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.

Marina Fernandez

BLP whose references have been taken out, but still exist in its history. What to do? Bearian (talk)

An admin should probably rollback to the last good version. That's what I see done most often. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 18:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Shiva Ayyadurai - Libelous content being posted

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

Libelous and defamatory content is being posted against Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai to reduce him to "...being known for his incorrect claim to have invented email" This appears now as the FIRST sentence to clearly have Google search bring this up first. This is clearly vindictive and libelous following his settlement with Gawker Media. This content was initially posted by an anonymous user with IP address 72.226.22.122 on November 3 and deserves immediate investigation. In addition, user:: GNUish continues to post and maintain this defamatory and libelous statement. I am reverting back to what it was prior to November 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YatesByron (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately for those without a WP:NPOV on this matter, there's a ridiculously long list of WP:V WP:RSs demonstrating that Ayyadurai's claims are false. Those editors should also study WP:3RR ... richi (hello) 22:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: I'm moving my reply here, for transparency. After reviewing the edit history, I'm afraid all I can see here is a ranty, newly-minted account accusing editors with whom they disagree of being racists—accounts have been blocked for less. The editor also accuses respected ARPAnet technologists of being racists (surely a BLP violation). All Crocker et al were doing was recounting a history that differs from the new editor's beliefs. Reasonable people can disagree on the use of "incorrectly" in the lede, and can debate the same in good faith on the Talk page.

To the actual encyclopedia issue: From my reading of the sources, the BLP subject is not notable for inventing email, nor is he notable for claiming to have invented it; however he is notable for his false claims. And his false claims have been verifiably shown to morph when disproved—several times. (The Gawker lawsuit is, of course, all about Univision wanting the Hulk Hogan circus over and done with, so proves little.) ... richi (hello) 10:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Young M.A

Young M.A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would be grateful for guidance on BLP privacy policy specifically with regard to name disclosure. Both Billboard and Rolling Stone mention that Young M.A declines to give her birth name, so I had deleted; however, editor Xboxmanwar disagrees with me, saying, "Her full name was already published in major articles like here, here, and here, and she already shown it herself here, here, here and here." To me this does not satisfy the "widely published by reliable sources" criteria nor the criteria that we can reasonably infer the subject does not object when we do have multiple reliable sources specifically saying she objects. Since we have a good-faith but important disagreement, it'd be great to have some guidance. Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose there's a related question for DOB as well. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Her name is out there, in RS. There is no putting that back in the bottle. As the trademark and copyright pages show, this is not gossip but a key legal fact. This is entirely different from not publishing the name of a crime victim or the like. Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The trademark and copyright pages are clearly the kind of primary sources BLP policy explicitly excludes though: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details" (emphasis in the original). And I can't see how we've met the "widely published in reliable sources" threshold--I count at best two reliable secondary sources that mention it, which really is not "widely", and even less so when two other (and frankly, more reliable) sources explicitly tell us she doesn't disclose the name (and many, many others simply leave her birth name out completely.) Innisfree987 (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Prakash Chennithala

Poorly Sourced. Seems to be self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinchu.c (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Chennithala --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Felipe Calderón

The first paragraph, "Santiago Jimeñez GOD[1] (Spanish pronunciation: [Satan Lord Santi]; born 15 May 2001)[2] is a Mexican God who serves as Dictator of Mexico since 15 May 2001, He is a member of the Justice Warriors, one of the three major Mexican political parties." seems to have no relevance ??

Older revision stated: Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa GCB[1] (Spanish pronunciation: [feˈlipe kaldeˈɾon] ( listen); born 18 August 1962)[2] is a Mexican politician who served as President of Mexico from 1 December 2006, to 30 November 2012. He is a member of the National Action Party (Partido Acción Nacional, PAN), one of the three major Mexican political parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilymarvin (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Gameplayers hit the BLP. Might an admin lock it down, perchance? Collect (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semied two days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Mike Adams (columnist)

The page Mike Adams (columnist) has been expanded and rewritten in a defamatory way by both an IP account and a new account that has contributed nothing else to Wikipedia. The edit also violates NPOV, has very few citations, and is badly organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.220.239 (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Edits reverted, IP warned. Thanks for the heads up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

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

The part "promoter" failed verification and unsourced text was restored to the lead. I don't think we should keep unsourced text or text that failed verification in the article. It is up to the editor who wants to include the text to find a source to verify the claim. The edit summary does not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Citations next to birth years: When there should and shouldn't be

The Wiki articles for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump do not have citations next to their years of birth. So why do the articles for Angelina Jolie and countless others? A citation implies the existence of ambiguity or contention. Jolie's year of birth has never been a matter of debate. Being the daughter of a celebrity, there were press announcements when she was born. There have never been any discrepancies about her age. Her age has never been lied about or misrepresented by the press.

A citation next to the subject's birthdate is necessary in articles for people who have lied about their age, e.g. Geena Davis, Rebecca De Mornay, Jessica Chastain, James Blunt, Timothy Dalton. All of them have had varying birth years published in magazines, almanacs and websites. For Wikipedia entries of people whose birthdates have never varied, such as Jolie, it's pointless and potentially confusing to include a citation. This should be a new guideline and changes should be implemented to all applicable articles, in my opinion.

It seems that an editor or group of editors are playing God on this site. For comparison, Kate Winslet and Julia Roberts' articles have a pointless citation next to their birthdates (pointless because their cited birthdates have never varied) while the article for Madonna, who has, in fact, lied about her age (it is well-documented [1][2]) has no citation next to her birthdate. I suppose that because Madonna's true date of birth has been on record for so long, the editors on her page find it unnecessary to include a citation or to even acknowledge past lies and discrepancies regarding the date.

There is yet another aspect of this issue at hand. When one tried to remove a useless citation next to a non-contentious birth year, an administrative editor will usually revert quickly with an edit summary such as "birth dates need citations." Often, the re-inserted citation will be to a notoriously unreliable source such as FilmReference.com which is one of the most laughably inaccurate websites out there. It seems that some editors just want a quick fix and don't care enough to investigate the matter unless someone creates a discussion over it. There is a careless double standard on WP that needs to be addressed and dealt with. I am not interested in editing such pages, and at the moment I can't, actually, because I'm on a temporary ban from BLP's due to months-ago edit wars, but hopefully someone will take notice and make the appropriate changes. Iistal (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The rule on birthdates is not only that they need to be cited, but should be widely reported in such a way that it is clearly not a privacy issue. Lacking that, we should assume that privacy of the date is an issue for the subject and leave it out. This rule is applied on a case-by-case basis. For presidential candidates, privacy is clearly not an issue. For actors and singers, it may very well be. If someone chooses to lie about their private information, that is completely understandable. If you see any uncited birthdates feel free to challenge them or simply remove them per BLP. In most cases they are completely unnecessary for understanding the subject. Zaereth (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Frank Melloul

Notice on repeated vandalism of Wikipedia pages of Mr. Frank Melloul, CEO of i24News

On behalf of our client, Mr. Frank Melloul, CEO of i24News, I address you as follows:

1. Mr. Melloul has had two Wikipedia pages, one in English and the other in French, since 2009.

2. In the past year the pages have been repeatedly and consistently vandalized by anonymous persons apparently wishing harm upon our client’s reputation and personally vested in doing so.

3. One major example involves the insertion of text that cites two articles, one of a weekly newspaper and the other in a broadcast via video tape recorder on French television, which bear connection and were used as a source of libel against my client. The inserted text, which is false and hints at personal enmity, reads: “Not only have i24 News channels failed to take off, but the work atmosphere is also harmful; several employees complain of having suffered humiliations, brutally handled layoffs or threats to undergo lie detector tests.” http://teleobs.nouvelobs.com/actualites/20150128.OBS1018/i24news-une-chaine-sous-haute-tension.html, Published February 4, 2015 at 1:00pm and http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/l-obs-du-soir/20150128.OBS1095/i24-news-la-petite-chaine-israelienne-qui-ne-monte-pas.html, Published January 28, 2015 at 6:46pm)

4. In addition, from mid-2015 until May 2016 many attempts to add new information to Frank Melloul’s page were made unsuccessfully, with the added text being consistently removed immediately after, including: • an attempt to change the “Controversies” (“polémiques” in French) section; • an attempt to add links to articles supporting information on Frank Melloul’s role on the television channel’s expansion and development; although our client added all the links to the more reputable articles supporting this information, these were removed the day after. • an attempt to outline the fact that Frank Melloul named Paul Amar as the television content director; an attempt to give a better description of Patrick Drahi’s role in the channel; A situation such as this one – where our client’s attempts to add content to his page fail as a result of someone removing new and positive information from the page, – is unbearable.

5. We therefore request that one of the following two courses of action, which Wikipedia offers, be taken without delay:

(a) Render the pages found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Melloul and https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Melloul as protected pages that only system operators can edit. (b) Locate and block the vandalizing user.

6. To avoid any doubt, the foregoing does not constitute a waiver of any claim of our client.

Respectfully, Rakefet Peled, Adv Gilat, Bareket & Co. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.77.210 (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI. If the COE of a company makes edits on a topic he has a close relationship with, they will be reverted on principle, and eventually, if the behaviour continues, the editor will likely be bocked from editing. I note he has been warned about this already. As for the edits you concern yourself with, although the wording could probably be phrased more neutrally, it appears to be referenced to a reliable source. Encoule any legal claims on Wikipedia: please read WP:NLT immediately. I also note that your request to have the page protected was declined. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Its not a threat to take legal action, its a standard disclaimer generally required when any legal person acts/makes a request on behalf of a client. "If you fulfil this request, this does not mean we wont take legal action in the future on behalf of them" is what it actually means. Although you could argue 'chilling' its not very, since regardless of if action is taken or not, they still might at a later point take action ;) To Rakefet Peled:

1. The essence of the NLT policy is that any threats of legal actions against wikipedia editors will result in your account being blocked until the threat is retracted. This does not mean you cannot take legal action should you choose to, but it means you will not be able to participate here.

2. Articles are generally protected against overt vandalism which respectfully what you have posted is not. The sources used for the material are reliable as wikipedia defines it in WP:RS. Wikipedia reflects what is in the sources. If you have successfully sued the original posters of the material for libel, that would be a different matter, as we are not generally in the business of publishing material that has been found by a court to be false.

3. Absent any evidence that the sources used are unreliable, your request is unlikely to be fulfilled as you have phrased it.

4. We have zero control over what happens at the French version of wikipedia. Each language version of wikipedia is a stand-alone project which is run by its own editors.

5. WP:RSN may be a place to get further information on if the sources used in the article are reliable for the material being discussed.

6. Wikipedia generally frowns upon editors with a conflict of interest (either directly as the subject, or indirectly when acting for a subject) editing the article directly. The approach used is to make requests on the talk page of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Death, for clarity, I did not say it was a legal threat (a claim, only): I was merely making someone whose role is often that of having to make 'legal threats' aware of the policy we have, thus (hopefully) avoiding their doing so, and, as you said, their inevitable blocking  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. As it stands though while the source appears reliable. I cant find much else who has covered it. An argument could be made to revert the material as UNDUE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems to be that searching for anything related to i24 immediately brings up mostly news reports by i24... I've re-worded it, so hopefully it at least doesn't sound like quite so much of a hatchet-job. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Trevor Rees-Jones

Good day,

I am concerned that you state in his Bio page that he served as a bodyguard with the Royal Military Police. I was serving with the Royal Military Police during the time Mr R-J served in HM Forces and can categorically state he never served with the Royal Military Police. Furthermore the attendance on the Royal Military Close Protection course was limited to serving Military Police (Army, RN, RM or RAF) or overseas soldiers whose Governments paid for their attendance (rare). Nor did the RMP allow attachments to RMP units for the purpose of Close Protection. I wish to highlight this to correct the inaccuracy and to alert readers of the prolific claims by former soldiers to have attended the RMP CP course and served tours of duty in that capacity. It certainly never happened up to 2012.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)