Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:45, 18 July 2014

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.

Investigative Project on Terrorism

Unresolved

A combination of WP:NOR, and WP:Defamation at the Investigative Project on Terrorism and Steven Emerson. I have repeatedly tried to delete the violating statement, but User:Serialjoepsycho keeps reverting it. See the following diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism&diff=614596007&oldid=614567674. Also, the article itself is inaccurate, and I have initiated a proposal to merge in an attempt to provide accurate information about the actual entity, The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, rather than perpetuating all the confusion involving Steven Emerson as an individual, and/or as an individual heading up a think-tank called The Investigative Project. Editors appear to be confused over the identity of the non-profit foundation which was formed in 2006, and Steven Emerson, and Steven Emerson's work under The Investigative Project think-tank. Since it is not an actual BLP, but still violates BLP policy, I thought it best to bring it here for potential action. You can see the OR here in the info box where the editor attempted to combine all three entities into one. [1] Perhaps some editors feel they have more freedom to violate BLP when the information is under an entity, and not an actual BLP. Finally, the statement misquotes, and/or misintreprets what the sources actually said, and what Steven Emerson actually said. Atsme☯^Consult 17:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I as well as Sepsis II have reverted it. We have both stated the position that we do not feel there is a BLP violation. I suggested multiple times that Atsme use some form of dispute resolution, including suggesting BLPN if they disagreed. This is on the IPT talk page. Any other charge above unrelated to BLP I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy states that in the event of a BLP violation, the offending statement should be deleted immediately, which I did only to have it reverted. As noted above by Serialjoepsycho, he and Sepsis don't consider it a BLP violation. Perhaps the reason they don't is because they don't understand the IPT article itself is ambiguous, misleading, and involves 3 separate entities as stated in the merge rationale. The diffs point to a blatant violation of BLP because the statement in the article includes the editor's own POV which differs from what the sources actually state. Serialjoepsycho's response; i.e., "no need to respond" - is the attitude that caused me to bring the offending diffs here. He refuses to acknowledge there is a BLP violation, much less the Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis_of_published_material violations that have been committed by the existence of the article itself which is nothing more than a combination of information from different sources conglomerated to create the IPT article which creates the WP:BLP violation. Atsme☯^Consult 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors have commented that this was not a BLP. Atsme the only other editor to comment has undertaken a pervasive effort to whitewash the page. Two editors disagreed with his claim. I recommended he come here if disagreed. Noting the response above I'll go ahead and comment what I've already commented in the merge discussion. There is no reason to merge. He uses Cherry picked sources to make a case for merger. His sources do not differentiate IPT pre-incorporation from IPT post-incorporation. IPT as well as a number of other sources make the claim that IPT was founded in 1995. His case is solely original research. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed diff[2] cites two sources. The first source[3] doesn't mention anything about the Oklahoma bombing and the second cited source[4] is a press release and therefore not a reliable source. Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be a pretty clear WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since neither cited source supported the content, I've (temporarily) removed it[5] until consensus can be established. A Quest For Knowledge from the article. (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)<br /[reply]

After spending a little more time reading the article, it doesn't appear to be particularly well-written or well-sourced[6] and may contain copyright violations.[7] This might be one of those articles that's easier to fix by rewriting from scratch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This actually does mention the Oklahoma City bombing. In about the middle of the page. "Emerson is unapologetic. But he has made mistakes in the past. In an interview after the Oklahoma City bombing, Steve Emerson confidently pointed his finger at the wrong culprits at Muslim terrorists. As everyone now knows the bombing was the work of an American Methodist, Tim McVeigh."Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the copyvio issue. I agree. I went to the youtube video in question no indication they had rights. I also note that the rights they released it under Standard YouTube License. I'm unsure of the specific copyright holder but even if it was released under some type of copyleft license it would be inappropriate for someone else to release it under the Standard Youtube license. I went ahead and removed it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~@A Quest For Knowledge:~~ as pointed out above does in fact mention the OKC bombing. Your argument above is based off it making no mention so I would have to ask for further response.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: Yes, you are correct. The CBS article does mention the Oklahoma City bombing. My bad. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~@A Quest For Knowledge:~~I don't wish to misinterpret you. Are you indicating that you have no BLP objection to the use of that source for the part of the statement that it validates?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: It's a partial withdrawal. I was clearly wrong when I stated that the CBS news article didn't mention the Oklahoma City bombing. But we shouldn't be using press releases as sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge: I concede to your point in this case on the use of a press release. However I disagree with your statement that press releases can't be used as a reliable source. Of note would be that public corporations may use press releases from groups like to PR Newswire to meet SEC Regulation Fair Disclosure requirements. Determination of wp:rs standards should probably made case by case.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a partial revert on the page based solely on the 48 hours source that includes only the information that source validated.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: Thanks for your partial revert. Just to clarify something, press releases undergo no editorial supervision and are treated as self-published sources. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

In this particular case, the press release is not being used in an article about the organization that made the press release (or its activities) and even if it was, it fails conditions 1 and especially 2. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is case by case that these rules should be applied and very likely in most BLP cases that these sources would be unreliable. In this case as I said above I completely agree.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources include, Cair, Nashville Scene, Media Matters, Media Monitor Neywork, FAIR, and the list can really just keep on going.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:POV. Emerson never "pointed his finger", and never said the words, "Muslim terrorists" as was incorrectly stated in the IPT article. WP:BLP specifically states: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV)
Verifiability (V)
No original research (NOR)

We must get the article right.

Scroll midway down the following archived article in American Journalism Review to the paragraph directly under the header, "CBS officials did not return calls".[8]. After reading that paragraph, please note that there was no actual "finger pointing" by Emerson, and no use of the word "Muslim". WP:BLP specifically states Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives;. And now Serialjoepyscho has again violated WP:BLP by adding the same contentious, sensationalized statement here. Emerson's actual statement as quoted by reliable sources was a likeness, or comparison using the following words, "Middle Eastern trait". If editors are following BLP policy, they are not supposed to use inaccurate information, and "must take particular care". Emerson never actually said what the referenced source claimed he said. Furthermore, Emerson was not associated with IPT(F) at the time because IPT did not exist which further adds WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources to the WP:BLP violation. Deleting the statement from the IPT article was the proper action, especially considering Emerson was a freelance writer and producer at that time, 11 years prior the organization of The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation in 2006. Atsme☯^Consult 14:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To put it simply, there is only one IPT. Your case for differentiation is original research. It doesn't matter where you post or how many times you post it because that does not change it from synthesis. Your position depends on your conjecture as much as if not more than the sources. If your comments were to be deleted your case would disappear. To put it in simpler terms, your argument can't stand on sources alone. Regarding my so called original research, I don't work for CBS nor have I been on 48 hours. The rules on original research don't apply to sources. They apply to editors. I'm unsure if members of CBS or 48 hours have edited wikipedia but there is no indication they have edited this source. 48 hours is not a primary source or a tabloid. Contenious statement? Which one? Are you saying that me quoting 48 hours, "Emerson is unapologetic. But he has made mistakes in the past. In an interview after the Oklahoma City bombing, Steve Emerson confidently pointed his finger at the wrong culprits at Muslim terrorists. As everyone now knows the bombing was the work of an American Methodist, Tim McVeigh." Is contentious and a violation of the BLP? I disagree. But I notice you are the only one who has suggested this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serialjoepsycho is simply trying to shift the focus away from his BLP violation onto me with his false allegations. His behavior is very disruptive. The IPT article has major issues, but the focus needs to stay on the issue that was initially presented here - a WP:BLP violation. As I stated above, I attempted to delete it, but was reverted by User:Serialjoepsycho, and User_talk:Sepsis_II, the latter of whom I thought was blocked from editing, so I don't understand how he was able to revert. See the diffs here: [9] [10] BLP violations do not require consensus. They require immediate removal. Serialjoepsycho refuses to acknowledge the violation, and has twice posted the same violating statement on this noticeboard. Atsme☯^Consult 07:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't blocked at the time and that is how he reverted. Why? I've had one user other than you to comment on it. They gave a different reason than you. As noted above one of the reasons they gave was incorrect. As noted above I did request that person comment further. I don't see that as a violating statement. No experienced editor has commented on it yet. But allow me to direct you to WP:BLPTALK Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. I question if this poorly sourced being from 48 hours. I also don't agree that is a BLP violation. Here's a good place to answer that question. You know they may have created BPLN just for that. The quote in question is about making a content choice. I'm sure @Sepsis II: might have a response when he gets back.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Serialjoepsycho's question, "Why?" - because he was involved in a dispute that resulted in his being blocked the day after he reverted the BLP violations at IPT. According to his Talk page, he has been blocked on more than one occasion, so I consider it rather odd that he would make yet another disruptive edit in light of it being a BLP violation. I don't consider his edits at IPT to have been made in good faith, and the fact that he supports Serialjoepsycho's position speaks volumes, not to mention their combined efforts in "taunting" me for proposing a merge as evidenced in the following diff: [11].

With all the taunting and bullying aside, my primary concern is maintaining accuracy, and respecting policies when editing Wikipedia articles. Verifiability, and exercising extra caution cannot be over-emphasized when writing about living persons, yet based on Serialjoepsycho's earlier comments wherein he stated, I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard, I am inclined to believe there is a serious lack of concern. Perhaps he believes that citing a single source without verifying accuracy is ok, which may explain why he and Sepsis II reverted my edits. Such disruptive behavior in light of the BLP violation I brought to their attention is why I believe this is a serious issue, and why I decided to bring it here for discussion. The information that was added about the Oklahoma City bombing is not relevant to the IPT article because it involved an interview with Steven Emerson as an independent reporter, long before the IPT Foundation was organized. If the statement does not violate WP:BLP, why wasn't it added to Steven Emerson where it belongs? It actually does violate WP:BLP which I've verified because of my concern over keeping Wiki articles accurate. The verifiability of the statement that was made according to the source that was cited has been challenged, and for good reason. Reliable sources verify that Emerson did not make the comment(s) as stated in the IPT article, with the exception of a few words he used during one interview with CBS. There is no validation for an editor to take an out of context statement even further out of context, and include it an article where it doesn't belong. The results are violations of the following policies - WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Instead of collaborating in an effort to fix the problem, Serialjoepsycho dug his heels in deeper, countered with false allegations against me, antagonized, bullied, baited, and dared me, and is still holding onto the belief that Emerson made the alleged statement, further refusing to accept the fact he violated WP:BLP policy. If that isn't bad enough, his only support in this debate has been from an editor who was blocked for disruptive editing on a different article the day after he reverted my edit. Atsme☯^Consult 21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sepsis II block was unrelated to this situation here. He was blocked for a 1RR violation under WP:ARBPIA He can comment further later. Your intention to diminish his standing over that is ridiculous. The comments that I felt no need to respond to were your entire case about Pre-incorporation and post-incorporation IPT being separate. You provide no reliable sources to show that they do and follow your conjecture would require ignoring reliable sources that suggest they are the same. Further you left an important part of that quote. Let's go with the full quote shall we? Any other charge above unrelated to BLP I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard. That confers different meaning than your POVpushing attempt at paraphrasing. Both I and Sepsis II agreed that it was relevant to the IPT article. At further complaint it was suggested that you take it here. The offending statement has been removed from the article pending further comment here. I'm waiting for further comment here from the one editor who has commented other than you. The alleged statement is commented that OKC bombing had a "middle eastern" trait. The meaning of that as interpreted by reliable secondary sources is that was commenting on Muslim Terrorists. It may not be his or your choice interpretation of Islamic Extremists but it's a fair interpretation. I'm not interested in collaborating with you to whitewash an article. I'm not interested in Collaborating with anyone to whitewash a page. Your previous effort to whitewash IPT is still documented on the IPT talk page. Your recent tenditious edit on the IPT article reinforces the thought that you are trying to whitewash the article. Removing the template that was discussed in depth against the consensus. You drop it on March and then comeback to it in June. Who are you trying to play here?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in collaborating with you to whitewash an article. I'm not interested in Collaborating with anyone to whitewash a page. Your previous effort to whitewash IPT is still documented on the IPT talk page. -- You are propagandizing this noticeboard with more of the same rhetoric, and it needs to stop. If you think it is appropriate to skirt BLP policy by using IPT to defame Emerson using "interpretations" from biased sources that point back to the CBS report, you might want to rethink your position. The statement you keep including is a BLP violation because it is an interpretation which you just admitted. It was not a statement made by Emerson. It is a BLP violation to include it because it is inaccurate, defames Emerson, and does not belong in the IPT article which is nothing more than a stub about a non-existent organization wherein you violated WP:NOR to make it appear as a non-profit organization that was founded in 1995. Worse yet, you opened an Rfc before this issue was resolved. Atsme☯^Consult 03:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not propaganda. I'm also curious to know how I'm trying to skirt by the BLP policy. I did after all send you to the BLP noticeboard. I find 48 hours to be a reliable source. And yes interpretation but sans the scare quote. This is a secondary source. I don't find the truth to be defamatory. And IPT was founded in 1995. IPT makes this claim. There is nothing controversial about this claim. The sources you provide do not disprove this claim. IPT has not been the only source to comment on their 1995 founding. Your case is nothing more than original research. It's completely subordinate to your commentary. I'm not going to whitewash the page on your commentary. You have already made your ulterior motives clear. This conversation between us is over. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP violation has not been properly addressed, and feedback from one editor does not constitute consensus, or validation for closure of this incident. There is a clear violation of WP:BLP, and blatant misuse of original and self-published sources including the CBS 48 Hours report in the IPT article. See the information under the heading "Unusual arrangement" at [12] wherein it states Emerson incorporated his for-profit company, SAE Productions, in Delaware in 1995. He launched the nonprofit Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation in Washington, D.C., in 2006. But he doesn't make that distinction on his website, [www.investigativeproject.org], which describes the Investigative Project on Terrorism as "a non-profit research group founded by Steven Emerson in 1995." And today, the two groups share the same Washington street address, which is published on Emerson's personal website. Other sources also validate the fact IPT was non-existent in 1995, and that the statement CBS took out of context was made by Steven Emerson as an individual terrorism expert/reporter, and not as a representative of IPTF. The following links validate IPT's non-existence in 1995: [13] [14]. It is also evident at the bottom of the following article at the self-published IPT.org website [15] with the following closing credit stating the name, "The Investigative Project, a think-tank, not a legally formed foundation as is the IPT Foundation that was formed in 2006: Matthew Epstein is an attorney and senior terrorism analyst at the Investigative Project, a Washington, D.C.-based counterterrorism think tank established in 1995. Ben Schmidt is a terrorism analyst for the Investigative Project. The aforementioned further substantiates WP:BLP and WP:NOR violations, and also WP:Undue against Emerson in the IPT article, not to mention the fact it was improperly quoted showing a clear bias. In closing, WP:SYNTH is also at work here with the attempt to include Emerson as an individual terrorism expert, The Investigative Project think-tank, and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation into one misaligned, inaccurate, improperly sourced, questionable stub which is what IPT represents. Atsme☯^Consult 16:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No you misunderstand. This case isn't closed. The conversation between me and you is over. I've already read your original research. I've already responded to it. You only have one actual claim here and I'm waiting for further response. CBS 48 Hours self published? This being just one of the reasons that the conversation is over between us.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable - now you are blaming me for misunderstanding what you misunderstood, which may explain some of your disruptive behavior. I had already resolved to the fact that you had no defense, therefore no reason to respond. The self-published source I was referring to is not CBS 48 Hours which is the "original source" you cited. Read my statement again - misuse of original AND self-published sources - plural. Surely you understand WP policy enough to know that CBS is considered the original source - they conducted the interview, and published the transcript from their POV, including taking things Emerson said out of context - and that IPT.org is the self-published source you cited for your inaccurate, unverifiable information regarding the founding of the Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION which ultimately created your WP:SYNTH violation on top of everything else. The WP:BLP violation still needs to be addressed, but considering your disruptive behavior, I was forced to take this incident to ANI. Hopefully it will be resolved at ANI once and for all considering only one other editor has responded here. Atsme☯^Consult 23:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have plenty to say but you have used many words to say nothing. There's no point in saying anything else. Your a POV pusher. The record shows this. You want to whitewash wikipedia of anything related to Islamophobia. The record shows this. What more do I actually need to say? Let's quit wasting peoples time bickering back and forth here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for close

Since this has been moved to ANI I do wonder if it should be closed?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Singer (businessman)

I am not here to report a BLP violation, but rather to raise for discussion material that is being improperly deleted from a BLP using an incorrect interpretation of the BLP policy. The article in question is Paul Singer (businessman). Mr. Singer is most notable for being the proprietor of a hedge fund called NML Capital, which is widely described in reliable sources as a Vulture fund, and is in the middle of the present controversy over vulture funds and Argentina (see Argentine debt restructuring#NML Capital.)

User:Meatsgains has repeatedly deleted references to NML Capital being described as a "vulture fund" from the article (diff,) arguing that any material that could put the subject in a negative light is a BLP violation. On the talk page, I called his attention to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which says that "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I also provided a partial list of reliable sources which apply the term "vulture fund" to NML Capital, and discuss Singer's involvement, including his dislike for the term:

I also rewrote the section with what I consider to be unchallengeable sourcing. Meatsgains reverted again today(diff), so I am bringing the matter to this board to solicit input from uninvolved editors. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed the content is because Singer's "hedge fund" is being mislabeled with the misleading term "vulture fund," which is a pejorative and is slang. Words or phrases such as these are in violation of WP:TONE. An article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon.

Not once did I argue, "any material that could put the subject in a negative light is a BLP violation," so I'm not sure where Joe Bodacious got that from...

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act isn't referred to as Obamacare throughout the article. Isn't this the the same situation? I'd like to hear what other editors have to say. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say "mislabeled" and "misleading" -- but those words seem to emerge from your own views on NML. What matters is that the term is used by numerous reliable sources. The fact that there's an entire article on Vulture funds also reinforces the case for using the term where sources describe a particular fund as such. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources describe the term "vulture fund" as "mislabeled" and "misleading," not me.

Financial Post and Huffington Post Although the creditors are often referred to as “vultures,” the pejorative is highly misleading.
Panam Post These creditors have been mislabeled “vulture funds,” a pejorative nickname that the defaulting debtor uses to qualify those who justly and legitimately demand what is rightfully theirs.

What is your response to the ACA vs. Obamacare example I posted above? I don't see how the pre-existing Vulture fund article reinforces the use of the term on Singer's personal page. Meatsgains (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources fail WP:NEWSORG for this purpose. I note that you are choosing to edit-war over this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also added to the article sourced material indicating that there are objections to the use of term, including from Singer himself. NPOV means that all notable viewpoints are included. Edit warring to remove any reference to vulture funds is a violation of NPOV. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity, you stated that because there's an entire article on Vulture funds, the case for using the term "vulture fund" is reinforced on Singer's page, yet in the article for vulture fund, the last sentence of the lead paragraph reads: "The term is used to criticize the fund for strategically profiting off of debtors that are in financial distress." It is not a descriptive term and does not improve the BLP. It's a derogatory term.

WP:BRD states that to break deadlocks, editors must "discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit" (which we are currently doing). "Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made." Joe Bodacious was the first to make the bold edit by adding questionable material to Singer's BLP. The content should be removed first and discussed. I am removing the information to return the page to status quo ante, not engaging in an edit war as Nomoskedasticity posted on my talk page. Nor did I violate the three-revert rule. I did not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Meatsgains (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But on the other hand, you are refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion of policy. You are simply stating your personal dislike for the term, which you call "negative" or "derogatory," but as has been pointed out numerous times to you now, this is covered very specifically in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikipedia policy is very, very clear on these matters, and you are trying to evade the rather obvious points being made, so your continued reverts do constitute edit warring. And the NPOV-based argument for using the term is getting stronger by the hour. Here are major news stories that have appeared in the past week on Singer and vulture funds -- it is his claim to fame:

Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused on how this is not considered a meaningful discussion of policy. We are both communicating civilly to reach consensus on an issue.

I am not stating my opinion on the term vulture fund. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. The following links define "vulture fund" as a "derogatory" and "negative" term: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Even the Wikipedia article on vulture fund describes it as a term "used to criticize". A criticism is "negative", an opinion, and clear POV. We want to "avoid stating opinions as facts" as per WP:YESPOV.

We both can agree that vulture fund is a pejorative, which means sources that use the term as opinion fail WP:BLP. Assigning a pejorative to hedge funds, or any entity for that matter, does not improve or benefit Wikipedia.

As stated before, we are currently engaged in discussion. WP:BRD states that we must "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made." That is indisputable and does not constitute edit warring. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Meatsgains, I am beginning to think that you are being deliberately obtuse. There is absolutely nothing in the BLP policy that forbids the use of "pejorative", "derogatory" or "negative" terms. I have asked you about 5 times now to read WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is the relevant section of BLP. Have you read it? Also, the article as it presently stands does not "state opinions as facts" -- it refers to the "so-called 'vulture fund'", which makes it abundantly clear that we are discussing an opinion. We could provide a list of reliable sources that use the term in the way of attribution, but it is so widely used now that it would dominate the section. The fact that some commentators regard the term as inappropriate, while others do not, simply means that both viewpoints should be covered in the article, as in fact they are. That's NPOV. You are arguing that the viewpoint you don't like ought to be exclude, which contravenes NPOV. Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise, Meatsgains, if you think that "sources that use the term as opinion fail WP:BLP" then you should be able to point at the precise section of WP:BLP which they fail and quote the relevant words from policy. Your current argument is too nebulous. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Vulture fund" is part of a bigger problem, several articles about the Argentice economy pick carefully from sources to make the Argentine government look much better at economic management, and pretend that people who lent to the Argentine government and didn't get repaid are actually the bad guys. ''Sitta kah'' (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point you make may or may not be valid, but it's off-topic either way. And for the record, the vulture funds never lent money to Argentina. They bought bonds, at a fraction of face value, from someone who did actually lend money. I don't think anyone is making the actual lenders out to be bad guys. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic distortion of content about the Argentine economy isn't a BLP issue per se, but it goes hand in hand with this thread. The bondholders certainly are creditors of the Argentine government, but articles are skewed in an attempt to demonise them, and shift responsibility for economic problems away from Argentina's government and towards "holdouts", ie. folk who just want a debt to be repaid. We now have articles which tell readers things like "Bondholders who participated in the restructuring have been paid punctually and have seen the value of their bonds rise", which seriously misleads readers when the reality is that bondholders lost money as the Argentine government tried to get out of its debts. Where this distortion affects specific living people, it's a BLP problem; but we need to be aware that there's a broader WP:NPOV problem. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobrayner: Yeah I agree with you, the articles are "skewed". We don't want to mislead readers and we can avoid this by getting rid of the term vulture fund on Singer's BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively we could follow the consensus at all the forums that have been tried so far, and leave things pretty much as they are. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a consensus has been met. Meatsgains (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion:none" and "Religion:atheism"

Forgive me if this issue has been discussed before (I suspect it has but can't track down specifics), but I am having a problem with new User:SocialistDemocrat100, who is insisting on changing wording in BLP infoboxes from 'Religion: none (atheist)' - or similar - to 'Religion: Atheism'. This has arisen at Heinz Fischer, Demetris Christofias, and elsewhere. My strong view is that atheism, agnosticism, etc., are not religions, and that 'Religion: none' is the appropriate wording in such cases. "The off switch on the TV is not a different channel." If I'm right, I need help in convincing the new editor, who has not responded on his talk page and keeps making the same edits (with irritatingly inaccurate edit summaries). If I'm wrong, let me know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but I think we should leave that parameter blank rather than "none" - "none" isn't a religion either.--ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How some articles do it is that they put 'None (atheist) in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be delighted if the parameter were left blank. The point at issue is that the other editor is repeatedly changing 'Religion: None (atheist)' - which is OK with me - to 'Religion: Atheism' - which, to me, is patently wrong. If the consensus is that the other editor is in the wrong, I'd better take it to WP:AN/I. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Atheism is defined as denying the existence of deities, higher beings and whatnot, so you could argue that this is a religious belief of its own. "Religion: none" implies, however, that the person does not care about any sort of religion at all. So we'd better keep these two entries separated. If in doubt, leave it blank. De728631 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any text in that field needs a solid source. The question is thus reduced to what does the source say? Unless there is a source, leave it empty. If the source says something that we don't think is a religion, the source wins. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We don't get to opine that people are atheists in the absence of positive information to that effect. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a person is an atheist, that parameter should be empty (and possibly removed per Two kinds of pork below).--ukexpat (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like any religion - Wikipedia is best served by using self-identification in any such cases. If no such self identification is made, we well ought to use the "blank" as the default. Collect (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go one step more and remove the field when the value is blank.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion: Atheist" implies the person congregates with other atheists for the purpose of discussing atheism, which has a slightly different context than "Religion: none (atheist)" Kind of like in politics when someone says they're independent vs. in the American Independent Party. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there's no such thing as a reliable source for what goes on in X's head, the only meaning that can be reasonably ascribed is that of congregation or outwardly stated beliefs. To my thinking only direct statements of the "I think Z" type should suffice, but I doubt that will find consensus. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We must do what sources tell us, but it is very unlikely that a source will tell us somebody's religion is atheism.

There may be a field in the infobox, but we don't always have to fill every field. Shabratha (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the words out at Heinz Fischer and elsewhere, see what happens, and report back.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is the slight issue that "religion: none" by itself could include non-religious theism or deism. With just "religion: none," Ben Franklin and Richard Dawkins would be classified as the same irreligion despite having completely opposite views towards religion and theism. Theism =/= religion, as evidenced by Buddhism, Jainism, and Raëlism. Atheism =/= irreligion.

Religion fields should not be incorporated unless there are good sources documenting a particular label. "I have no religion" would be "religion: none," while "I am an atheist" would indeed be "religion: atheism." "Beliefs about religion" would be a more accurate title for the field, but it's also too long for such a field. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism is not a religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But irreligion is not inherently atheism, and atheism is not always irreligious. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, atheism is not a religion, making your earlier suggestion that "I am an atheist" would justify "religion: atheism" in the infobox incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, how about "Religion: none (atheist)"...? Or do you have an actual solution? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion: none" is more than sufficient. Giant Snowman 19:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This line of arguing suggests that we should change "Religion" in the infobox to "Belief system:" or something that "atheism" would fit into, and where "none" (in which the people has specifically stated they do not hold any beliefs) would fit as well. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We go with that the RS say, as always. Giant Snowman 19:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per WP:CAT/R, we go by self-identification alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As sort of indicated above, some religions can be described as atheistic, which can complicate things here. New Atheism, Strong agnosticism; and Weak agnosticism complicates things even further. Personally, in these cases, I think it makes sense to leave it blank or "none declared" without an unambiguous declaration from the subject. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other, seemingly undiscussed issue is whether a subject's religion, or lack thereof, is relevant to why that person has an article. In the vast majority of cases, it's no more relevant than the colour of their eyes, and should be omitted. HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its undiscussed because because that is idiotic. I am a deletionist, minimalist, but any well written bio would include mention of how a person was "raised" and religious affliations, ect. We are not saying that their religion is why they are notable unless that is the case. --Malerooster (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for better or worse, up until the last 150 years or so, it was in many or most areas a topic related to sometimes extreme divisionsin society. And didn't end there. In Nazi Germany, Cristero War Mexico, the Soviet Union, and elsewhere, one's religius beliefs and affiliations had major impact, although, admittedly not so much in the West since WW II. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true Johne. Maybe my "vast majority" descriptor was a bit off beam. Unfortunately however, our recentism problem means that we have a huge number of articles on recent sports stars and filme and media personalities. Religion is irrelevant for most of them. In my country, Australia, religion is irrelevant for most people. And Malerooster, while religion may be part of a bio for a lot of (but certainly not all) people, where it's not a major factor in why we have an article on them, it shouldn't be in the Infobox. That's for important stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, I would say that in 99%+ of bios, religion in NOT the reason for having an article or the reason for the subject's notability. That said, we still include it in most well written bios because it does have biographical relevance unlike eye color as the example you used, especially for, say, US Presidents. Should famous tennis players or actors have it included? I would defer to editors or writers of biograpghys. A certain editor, not to be named, has "jammed" the factoid that subjects are Jewish, into every bio of Jewish athletes. Its done in a really, awkward, no context fasion, and is quite annoying, but it continues. In those cases, I agree that it shouldn't be include, since it seems gratuitous(sp). Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Australia. Religion here is now a pretty low key thing for most people, even for most of the claimed 7% who attend church regularly. I understand about US Presidents. The claims of Obama being an evil Muslim even reach here. And that our present PM once trained for the Catholic priesthood does get brought up. But most Australians wouldn't be able to tell you the religions of our past several PMs. Yes, religion goes in a good biography if it was a big part of a person growing up, but rarely in the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, specifically for some living people who aren't covered in "Who's Who"-type sources which almost always include a "religion" line I would agree with you. Unfortunately, if those generally short biographies include a 1- or 2-word religious description, it can be hard to argue we should omit something those shorter articles include. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In all honesty these infoboxes would be significantly more useful in many or most if the religion and ethnicity parameters did not link to the main article but to a "foo by country" article. If I were to ask the tasteless quasi-joke "Can you find a living atheist in Iran or Afghanistan" (tasteless answer - not for long) it might be much more informative to link to Atheism in Iran than the main atheism article. Such regional subarticles can also include some information on many of the characteristics included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Encyclopedic articles#Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices where such information is available. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the solution is to remove all infoboxs from BLP's.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It Probably is better to go with Religion: none (atheist) or Religion: Atheism. You could have no religion but Believe in a God. Religion: none does not indicate atheism well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SETH ROLLINS

Hi the page is messed up.

Looks like half the page is missing compares to the previous version

the ladder match earlier that night. Jacobs announced that the three had formed a stable called The Age of the Fall. The angle was so controversial that ROH decided to rem Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).

I dont want to edit it as it seems there have been problems there so better I let you know.

You didn't even have to tell us, a machine already dealt with it. Welcome to tomorrow, eh?

These things happen now and then. Maybe vandals, maybe just human error. If you see anything like it again, check the history and undo whichever crazy large red number you see. Should clear it up, if the robo-maid hasn't gotten to it first. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Adam Skorek

This article, Adam Skorek, needs attention. NPOV is not respected. Despite the number of sources, most of them are misused, not linking directly to appropriate content and some of them are questionnable (mostly primary sources), greatly reducing verifiability. It seems its french counterpart was deleted a few years ago for the same reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.19.77.2 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little copy editing, but needs much more help than I can provide. Maybe others can help. Thank you for the heads up. --Malerooster (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ryskamp - Notable people from XXX

Do we have guidance for determining who gets listed in the Notable People sections of articles about locations?

My question is motivated by a small dispute over Charles Ryskamp. Should he be listed in East Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he was born, or in List of people from Grand Rapids, Michigan where he may have lived much of his life, or both?

Does living in a town because you attended college there count? (E,g, Wayne Huizenga)

Do we have any guidance on how long someone has to live somewhere to count as having lived there?

The Grand Rapids list specifically cites "born or lived in Grand Rapids". If the criteria is silent, as it is in East Grand Rapids, Michigan, do we presume only born there, or can a person be included if they lived there?

In cases where the presumption is that one should be in a list if they are born there, how literally do we mean it? In my personal case, not that I have any chance of being notable, I was born in a different town and state than I grew up, simply because the town where I grew up was too small to have a hospital. I think it should be OK to use the parents hometown, even if the hospital is elsewhere, but even that might be an issue if, for example, someone were pregnant, unable to get home, and had a child far from "home". I'm sure this has come up before, do we have guidance?

(I am aware the subject of this article is dead, so technically, I'm in the wrong place, but I bet this is the group of people that know the answers.)--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always in favour of using the birthplace, just because it's constant. A guy born in Kalamazoo can travel the world, laying his head on many pillows and influencing many people. When all these people start claiming he's from there, the mayor of Kalamazoo can say he merely went there from here. You can't say that about Kalamazoo, without knowing the mysteries of life before birth. And if you knew those, you wouldn't be wondering about this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers

As I have pointed out here, the article 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers violates WP:BLPCRIME. Nevertheless my edits to correct this ([21], [22], [23], [24]) were reverted. I even got an insult on my talkpage. It should be noted that the alledged suspects seem to be guilty before proof, and this is not questioned in the sources. This should be considered in the article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is properly sourced, relevant and of appropriate weight, it's not precluded by WP:BLPCRIME. It's appropriate to have some content about the suspects if it is widely-reported. I see that at least some of your reverts were mandated by WP:BLP. There seem to be some new editors causing some problems so I requested page protection for the article.- Mr X 11:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absent charges, it is best practice not to give any names of "suspects" vide the Richard Jewell case. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we can afford to wait until strong sources appear for any charges. Collect (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to BLPCRIME, what MrX said. In the case of public figures, which these have become with all the public attention (same as with the accused Boston Marathon bombers), there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative. Epeefleche (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the high-profile nature of this crime, I don't think it's inappropriate to name the suspects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckie Dreyfuss

Good day... my name is Chuckie Dreyfus. My wikipedia article is currently being updated by my wife (username on Wikipedia: Marilenelbee) to correct all inaccuracies and to add new information about me. My concern is that the main page name is spelled as "Chuckie Dreyfuss" instead of "Chuckie Dreyfus" (only single "s" on the surname). It has been a common mistake ever since I started my acting career that my surname has been spelled with a double "s" similar to Richard Dreyfuss'. I would like to correct this by placing the correct spelling of my surname but I couldn't find any way to do so. I need help. Thank you very much for your attention in this regard.

-Chuckie Dreyfus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakong (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've moved the article to the name you suggested.--Auric talk 20:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to post this

There's an interesting point being made at Talk:Cem Özdemir. There's a source that states the subject self-identifies as a "secular Muslim". The infobox indicated that this was the case. An editor claims that it ist WP:SYNTH to claim that since there is not a source that states "Ozdemir's religion is secular Islam". Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with Spiegel. Is it a reliable source? If it is that source seems to state the claim. It's not really clear however what Secular Islam is. I wonder if perhaps it means unaffiliated in this case?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Der Spiegel is one of the largest, and probably the most well-respected weekly publication in Germany. Spiegel Online, the web publication, has an Alexa rank (for most visited sites in the world) of 168 , which makes it No. 8 in Germany (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/spiegel.de) . It's both popular and reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you have a source for it. The thing though that keeps kicking me personally is the Secular Islam thing. He Self Identifies by it but what is the meaning? Honestly I stick the Secular Islam part in the article and keep the infobox simply to Islam. I wonder if the synth claim comes from that? Honestly I don't see real issue with the way y'all are doing it but I personally wouldn't do it that way.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

shabazz napier

it says desperate as FUCK to resign lebron james — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.46.196 (talk)

It's been removed already.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cook (again)

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

With some regularity, editors add material to the Cook article that says he is gay. Sometimes they use questionable sources. Sometimes whatever sources they use don't support the material. The issue of whether to include the material, of course, in typical Wikipedia style has been discussed to death. In my personal view (without regard to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), his sexual orientation, just like his religion, is unimportant. But he's a famous guy and Wikipedia likes to label people regardless of whether it's encyclopedic or important to who they are.

Putting aside my own views, the latest salvo are these sentences: "Cook's sexual identity as a gay man has long been considered an open secret among industry insiders.[35][36][37][38][39] In June 2014, a CNBC co-host outed[40][41][42][37][43][44][45][36][46] Tim Cook during a discussion on gay CEOs."

I intentionally left in the numbered refs to show how many the editor used. Although I haven't reviewed all of them (god help me), they appear to all be derivative of one event, the last part about the "outing" on television. Certainly, Cook hasn't acknowledged it, and I understand that acknowledgment is only required to include a category about him, not to include material, but just because a reporter outs someone, either intentionally or inadvertently (my guess is intentionally), doesn't mean we have to report it, no matter how many other sources pick up the juicy story.

Unlike my old days, I rarely get into BLP frays anymore unless the policy violation is clear and I act administratively. Therefore, I leave it to others to come to a consensus (not easy) on this issue. I've reverted the editor and told them to take it to Talk. They added the following sentences to the talk page and then restored the material without further ado: "I have added a section to "Personal life" that expands on Cook's sexuality. The speculation, as noted by a number of reliable sources, is encyclopedic."--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material. Giant Snowman 13:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Krylov

Hello, could one or several editors please weigh in on a dispute regarding the article Victor Krylov? In my view there are three issues:

Content: Resume-like tone, unsourced non-neutral statements, only one third-party source
Likely conflict of interest of main editor, User:Eep07
Behavior issues: no use of talk page after massive reverts, removal of "like resume" banner, aggressive edit log ("malicious", "vandalism")

I would gladly welcome the input of more experienced editors on this issue. Thanks, Ariadacapo (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed user:Bbb23 took care of most of it, but even what remains has only two sources, both of which are links to the university he works at. I do notice that there is a very large list of publications and our notability requirements for professors (while I am not that familiar with them) I understand are fairly low, but I wonder if the page should be deleted entirely. CorporateM (Talk) 17:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of anything else, doesn't he satisfy WP:NACADEMICS, item #2?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he meets the guideline one way or another. I suspect the awards do it for #2, but he also has 2500 citations in gscholar and an hindex of 25 - and gscholar is not good at foreign language publications, so his true influence is likely higher than that - which means he'll meet #1 as well pretty certainly. The combined cite count/hindex/awards also means he'd likely meet a number of other notability standards. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we agree the subject is notable, perhaps someone could help me convince the editor with the acknowledged conflict ("friend" who says he owns various copyrights relevant to the subject) that their edits are non-neutral and inappropriate. Last thing he did was call me a vandal. Of course, I've been called worse.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spend quite a bit of time cleaning up promotion, much of it is literally copy/pasted from the company website. I've completely eliminated some pay for play awards from Wikipedia alltogether. In comparison, the promotion in this diff like "pioneering paper" is well... certainly not the worst I've seen and easy to trim, but it is completely unsourced so... CorporateM (Talk) 01:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very warm thank you to all of you for your quick and efficient support. I’ll keep an eye on the said article but I believe the problem is now mostly resolved. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Input from other editors did a great start towards settling the conflict. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Borodai

a biographical voice without the date of birth of a living person shouldn't be deleted for evident reason of absence of good sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.75.133 (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that a Wikipedia biography include a date of birth. This person appears notable to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some searches, he appears to be notable, though I cannot find a good source for his birth-date. I did notice that BusinessWeek spells his last name "Boroday"[25] whereas we spell it "Borodai", however a quick glance suggests we may have gotten it right and BusinessWeek may be the one that made the error. CorporateM (Talk) 01:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rabb

Found in browsing - what appears to be a BLP of a non-notable drummer with poor sourcing. Might someone who knows music better than I consider whether he is likely to be notable and, if so, whether the sourcing makes sense? Collect (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are ridiculous, including a Facebook page for the wrong guy with the same name. However, the guy may very well be notable if some appropriate sources can be found. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bachour

Eric Bachour is not a significant person of importance. Their references are invalid and therefore cannot substantiate the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.146.39 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (sort of) and have sent it to AfD. CorporateM (Talk) 01:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whitlow Wyatt

(Whitlow Wyatt) in your bio you state Whitlow Wyatt died in 1966. According to his tombstone he died in 1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardLMcB (talk • contribs) 23:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you misread the article. The article Whitlow Wyatt says he was "the first such coach for the Atlanta Braves in 1966" not that he died in 1966. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Cole

It seems that Cheryl Cole‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) got married this weekend. So far no WP:RS have been added by the flurry of people editing her page. If any of you can find one that would be great. Also, per Talk:Cheryl Cole#Re-marriage to Jean-Bernard Fernandez-Versini there may be attempts to move the page so if some of you can watchlist the article that would be helpful. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk

Editor constantly adding unsourced negative material into BLPs

I've left a warning[26] at User talk:Veto118 because of unverified BLP attacks like these: [27] [28][29][30][31] I'll be travelling for the next week. Could someone make sure that he stops? Darx9url (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this as well. I would try to assume good faith, since not all his edits are problematic, but a lot are, but time will tell. I removed some added "material" from Marco Rubio's bio about credit card miss use sourced to the Huff post blog and started a thread on that talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Singh Chautala

Article Ajay Singh Chautala belongs to most famous leader of INLD in Haryana, India. The link - Recruitment Scam should be removed from from the article. They were taken into custody but later released on bail. It was a fake case framed by opposition UPA-II government on him and his father. They got bail from supreme court of india. Now the case is under consideration in High Court, Delhi. So the link " Recruitmrnt Scam " must be removed from Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dschautala (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll grant you, the section is so poorly written that it's unclear whether he's been merely accused, or convicted. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was convicted, ten years hard labor imprisonment - Story subject is on bail due to death of family member http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/om-prakash-chautala-granted-interim-bail-for-21-days-by-high-court/articleshow/36000569.cms there is an appeal, final outcome not yet reported http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-07-11/news/51354624_1_convicts-jail-term-interim-bail Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it's not a BLP violation? Bearian (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No - it was poorly written and I wrote it better - the jury is out as I understand it on the appeal - the total takedown on the father's article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Om_Prakash_Chautala&action=history seems a bit extreme Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Has anyone noticed that the OP Dschautala has the same surname as Ajay Singh Chautala, and indeed seems to represent himself as AJ's son and has created an article about himself Dushyant Chautala (he is genuinely notable). Perhaps he should be advised of COI or maybe wp:uaa. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tierra

Hello -

Not sure if this is the right place to submit a request for correction, but here goes...

On this page, Michael Tierra, the fifth reference link is broken. It should go to http://abc.herbalgram.org.

Please let me know if I can do anything to help or if this should be submitted elsewhere.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.79.30 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not just one broken link, but poor overall sourcing of this BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this one to AfD. CorporateM (Talk) 08:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Goss (musician)

Hi,

I am an editor for List of Billboard Hot 100 achievements and milestones. Here's some help as to how song and album titles are coded in Wikipedia. Please take a look at this page for some examples on how to do this.

The standard process of inserting songs in a page is this -- songs have quotation marks around the title, like "Hey Jude" or "Happy". Songs are not italicized (as you have them in the top paragraph), only album titles are. You followed this is some places, but not others.

Also, wasn't Goss involved with a movie project? "You don't know how hard it is to be this hot" was a single from this project, I believe. This is not currently listed on his page.dnsla23 19:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

Michael Pitts (preacher)

A request came across the Dispute resolution noticeboard in regard to Michael Pitts (preacher). I closed that request as a DRN volunteer for lack of adequate discussion, but I'd like the BLPN community to take a look at that article. The subject is a big-fish-in-a-little-pond and virtually all the non-negative information about him is inadequately sourced to non-reliable sources. The negative information does appear to mostly be adequately sourced (though part of it may violate BLPCRIME), but if the non-negative, non-reliably-sourced information is removed then only the negative information will remain and I'm very suspicious that this might then violate NPF because the subject of the article is not enough of a public figure to justify an entirely-negative article. In any event this article looks like a battleground between the pro-subject promoters and his opponents and of little encyclopedic value. I started to send it to AFD for those reasons, but I'd like to get a second opinion (eh, @CorporateM?). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've culled through it, removed the junk sources, read some of the good sources and deleted most of the article in the process. The press is very strange. A man driving while intoxicated is not a major news event just because he is a pastor and the accusations of public indecency seem to be pure speculation by "eye witnesses" that change their story, completely de-bunked in court by evidence that he was somewhere else at the time. I'm not that familiar with BLPCRIME and it's possible another sentence or two might be appropriate, but we shouldn't have such excessive coverage about what is essentially gossip and speculation, even if the media (in their wisdom) chose to do so. I do notice that later he used the events as an example of hard times that make you stronger in one of his books and the ordeal does seem to have been a significant event in his life. CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've chopped out the remaining stuff about unsubstantiated allegations and DUI conviction.--ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the accusations themselves were largely unsubstantiated or trivial, the gossip and speculation that surrounded them appear to have been an important period in his life. He later used this period of strife in his book to talk about overcoming challenges. I think our policies probably do support Ukexpat's complete removal, but I do feel his life story is not complete without covering this time period of his life where he dealt with this issue. And it is not unreasonable for us to state plainly and concisely that there were baseless speculations, that they were baseless, but nonetheless, that they occurred and caused him difficulty. CorporateM (Talk) 01:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe G. N. Garcia

Last week a new editor added a section to this page called "Controversy," which is confusing, unbalanced, poorly sourced, and violates WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. The section was removed once by an anonymous user, and the original author put it back. Our chief concerns include:

Relevance: the basic, verified facts of this event (the non-renewal of a researcher's contract) do not rise to the level of inclusion on this page; It is being treated as coat rack (WP:COATRACK)
Violation of NPOV policy: This paragraph (as well as the name of the section) is not neutral. It is clearly intended to smear Dr. Garcia and includes unsubstantiated and unsourced claims such as: "Joe 'Skip' Garcia is being accused of doing the bidding…" The paragraph implies that the contract non-renewal is politically motivated by legislators who do not approve of marijuana research but makes no mention of the fact that the university intends to continue this line of research (see for example: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/12/health/marijuana-researcher-arizona/).
Poor sourcing: Although the author has cited a single local news story, much of the material in the paragraph is not actually included in the article cited (e.g. the statement about the internal review board has no basis in the cited article). Additionally, the material that is drawn from the cited articles is not presented in a clear or neutral manner. It's unclear where quotations begin and end, and some are unattributed to a speaker or incorrectly/unclearly attributed. Unsubstantiated and unsourced phrases, such as "…it is believed that this precipitated scrutiny and ultimately her firing" are included, and quotations from individuals are being asserted as facts, rather than claims/accounts by an individual as reported in the news media.

We request that a neutral editor review and remove this section. I am a representative of the University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, which is why I am writing to request help rather than editing the page myself. Thanks for your assistance.

HealthSciChris (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copy editing and removed the controversy section for the time being. I would like to see what other citations there are and how widely this "material" has been covered. Other thoughts?? --Malerooster (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Modi (2002 Gujarat riots)

Wikipedia says on the 2002 Gujarat riots page:

 The report also made mention of the BJP and Modi in "Promoting the
 attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred and the legacy of 
 Nazism through his government's support of school textbooks in which
 Nazism is glorified".

The "Modi" in question is Narendra Modi, the-then Chief Minister of Gujarat, and the present Prime Minister of India. So, Wikipedia is making a rather serious allegation against an important Living person. The "report" is supposedly some unnamed report of the National Human Rights Commission of India. Well, all the reports issued by the Commission regarding Gujarat can be found here,

 http://nhrc.nic.in/gujratorders.htm

but the quoted words are nowhere to be found.

The problem is that the material has been passed through various sources. First, there is the National Human Rights Commission, whose words were reported by the US International Religious Freedom reports in a certain way, and these words were interpreted and added to by a certain Bill presented tothe US Congress (which was never debated or passed in the House), and words from that Bill were quoted in a book by Martha Nussbaum, and the words further reinterpreted by Wikipedia editors who wrote the article. A certain amount of distortion has crept into each level of reporting, when finally what is found on Wikipedia is completely unrecognizable to the original.

I am able to correct the inaccuracies. However, the senior editors with revert rights, who watch over the Wikepedia article, are insensitive to these issues, and revert all my changes instantly. After a lengthy debateon the talk page, the User:Vanamonde93 concluded with "I have little patience left for this particular argument." I believe this is a rather callous attitude to BLP issues.

What do you suggest that I do? --- Uday Reddy (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C Hall

The opening page for this actor has been tampered with. It now has him listed as Sukka Mattik & other childish rude comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.178.89 (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Hernández (Swansea Footballer)

Recent activity has him moving to a new club without any evidence or sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.127.80 (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article - Pablo Hernández (footballer, born 1985) - has been reverted. Giant Snowman 11:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Rush

See the comments at Talk:Jake_Rush regarding sourcing, etc. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An American politician that had the misfortune of having his offline activities covered by the press. Inevitably perhaps used against him. Kbabej insists this should be its own separate section, while I edited it to remove some irrelevant tabloid-ish content and blend it into the rest of the article (diff). I'm looking for some input as to whether this is really necessary from a WP:UNDUE perspective. I feel it makes the article seem like the role-playing stuff is 1/3 of the man's biography. I don't advocate outright removal of the material because of the level of coverage and sources (more in the article's talk page) but I do think we shouldn't make it into a circus either. Not sure if other editors agree. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this would be a WP:PUBLICFIGURE in the context of the allegations and the incident and what not. However, I do not think that it should warrant its own section. Reading the 'personal life' section as it sits, I think is a good compromise. It's not overshadowing it and blowing it out of proportion, but it's not too little mention either. Tutelary (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is tough. The key part of policy is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. Is it all of those things? We are not a tabloid, but we also don't want to whitewash an article. I always feel that "material" has to have a very high level of noteworthiness(is that a word) and relevance to be included, especially for bios of politicians, since material can be added for partisan reasons. We all see things through differently tinted glasses as well it seems. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Weaver Hart‎

This is also related to a report concerning Joe G. N. Garcia above. There is a "controversy" over the firing of a university prof and funding for medical marijuana and funding for a politician and veterans getting involved and whatelse?? This is WAY over my paygrade. A new editor disclosed his conflict of interest from the university and asked if I could get involved in these related bios. I removed the "material" from both bios for now and would ask others to get involved. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Benn Michaels

This article appears written entirely by its subject. The claims made about? (by?) the subject are never supported by citation nor derived from facts observable. All items are uncited -- especially statements about the author's/ subject's fame and ingenuity: "The speed of Michaels's logic..." (sic). The career hagiographized does not warrant or merit any treatment -- certainly not such extensive self-puffery. There is no countervailing view/ data/ opinion. I recommend the article be deleted immediately, and an investigation made of the author's "identity" and expertise with a view to blocking publication].

Gnothon 16 vi 02014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnothon (talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article has problems, you're quite allowed to fix them. There's no need to delete the thing wholesale. Instead, just fix it up. If it needs references, find them and add them. If it needs the language improved, edit it and improve it. If there are key facets of the subject's life left out, research them and add them. We're not going to stop you. --Jayron32 03:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Mason

This is something I don't know how to do. Apparently Marie Mason is now self-identifying as a man and is now known as Marius Jacob Mason. You can read about it at his prisoner support website: http://supportmariusmason.org/2014/07/07/free-marius-jacob-mason/ The title of the Wikipedia will need to be changed or have a redirect on it as other websites are now using his name, such as this one: 'Marius Mason was arrested in March 2008 after his former partner – Frank Ambrose – turned informant for the FBI. Facing a life sentence if he went to trial, Marius accepted a plea bargain in September 2008, admitting his involvement in the burning of an office connected to GMO research and the destruction of a piece of logging equipment. In February the following year, he received a sentence of almost 22 years. More information on Marius’ case can be found at www.supportmariemason.org.' http://neveraloneart.org/about-june-11/

The website 'supportmariemason' in the quote above now redirects to 'supportmariusmason' so I think WP should reflect this. I have put a couple of lines in the article but don't know how to change the article title.

Cheers, Tobermory ^conferre 07:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Winter

A bunch of IP addresses over the past day or two have been trying to change the article to reflect the death of Mr. Winter. However, I cannot find any reliable source to confirm that (a couple of nonsense blogs). I need to get sleep, and I don't actually get involved with these kind of articles, but I saw it pass my news feed on Twitter mentioning that "Wikipedia says that Johnny Winter is dead." So, hopefully someone can protect the article or something until there's some sort of reliable information about his life or death. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming what SkepticalRaptor said above. I haven't applied protection, but the page merits watching. I've dug into the alleged references and there are two blog-type articles citing a Facebook update, which itself is uncommittal. Manning (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have now protected the page, as the updates were coming thick and fast. The rumour may well be true, in which case please update accordingly. Manning (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death has been confirmed by AP, so I have removed the protection. Manning (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Aldrich

Suggested or supposed real name is clearly not well known even if it is real - the chat is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clark_Aldrich#Source

the story taken down is - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clark_Aldrich&diff=617005848&oldid=603837451

writer is using these Internet links

http://alumni.brown.edu/classes/1954/events.html - http://ceoroundtableblog.com/2011/12/frank-wezniak-photovac-member-in-the-news/ - http://www.mocavo.com/Clark-Wezniak-Lisa-Eastwood-Connecticut-Marriage-Record-Index-1959-2007/01780009497083875935 - pp 6-8) - Brown Alumni webzine: http://alumni.brown.edu/classes/1954/events.html

the take down editor has suggested a trolling issue and wrote this - According to documentation here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27077549/Clark%20Aldrich.pdf), Clark Aldrich's birth surname was indeed Aldrich. Further, according to the same genealogy report, he is the 11th great grandson of both Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley. This is consistent with his bio here: http://unschooling-rules.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html#bio At this point, insistence by the troll community at Get Off My Internets of the birth name Wezniak is best characterized as libelous. User:Intrepid French Learner

I do not understand so well the rules here - please assist, comment - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kwasman

Minor politician seriously gafted by thinking bus load of kids were illegal aliens, when in fact they were local kids headed to the Y. Talking heads pick up story and off we go.

I would leave out this "material" as gotta journalism for now. --Malerooster (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Girkin

Please keep an eye on this BLP. He's the rebel military commander who claimed credit for shooting down a plane right when an airliner crashed in eastern Ukraine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the story as reported by reuters - in this Internet link - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-ukraine-crisis-airplane-idUSKBN0FM22N20140717 - hot topic at the moment - might need locking Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Deif

I removed some claims from Mohammed Deif per WP:BLPSPS (diff). They've been added back (diff) with the explanation that "WP:BLPSPS is BY DEFINITION not applicable since the referene is a secondary souce, and the policy is for primary sources." This is a novel reading of the policy to me. I'm not even sure why the IDF blog would not be a primary source, since this is the same organization that is certainly giving an "insider's view". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 534: / Line 534: @@
 Please keep an eye on this BLP. He's the rebel military commander who claimed credit for shooting down a plane right when an airliner crashed in eastern Ukraine. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 19:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 :I wrote the story as reported by reuters - in this Internet link - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-ukraine-crisis-airplane-idUSKBN0FM22N20140717 - hot topic at the moment - might need locking [[User:Mosfetfaser|Mosfetfaser]] ([[User talk:Mosfetfaser|talk]]) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
+== Mohammed Deif ==
+I removed some claims from [[Mohammed Deif]] per [[WP:BLPSPS]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=617145648&oldid=616762507 diff]).  They've been added back ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=617375200&oldid=617145648 diff]) with the explanation that "[[WP:BLPSPS]] is BY DEFINITION not applicable since the referene is a secondary souce, and the policy is for primary sources."  This is a novel reading of the policy to me.  I'm not even sure why the IDF blog would not be a primary source, since this is the same organization that is certainly giving an "insider's view". --<font face="georgia">[[User:Atethnekos|Atethnekos]]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">([[User talk:Atethnekos|Discussion]],&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Atethnekos|Contributions]])</font> 02:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards