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.

John A. Shaw

Hello, regulars at this noticeboard may recall that I recently came here to ask for eyes on an attack page aimed at John A. Shaw, about a report on post-invasion Iraq he had written for the U.S. government. I'm now back to ask editors to look at the article focused on Shaw himself, specifically, the Corruption and criminal investigation of Shaw section of the article. This section makes some extremely damaging claims against Shaw but sourcing is extremely narrow. In fact, much of the section relies on the same journalist's reporting that was the basis of the deleted attack article.

In my view, the content of this section violates WP:NPOV, and there are distinct issues of tone and balance. For instance, the insertion of extraordinary claims against Shaw, alleging his corruption and that he was the subject of a criminal investigation, are written in a manner that is neither cautious nor understated. Even the section heading "Corruption and criminal investigation" is itself non-neutral and appears intended to persuade readers immediately that Shaw is guilty of corruption. Additionally, sourcing of this section is limited, mainly drawing from the reporting of one individual. On this basis, I wonder if the information should even be included. I'm thinking about WP:WELLKNOWN here, which states, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

To sum up, from a BLP perspective, my overarching concern is that this section of the article is presenting a non-neutral, damaging account of Shaw's work in Iraq, with a paucity of sources to back it up. I would very much appreciate someone with a strong understanding of BLP guidelines taking a look and deciding what would be best to do here.

As I've mentioned here before, I am working on behalf of Jack Shaw, so I won't be making any edits to the article. I hope editors from this noticeboard will be interested to discuss how best to approach the issues in the Corruption... section. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed somewhat, and will finish up later today unless someone else gets to it first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty much done with this for now. If someone else would like to take a look, that might be a good idea since there are a lot of complicated criminal accusations involved. Also, I'd be glad to make further revisions in response to any valid criticisms from User:WWB Too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Anythingyouwant, I really appreciate the time you spent looking into this and reworking the page. Overall, a vast improvement. That said, I've left a detailed note on the article's Talk page outlining a few remaining issues. I am still concerned about how this section is presented, especially how much detail is given to allegations against Shaw, although no charges were filed, and nearly all of the reporting coming from a single investigative journalist. I'd be interested to hear whether editors here think that the section could be summarized or, if it is better to include more detail, to clarify some of the issues I've raised in the Talk page note. In particular, I wonder if FreeRangeFrog and MrX would mind taking a quick look, since they're familiar with the topic from my previous request here about a related article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks better thanks to Anythingyouwant's impeccable editing. It does strike me as still a little too detailed based on the amount of coverage in reliable sources that I was able to glean with a couple of quick searches. WP:UNDUE would seem to apply, especially given the reliance on primary sources.- MrX 17:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I will comment over at the article talk page as needed or wanted. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made some edits, including shortening that section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Max Cryer

• Max Cryer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I represent the author. Various people using different names in recent weeks continue to change this entry against his wishes and to include inaccurate information. Using different names, these people make exactly the same changes. I have once again changed it back. Nigel2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel2014 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nigel2014: If you indeed represent the author, you need to go read this. Once you do, you'll understand that you need to create an edit request in the talk page, which will be evaluated and answered by other editors. This article is not your property, nor Mr. Cryer's. In articles we say what the sources about the subjects say, nothing more and nothing less. You've attempted to turn this article into an advertisement for the subject, while removing sourced material and information. The process is you suggest changes, someone else makes them. If you continue to edit the article the way you've edited it so far, your account can and will be blocked. We welcome improvements, but please familiarize yourself with our guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Paora: et al. I removed his birthdate since its source seemed to be WP:SYNTH. Cryer is a semi-public figure and is deserving of a certain amount of privacy. I noticed that NZ libraries don't use his birth year which gives a strong indication it isn't public knowledge. -- haminoon (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The "other" sexual assault allegations at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Mattress Performance case involves four allegations of criminal conduct by an individual I will refer to as "the accused." None of the allegations are supported by any form of evidence, none have resulted in prosecution, and all are against an individual who is non-notable outside the context of the case. All complainants spoke to each other prior to making the allegations, and the accused asserts they are the result of collusion. The allegation of rape by Emma Sulkowicz is central to the article's topic and probably has to stay, in spite of WP:BLPCRIME. I argue that the others should be omitted from the article. They are as follows.

• "Natalie" is the accused's ex-girlfriend. She alleges that months after their relationship ended, she came to see the accused's conduct as having been abusive, and some of their sexual interactions as having been non-consensual, even though she did not perceive this at the time. Her hearing resulted in a finding of "not responsible" after she failed to cooperate with the investigation.
• "Josie" is a former friend of the accused. She alleges that once, at a party, the accused kissed her and groped her without her permission. The accused denied this. He was initially found "responsible" by the university, but the decision was overturned on appeal partly because she did not testify.
• "Adam" more recently alleged that the accused touched him inappropriately. The accused was found "not responsible" in this case as well.

Troublingly, these have all been described as "sexual assault" allegations in the article. This is highly inappropriate language, for obvious reasons. None of them resulted in criminal prosecution, and it is extremely problematic to talk about the results of college disciplinary hearings, which lack the rigor of courts of law, and require only a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than proof, in relation to such extreme allegations. WP:BLPCRIME tells us to try to exclude information implying that persons who are not independently notable are accused of a crime. Accordingly, the accusations should not be in this article unless they are necessary, like the one by Sulkowicz.

An editor on the talk page made the case that the other allegations are relevant for the following reasons.

• When the story initially broke, three of the accusers were interviewed. I argue that the details of how the story broke are largely irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about the performance and controversy.
• The accusers claim that meeting eachother and talking about the accused was what led them to file complaints, and this explains the long delay between the alleged events and the complaints. I argue that this is only the accusers' explanation, and including it requires us to also mention the accused's version. Neither version can be substantiated by facts, and this leads into tabloid territory, with the article describing competing stories that cannot be reliably sourced. I argue that including such non-fact-based stories would only detract from the article, and lead to further BLP violations.
• The other accusers are co-plaintiffs with Emma Sulkowicz in a civil suit against Columbia University and Barnard College. I argue that, as that case involves 28 plaintiffs, the fact that three of them have this in common is unimportant.

On the whole, I do not find a compelling reason to include mention of these other accusations against the recommendation of WP:BLPCRIME. As the accused has been the subject of what may be interpreted as death threats, BLP issues in this article must not be taken lightly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The allegations is what is being reported, and these were very well covered. I don't think the article contains BLP violations, as we merely report what reliable sources have said about the subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations are BLP violations no matter how many reliable sources cover them. It's a BLP issue, not a WP:V issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment- There seem to be some inaccuracies above. According to the sources, the male alleging sexual assault has not talked to the other alleged victims and filed a complaint much later, saying he was motivated by the publicity related to the Mattress Performance art project. Sulkowicz says she decided to file her complaint alleging rape, after talking to a woman who alleged "intimate partner violence" against the accused. A third woman, who alleged groping, said she was told by friends who knew of her alleged groping that the accused "raped someone" and then decided to file a complaint. The sources do not support that all four sat down and together decided to file, but they all reportedly either talked to or heard about each other. They are also all apparently part of a Title IX complaint against Columbia University, alleging the university mishandled their sexual assault complaints.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: None of this is different in any way from what I wrote above, except for the contention that "Adam" did not talk to the other accusers. Here is a source which states that he at least talked to "Natalie," who alleged intimate partner violence: [1]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: Also this source: [2], written by "Josie," confirms she was friendly with Sulkowicz prior to the accusation. So it's true that all four talked to other accusers prior to the accusation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, it's odd that you would interpret that source that way, when it makes the opposite point. Josie writes:

There is a narrative spreading that pins me as “Friend of Mattress Girl,” filing a sexual assault complaint as part of a weird collusion among girlfriends. This narrative is entirely false. At the time, Emma and I were friendly; however, we were never friends. We had never hung out one-on-one and I’d never had her number in my phone. I also never knew the identity of Paul’s ex-girlfriend, who also filed a complaint against him, until two separate reporters let her name slip while interviewing me—assuming, maybe, that I knew her. But I didn’t. I still don’t even know what she looks like or what her last name is.

There are five living persons involved in this, and BLP applies to all. Only one (Sulkowicz) is mentioned in the article, but the other names are known, except for one. The article has to be written without implying that any of them are liars or don't matter. It's difficult to do that, but I think the version before you removed several of their accounts achieved it to some extent. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy has twice removed text [3][4][5] that has been in the article, in some form, since early in its existence. The article is about a work of performance art created after three women at Columbia filed sexual-assault complaints with the university in 2013 against another student. The university found the accused not responsible in two cases, and responsible in a third that was overturned on appeal. (There was a fourth complaint later from a male student; the accused was found "not responsible" there too.) In protest, one of the women, Emma Sulkowicz, a visual arts major, created Mattress Performance. This is the text that is being removed:

Mattress Performance was inspired by allegations of campus sexual assault at Columbia. ... [The article then discusses Sulkowicz's complaint.]

After hearing about Sulkowicz's allegations, three other students (two women and a man) filed complaints against the same student; in the first, the accused's former girlfriend alleged "intimate partner violence," while the second and third were allegations of unwanted grabbing and touching. The accused said the complaints were the result of collusion. The university found him "not responsible" in relation to the first and third, and in the second a verdict of "responsible" was overturned on appeal.

The case attracted wider interest when the three women gave interviews to the New York Post, which broke the story on 11 December 2013 without naming those involved. ...

The other complaints are a key part of what happened. An early New York Times article said: "Ms. Sulkowicz was one of a group of women, identified then only by pseudonyms — she had not yet decided to go fully public — who became the talk of Columbia this past winter, when an article in a student magazine, The Blue and White, described in detail their accounts of being sexually assaulted, and their frustrated searches for aid and justice from the university."

The other complaints are covered by numerous secondary sources, and were part of what led to a federal Title IX complaint against Columbia, which the Department of Education is investigating. In addition, our article doesn't name the accused. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Comment- Testimonies are forms of evidence, so one might argue there is/will be evidence. Nowhere do I see on the sexual assault page that it needs to be reported or prosecuted to count as sexual assault, so I think it's fine to call what happened that. In WP:BLPCrime, it is the name of the accused, not the accuser that should not be listed. I think these details are important, insofar it is often speaking to others which encourages victims to come forward, and of course the intent of protecting others from being raped by this person. Meanwhile, I am concerned that this page is listed as a redirect from the accused name.Frederika Eilers (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the accused's name redirects there. I will bring this up at RfD. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, I am going to restore the material about the other allegations. This was never only about Sulkowicz. No one here has agreed that it's a BLP violation, it's an essential part of the story, and has been in the article (in some form) since early in its creation. If you want to remove it, please gain consensus on talk, perhaps via an RfC. (But if you do post an RfC, please make the question short and very neutral, e.g. "should this (quote it) be in the article?") Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

When including this material about the other allegations, please be sure to clarify that this is Sulcowikz' acount of the motivation behind the performance art. It also calls for a short statement about the accused's version, as also reported in secondary sources. Thanks. Minor4th 19:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I would prefer you wait for clear consensus before restoring the disputed material. If there is such a consensus, we can then talk about what details to include in order to maintain neutrality and the presumption of innocence. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it. Please observe BRD and dispute resolution, and gain consensus to remove it. Sammy, you have exceptionally strong views about this article, and you've said that if you're being unjust to the women, you "don't care," because you're prioritizing the accused's position. [6] This is making things harder than they need to be. Good writing will solve the problems at that article, and you're a good writer. Please work with me on it, not against me. That means acknowledging (a) that we don't know what happened; and (b) that we owe a duty of care to all five people. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're taking that out of context. I said that I don't care if the presumption of innocence is unjust to people who make criminal accusations. I don't, because it's policy under WP:BLPCRIME, and my purpose is not to determine justice.

The duty of care we have to three of those people would be best served by not mentioning them at all. If we do mention them, we have an obligation to mention the accused's defense, which, by your very reasoning, may become problematic for them. "Good writing" will never solve the problem of airing unproven criminal accusations. Not airing them is a great way to solve that problem, and says nothing either way about the accusers. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

[Yul Anderson]

Yul_Anderson

I wish to report Yul Anderson's wikipedia page, as it violates the biographies of living persons policy in several ways. It states that Anderson has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, however the source do not validate this claim. Secondly, it states that John Malkovich has used Anderson's cover version of Bob Dylan's All Along the Watchtower in his movie, The Dancer Upstairs. However, the source does not validate this claim once again. There is an overall lack of credible sources. Therefore the page should be reviewed by an administrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamann2008 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Tommy Coster

Tommy Coster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone who has the time please take a look at this article. For some reason that I can't put my finger on (apart from its length), it doesn't look quite right to me. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

ukexpat, I just spent a half-hour on this. Part of the problem is that the biography section is largely unsourced or has useless sources and part of the problem is that Coster started at a very young age and worked on some of the same projects as his father, Tom Coster. The credits seem to largely check out, though. [7] So, should we stub the biography section or tag it? Sourcing all the details present in the article will be hard. I couldn't find a lot out there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

John Cryan

User:78.52.12.153 reverting the edits about the place of birth of that personality. He has been advised not to revert or getting blocked. Cruks (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Reuven Rivlin

Following the publication of a deeply stupid Israeli news article complaining that Wikipedia's article on Reuven Rivlin lists him as being born in Mandatory Palestine rather than Israel - which didn't exist at the time of his birth - the article has unfortunately had a series of IP editors trying repeatedly to "correct" it. It was semi-protected for a while but the problem has resumed. A further period of semi-protection would be appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Gender identity matter at Chris Crocker article

Chris Crocker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At "22:07, 9 June 2015," Gwenhope came in changing Crocker's name to a feminine name, began using feminine pronouns for Crocker, and added File:Christine Crocker.png (an image where Crocker is presenting as a woman), based on Facebook posts that Crocker made. I reverted at "01:45, 10 June 2015," stating, "Revert per WP:BLP; you need better sources for this material. Crocker is always changing between genders. Do not revert. I am taking this matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard." With the Caitlyn Jenner/Bruce Jenner matter going on, and how heated that is, and with the Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning matter having been very heated, etc., more eyes are needed on this Cris Crocker matter. This is especially complicated because, like I noted, Crocker is always changing gender expression; see what is stated in Crocker's Wikipedia article about that, and the transgender, genderqueer, gender bender articles and MOS:Identity guideline for more on what this topic concerns. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Also see this 2014 "Being a Non-Transitioned Transgender Person" video and this 2015 "Thank You, Bruce" video from the official Chris Crocker YouTube channel, and this latest video ("The Full Truth") from that channel...where Crocker seems to be finally transitioning to a female identity for good (this is the video that Gwenhope based the article changes on). Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Something else that needs consideration when rewording if we start using female pronouns throughout the article is that the wording needs to be coherent; for example, Crocker identified as a gay male for years. It is therefore challenging to use female pronouns regarding some of the sexual orientation content. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, Your mention on how to refer to a person's past gender-wise is interesting. That debate is currently being held in a very complex manner. I do agree somethings might need some minor rewriting to make the article more clarified given the transition. Regardless that debate is not for this page. In light of the most recent video, your comment regarding "Crocker is always changing between genders" is inaccurate. When they first appeared they were presenting feminine. Apparently as the limelight grew, she felt pressured into presenting masculine while also on her own journey discovering her gender identity. There's no reason to punish her discussion of her journey. Specifically, Crocker used to present primarily female until a masculine period that lasted from about three to five years during popularity, but has since come to realize that wasn't who she was. And regardless, your revert destroyed any inclusion of the updated information regarding this person, not just related to gender identity, but to where they live and such. Gwenhope (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Gwenhope (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), I know of that WP:Village pump discussion (I participated in it; a WP:Permalink for it is here). As for where this Crocker matter should be discussed, this page is an appropriate place to discuss this since WP:BLP matters are supposed to be taken very seriously. Like I stated at NeilN's talk page, in the case of Crocker's gender identity, Crocker has yet to state that we should start using female pronouns and the name "Christine"; therefore, we should not be using such throughout Crocker's Wikipedia article, and certainly not without better sources. Nothing I stated above about Crocker is inaccurate, as is clear by Crocker's own words in YouTube videos addressing gender and/or gender expression, and currently in Crocker's Wikipedia article (which is supported by WP:Reliable sources). I stated that "Crocker is always changing between genders" because Crocker has essentially stated that more than once, including not identifying as one gender or the other...but rather a combination of both. And we should definitely keep in mind that when Crocker presented as female before, Crocker never insisted that we use female pronouns and/or the name "Christine." This is partly why many in the transgender community have been upset with Crocker. And, as you know, Crocker has addressed other reasons that many in the transgender community have been upset with his/her gender expression. In other words, Crocker's gender expression has often not been one thing and did not adhere to what many transgender people feel is the expression of a person who is actually transgender; some were telling Crocker to identify as genderqueer instead, and so on. And as you know, Crocker has addressed transgender people having different gender journeys. When it is clear that Crocker is permanently transitioning to a female gender identity, WP:Reliable sources will likely have picked that up and then we can proceed from there. And it is easy to go back into the edit history and retrieve data.

On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this discussion since it is currently on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about use of court records

I had posted the following at [[8]], but I see:

"This isn't the right place to ask questions about how to apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines; this page is for discussion of how to change or improve this rule. For questions of that sort use the reliable sources noticeboard or, in this case, the biographies of living persons noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)"

So, I'll try here as suggested, although I'm not sure it really fits, since it was really a general question about what if any elements of court records are RS, but had a specific example to be concrete:

'This is a question about the usability of court records. Wikipedia has pages for me, [[9]] and Edward Wegman [[10]]. I have never edited either of these pages and have zero intent to do so, but I am interested in getting clarification, as the generally well-intentioned Wikipedia rules sometimes seem to forbid rock-solid real-world factual evidence.

My blog post Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said, Milt Johns Sue John Mashey For $2 Million is itself obviously not RS, but it attaches copies of online court records of lawsuits related to events described in both Wikipedia pages above.

Those are the files named 1-1.pdf - 20.pdf. pp.15-18 of the detaled PDF (not RS of course) summarize the chronology, but also explain how to find the online records via PACER.

Of course, claims in court files easily may not be correct (and indeed, some of them are not), but [[11]] is even stronger: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."

That seems to mandate that even the following sentence would absolutely be disallowed. Is that true?

"Edward Wegman filed a $1M lawsuit against John Mashey 0n 03/10/14 in Fairfax Circuit Court in Virginia and his Wegman Report coauthor Yasmin Said filed another there 06/12/15. Both were removed to Federal Court 04/15/15, and on 04/30/15 they submitted voluntary dismissals of the combined case." JohnMashey (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)' JohnMashey (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If the only source(s) for that information is the court document itself, then the information does not belong in an article. Is it currently in an article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Various people and companies sue various other companies and people all the time. Such lawsuits are only worthy of mention in an encyclopedia if independent, reliable, secondary sources take note of them, and discuss their significance, and coverage of a lawsuit must not be given undue weight in an article. Special care should be taken with unresolved lawsuits, as mentioning them may falsely imply that someone did something wrong, when a court has not yet ruled. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think court cases are good for editor background and for understanding secondary sources but they make poor references for claims in articles. Court records can have motions and minutes that are not public (i.e. family court records for child support calculations that have income or information are not public so the public docket is incomplete). It takes special access to vouch for the entire records and its interpretation whence the need for secondary sources to make claims particularly for living people. Even a Supreme Court decision is usually easy to read but still needs a secondary source (reading them directly helps determine where to get the secondary source). If it's not covered, it's probably not notable enough. --DHeyward (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Primary sources can be used, with caution, for things like basic facts, such as that a lawsuit was filed. They should not be used to support the relative merit of any claims made by that primary source. GregJackP Boomer! 15:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  As noted above, court filings make poor references for claims in articles. Anyone can claim anything in filing a civil suit. The fact that a plaintiff filed only means that the plaintiff thinks that he was wronged, not that there is any merit to that claim. Do you have a specific question about whether information should be removed from one of the articles as inadequately sourced? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  Also, I see that you have not been edit-warring or otherwise editing disruptively, but will comment for the benefit of other editors that the whole area has caused considerable controversy inside and outside Wikipedia, and in Wikipedia is subject to discretionary sanctions, so that disruptive editors can be topic-banned or blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hastert

The last paragraph of the lead about Dennis Hastert says this:

“ In June 2015, accusations but not legal charges emerged that Hastert had sexually abused three students (including "Individual A") when he was a teacher.[9][10][11][12][13] In 2006 Hastert denied sexually abusing one student, who died in 1995 and therefore could not have been "Individual A." ”

I honestly don't know what we should do here. The statute of limitations has apparently expired, so he probably won't get a chance to prove his innocence in court. So do we just leave that paragraph there forever? It's well-sourced. On the other hand, maybe we should keep it out of the lead but put it in the body of the Wikipedia article. Any thoughts?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that this high-profile case, which isn't as yet even about alleged abuse, is all over the place and we have a ton of well-verified but awfully NEWSy content--you know what that means on Wikipedia: we'll fill it up to the max. However, that last sentence, I'm going to cut it since it's only about a single statement from a number of years ago and is thus, in my opinion, not leadworthy. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait a sec. I could see getting rid of that whole paragraph or keeping that whole paragraph, but deleting that last sentence strikes me as extremely problematic. When we describe charges we're always supposed to include denials. Per WP:BLP, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.". You really want the accusation to go in the lead while the denial is buried deep in the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

? That makes no sense. He's accused in 2015, and you want to include a statement from 2006 in which he denied having abused a student who could not have been one of the three he's suggested of having abused now? It's a different allegation. If you really think the BLP is served by either removing the paragraph or restoring that tortured logicism that I removed, you made the wrong choice. Just scrap the whole paragraph. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, all of the recent allegations are about very old behavior, when he was a teacher in the 1970s.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but that's not my point. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The student that he denied abusing in 2006 is almost certainly one of the three that he's now alleged to have abused. His name is Steve Rheinboldt.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, the bigger question involves this statement in WP:BLP.... "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Here the statute of limitations has expired, so what do we do?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Sexuality says, "Care should be taken to avoid placing undue weight on aspects of sexuality." I don't think this stuff should be in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course it belongs in the lead. Saying otherwise is naive. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Cwobeel. In the lead, we are supposed to faithfully summarize the article's contents, lending reasonably proportionate weight to each. To omit mention of an important and well-sourced aspect of the article is contrary to policy and would do a disservice to readers. This is particular true when the mention of the allegation is a mere one sentence of the lead.

Moreover, there is absolutely no BLP violation in the article. Re the presumption of innocence discussed above - this seems to be a red herring here. The article does not (and never has) made any comment as to guilt or innocence, truth or untruth - rather, it simply and neutrally reports what the allegation (as reported in reliable sources) is. Neutrality^talk 04:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

All valid points, but the fact remains that this is a very unusual situation where a BLP subject is being publicly accused of sex crimes long after expiration of the statute of limitations. We are supposed to avoid WP:Recentism, presume innocence, and take special care to give sex stuff appropriate weight. Are you folks planning on leaving these unproved accusations of sex crimes at the end of the lead indefinitely? I think it's better to cover it only in the article body. It's very stigmatizing. Of course, if he's guilty, then he deserves stigma, and if guilt is established then we can give it to him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Shaun T

Page has only one line of content which redirects to a non-existing page. Hence, this page can be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamtadalal (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Somnath Bharti - allegations of domestic violence

Can someone please run their eyes over this section of a BLP. It has been added recently and is well sourced. A change of heading would be A Good Thing but I'm more concerned about how we deal with situations where it is basically one spouse making serious allegations about another. Are we ok to leave this in? - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have just removed the section linked above, partly because of doubts re: balance but mainly because I'm hoping it will stop the ongoing edit war until we arrive at some sort of consensus. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Avera Mengistu

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive223#Avera Mengistu. This is still a blatant BLP violation. Now the subject of the article has been expanded to two possible names - either Avera Mengistu or Abraham Mengistu. This new name comes from yet another non-RS that cites "Israeli media reports" as the source - however, these reports do not exist anywhere and editor who supports this info has not supplied them. This is a pseudo biography that is pushing an agenda and needs to be deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There are still a few days to go on the AfD and despite three "speedy delete" !votes, nobody has provided a reason why the article qualifies for speedy deletion. I think you're going to have to wait until the AfD is closed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles that are clear violations of BLP should not have to wait the full seven days for BLP - THAT is why three people want to speedy delete this atrocity. And I still say there's no evidence this isn't a hoax, considering the questionable motives/honesty of people contributing to it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Cyrus Pallonji Mistry

I wish to bring to the attention of the Admins the page about Cyrus Pallonji Mistry. Mr Mistry is one of the top industrialists in India. He is currently heading the Tata group of companies in India. There is some dispute on his wiki page about his nationality. There is definitely a reference given in his wiki page to a Times of India article which says he is an Irish national. Never the less, considering that he is living and working in India, i think he should be described as an Indo-Irish businessman or an Irish-Indian businessman, and not as an Irish businessman. Characterizing him as an Irish businessmen would only provoke xenophobia among a section of Indians who read his wikipedia biography. Additionally, consider the fact that his father Pallonji Mistry is characterized as an Irish Indian in his wikipedia page. It is surely strange that the father is being characterized as Irish Indian in his wikipedia page while the son is being characterized as Irish in his wikipedia page. Anyways, i would like some kind of ruling on this issue since this is a matter that can come up again and again in the context of other wikipedia biographies of other immigrants. I would like to add that this is a general dispute concerning all immigrants. It is not specific to one individual. Soham321 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no dispute about his nationality. He has self-declared as Irish and even explained why that is so. The rest of this matter is being discussed at the article talk page. If nothing comes out of that then, yes, it may need more eyes. I'd be surprised if nothing does come out of it, though, because it isn't remotely contentious. This looks like forum shopping, bearing in mind the exact same post was made at WP:AN. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no forum shopping. One of the admins at WP:AN suggested that i could take this up either on this forum or in the talk page of the article. I prefer to take this issue up on this forum since this is an issue concerning all immigrants. It is not specific to Cyrus Pallonji Mistry. Consider also the fact that Cyrus's father Pallonji Mistry is being characterized as an Irish Indian in his own wikipedia page. Where is the consistency? Soham321 (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So fix his father's article? Have you even bothered checking Talk:Cyrus Pallonji Mistry? We've got enough problems with Indian nationalists already without creating yet more storms in teacups. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no expectation that a son must have the same nationality as his father. This really is just a matter of what reliable sources say about him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that both the son and the father are Irish citizens who are living in and well settled in India for many years. There is no reason to believe that they will ever go back to settle down in Ireland. We can consider them as immigrants. It is like Indian immigrants to the US being called Indian-Americans. Likewise we can consider the Mistrys to be Irish-Indian or Indo-Irish or something similar. At any rate there is a discrepancy in the wikipedia pages of the son and the father which should be addressed. You cannot describe the father as Irish-Indian and the son as Irish without failing the test of consistency. Soham321 (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC) And this is an interesting reference. Cyrus Mistry and the mammy factor at the heart of TataExtract:"I've talked with Cyrus, and I can tell you that he's neither an Indian nor an Irish nationalist.Although he is an Irish citizen and a permanent resident of India, he sees himself as a global citizen. The colour of his passport is not important."Soham321 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I made a suggestion in this edit and summary. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies:, it won't work. We got here because people were stressing "Indian" and I discovered that he was not in fact Indian. They'll be back simply because that is what a lot of Indians like to do: they bask in the reflected glory of those with whom they feel they are associated and they make appropriate associations to enhance that (for the latter, see Sanskritisation). In a sense, it is what underpins the caste system. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Mitch Caplan (Mitchell H. Caplan)

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

---

[COI Disclaimer: I am employed as a PR professional in an agency setting. Jefferson National (Caplan's current place of business) is a client (this is also noted on the Talk page).]

I'm seeking an editor to consider the suggested factual revisions to Mitch Caplan's page (position has been updated for number of years, etc.) and waited the requisite amount of time before posting here.

As outlined in the CREWE Engagement Flowchart, I have submitted this request on the Talk Page and on the WikiProject Biographies page. Kristen sald (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Tatito Hernández

• Tatito Hernández (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi

Someone wrote a biography about me. I don't authorise anyone to write biography about me, the info published is false. I request delete this post about me. That post is inappropriate, Below the link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatito_Hernández

Please delete the entire information and disable this link.

Thanks, I'll be appreciate your attention to this matter.

Rafael Tatito Hernandez Montanez redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatitohernandez (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As you are an elected representative I don't think there is a case for the article to be deleted. As you are a public figure no-one needs to be authorised to write about you. However I noticed there were some serious WP:BLP violations on your page which I have removed. Could you please let us know if there is anything else incorrect in your article. -- haminoon (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed some of the personal information. Although it can be sourced, is not necessary per WP:NPF. As to deletion, that's unlikely. There doesn't seem to be any other problems with the article that I can see. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Texas pool party incident

Will someone please point out that Eric Casebolt's name has both been "widely disseminated" as well as being "directly involved" with the 2015 Texas pool party incident to those who keep removing his name from the article, claiming WP:BLPNAME as a justification?[12][13][14], etc. Besides which: he was a public servant, not a private citizen. I would hope the noticeboard would frown upon its mission being perverted like this. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly receptive to the "public servant, not private citizen" argument as an absolute. Sure, it holds for congresspersons and the like, but applying it to an ordinary policeman is a bit much. Nevertheless -- referring to Casebolt by name is a horse that has left the barn, bolted across the paddock, and jumped the fence. There's no policy-based case for withholding something that has been reported in numerous high-end reliable sources such as the Washington Post, the Guardian, the new York Times, the BBC, etc etc etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)