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.

Jazz Jennings

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

Should the "real"/legal surname of Jazz Jennings be included in her article? It appears that Jennings is a pseudonym and a few sources have mentioned her legal surname. It should be noted that Jazz is (1) a minor and (2) a trans girl. I, personally, am against its inclusion due to privacy concerns. This information is not widely reported and it seems the family has made an effort to keep it hidden. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The information is widely available on the internet, providing one knows where to look. Plus, I know of at least one other Minor celebrity, whose full legal name is used on their Wikipedia article. May I propose a compromise?: My proposal is this...... Return the legal surname of Jazz Jennings to the article, as it is true, verifiable, and, arguably relevant, as it is a fact concerning the subject of the article; but continue to omit the family's location from all subsequent edits of the article?JessicaFaith84 (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What we need to remember here is (IMO at least) the subject appears to fall under our definition as a "little known person", so if they choose to go under a pseudonym, then we should respect that wish, especially if they have tried to keep it out of the public domain. I mean, this is a practice which I'm aware is used fairly regularly on other articles (eg. adult film stars), so why should we not use it here? While it may be true, I'm not particularly convinced by the source, nor the encyclopaedic relevance of this. Mdann52 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree; I see little encyclopaedic value in including Jennings' legal surname. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 11:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you, Zumoarirodoka. It has inherent encyclopaedic value because it is a fact concerning the subject of the article.JessicaFaith84 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@JessicaFaith84: Going with that statement, if let's say Jimbo Wales liked sprouts age 3, that should be included in his article - that's a fact concerning the subject of the article, so must be inherently encyclopaedic. Mdann52 (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: That's convoluted logic. Not revealing in one's article that they liked sprouts when they were 3, is not hiding anything from anyone. Neglecting to mention that someone's real last name is (Redacted), on the other hand, is hiding an awful lot about that person and their true character. JessicaFaith84 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@JessicaFaith84: While I agree with your vote on this matter, I find this argument extremely unconvincing, for three reasons.

1. A person's last name does not reveal anything about their "true character".
2. Whether or not a person chooses to hide some fact about themselves says absolutely nothing about the notability of that fact.
3. Jazz is obviously not attempting to hide her identity. She's attempting to be a spokesperson for trans people, putting herself in a public light in order to do so.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A person's surname is not a stand-in, or even really a guide to, their character or personality. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to vote no. The idea of spreading personally identifiable information of a trans person in today's climate strikes me as wrong and potentially harmful, in addition to making me feel all-around uncomfortable with it. That being said, I can't think of a policy or good-practices reason why not to. It wouldn't be 'outing' her, as her real name is available elsewhere. It absolutely has encyclopedic value because it is personally identifiable information. It's the sort of thing that would be expected to appear in a student's research assignment, or which would be of interest to a reporter looking to do a story on her. I vote we keep it in, but I remain extremely wary of the practice and I believe it represents a standard that bears great scrutiny. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: It's not widely avalible - when someone wants to keep their true identity hidden if possible, and it is not widely reported (as in this case), I can see no reason why we should include it. Our latest policy is to not include identifiable information where the subject wants it out (for example, in my OTRS role, I regually remove full dates of birth if they are not widely reported, truncating to just the year. Additionally, what additional value does leaving one name out really lose out on? Mdann52 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The real name of a person who's publicly known by something different than the name they were born with is a situation where we have to evaluate each case on its own merits — it's neither a situation where we always include the birth name nor one where we never do, but one where we have to treat different cases differently based on their own unique circumstances. It's a key principle of Wikipedia that our articles about living people, who can be actively harmed by what's present in the article if we're not careful to assess what's important information and what isn't, have to be written conservatively and with an eye to respecting the subject's privacy rights.

Not every person in the world uses a stage name or pseudonym for the same reasons, so we can't evaluate this just by comparing her to some child star whose reasons for using a different surname in her public career than she does in her personal life are completely different from Jazz Jennings' reasons. If in Jennings' case the family was trying to actively defend and protect their privacy rights by not making it easy for crazies to track them down and harass them, then Wikipedia policy requires us to take that into account — it's not at all the same thing as an actor who has made no effort to hide their real surname, but uses a stage name solely because their real surname is kind of awkward and unmarketable, or because another actor is already using it.

And the mere fact that a source can be found which revealed their real surname does not, in and of itself, mean that we should repeat it here — "has been published in one source" is not the same thing as "has been widely published in a lot of sources". I get that it's information people might want to know about her, but it's not information that people need to know about her. So at least to me, there's no compelling reason why the information needs to be in the article, and a very compelling reason why it shouldn't. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52:Our latest policy is to not include identifiable information where the subject wants it out (for example, in my OTRS role, I regually remove full dates of birth if they are not widely reported, truncating to just the year. Has she indicated a protectiveness of her real name anywhere? I'm only passingly familiar with her, mostly because we live in the same region (same county, AFAIK) and I have a passing interest in LGBTQ issues.

Additionally, what additional value does leaving one name out really lose out on?being able to do further research on a person, using public records or publicly available private records under their name. Before you respond, understand that I freely admit this can be used for nefarious purposes, hence my professed discomfort with voting to include the information. However, it can also be used for very legitimate purposes. Investigative reporters, background checkers and law enforcement all have good reasons to want to be able to look up her real name, and I know for a fact that all three of those groups use WP when they can (mostly for the citations, but still).

@Bearcat:It's a key principle of Wikipedia that our articles about living people, who can be actively harmed by what's present in the article if we're not careful, have to be written conservatively and with an eye to respecting the subject's privacy rights. Okay, I hadn't been that familiar with the policies you linked to. Consider my mind changed as of this point. If indeed it is WP policy (as is explicitly stated on that policy page) that care for the safety and privacy of the individual needs to be factored in, then I'm of the opinion that the potential costs of including her real name outweigh the benefits. I've left the previous parts of my response to Mdann52 intact here, but as of right now I vote not to include the information. Honestly, I was hoping someone could provide a link like that. My earlier vote was made dispassionately, but it made me more than a little uncomfortable to do so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: 1) I'm presuming this is the case, by the fact she deliberately goes by a pseudonym and has not revealed her real name. While not stated outright, I get the feeling this is the intention. 2) Trust me, law enforcement have their own means of finding out RL identities (especially with the ability of people to insert false information, I doubt this is really going to be used)... The private reasearch point is an interesting one, but if the information has not been released here, it's unlikely to be much use elsewhere for legitimate uses if you like. Mdann52 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52:Trust me, law enforcement have their own means of finding out RL identities (especially with the ability of people to insert false information, I doubt this is really going to be used)... I think you might be surprised by how mundane a lot of investigative data is gathered (I once played a drinking game where you took a shot every time google appeared on a computer monitor during a marathon of The First 48, and we all got pretty hammered, for instance), but that's beside the point. If there aren't any situations in which she gave interviews or made media appearances under her real name, then I agree that it's a safe bet she's trying to maintain some anonymity. Even if there are a few, if they all happened early in her time in the public light, then she's clearly trying to maintain the pseudonym. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

I suggest that the title of the bio be changed form Rick Ross (consultant) to Rick Alan Ross (consultant) to avoid confusion with the rapper Rick Ross. Also there is no need to mention fees of $5,000, let alone twice repeatedly, under the section titled "Consultant, lecturer, and deprogrammer" in the second paragraph. Moreover the number of about 350 interventions in the bio is out of date and more than a decade old. A more recent article published puts the actual number of interventions at about 500. See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-brf-church-0715-20150720-story.html#page=1 These issues are being ignored at the Talk page. Please make these edits.96.235.133.43 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Moved the page Rick Alan Ross (consultant) and tried to address the issues. now at Rick Alan Ross Govindaharihari (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Chris Koch (disambiguation required)

There is another person by the same name (Chris Koch) who may be worthy of being included in Wikipedia. (My first inclination after I viewed the short video below was to check Wikipedia for an article with more information about Chris.)

The information I have is as follows: CHRIS KOCH IS FROM NANTON, ALBERTA. HE SPENDS SPRING, SUMMER, AND FALL WORKING ON A FARM NEAR TORQUAY, SASKATCHEWAN.

The YouTube video below is an interview with Chris and others produced by John Chester and presented on 'OWN' (the Oprah Winfrey Network).

https://www.youtube.com/embed/H9S3n_tILKo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.93.222 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

We will need more than that to justify an article about the other Chris Koch.--ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Rodolfo irias navas

The biography of this person was edited by someone who clearly dislikes him to make him apear as a dubious individual without any evidence to back it up. Nicknames, false accusations and insults where added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.181.227.104 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza

The biographical article Dinesh D'Souza identifies him in the opening sentence as "political commentator, convicted felon, and author". There is an inquiry about including "convicted felon" in the sentence on the article's talk page here. Editors familiar with BLPs are invited to comment. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Maulana Karenga

Maulana Karenga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)'s lede begins, "Maulana Ndabezitha Karenga (born Ronald McKinley Everett;[2][3][4] July 14, 1941) is an African-American professor of Africana Studies, activist and author, and convicted felon" and yet does not even say in the article what his crime was. Ogress _smash! 17:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

According to biography.com he was "arrested and convicted of assaulting a female US member and was sent to prison" in the early 1970's. [1] ('US' refers here to the US Organization - a 1970s Black Power group). Whether this merits inclusion in his biography is open to question - but if it does, it needs to be properly sourced, and I can't see any reason to include it in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the biography further, the conviction is sourced - though I'm not altogether sure that the sources all meet RS. There has been considerable discussion of the issue on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am just raising the issue that Dinesh D'Souza's article above also has: the lede just says "convicted felon". At least D'Souza's article says what he did. Ogress _smash! 18:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Georgie Aldous

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

Added needed/additional Citations, page should be Verifiable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.65.102 (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Megyn Kelly

Megyn Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page about a Fox News anchor, which has been protected from Aug. 11-18 because of inappropriate, politicized edits, has a discussion going on in the talk page regarding the inclusion of what may or may not be a WP:SYNTH vio. I'd like to ask members of WikiProject Biography to weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan aldridge

• Jonathan aldridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Promotional article, tended by COI accounts. Has already been deleted several times in the last few months, once after an AFD discussion. Now re-created, with speedy and other templates repeatedly removed. Could probably use some more eyes here--if it's worth rescuing, great. Otherwise it may be time to delete and salt. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted, one account blocked for spamming and the one other account advised as to how to move forward. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Having glanced at the several newspaper and magazine articles written about him, there may be enough in the way of WP:RELIABLE to justify a neutral article. But this was a textbook case for driving it into the ground. WP:TNT is apt. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty of salting the page as well - it was recreated under this title because the proper name already was salted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Erdal Can Alkoçlar

On August 8 I placed a blp-prod template on this new article, due to the absence of any reputable published sources. The template was removed today by Ad Orientem (talk · contribs), with edit summary stating, "Removing improperly applied BLP PROD. This only applies if there are no sources and there were. At least two were from a government website and likely pass WP:RS". The sources in question appear to be patent applications, and to my understanding these do not meet WP:RS. I rarely work on BLP articles and don't know the rules well enough to know what the next step is, so I am bringing the issue here. Looie496 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Looie496 and thanks for the ping. This is the operative quote from WP:BLPROD under which I removed the tag...

A common source of confusion in application is the different treatment of presence of sources for placement of the tag, versus removal of the tag. The requirements can be summed up as: Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added. This compromise avoids the need for judgement calls about reliability of sources for placement, and limits that issue to the far fewer instances, at the other end, where a source is actually added during the seven-day period.

As there were sources, the PROD should not have been attached. The issue of RS is one that I concede could be debatable, your points above being fair. But ultimately the presence of ANY source that references the subject precludes BLPPROD. All of which said, my removal of the PROD is in no way an endorsement of the article which I tagged for a variety of issues. If you want to send it to AfD, in its present form I think there is a good chance it would get the axe. If it were a little older I would probably send it there myself, but I prefer where possible to give the authors of brand new articles a little time to fix problems before going there. As is usually the case when I put notability tags on an article I have added it to my watch list and if no improvements are made in a reasonable period of time, presuming you don't do so first, I will likely send it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I have already wasted enough time on this; somebody else can take it from here. Looie496 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Courtney Stadd

I just did a very quick cleanup of this article, but it needs more work on eyes on it. Helped run NASA for a couple of years and was convicted of abusing that job in a couple of ways. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There's waaaay too much editorializing in that article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I went through and cleaned up the page a bit but it still needs a lot of work. Meatsgains (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Marathon course-cutting

This is a bit of a spilloff of an article that came up for AfD. Basically there are people trying to add someone to the list. However my argument is that the guy wasn't notable enough for an article and as such, shouldn't be added there. There's also the issue that people seem to be arguing for his inclusion in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This made me look at some of the names at Marathon_course-cutting#Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results. Many of them do not have articles and that makes me wonder: should they really be on the list at all? I'd much rather that we only include people who are notable enough for their own articles or at the very least, have been proven to have cheated (or admitted cheating). This would likely leave only Rosie Ruiz, Roberto Madrazo, and perhaps the Xiamen International Marathon (since that was a widespread thing and is enough to mention in the race's article), but I have to say... I don't think that this is a bad thing. There's a really, really bad habit of adding people/events because they're recent, without really thinking if there would be any long term notability. And not to mention, the idea of posting about something that allegedly happened (in the cases where someone was accused but it was never proven or pursued) is sort of a BLP nightmare since it's alleged but not proven. For the people who were proven or admitted it, that sort of brings up an issue: is it really a good thing to list them if this is a minor crime/event? I think that we need to think about it in these terms: would these warrant a mention in the article's page? If not, then why should they be listed here?

Here's a rundown of the names in the list currently:

1. Jean's Marines: This happened in 2006. There really isn't much coverage that didn't happen around that time and by large this coverage is insanely light. There was a mention in Running Times and this Washington Post article from 2010, but I don't see where they've been covered in books or anything else to warrant inclusion.
2. Kip Litton: The New Yorker did a piece on him in 2012, but a search brings up fairly little as a whole. There's a mention in this Random House book, but my argument is that basically he's received very little notice. He's been disqualified for a number of races, but that's about it. Considering that the New Yorker published their piece during a point in time when the Internet was in full swing, there's really no reason for there not to be a ton of coverage- which kind of hammers home that he's not really all that notable.
3. Rob Sloan: He admitted to the cheating, so there's that - however the coverage for him was pretty light. It looks like it was pretty much all confined to 2011 and didn't really get covered outside of the UK. The BBC covered him, but other than this Summersdale book mention there isn't really much. It also looks like it was taken pretty liberally from the Wikipedia article since the author lists other people/events mentioned in the article, so I'm not really inclined to see the Summersdale book as a sign of notability.
4. Kevin Goodman: He's received some local coverage because of his claims, but by large this event seems to have been ignored by everyone else.
5. Jason Scotland-Williams: This is another person who only received a limited amount of coverage. Most of it seems to have been located within the UK, but this didn't really gain any coverage outside of that area. I also need to note that Scotland-Williams has claimed innocence.
6. Tabatha Hamilton: Another issue where the coverage is predominantly local and relatively light. I also need to note that the marathon itself doesn't seem to have a page, so there's the whole consideration of whether or not the marathon is really all that notable. She claims innocence but the marathon disqualified her, so there's a bit of a toss up with all of that.
7. Kendall Schler: This one is relatively recent, but the coverage is still insanely light. Other than this article from Runner's World, there really isn't much that isn't local.

Basically what I think is happening on the page is that whenever a new scandal or accusation comes about, people are adding to the page. Very few of these cases have ever really made any lasting impression to where I honestly think that they warrant inclusion. Like I said above, this runs the risk of being a potential BLP issue since some of these people are claiming that they didn't cheat, yet they're listed at this page. There is a mention of accusations, but this still brings up concerns that people are listing them here because of recentism and in an attempt to get a personal opinion across (ie, right great wrongs by highlighting the cheaters). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to tag NeilN in this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Jean-François Plante

Jean-François Plante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While reading the article, it took me little time to realize the tone was off. The statement made by the author are extremely partisan and make multiple statement that are still up for debate in quebec. Most of the content regarding his life story are accurate, but the way they are narrated have no place in a wikipedia article.

Thanks a lot for reading, hopefully, this will be reviewed.(unsigned)

Poor excuse for a BLP - citing opinion pieces as fact, and including a "guilt by association" bit to boot. Collect (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

The media widely reported that Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney. This is a very significant and pertinent fact and is prominently included in the Wikipedia entry about the Jason Scott case. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott_case Jason Scott also made statements to the media regarding Scientology after the settlement. This included Scott's interviews with "60 Minutes," The Washington Post and St. Petersburg Times.

I suggest that this fact also be included in the bio both in the account of the Jason Scott case and the lead. I suggest that the third paragraph of the lead be revised to read as follows:

Ross faced criminal charges over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty." Subsequently Scott, represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon, filed a lawsuit that resulted in a judgement against both Ross and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) for violating his civil rights. Scott was awarded $5 million in damages, which led to CAN and Ross declaring bankruptcy.[1][5] As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary interventions without the use of force or restraint.

"Kendrick Moxon" should be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon

I suggest that the section "Jason Scott Deprogramming" be edited to include the following:

Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott, whose mother was referred to Ross by the Cult Awareness Network.[35] Ross was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[5] Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court and was represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights and awarded Scott $5 million in punitive damages .[23] Ross' share of the damages was $3.1 million, which led to him declaring personal bankruptcy.[23] Scott later reconciled with his mother and was persuaded by her to fire Moxon and settle with Ross; under the terms of the settlement, the two agreed that Ross would pay Scott $5000 and provide 200 hours of his professional services.[36] Scott later stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon#cite_note-scientologysponsored-23

As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary exit counseling without the use of force or restraint.[6] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, cult intervention work continues to depend on the same basic principles originated through deprogramming.[6]

Excluding the Scientology connection in the Jason Scott leaves out important historical facts and is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia entries.96.235.133.43 (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Steve Altes

• Steve Altes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This appears to have begun as an autobiography nine years ago, and has taken on an admirably promotional and puffy format in the time since. The intro alone is a thing to behold. I don't know where to start--any assistance will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also see Geeks & Greeks, a forthcoming book by Altes that has a full article with some pretty suspect sources. I think there's some COI issues here as well. If the main editor, John turner 1962 (talk · contribs) isn't Altes, they are editing for them. Ravensfire (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged the book for notability and reliable sources. Update: I've cut a lot from the spamicle on the book, and think it wouldn't pass an AfD process. Mr. Altes' bio will need similar attention, though I think it passes the notability test. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also see Andy Fish, which has received a similar makeover, especially with respect to his involvement with Geeks & Greeks. Perhaps this needs to go to the admins' noticeboard.... 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

John Sarbanes

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

I noticed a couple out of date pieces on US Rep. John Sarbanes' page including committee assignments, caucus memberships etc.:

Headshot is out of date and can be updated to the most current headshot: https://sarbanes.house.gov/sites/sarbanes.house.gov/files/images/2013-high-res.jpg. Here's a link to verify that is the most current headshot: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S001168

Committee assignments need to be updated: https://sarbanes.house.gov/about/committee-assignments. No longer a member of the National Resources Committee and is on the Energy and Power Subcommittee. Link to Energy & Commerce Committee site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/about/membership. Link to Subcommittee on Energy & Power site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/energy-and-power. Link to Subcommittee on Health site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/health

Caucus membership needs to be updated. No longer the co-chair of the Public Service Caucus (https://sarbanes.house.gov/issues/good-government) and he is a member of the Congressional Hellenic Israel Alliance (http://www.greeknewsonline.com/congressional-hellenic-and-israeli-alliance-marks-second-anniversary/)

The congressman’s signature piece of legislation (the Government by the People Act) is currently not mentioned. Could devote a new section to the bill which is co-sponsored by 150 members of Congress and over 40 organizations. More info: http://ofby.us/about-the-bill/ and https://sarbanes.house.gov/bythepeople

Lastly, The “Campaign Finance” section needs updates with recent information. I would acknowledging that the congressman no longer takes PAC money. Also, since the Congressman’s signature piece of legislation is aimed at reforming the way campaigns are funded, the title “campaign finance” might lead some readers into thinking it is a section about his work on campaign finance issues. I recommend calling it “Political Fundraising”. LauraFriedy (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you unable to be bold and make the changes yourself because of a conflict of interest?--ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Josh Pais

Wiki lists date of birth for actor Josh Pais (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Pais) as June 21, 1958. His IMDB page (to which there is a link on the Wiki page) lists it as June 21, 1964. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0656929/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.232.161 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see. The New York Times in an article from January 2003 describes him as "a 38-year-old actor" and says that ""When Mr. Pais and his mother moved to Seventh Street in 1967, Josh was 3..." [2] By my reckoning that makes his date of birth 1964. On the other hand, our article cites filmreference.com, which gives a DoB of June 21, 1958. I'd definitely rate the NYT a better source than filmreference.com (in fact we recommend not citing the latter at all, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources - we don't normally cite IMDB either), so we should probably go with that. Of course it is always possible that Pais has been a little economical with his birthdays - a fairly common habit in the acting profession - but we have to work with what we've got. I'll update the article, and add a note on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I can't cite the NYT for June 21, 1964 - it doesn't give the exact date. I think that I'd better just leave a note on the article talk page, and look into this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The WSJ [[3]] has Josh at age 55 on August 2013, suggesting that he was born in '57 or '58. So another vote for the June 21, 1958 date. I'm also having a date problem on the Dan Price article. Can't find any birth day and month, but People dated May 11 2015 says he was 30, and truthdig dated April 25, 2015 says he was 29, suggesting he was born in that April-May window in 1985.TechnoTalk (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Jho Low

Cleanup needed on aisle 9! Unless you think that wealthy Asians should be trashed on Wikipedia. This just came to my attention, but I must go to sleep now. Maybe an excellent editor or two can evaluate and trim this hit job. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like common or garden vandalism that has now been reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Here I am being told that referring to Camille Paglia as a "feminist" is a WP:BLP violation. She refers to herself countless times as a feminist and sources refer to her countless times as a feminist. The article in which the disputed wording is occurring is not about Paglia. For the purposes of this article, Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), it is sufficient to identify Paglia as a feminist. In truth, even that could be omitted. The reader need not even know that she is a feminist. It would be sufficient to refer to her as an author and a professor at University of the Arts (Philadelphia). Her critique of the work of art is negative. But we don't have to characterize her as a "dissident" feminist even if there is ample support in sources for that. Even the Camille Paglia article fails to use that terminology. She has clashed with mainstream feminists on occasion over specific points. No source supports as "dissident" her position on Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Therefore I find the characterization particularly gratuitous. In my opinion the insistence on calling her a "dissident feminist", even claiming a WP:BLP violation if we do not characterize her that way, merely blunts the criticism that this commentator has about the work of art. Ample praise of the work of art is included in the article but of course it comes in for criticism too from some prominent commentators. Is there agreement here that there cannot possibly be any shade of WP:BLP violation in just referring to Paglia as a "feminist"? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is or was a BLP violation to call her a feminist. Just inaccurate without qualification given how sources refer to her as anti-feminist as well. Personally I think it would be best to remove all descriptors related to feminism when referring to her on the article. Just "critic" or "social critic" would suffice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This WSJ article describes her as "a feminist who was the scourge of the movement's establishment, a heretic to its orthodoxy." In this opinion piece, she rejects the idea that gender is performative, and says that men are naturally better suited to manly work like construction and are the "author" of the modern economy. I don't think it would be accurate to describe her as a feminist without qualification, just as I don't think it would be accurate to call the KKK "not racist" just because the imperial wizard said so. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

She is a feminist. Her commentary addresses the historical condition of women. It advocates for the removal of the oppression of women by a male-favoring society as concerns certain privileges, such as in the workplace. The only disagreement between Paglia and some of her feminist opponents are of relatively minor points. As an editorial compromise we can leave out both the terms "feminist" and "dissident feminist". You cannot call her an "anti-feminist" except figuratively or as hyperbole because nowhere does she advocate for instance for a status of women as inferior to men. Does she argue that women should be disadvantaged in relation to men? Of course not. So, what does she say? "I remain an equal opportunity feminist. That is, I call for the removal of all barriers to women’s advance in the professional and political realms. However, I oppose special protections for women (such as differential treatment of the names of accuser and accused in rape cases), and I condemn speech codes of any kind, above all on university campuses. Furthermore, as a libertarian, I maintain that our private sexual and emotional worlds are too mercurial and ambiguous to obey the codes that properly govern the workplace. As I recently told the Village Voice, I maintain that everyone has a bisexual potential and that no one is born gay. We need a more flexible psychology, as well as an end to the bitter feminist war on men. My feminist doctrine is completely on the record in four of my six books."[4] Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. ... In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women seem to have found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamour. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences. ... The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!

I think this is the opposite of what a feminist is. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't base article content on the personal opinions of contributors concerning who is or isn't a feminist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Saying that someone who describes herself as a "dissident feminist" does not self-identify as a feminist is the kind of silliness that makes one yearn for straightforward sophistry. It takes no more than moments to find reliable sources like these [5][6] which not only characterize her as a feminist but also quote her self-descriptions as an "Amazon feminist" and an "ardent feminist". This kind of characterization isn't really different than insisting that, say, John McCain be described as a RINO rather than a Republican because he departs from ultraconservative orthodoxy. It's much more of a BLP violation to deny a subject's self-identification, supported by reliable sources, because it doesn't comport with editors' more confining definitions. That said, unless other figures quoted in the article are characterized in terms of ideology, there's no reason to include either option; but the "dissident" language appears wholly inappropriate here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Self-identified perhaps, but RS don't treat her as one. Just glance over Camille_Paglia#Feminism. We have a conflict between what secondary sources call an individual and what the individual calls themselves. Mind you, this is a political and epistemological label and not part of WP:IDENTITY. In such a case, I'd say omit the label entirely. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Context of dispute: full context can be found on talk page, but to summarize, strong criticism of Mattress Performance from Camile Paglia was added to the article, but then reverted on the grounds that Paglia is known to be biased. Hoping to preserve commentary from Paglia, I added in-text attribution that Paglia is a "self-described dissident feminist" per WP:BIASED. "Self-described dissident feminist" is supported by source cited in the article and the first line of Paglia's BLP. This seemed to resolve the dispute for awhile, but later this was objected to on the grounds that "self-described" could be interpreted as calling in to question Paglia's validity as a "dissident feminist", saying this would be the connotation if we wrote "self-described professor". I've tweaked it to: "social critic Camille Paglia, who refers to herself as a "dissident feminist" ". Another suggestion on talk page is "an academic who has been critical of mainstream feminism", which seems reasonable to me. There have been attempts to describe Paglia as simply a feminist and social critic, but this seems problematic, one because Paglia clearly does not identify as a mainstream feminist and has voiced strong distaste for the modern feminist movement, and two, because the quotes added from Paglia seem extreme enough to warrant in-text attribution per WP:BIASED. For context the quotes currently in article are "a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," "lugging around your bad memories" and "feminism should empower women, not cripple them." It would seem a violation of wp:biased to present these quotes as the opinions of a neutral third party observer, but they seem like interesting commentary, so seems appropriate if attributed to a source opposed to modern feminist movement --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—why don't we have characterizations of other commentators on the work of art? We read in the article that "Artnet cited it as "almost certainly ... one of the most important artworks of the year". Why doesn't artnet need to be characterized in some way? We read in the article that "Performance artist Marina Abramović praised it." We are not given much additional information about Marina Abramović aside from the fact that she is a performance artist. We read in the article that "New York Times art critic Roberta Smith described it as 'strict and lean, yet inclusive and open ended, symbolically laden yet drastically physical' and that "comparisons to the Stations of the Cross and Hester Prynne's scarlet letter were apparent." There is no background information on Roberta Smith aside from the fact that she is an art critic. We read in the article that "Jerry Saltz, art critic for New York magazine, included it in his list of the best 19 art shows of 2014, calling 'clear, to the point, insistent, adamant ... pure radical vulnerability.'" Are we told anything additional about Jerry Saltz? The same should apply to Camille Paglia. We can say "author and professor at University of the Arts (Philadelphia)" as introductory verbiage. The reader is not incapable of clicking on a link to our article on Camille Paglia or Googling the name Camille Paglia. Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'm not aware of other commentators quoted in the article who warrant in-text attribution per WP:BIASED which states: Editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". "Author and professor" does not address the bias. Wording that expresses Paglia is a notable critic of mainstream feminism addresses the bias. If there are other commentators quoted in the article, who reliable sources describe as biased, who you believe warrant in text-attribution per wp:biased, please add such attribution to the article, or open talk page discussion regarding attribution.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—at WP:BIAS I find: "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." This is none of them. Judging by the title of the article, this is an article on an artwork. The context here is the critical reception of a work of art. You are contriving to find language that explains away the negative opinion expressed by a notable figure of a work of art. WP:BIAS is inapplicable here because this is an artwork. The article is not about something "political, financial, religious, philosophical or belief-oriented". Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Paglia quote was reverted by a single editor (who also complained that men!!!! were daring to edit the article), and then after it was restored another editor (you know who) trimmed it down so it didn't convey anything close to what it meant and started adding "dissident feminist", a qualifier that few sources use use. My take is it's designed to present her as somehow on the outside of the mainstream. And yet other positive reviewers receive no similar qualifiers.Mattnad (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Shaun King (activist)

I think the claim about King having "misled" about his race should be removed for the time being. King has stated on Twitter that "Out of LOVE for my family, I've never gone public with my racial story because it's hurtful, scandalous, and it's MY STORY" 1 and "No 2 siblings in my family have the same set of parents. We're all over the place. Some of us are not even blood relatives" 2. I think most of this will be made clear and verified by more reputable secondary sources within days. So there's no need to rush to such a claim now. "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." WP:LIVING -Reagle (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your argument against its inclusion is... The claim is already sourced to multiple reliable sources. How many more secondary sources were you looking for? Meatsgains (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Katie Walder

Someone please have a look at this one. There's all kinds of unexplained and unverified changes going on, it's hard to see at first glance what's vandalism and what's not (though I'm reverting one clear-cut case of not any good), and the article could do with major improvement on many fronts. This one's for the fans. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Josh Duggar

Gawker is not an acceptable source.