failed to copy down the correct source. Another editor then removed it as not being backed up by the source that remained. In other words, although this example was given as resolved, it was only because of a mistake.

WikiProject Pornography has a section about real names, which does say that "editorial judgment must be exercised before deciding to add a pornographic performer's birth name to an article which also uses their stage name" and links to WP:BLPNAME, which says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."

The language of our guidance on this is relatively vague and equivocal. This is, no doubt, related to the idea that we so often consider "real name" to be a fundamental fact for a biography, even perhaps when it might be detrimental to the subject. In many cases, it would be hard to reconcile omission with our guidelines, but it does seem like we could be clearer. Perhaps it's worth introducing something along the lines of: "In cases where a real name has been intentionally concealed by a pseudonym, include the real name only if it has been widely covered by reliable sources." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

IMO. "Thou shalt not damage people" should be a fundamental rule for all BLPs. Indeed, I would think that all BLPs which have their clear purpose being damage to others be placed behind an impenetrable wall. What I ran up against is shown in User:Collect/BLP. Collect (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That story is pretty convincing in making the case for being more stringent on not using legal names for porn stars. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It's also making a pretty convincing case (and I can assure you, this has happened many times before) for largely getting rid of most articles on "porn stars", most of whom are only included because they were handed an industry award. We don't even consider winning an industry award sufficient for including an advertising firm, despite the fact that millions more people are likely to see an advertisement than will see a particular scene in a porn film. Risker (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. With the exception of a few, very well-known names, most are a dime a dozen. Many, if not most, go on to regret their decisions and end up wishing it just goes away. If all that is required here for notability is winning an industry award, the I should get an article for winning the safety award at work. (Wait. Wait, no. I take that back. For the love of God don't write an article about me.) I think some higher GNG standards should be in order. Zaereth (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Risker, I agree. I delete many via PROD that have only one AVN award as a claim of notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, that article is not a great look for Wikipedia. Rhododendrites suggested wording seems like a sensible idea. If a person is notable under their stage name, and their legal name has not been widely disseminated, then what is the encyclopedic purpose of including a legal name? It seems like in Kross's case, her legal name shouldn't have been there even under the current rules, so maybe part of this is a matter of being more vigilant, but adding stronger language couldn't hurt. Nblund ^talk 02:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a very unfortunate situation but I see no discussion at all of the birth name issue at Talk:Kayden Kross. On the other hand, there has been extensive discussion at Talk:Stoya about a very similar issue, where editors have been trying to insert two different contradictory birth names into the article, highlighting the many issues with "birth names" of porn stars. I commented there on September 1. Any editor who argues that a legal name is identical with a birth name is deeply misinformed, as a glance at the life history of Gerald Ford (not a porn performer) shows. The unfortunate thing is that we cannot act on the anonymous anecdotes in the Jezebel article, but I believe that any editor who persists in adding poorly referenced personally identifying information into porn performers biographies should be blocked. I also agree that BLPs of non notable porn performers should be deleted and have expressed that opinion at many porn performer AfDs. All that being said, some porn performers are notable, and their biographies ought to be fully policy compliant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that conversation on Stoya looks pretty misguided. On another note: I would also support adding (not a porn performer) as a parenthetical qualifier to Gerald Ford's lead. Nblund ^talk 15:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the edict "Thou shalt not damage people". Does that mean we don't include material that could harm Donald Trump??? Clearly, any publication of information could be harmful to people in ways we can't understand. Perhaps porn stars are not notable, but I don't think damaging information is a valid criteria for exclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

How to handle that comes under WP:PUBLICFIGURE - which outside of a few, I would not call porn actors/actresses as public figures (in contrast to the more Hollywood-style actors that WOULD be public figures). If such an actor goes only by a handle in all their works, the majority of sourcing is only to that handle, and that one or two-odd articles includes a real name, we should avoid including it, for that purpose. If on the other hand the real name is frequently attached to the screen name, or the person in an RS interview has zero issues talking their real name vs screen name, then there's no reason not to include it. --Masem (t) 15:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Alonso Ancira

This article needs serious help--it may need deletion for all I know. It's an edit-war mess and I'm about to semi-protect it from IPs and socks--and User:Nelly2017, you may end up being blocked indefinitely if you mess with this article. You can leave your comments here (and don't forget to log in). Drmies (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Katie Hill (politician)

This is already under WP:1RR, but BLP-watchers might want to keep an eye on the entry for Katie Hill (politician) if they aren't watching it already.The recent coverage of her could be complicated going forward: she's been a victim of a pretty massive invasion of privacy by unscrupulous outlets, but aspects of her story also raise some meaningful ethical concerns that will probably receive some continued coverage in reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 16:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Jo Ann Jenkins - Proposed Draft

Hello, The Wikipedia article about Jo Ann Jenkins is rather sparse and barebones, so I have written a draft at User:JeffreyArthurVA/sandbox3. Can someone take a look at this draft and implement it into the article if you feel it is an improvement?

Please note:

• I am an employee of AARP, where Jo Ann Jenkins is CEO. While I don't know Jo Ann Jenkins personally, my employment presents a COI I want to be mindful of. This is why, per WP:BLPEDIT, I am coming to this noticeboard to request a review from uninvolved editors and ask one of you to implement it, rather than edit this BLP article directly myself.
• While Jenkins clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for a BLP (CEO of the largest nonprofit in the U.S., sufficient coverage in reliable media sources such as Bloomberg, CNBC), the Wikipedia article about Jenkins at the moment strictly lists the positions she has held. It fails to provide any context around what she did in these positions that were deemed notable and verifiable through reliable sources.
• In this draft I have taken care to write neutrally and source properly. The intention is not to promote; merely to note the work Jenkins has completed.

Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi and thanks. I think it's an improvement and good writing regarding policy. I agree that that utube screenshot does not really belong and probably should be deleted at commons. Others may have concerns regarding CV type additions, let's see if others comment. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your response. Regarding the photo, yes that screenshot does not really seem fitting for a Wikipedia article. It is rather blurry, the graphics are partially cut off, and it seems odd to use a screenshot of a video vs. an original photo. I am looking for a photo to suggest for this article, but want to take the time to obtain one that is properly licensed for CC use on Wikipedia. In the meantime, it seemed fitting to start by proposing a light cleanup of the article text with proper sourcing. After that I can help to find a more suitable photo. JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll say this, the draft looks far better than the current. The current article reads a lot like a resume. If I had come across it I would probably recommend it for speedy deletion for "no indication of importance". See, it's not enough to simply have your name published somewhere and a list of prestigious jobs to fall back on. A person needs to have accomplishments to speak of before they really have some importance to the reader. I see that you've helped correct that problem by adding some of her achievements, which makes the article suddenly have some interest for the reader. My suggestion is that the article should really focus on those and less so on the list of jobs. (It's interesting to know she worked with Reagan, but besides that what was significant about it?) That's what makes the story. I'd also be careful not to start sounding too promotional when referring to AARP. I think you've done a good job of that, but I'd be careful of phrasing things like "she became CEO to ensure the company meets its goals of..." That sort of thing goes without saying because it's the job of any CEO and starts to look like a plug for the company. Other than that I think you're off to a good start. Zaereth (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

George Calombaris

There's a huge detailed section on an assault charge which was dismissed on appeal. The article has had BLP problems in the past. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Some inclusion seems due, but the details seem excessive. I trimmed some of the details of the court case per WP:WEIGHT, but the section could still use some improvements. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Tim Pool

There is an ongoing RFC on Tim Pool that involves some BLP questions. Pool himself has been tweeting about the entry, and the discussion could probably benefit from additional input from uninvolved editors. Nblund ^talk 16:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai

• Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, this brings in WP:BLP mainly because of Sanal Edamuruku who is rather persecuted by some Indian Catholic figures. Questions: did Catholic clergy call this statue a "miracle" and "holy water"? Or just some tourists and locals? Was an apology "demanded" or "requested" and was it in exchange for dismissal of charges? Who had the power to dismiss those charges? Was it the Archbishop of Mumbai? Was it his auxiliary? Was it a parish priest? Was it an independent association of Catholic faithful? Was it none of the above and just some obnoxious change.org petition crap? Is this whole thing a tempest in a tabloid teapot? Why did it make the main page with a DYK? Inquiring minds want to know. Elizium23 (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New Scientist and BBC are among the sources. Which statements about Sanal Edamaruku violate BLP ? MPS1992 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this the one where they found the broken toilet in the unrelated next door room? Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

MPS1992, thank you for the link to his own BLP. I have been able to piece together the story much better due to the PRI audio source. He is not so much persecuted as he made fun of Catholics and paid a heavy price for his sardonic wit. I have reformed the BLP and I will merge the changes back into the crucifix article at length. Elizium23 (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Right now, @Harshil169: is trying to make it look like Edamuruku is being persecuted for his sciencey sciencing of their science, rather than his mockery of Catholic Church and officials. Thjat's a BLP problem if I ever saw one. Goes against a WP:RS - Public Radio International story, which lays everything out quite clearly. Higher quality than Indian tabloids. Elizium23 (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I had already said that this was unpublished synthesis of source. Source doesn't say that blasphemy case was filed after and solely due to this reason. diff This editor even tried to find the good reason for blasphemy on talk page in miracle section and brought these and introduced in lead section. I just said to give it due weight here and introduce in aftermath section. It was written like Sanal has to face all these due to calling church as anti-scientific.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be instructive to consider here the state in which I first found this article. It was a disgrace to Wikipedia, and it had just been DYK'd up to the front page for a pretty much false assertion. The article needed a lot of work, and you're the WP:OWNer, fighting us every step of the way based on tabloid sources. Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

NO, I am not fighting as owner. I am fivhting as an individual because of unpublished synthesis and finding good reasons behind blasphemy cases. I saw what you did at Sanal Edamaruku's article. Was the case filled because he refused to apologis efor mockery? Of course, NO. But you still labeled it as reason by introducing word so in article.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, actually it was, and this is reliably sourced to the PRI audio story, which you are conveniently ignoring in your crusade to accuse me of bad faith. Stop accusing me of bad faith. All my additions are based on WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Your revert has introduced multiple factual errors in the article and they have to do with BLP. Per WP:BLPREMOVE I could remove them again and again without breaching WP:3RR but I will discuss them with you until you figure this out or get yourself blocked for WP:TE. The Archdiocese has no power to withdraw the criminal charges. They SAID SO in their statement. PRI relayed this info. You're ignoring it. Please revert your factual errors and remove them from the article because it is full of lies. Elizium23 (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

And yes, that is the very reason the case was filed. Because he refused to apologise. It is in the PRI story plain as day. He was asked to apologise on-air, he refused, and so they proceeded to file blasphemy charges because he mocked them not because he ran a scientific investigation, like 'your' article says now. Elizium23 (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Jas Athwal

Jas Athwal

This page is a WP:BLP. Its subject is a politician who was shortlisted for selection as a parliamentary candidate but whose campaign ended in disputed and scandalous circumstances a few hours before the final ballot. At the time of writing he continues to lead his London Borough Council. Anonymous editors have inserted defamatory material: [[12]] namely:

• an unsourced and unsubstantiated allegation of corruption (in the 'Political career' section, sentence beginning "In September 2019..."). The editor has repeated this verbatim in the 'Criticism' section).
• an unsourced and unsubstantiated allegation of an extremely stigmatising nature which is not backed up in the sources they use (this is in the same passage as the allegation in the previous bullet point).
• both of these are incriminating but they have not been substantiated in reliable sources.

I have edited the page to include details of the suspension which are in the public domain, including reliable sources, and also details of criticism demanding that he stand down as Council leader as a consequence. I've tried to use the existing article structure to distinguish - and cross reference between - 'Political Career' and 'Criticism'. I've used both the article Talk Page and anonymous user Talk Page (which is to an IP address) to make the case for why I have done this.

An earlier edit war was resolved by restricted to signed-in editors - I think this would be helpful here. TrabiMechanic (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

At WP:RFPP I have requested semi-protection of the article. MPS1992 (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The unsubstantiated allegations are continuing from the same anonymous IP address - this now qualifies as an edit war so I am going to report TrabiMechanic (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It's now been semi-protected for two months. MPS1992 (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve Huffman

I (and it appears others, per older talk history) am of the opinion that the Steve Huffman comment controversy needs its own section with a heading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Huffman

This will bring it in line with what appear to be Wikipedia guidelines, and consistent with other articles, such as Matt Lauer, or for someone in a similar line of work, Mark Zuckerberg. Both Lauer's and Zuckerberg's articles have scandals/controversies broken out under bolded headings per Wikipedia guidelines. For some reason certain Wikipedia editors are resisting this change on the Huffman page and I'd love some unbiased eyes to tell me why Wikipedia appears so inconsistent.

1. The Huffman article has a major controversy currently sandwiched between two fluff PR lines one of which was added per a paid Wikipedia editor's request. This seems odd given that it was major news, as 5+ urls are linked in the talk section of the page. It is especially vexing given that the scandal in question was Huffman concealing negative comments about him personally.
2. Lauer's page and Zuckerberg's page have controversies broken out in the manner described under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism. My goal was to apply the same logic to the Huffman article, per the "Approaches to presenting criticism" article under Criticism. I named the section the controversy in question as it was covered by numerous sources, but it seems others disagree.
3. In the event we are applying article criticism inconsistently (Huffman resistance to edits vs Lauer pages no notification and no edit wars), shouldn't we be extra sure we are being up front in the event of a scandal regarding obfuscation?
4. If adding a controversy section without talk first, is such an affront to the wikipedia editors I appear to have wronged, why are none of them reverting the Lauer page changes as well?

Siihb (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I realize that someone advised you to bring that matter to this noticeboard. That was not good advice. This page focuses on violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy, and not having such a header is certainly not a violation. The matter is best considered in current discussion at the talk page of the article, where your stance does not seem to be getting traction.

As a more general note, the they-should-be-fixing-Lauer's-page-before-they-do-anything-here argument is very problematic. There are many, many BLPs on Wikipedia, and because of the nature of the project, many of them will be imperfect at any given moment. That does not mean that you get to choose a particular page for being the last page to be fixed, nor to require volunteer editors to jump through hoops on other pages before they are allowed to edit the one in question. I suggest you shift away from that line of argument in your attempt to find support. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. This is my first and only dispute. Myself and others have now typed 300 books of words all because 1 editor thought they have full control to revert an edit that broke no Wikipedia rules and simply broke a scandal into the heading it deserved. Additionally, I am not the first or second or even third editor to take issue with the content of that page, or the breaking out of this heading. Serious question, if I go an edit the Lauer page and the Zuckerberg pages to be in line with the Huffman one, am I going to get into an edit war with people on the other side of this argument? I don't care about the breaking out of the data as much as I care about the site having some level of consistency because right now it seems like its being used as PR. Doubly so given that the page in question has actual paid content on it. Siihb (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It is quite possible that if you edit the Lauer or Zuckerberg pages, you will find folks who do not agree with your edits. This site is too large for everything to be handled by a single group of editors, and even if it were, the situations, while perhaps of some similarity, also has their differences. (But yes, an editor has the ability to revert an edit that does not break specified rules; reverting an edit is part of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle that makes up much of Wikipedia editing.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Cho Min

Irrespective of the scandal she was mixed up in, I'm not convinced that this person has any genuine notability in her own right. The article for her father Cho Kuk already has a brief section for the scandal and I think that's probably the best place for it. PC78 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Any article that starts by saying the subject is ‘the daughter of....’ is in trouble! I don’t think she’s notable in her own right, and the scandal is WP:ONEEVENT territory. Delete and merge anything useful into the article about her father Neiltonks (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

John Delamere (footballer)

• John Delamere (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two issues here - one is COI editing from a named account and now various IPs, and the second is BLP-related - should the sourced content about his career being hindered by issues with discipline/alcohol be included or not? I say yes as it's important for his career and biography, IPs disagree and are removing it. Posting here for wider input. GiantSnowman 14:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the stress on the "he was a drunk"-type stuff would need far stronger sourcing and a far stronger claim to relevance in this stub. The source cited is not about Delamere, but about an en passant remark about an author's future "stories." Thus it is not a "reliable source" for the BLP in the first place. Collect (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Both better sourcing and impact. Just saying it was marred but not with explicitly how it was the case is really not sufficient for inclusion as that makes it sound like speculation than anything concrete. Not knowing the career, I would expect this to be something on the order of "His alcoholism caused him to miss several matches in the YYYY season." or something like that. --Masem (t) 16:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a Dutch speaker to help with the sourcing for this - @Cattivi:? GiantSnowman 20:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Although, as both of you note these are brief sources - but they both mention the issue, showing its obvious importance? GiantSnowman 20:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In 1984 Delamere was fired by SVV for several reasons. The main reasons were, he didn't accept a part-time job offered by a sponsor and he (and Paul Giles, no reason to believe he was a drunk) didn't accept the housing offered by the club. Yes he liked his drink, had a poor disciplinary record ,sometimes missed a training and apparently he still had some bills to pay in Zwolle, but the club knew this and accepted this. They didn't question his performance on the pitch. All this can be found in this article [13]. In 1981 Delamere didn't play in this match, because the club suspended him after he missed several training sessions and in March a 3 game suspension for three yellow cards [14] That was normal at that time. Cattivi (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cattivi: - many thanks! @Collect and Masem: as can be seen above, his alcohol and disciplinary issues are well known and documented covered by multiple reliable sources. Does this change your view? GiantSnowman 09:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope. WP:BLP is quite clear, and third hand quotes from a person writing gossip-level material is unlikely to pass muster. The Yellow Card event is likely documentable, I think. Collect (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources all mention this. You are whitewashing the article. GiantSnowman 14:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Elise Stefanik

The claim about troop reduction at Fort Drum is not supported, nor even mentioned, in the proffered source. Footnote 37 for the last paragraph in the section is thus wrong. The source does contain the quoted sentence in the first paragraph, which uses the same footnote number, 37. I would also like to know if "28" means "28,000". Might this simply be a typing error? Or two? The offending footnote in its context:

Defense Stefanik with Defense Secretary Ash Carter in 2015

In a July 2015 profile in The Washington Times, Jacqueline Klimas noted that Stefanik was the only freshman on that year's conference committee for the defense policy bill, a position accorded to her "because of her extensive experience in foreign policy - working in the George W. Bush administration, prepping Rep. Paul Ryan for his vice presidential debates and listening to commanders at Fort Drum in her home district." Jack Collens, a political science professor at Siena College, told Klimas that Stefanik's prize committee position signalled that party leaders wanted Stefanik to be part of "the next generation of Republican leaders."[37]

Stefanik united New York House members "to spare Fort Drum from drastic cuts." Instead of a planned reduction of 40,000 troops, Fort Drum ended up losing only 28, making it a standout among stateside Army bases.[37] Chrisrushlau (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

David Stringer

The sources cited in the article on David Stringer do not show that Mr. Stringer is a convicted child molester. He was arrested and charged, but never convicted and was given "probation before judgement" in a Maryland courtroom.

I have written a new entry for Mr. Stringer, but cannot get anyone to answer me on the Talk:David Stringer page. Please advise.

Anita Cohen COHWILL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohwill (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I made a few changes to better reflect the sources. Note that the David Stringer is not a reliable source for this type of information about himself. The Arizona Republic presents the information about the resolution of his case this way: "While Stringer claims he never was convicted, court records show he accepted a plea deal on some combination of charges and was sentenced to five years of supervised probation." [15] We should probably be careful about using the word "conviction" if the sources do not also use it. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Aja (drag queen)

Aja (drag queen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'll be honest, I don't know if this post is necessary or at the correct venue, but editors might be interested in Talk:Aja_(drag_queen)#Subject's_Tweets_about_this_article, which outlines a series of Tweets made by Aja (drag queen) about their Wikipedia article. They claim there's a lot of incorrect information and question who is editing the page, which has caused some vandalism and recent edits to the article. Can some folks please come take a look and share any thoughts or concerns? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Jack

Accurate, well-sourced biographical information often deleted from page. Jimmy Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieXJones (talk • contribs) 12:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Alexander Dvorkin‎

On September 20, an anonymous participant added to the article a link to a video clip on Youtube made by a private person Konstantin Nikitin (here his says: ″This is my personal channel, with videos that match my personal position, which owes nothing to anyone.″ — Template:Lang-ru; and in brochure Ordinary Anti-cultism by Sergey Ivanenko — the forth of the Dvorkin's opponents on the video (6:13) — about Nikitin we khow that: ″Appendix. Konstantin Nikitin Religious Freedom Watch correspondent www.religiousfreedomwatch-ru.org Some Data on FECRIS (Federation of European Centers of Study and Information on Sectarianism)″, and this website is Scientology attack-page) from videos specially made by Oleg Maltsev's henchmen with people, most of whom are opponents of Dvorkin and have a biased opinion about him. I canceled this edit referring to WP:NOTCATALOGUE. However, a month later, on October 29, 2019, participant Nicoljaus made a cancellation of my cancellation. I know this participant on the Russian Wikipedia, where he has already received an indefinite block, including for edits wars. Tempus (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t understand why the WP:NOTCATALOGUE rule was mentioned, when in fact Tempus just didn’t like the content of the video. Comment about "inappropriate content" would be fine.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)