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.

Dorian Electra

I came across this article, Dorian Electra, while looking at the entry for Shimer College.

This individual does not appear to be particularly notable. It appears that she is a college student who made a moderately popular youtube video in 2012. The page is an extensive resume including the high school she went to. I believe this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.209.4 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Then you should nominate it for deletion, there doesn't seem to be a BLP issue in your discussion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – article tagged for notability

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Piers Gaveston Society

Bluelinks David Cameron twice. The basis is what appears to be a single anonymous allegation, and a non-anonymous denial by a person in that society, that Cameron was a member. I suggest that if he is kept as a prominent member (alleged) in a table, that the table should also include the counter claim (cited) that he was not a member. Or if the later (second) bluelink for him is kept, that the bluelink in the table is then redundant. Ought a questionable allegation be given such prominence in this manner - listing himtwice? Collect (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The whole section is "alleged" members. Whether that's a good idea in general is an open question, I suppose. But there's no reason to worry about Cameron any more than about the others -- especially given the extent of sourcing about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Two separate issues. Is "alleged membership" in any society a "contentious claim" in esse. If so, then the article has major problems from the start. Second is - under what circumstances should we bluelink a living person where the basis is an "allegation" by an anonymous person in the first instance? Collect (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not an allegation by an anonymous person. It's an allegation by two notable named people, in a notable book, about a notable scandal. All four of these sources are considered WP-notable to have articles about them (for as much as that proves anything). Now maybe these are all derived from one single allegation (by someone who is not anyway anonymous to them), but the allegation has been repeated by the two authors such that any court in the land would now regard them as having made it and staked their own reputations upon it. This is no longer an allegation depending solely on The Honourable Mr Anon MP (Oxon), it now (for our purposes) rests on Ashcroft and Oakeshott's allegations, as repeated widely by every media channel around.

Are you seriously suggesting that WP should not report something that is covered by national TV channels, because it is "unsourced"? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – resolved by editors reaching consensus

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Khawaja Asif

Concerning Mr. Khawaja Asif's page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja_Muhammad_Asif

1. Educational info is incorrect; He attended Government College University, Lahore (BA in History and Politics), he attended Punjab University (LLB). He did not study business administration, he did not attend the LSE, and he does not have a masters degree. Educational data can be confirmed from his nomination papers submitted to Election Commission of Pakistan (cited on the Wikipedia page for Mr. Asif) http://ecp.gov.pk/ScanNF/RECORD%20OF%20RETURNED%20CANDIDATES%20WITH%20ANNEXURES/NATIONAL_ASSEMBLY/GENERAL%20SEATS/NA-110/KHAWAJA%20MOHAMMAD%20ASIF.PDF

2. He is not a "conservative thinker". No citation has been provided for said distinction.

2. News article given as source for "Differences seemed to develop between Khwaja Asif and Nawaz Sharif when he offered to resign alleging that he did not have control over his own ministry.[4]" is speculative, and does not belong in biographical data.

3. His ties to the PMLN go back to his days as a young political activist during his father's political career. Any claim regarding his relationship with Mr. Agha Hassan Abedi is speculative, and without citation.

4. His first job in the UAE was not at BCCI. His career in banking also preceded that relocation.

5. He returned to Pakistan and won his first election prior to his father's death

6. He contested his first National Assembly election in 1993, from which point on he has been the representative of NA-100 till the present day.

Said changes have been made by me, but few have taken effect. Although the biography section of the main page has removed the mention of LSE and the master degree, the same correction has not taken effect in the summary box on the right of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.28.174 (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Disabled {{adminhelp}} since this doesn't need immediate admin attention. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – unsourced materials removed, tagged for notability

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

John and Clarence Anglin

John Anglin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clarence Anglin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The History Channel documentary shows possible updates of the brothers duo's living status. Is the documentary reliable or not? --George Ho (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I watched an hour of the documentary last night waiting for "hard evidence" that the Anglins made it out of the Bay alive. There was none. After the nephews started presenting various conditions for their claims (i.e. using their own analysts), I decided I wasn't about to get sucked in for another hour of the same. This is like the JFK conspiracy shows were the "researchers" make fabulous claims and use experts sympathetic to their own POV. If appropriate weight is given, I have no objections to using secondary sources that discuss the show and its claims (which in turn should be presented with attribution). As I see it, the two articles above do not give proper weight. (Here is a good review of the show from Variety. Sarah D. Bunting's review is here; it looks like I was able to put up with it three times longer that she did!) - Location (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC) edited 20:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi should explain this then. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I watched it as well. The entire two hours. And the forensic experts enlisted by the US Marshal Service and FBI concluded that the two in the photo were the Anglin brothers. Sorry you didn't watch it all. The conclusion was quite compelling and both the FBI and US Marshal are likely going to investigate further based on the evidence presented. There was talk of extradition possibilities. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk is talk and I did not find it the least bit compelling. I've seen enough shows like this to know that Roderick's hand-picked expert would state just what the papers said he stated (i.e. that it was "highly likely" the people in the photo were the Anglin brothers). The Widners and Roderick have been talking about this stuff for about three years, and The History Channel doesn't have a show if someone like Dyke calls "bullshit". Given the conditions the Widners put on everything, Dyke was more gracious than he need to be... or at least he did a good job pretending to be. Here is what he has to say today about the photo:

"I can't say yes or no on it," U.S. Marshal Michael Dyke, based in Oakland, said in an interview. "I've seen the picture. I'm doing analysis on the photo as we speak and having the FBI look at it. The important thing is to not draw any conclusions as it hasn't been vetted through regular investigative channels."[1]

Let's not be so gullible. - Location (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It may be a reliable source to support a mention of the nephews' claims... I would wait until it's been vetted by a broader array of sources before considering it worthy of inclusion, however. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the sources, I think it merits inclusion, but we should be very careful not to state in wiki-voice that the photo is authentic or that the photo is of the brothers; that should be attributed to the experts used by The History Channel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I agree. BTW, I changed the article to state "likely" because that is what the citation given notes. I think "highly likely" is what is noted in two tabloids, the Daily Mail and NY Post. - Location (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The reliability of the History Channel is, to put it as charitably as possible, "mixed." Our own article states it well: "the network is frequently criticized by scientists, historians, and skeptics for broadcasting pseudo-documentaries, unsubstantiated and sensational investigative programming." Per WP:REDFLAG we should use History Channel in cases like this only with great caution, while also taking into account WP:WEIGHT and other policies. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts, Winkelvi? George Ho (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether the History Channel is thought unreliable by some. The video of the forensic expert, the retired deputy US Marshal, and the FBI agent are what they are. They said what they said and put their reputations on the line saying it. Why would they lie or acquiesce to a script provided by the network? What happened, happened and the fact is all three individuals said they believed the photo to be compelling evidence/a new lead that would result in further investigation in the case. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The History Channel presented a faux story line that Roderick was an impartial authority figure enlisted by the Widners, so his opinion means squat. The only hard evidence presented was the photograph, so please don't tell me that all of this rests on the opinion of some expert named "Michael Street", whomever that is. As Dyke stated, until this has been "vetted through regular investigative channels" (i.e. real investigators and their experts), then it doesn't really matter what those three individuals said they believe. - Location (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ongoing merge/maintrenance debate over several articles covering the same subject. Editors are capable of reaching consensus and resolving dispute

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Kara Walker

Kara Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe the correct spelling to Arto lindsay in this article is Arturo Lindsay, a fellow Atlantan artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.209.185 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

yes, that is his nickname. See Arto Lindsay - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – resolved by editors reaching consensus

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Richard Downie

Richard Downie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Sir or Madam, I have deleted false, libelous material several times from the page "Richard Downie"--and it continues to reappear. The material that keeps appearing cites an article (ref 3) that further cites an informal investigation (ref 4). This actual report (contained within ref 4) does not actually support his statements. In fact the investigating officer's conclusions in the actual report contained in ref 4 are: “The Director of the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (CHDS) directed an investigation into allegations of a hostile work environment, mismanagement, resource discrepancies and racial prejudice raised by[Name Masked]. After extensive review into these allegations, I find that the center’s leadership has not violated any laws or Department of Defense regulations, has not acted unethically towards its employees, and has maintained good order and conduct expected in an organization in the Department of Defense.”

In short, this individual keeps stressing his own allegations that there was mismanagement – – but the actual findings of the report he cites do not support his allegations. His claim of "controversy" is based on his own personal agenda--not that of the investigating officer--as he claims falsely.

Please note the following: The graduate of a military academy whose motto is “Duty, Honor, Country,” Downie's tenure at CHDS was a time of controversy over human rights, free speech and other management issues, including recurring senior staff involvement in acts of racism, sexism and homophobia in what many employees said was a "hostile work environment for those not within the inner circle" that was also riddled with favoritism. (See AR16-5 report cited below.) In late 2014 the then-Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), asked for a Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) investigation of CHDS, one of DoD's five international regional centers, focusing on events going back as far as 2008.[2][3][4]

Similarly, later in the paper he adds: It was under Downie, the informal AR 15-6 investigation showed, that: "Many current and former employees feel that a hostile work environment exists due to an underlying atmosphere of favoritism towards certain current and former employees ... Another aspect that may contribute to the perception of a hostile work environment according to some employees is the lack of dialogue between the Director (Downie) and the faculty and staff. ... Most employees felt that to raise any issues would result in retribution or even termination."[22]

At the same time as McClatchy broke the Garcia Covarrubias story, in "Flagship military university hired foreign officers linked to human rights abuses in Latin America," The Center for Public Integrity revealed that a nonpublic report in 2012 by a U.S. Army colonel appointed by Downie himself, ostensibly to head off an Inspector General investigation already requested in 2009 and then again in 2011, "concluded that 'a hostile work environment exists' at CHDS; that its staff had displayed 'a lack of sensitivity towards the use of derogatory language'; and many employees felt its leaders routinely retaliated against those who questioned them. The report, obtained by CPI under the Freedom of Information Act, depicted a sort of frat-house atmosphere at the Center. It stated that staff had exchanged 'racially charged emails' — including one directed at President Barack Obama; used offensive language such as 'faggot,' 'buttboy' and 'homo'; and that 'women employees feel that they are treated inappropriately.' Even senior leaders used 'inappropriate hand gestures,' it said, and mentioned simulations of masturbation."[21]--Reference 4 repeated

Request this user be blocked from further libelous posts on this page. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Sincerely, Richard Downie

I did a bit of trimming but this needs to be thoroughly looked over by someone who has a bit more time than I do right now. Parts of the text are pretty POV, some of the info is not supported by the sources. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@RichardDDownie2: Thanks for bringing this up here, I have only taken a quick look but it does appear that parts of the are not neutrally worded or properly sourced. Posting here should help get these issues fixed.

As an aside, if you are Richard Downie or have a connection to him, please read WP:COI and WP:NLT - if that's the case, it would be best to focus on bringing other editors attention to problems (as you've done here) rather than editing the article yourself, and to avoid characterizing the article or other editors as libelous. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I will concur that this needs the attention of someone with time. I found claims not in sources, reliance on sources that do not mention the subjects. Eyes on this would be appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Problems continue on this one, an there's an IP that keeps adding contentious material, while a user with the same name as the article subject keeps removing it. I'm busy in RL and just don't have the time to look at this in depth right now, posting this update in the hopes that others will keep watch. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – resolved by editors refining article content and sources

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cecil (lion) being used as coatrack to attack dentist Palmer

Zimbabwe has declared that Palmer's hunt that led to the death of Cecil was legal and in order and he faces no charges.[2]. There is no reason to mention other hunts by Palmer as they are unrelated to Cecil (the article's subject) and the hunt that ended his life. It is also now known to be false that Zimbabwe sought extradition. They did not seek it as is stated in the latest news release and fairly obvious since the US has extradition treaty with Zimbabwe. Palmer's role is that he was the big game hunter that complied with Zimbabwe's laws and did nothing unlawful. The article should not contain any innuendo or coatrack material that he did anything unlawful. --DHeyward (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your edit here and I agree that it's inappropriate to add purported "prior bad acts" in an effort to somehow taint this separate issue. I've watchlisted the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The issue is mostly with the article pretending to be about a lion when the notable subject that all the reliable sources have covered is the Killing of Cecil the lion. the page should be moved back. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's been listed for move to "Death of Cecil the lion" on the talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is fascinating -- Palmer is now the victim of "Cecil". I'm trying to form a thought -- can't quite put my finger on it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Palmer is not the victim of Cecil. Rather he did nothing illegal and is the victim of gossip and social media feeding frenzy where a number of things have been proven false. We generally don't drag BLP1E living people through the mud especially regarding crimes that are later proven false. We don't even drag them through the mud and clean them off by stating their innocence after writing how many awful things he did and how many charges he faced. The public response to Palmer is fair coverage in the article. Claiming the Zimbabwean government was proceeding to extradite him for a crime is not as that is false. No crime, no proceedings, no extradition. There was no crime to initiate proceedings and that fact became known this week. Palmer's previous hunts have no bearing on the killing of Cecil in any way - that story is a COATRACK item. --DHeyward (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Zimbabwean government initiated proceedings to extradite him. That is literally, factually correct. The first step is to get the prosecutor general to confirm that they will bring a case. However, the prosecutor general determined that there was no evidence they could charge Palmer on, and advised the minister of this. For that reason, extradition did not happen. It is still correct that the government intended to have him extradited, and are on the record saying so. Two other people are concurrently being prosecuted in relation to the same event. Palmer has not been "cleared" of anything, he simply has not been charged. Wikipedia needs to maintain that distinction. In spite of this, Palmer is at the centre of a major political and media event that led one country to ban that hunting format and another to suspend it, as well as at least one airline to change its trophy carrying policy. In the process, the phrase "Walter Palmer" accumulated over 1.5 million Google hits, at current count, including several RS that refer to the black bear fine in the context of the Cecil hunt. Samsara 23:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Again, no. One minister made a statement that Palmer broke the law and that they were pursuing extradition. That one minister was incorrect. He did not break the law and so they were not pursuing extradition. That one minister is obviously not the government of Zimbabwe if they don't even know whether charges were warranted. It's a BLP violation to state it in WP's voice that Zimbabwe believed a crime had been committed and that Zimbabwe was pursuing extradition for that crime. It's false and a BLP violation. In the section, where it's an attributed quote, I left it alone. Where it's in WP's voice, I removed it. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – unsourced content tagged. Some very good editors capable of reaching consensus.

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Francis J. Harvey

Much of this article is not sourced, and seems a bit fishy and as if the subject themselves wrote it. Particularly the second half of the "Secretary of the Army" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.133.38.196 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC+9)

Content from the section you noted was removed. Some of the information could probably stay but because there was no source I just went ahead and got rid of it. Meatsgains (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – unsourced content removed

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Carlos Cadona

Carlos Cadona, stage name 6025, is the former guitarist for well known punk band the Dead Kennedys. According to his wikipedia article he suffers from schizophrenia, his mother looks after his finances and he is working on becoming the "Captain Beefheart of of gospel music". The sources given there are deadkennedys.com (official website of what remains of the band), alternativetentacles.com (former record label of the band, closely associated with former member Jello Biafra), and darkside.ru, a Russian rock music e-zine. None of these strike me as being sufficiently reliable for material which alludes to someone's mental health. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Copy edited the article extensively. I had to trim it significantly due to lack of sources and unencyclopaedic language. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Valid list?

I'm writing here somewhat on behalf of another editor who tried to create List of incidents of vigilantism against sex offenders from a boylover wiki. It was speedied as a copyright infringement and I didn't see where they had their content licenced as fair use. If anyone wants to go through that site and look for it, feel free.

Aside from that, I was wondering if this would qualify for an article even if it was re-written. I'm worried that this could violate WP:BLP, at least on behalf of the people who performed the vigilantism, and I'm also worried about notability. I generally don't like creating a list article for things that would not have individual notability in and of themselves. From what I could see, none of the people listed in the now deleted article had pages or would pass WP:NCRIME individually. Also, while the page was named sex offenders, the people listed as being attacked or killed were all convicted for sex crimes against children. While pedophiles (or in one case, a hebephile) can be sex offenders, not all sex offenders are pedophiles or hebephiles. That's mostly an aside, though.

My take on this is that a list page would be unwarranted unless the individual cases were notable enough for inclusion. I do think that there is merit in having an article about vigilantism against pedophiles and sex offenders in general, but I don't know that individually listing people who attacked or killed convicted is really a good idea. I was wondering what you guys thought. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Some high profile vigilante cases involve attacks on people who are not (or not yet) convicted sex offenders, or attacks on previously convicted offenders who the vigilantes suspect of a new crime, which is a BLP minefield. Example. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

https://www.boywiki.org/en/BoyWiki:Copyrights Incidintz (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, not many people are going to visit a 'boywiki', but having just looked at that URL I can tell everyone it says it's a compatible GNU FDL v1.2. To be a valid list it would really need to list articles about the incidents, as opposed to this which seemed to be a somewhat indiscriminate list of news items. Somewhere like Anti-pedophile activism, or an non-list article about the narrower phenomenon, might be a better place for notable non-article items. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking that out. I admit that I didn't spend but so long on the site, partially because I was at work and well... that's not the greatest site to be seen perusing at any job location. I don't have an issue with listing some notable cases at the activism page, although I think that there needs to be a devoted section to vigilantism or at least to tactics in general. I would have to say that it'd be best if we limited this to instances where the cases merited an article, just for BLP's sake. There have to be at least a few of those on here, although if the coverage is heavy enough it could probably warrant inclusion without an article. I'd like to say that inclusion in say, an academic text would be a good, strong indicator that something should be included as an example. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree; you never know what kind of awkward conversations browsing that site at work might lead to. You might be surfing from wikilink to wikilink when your boss glances at your screen as they're walking by, does a double-take upon noticing the distinctive spiral triangle logo, and says, "Wow, you're a BoyWiki fan too?! What a coincidence!" Incidintz (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• LOL, you almost made me choke on a graham cracker. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

i think it is likely that the subject has been covered in enough detail by enough very reliable sources that an article could be written- it has been the premise of several "ripped from the headlines" criminal investigation drama shows. but, boywiki would be near the LAST place we would go for information even if it is completely appropriately licensed. the BLP minefield on all sides would require permanent protection levels . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mushtaq Omar Uddin

Some of the information in this pageMushtaq Omar Uddin is somewhat libellous and incorrect; and is causing damages to the living persons career and personal life. The living person does not want to have a wikipedia page with his personal information made public. The owner of the page was contacted and the request to delete it- ignored. Can you please advise how this issue can be resolved. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrak15 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Amrak15: The information, such as date of birth, is cited to a book. I don't have a copy of the book to say for sure whether it's valid or not. However, you'll need a better reason than "The living person does not want to have a wikipedia page" to remove it: as a general rule, we don't remove pages or content just on the subject's request.

Now, if you see uncited information, that's different: that can (and arguably should) be removed per WP:BLP. The issue I have is that you've removed cited information, and you removed the external links section of the article wholesale.

Finally, since you indicate that you know what Uddin wants in respect to the article, it suggests that you have a conflict of interest with him, which may limit how much you should edit his article and may also obligate you to make certain disclosures, if you have that nature of conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The user you contacted, NottNott (talk · contribs), does not "own" the page (no one user does), and does not have the ability to delete the page themself. You may wish to review WP:DELETION to see the processes that are available for you to request deletion (although I suspect that in this case, deletion will be an uphill battle.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Amrak15: Upon getting a notification from Nat Gertler (thanks!) I've revised the changes made to the article to fit better with policies such as WP:SUBJECT and WP:NPOV, as well as general style improvements. As Nat Gertler said, I don't own the page as anyone can edit it. With that said, have a look and see what you think. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 17:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – editor removed unsourced materials

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter Thornley

IP user 176.35.162.157 has repeatedly posted unsubstantiated/unsourced contentious material to the BLP article on Peter Thornley, including one edit implying links between the subject and notorious sexual abuser Jimmy Saville. 2.29.250.131 (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – unsourced materials removed from article, article tagged for notability

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Anni Dewani

Impacts named living persons. A discussion about including a contentious claim (that is, a claim that the murder was done "for hire") was just closed as "no consensus" on the article talk page. As I understand it, lack of a consensus for inclusion of a contentious claim impacting living persons defaults to "exclusion of the claim" however another closer states that the default for a contentious claim affecting living persons is "inclusion". further opinions sought from outsiders. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If there's no consensus for the inclusion of a contentious claim, then it cannot be included. --ℕ ℱ 21:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Michael A. Amos

Hi all,

I've just signed up for this tonight. I'm trying to clean up a few of my family tree pages (Charles Amos), (Troy Amos-Ross), (Egerton Marcus), and create a page for myself (Michael A. Amos), and my father "Christoper D. Amos."

Everything on here is pretty easy, the only hard thing is citing the references for my personal page. The rest of my family is already all set up. Please help. If you google me, you can verify most of everything. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamos1983 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's highly, highly discouraged for people to write an article about themselves on Wikipedia, as it's easy for people to insert non-neutral material without realizing it and see more notability than there might actually be per Wikipedia's guidelines. Notability isn't inherited and I need to stress that Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com, so there's no need to list every family member that has accomplished something, especially as not all accomplishments are notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I also need to mention that this can be seen as self-promotion on your part, since one of your main reasons for being here seems to center predominantly about writing about yourself and ensuring that the articles for family members includes a mention of you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – article is Afd listed, self published bio

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya, regarding Vladimir Putin

• Related discussion on AN, filed after this, concerning the block of BMK by Ymblanter. BMK (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• NAC'd by NE Ent, who probably shouldn't have done so, since he participated in the discussion - but I'm not contesting it. BMK (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya‎‎, a critic of Vladimir Putin, was murdered on October 7, 2006.

Many other birthdays and world events are connected with October 7, but the one thing that a number of editors want to make note of in the article on Politkovskaya is that October 7 is the birthday of Vladimir Putin. This is not a fact that is in dispute, the murder occurred on the birthday of Vladimir Putin. However, many people have speculated that there's some kind of connection between the murders and Putin's birthday, and an impressive list of sources has been accumulated which show, without any doubt, that that theory, those speculations, do indeed exist.

What hasn't been presented is anything beyond speculation and conspiracy theorizing. There are no sources presented which actually provide any evidence of a causal connection between the murder and Putin, or, even, a correlation between the murders and it being Putin's birthday. Absent such evidence, including in the article the information that the murder took place on Putin's birthday is not an innocent addition, it carries with it the clear implication of some sort of connection between Putin and the murder or the killers.

It seems to me that such an implication is a clear violation of the BLP policy, because although the speculation and conjecture is well-sourced, the obvious implication is not sourced at all: there is no evidence, as of yet, from a reliable source which purports to show that there is a relationship between Putin's birthday and the murder of one of his critics. If and when such information comes to light, then it can be reported on, but until that time, including mention of Putin's birthday in the article should be considered to be a BLP violation.

In a previous discussion about this issue @Swarm: said about it

I agree that this is a very well-grounded BLP concern. Thinly-veiled innuendo such as this that obviously implicates Putin in a murder of one of his opponents is entirely non-neutral and out of line with BLP. If reliable sources directly discuss his connection, there's nothing wrong with including it, but the contested phrase is horribly passive-aggressive innuendo that implies much more than is written, and that's not appropriate for a neutral article. [3]

Obviously, "thinly-veiled innuendo" shouldn't be in any Wikipedia arricle, let alone be connected to a living person, even Putin. BMK (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that, as you say, a sizeable number of sources make a connection between the date of the murder and the birthday of Putin, there's no problem in our article noting this. Adhering to BLP requires that contentious material be well sourced; that is obviously the case here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. More than 30 reliable, high quality sources, including academic ones, which make the connection have been provided [4]. In effect, almost every source which discusses this topic mentions this fact. We cannot just pretend that sources don't say what they actually say. That is effectively misrepresenting the sources. This is not a BLP issue. Volunteer Marek  05:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a violation. Wikipedia reflects what sources say. See VM above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not even close to a BLP violation. The number of strong reliable and verifiable sources that make the connection between the murder and Putin's birthday is overwhelming. The first two pages of results from this Google search using the words "'Anna Politkovskaya' murdered Putin's birthday" turn up sources including:

1. The New York Times ("And then there was the fact that Politkovskaya was killed on Oct. 7, the birthday of President Vladimir Putin of Russia.")
2. The Independent ("The most obvious led to the Kremlin, if not to President Putin himself; that 7 October is his birthday fuelled speculation about someone perhaps offering a macabre present.")
3. Daily Mail ("Politkovskaya, an investigative reporter who uncovered state corruption and rights abuses, especially in Chechnya, died at the age of 48 on October 7, 2006, President Vladimir Putin's 54th birthday.")
4. Reuters ("Politkovskaya, 48, was shot twice in the chest, once in the shoulder and once in the head as she returned to her Moscow home in broad daylight on October 7, 2006. The fifth anniversary of her death on Friday coincides with Putin's 59th birthday.")
5. The New Yorker ("Anna Politkovskaya was murdered as she came home with some groceries on a Saturday afternoon, October 7, 2006, Vladimir Putin’s birthday.")
6. The Guardian ("For many, the fact that Politkovskaya was assassinated on Putin's birthday, and two days after Kadyrov's 30th birthday celebrations, raised suspicions that a henchman of one or both had served up the contract hit as an unasked-for present.")
7. The Economist ("It may be a chilling coincidence that Anna Politkovskaya was murdered on Vladimir Putin's birthday, but her friends and supporters are in little doubt that her dogged, gloomy reporting of the sinister turn Russia has taken under what she called his “bloody” leadership was what led to her body being dumped in the lift of her Moscow apartment block.")
8. The KGB's Poison Factory ("The next signature murder was on 7 October 2006 when Anna Politkovskaya was shot on Putin's birthday.")
9. Transformations in Central Europe between 1989 and 2012 ("On the day of the second Katyn we may also recall the death of Anna Politkovskaya, “coincidentally” murdered on Vladimir Putin's birthday, October 7, 2006.")

Not one of these authors provides proof of a causal connection between the murder of Politkovskaya and Putin's birthday; but they do report the connection, and it should be included in the article. The evidence demanded by BMK would be needed in a court of law to charge and try Mr. Putin for the murder, but the sources reporting the connection -- in the article and available elsewhere -- certainly meet the Wikipedia standard, despite the specious BLP claims. Alansohn (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Alansohn (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Should any BLP use any correlation of dates to imply in any way any causal connection between the events? Not if WP:BLP applies - making claims which might make readers feel in any way that a connection exists or might exist which has not been clearly shown to exist by reliable sources is clearly improper. Collect (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, notable author releases a book highly critical of Putin, and is murdered by people unknown on Putins birthday. Even if the two events are actually entirely coincidence (bungled mugging) the connection exists and has been reported on by reliable sources. The sources differ on the level of connection (ranging from conspiracy theories to plausible vigilante justice etc) but it has been clearly shown to exist by sources that would qualify as reliable for wikipedia's purposes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I know this is supposed to be a rhetorical question by Collect but let me answer it in good faith. No, not ANY correlation of dates should be used in that way. SOME correlations of dates can be used in that way, in accordance with BLP, IF this correlation is extensively noted in reliable sources. I believe you're Affirming the consequent. Volunteer Marek  20:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• The particular edit in question does not imply any actual/casual connection. However, a number of quoted sources do just that. For example,

1. according to a book by Edward Jay Epstein, "Who really gave the orders and paid to have Politkovskaya assassinated on Putin’s birthday? The theory of the prosecution is that the contract to assassinate Politkovskaya ultimately came from the leaders of the Russian-backed regime in Chechnya. A second theory is that Putin’s enemies abroad paid the killers … to undermine Putin. Finally, there is a theory that Putin himself ordered the hit to intimidate journalists.".
2. according to a book by Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky, "Those who killed Politkovskaya could have done the job on October 6 or October 8. But they knew that Putin would be pleased by a gift from them on his birthday. Apparently the gift did please the recipient. On March 2, 2007, Ramzan Kadyrov became the president of the Chechen Republic.".
3. according to a book by Boris Volodarsky "The next signature murder was on 7 October when Anna Politkovskaya was shot on Putin birthday. They certainly could not afford another method – the whole effect would be lost should she die in a car accident or of a heart attack. It was all self-protection, of course, as the lady had slapped Putin in the face by publishing her book Putin's Russia in the West".

Should these claims of actual connection be included in the page? This is a different question.My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

On your examples - the first simply enumerates "theories". The second, alas, makes a specific implication that Kadryov was involved - which fails WP:BLP for sure. The third you give has an implication that "they" were specifically acting on behalf of Putin - which also fails the strictures of WP:BLP. Only the first might be usable at all -- though listing three contradictory theories might be confusing to readers. Collect (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how non-Wikipedia sources can "fail" BLP. If a source says something, the source says something. What matters is whether it's reliable. Anyway, here the main point of dispute is whether it can be noted that the murder occurred on Putin's birthday. And pretty much every source on the topic states this. Volunteer Marek  21:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much every source tells about this fact and implies or tells explicitly that some connection actually exists. This must be included simply per WP:NPOV, and this is not a BLP violation. However, what exactly connection was suggested in sources is another matter. This should be discussed separately, on the article talk page, to identify what "majority" and "minority" views exist about this. The quotations above are merely examples of conclusions about this in several books that qualify as RS. Our business is to simply summarize what majority of reliable sources on the subject tell. This is reference work. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the date of the murder was the same as Putin's Birthday, and that folks have taken note of that fact, is supported by reliable sources, and is therefore not a BLP violation. I'd suggest this portion of the disputed edit be reinserted: "Many sources have noted that she was killed on Vladimir Putin's birthday although these do not necessarily explicitly state the significance of this fact." This is neutral enough to inform the reader without undue speculation by any given single author. NE Ent 22:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

References

That source isn't viewable, and it utterly contradicts "although these do not necessarily explicitly state the significance of this fact". Check Amazon's Look Inside and search for the word birthday. It's a non-viewable source chock full of the most extreme inflammatory libel and a page range ("479-452") that is literally impossible. Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless a source explicitly states the second part of your proposed sentence, it's needless editorializing. We don't need to hold our readers' hands and remind them that correlation is not causation. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Viewability is not required for sources, so that's not a helpful observation; nonetheless Volunteer Marek has posted many sources, so use another one if desired. If the suggest edit isn't ideal why not propose something else? We got here (full protected page, AN thread, BLPN) due to binary, rather the compromise / collegial, editing. NE Ent 02:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The phrase made famous by All the President's Men is "Follow the money", meaning "Who stands to profit?", or in the Latin adage "Cui bono?". In this instance we should ask, as no one has been asking: "Who stands to benefit from adding this information to the article?" It is not by its nature neutral or innocent information -- what we would call WP:NPOV -- it is information which serves the purposes of one group of people only: the opponents of Vladimir Putin. The only reason that I can see for including Putin's birthday in the article it is to imply a connection between Putin and the murder, and thereby to tar Putin, without actually having proven any relationship.

This means that the information not only violates the BLP policy, it violates NPOV -- not to mention WP:SYNTHESIS (drawing conclusions from the juxtaposition of information that is not explicitly stated in the information). It also explains why the editors who have been so actively promoting it -- who, I believe, would make no bones about being opponents of Putin -- are pushing so very hard to include the information in the article, because it serves their POV purposes, and not a NPOV encyclopedic purpose.

The advocating editors, and some other commenters here and in the companion thread on AN, seem disinclined or unable to see the difference between a source which reports on admittedly existing speculation and theorizing, and a source which reports on actual, verifiable connections. They have a surfeit of the former, but none at all of the latter.

We are not a news source, we cannot fall back on the shibboleth used by the mass media news outlets: "We have to report on it because it's out there, it's being talked about." We are an encyclopedia, and must be held to a much higher standard than that. Including this information in the article does not do that, it has us rolling in the pigsty with the worst of the scandal sheets, not reporting on verifiable facts about living persons. BMK (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK, you made a promise to step away from the article as a condition for you unblock (after you made like 8 reverts in one hour). Please abide by that promise. The fact that you are now defending your actions by making personal attacks suggests that you haven't learned anything, that you're here to do WP:BATTLEGROUND and that perhaps you should be re-blocked. Also your logic is a bit off. Volunteer Marek  16:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As a review of my talk page will show, I made no such promise. My unblock condition was to stop reverting the article. I suggested that I walk away from the situation entirely, but the unblocking admin made a request that I not do so, and post about it here. BMK (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the attached articles are based on supposition and not first hand evidence (which is obviously very hard to get) a separate heading in the article detailing some of these, using explicit language to ensure the reader knows this would not be any violation of BLP as this is not a BLP just a Bio, if it fails other wiki rules and guidelines that is a separate matter. Any edit war editors that repeatedly violate the 3rr rule and hide behind a self interpretation of the BLP rules when they do not apply, should be reprimanded. I am not advocating banning anyone or locking any article, but certainly a reminder of what wiki is, and how this collaborative project should work would be in order, plus a final warning as this should not be tolerated again in any shape or form.The Original Filfi (talk) 07:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As shown by the supporting comments in this and the companion thread, my interpretation as not a "self-interpretation", it is a reasonable interpretation of BLP policy. Also, the BLP violation was not in regard to Anna P., the subject of the article, but in regard to Vladimir Putin. BLP-violating material is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia, no matter who it is about. BMK (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort has been shown here or in any "supporting comments". You are making a false assertion. You really need to step away from the dead horse. Like you promised you would. Volunteer Marek  16:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• I would say, since so many sources mention the fact, that one sentence which merely reads "The date was Putin's birthday." would be appropriate after the sentence which mentions what day she was murdered. But that's it. None of the more egregious articles or books should be used to cite (i.e., not The Corporation or any other source which makes such sweeping claims), but one or more of the more reliable and conservative sources (NYT, etc.). No quotations should appear in the citation. Also, this fact should not be reiterated in the lede. There is no part of BLP which specifically prohibits mentioning incontrovertible statements of fact which are noted in a variety of reliable sources. As long as we don't editorialize or use hit pieces like The Corporation as the source, I see no problem in reflecting what the majority of reliable sources report. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you can not dismiss any RS (books by academics) only because you think they are making "sweeping claims". Yes, sure, some sources are better than others. Best sources are usually not newspapers, but books by academics or other experts, specifically on the subject under discussion. In this regard, best sources are the books that included chapters on political murders in Russia. Such are books by Felshtinsky, Pribylovsky and Volodarsky. If you can suggest other books by academics on the same subject, that's fine, let's use them too. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I am not "dismissing" any sources; I am saying don't use certain of them as a citation for the fact that Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday. Use that book as a citation for the specific additional claims/theories/hypotheses/correlations that book makes, but use a neutral major independent journalistic source such as the New York Times for the single observable fact that Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

To plagiarize BMK, "the only reason that I can see for including Putin's birthday in the article" is that it reflects coverage in numerous high-end reliable sources. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, sources which do not provide verifiable evidence of the speculated-upon connection, only evidence of the existence of the speculation and theorizing. That's not sufficient to overcome the additional burden placed on the material by BLP policy. They say sometimes in American coutrooms that such-and-such evidence is "not presented for the truth of the matter" but for other legitimate reasons, well, unfortunately for those who want to insert this material, BLP requires us to present information only for the truth of the matter, not for other purposes. BMK (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no "speculated-upon connection". You are making up rules as you go along, pulling them out of your ass and engaging in your own personal original research. You're also being WP:TENDENTIOUS by this point, after you got blocked and after you got unblocked for promising to leave this matter alone.  Volunteer Marek  17:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• I cannot see this factoid related to WP:BLP. It is quite good sourced to high-quality reliable sources. Google search for "Politkovskaya Putin's birthday" brings 16K hits in English and 110K hits in Russian. Among the hits are The Guardian, Reuters, Russia Today, RFERL,NewsRu - I just looked on the first pages of each search. BTW, I remember then WP:BLP was introduced, its purpose was to protect "minor celebrities", who are notable in some aspects (e.g. because of their publications) and whose private life (or significant portions of it) is private. Putin is certainly not a "minor celebrity", there is no need to protect his private life. Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• It's disappointing that this article is still protected... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There's a pretty clear consensus here and on the article's page that this is not a BLP violation. The fact that the article was protected by an involved admin who was also the one who unblocked BMK and who protected their own preferred version doesn't exactly encourage confidence either. Volunteer Marek  17:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC

I have started an RfC on this issue on the article talk page: [5]. Consensus can be determined there via closure by an uninvolved admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A local consensus cannot override BLP policy, so the proper place for this to be discussed is here. BMK (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Having posted about it here, any consensus via the RfC will not be "local". But bless your heart for your concern. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK, well okay then. Here the consensus is pretty much for inclusion. Volunteer Marek  22:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly true. I haven't counted noses, but, of course, that's not how consensus is determined, and I hardly think that either you or I are in a position to determine strength of argument, considering our pretty entrenched respective viewpoints. I'd be willing to go by the determination of consensus by an admin who has not yet acted in this issue, based on this discussion, if the discussion were given the time to develop that's normal for an RfC, if it were listed in the central directory of RfC discussions, and if the RfC on the talk page was shut down -- would you and the other advocates agree to that? Would Nomoskedasticity? BMK (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll go with the determination of consensus by an admin who closes the RfC on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't follow the consensus where ever the RfC was held, I simply meant that there are steps that can be pursued beyond an RfC, and I would be less likely to consider taking them if the RfC were held here rather than on the article talk page. BMK (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• NB: There exists a full article on Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI: Today BMK removed all mention of Putin's birthday from that article (Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya). -- Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. BMK got blocked for edit warring like crazy on this article and only got unblocked after they promised to step away from this article. So what do they do? Go start an edit war on the most closely related article possible. Volunteer Marek  15:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of "start an edit war" is interesting, to say the least, since I made a single revert to the "Assassination of Anna P" article (two edits, technically, but back-to-back edits are considered to be one revert for the purposes of determining 3RR, you've been here long enough to know that). And just a reminder: the condition of my unblock was that I not make any reverts "at least not for now" (in the words of the unblocking admin) to the "Anna P" article, a condition I have upheld, and will continue to uphold. I was not placed under a topic ban of any kind concerning the subject matter itself, and was, in fact, encouraged to pursue the BLP issue by the admin. Your continuing attempts to imply otherwise, or to shame me away, are becoming tendentious. BMK (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a "single revert" which is exactly the same edit as the EIGHT reverts you made in less than 24 hours which led to your block. Please stop insulting our intelligence. You were edit warring.

And seriously? You're going to Wikilawyer the fact that you "only" promised to step away from the Anna Politkovskaya article but made no such promise in regard to the Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya article? How stupid do you think we are? So you make the exact revert in that one. Do you really think that people here are too dim to see how bad faithed such actions are?  Volunteer Marek  16:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I am going to adhere to the conditions of my unblock, yes, as a good Wikipedian should. I am not going to adjust my behavior for your preference and convenience, or your wish of what my unblock conditions were, no. I am completely certain that if I do anything that the unblocking admin considers to be beyond the bounds of what was intended, they will let me know, and you are free to contact them and complain if you are convinced that my actions are in "bad faith." If you that my stance is "Wikilawyering", then so be it. I'd simply say it's yet another Wikipedia concept that you have a faulty understanding of. BMK (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In other words "yes I'm acting in bad faith, I can do what I want, I will start edit wars on any damn page I please". Nice to know. Volunteer Marek  21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

And it's not my "wish". It's just that I'm pretty sure the conditions of your unblock were NOT "go forth and start new edit wars on related articles". We can ask Drmies for clarification if that's what he meant when he told you to step away. Volunteer Marek  21:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's the bottom line: you obviously feel that I've transgressed against the unblock conditions that were imposed on me, so I suggest that you go to the blocking admin, lay out your argument, and ask them to warn or reblock me. If the unblocking admin declines to do that, take it to another admin and ask them to do it. If that admin declines, take it to AN/I and ask the community to sanction me for not following the unblock conditions. If all that fails, then please drop the matter. While you are pursuing all these possible remedies, I'd appreciate it if you'd shut up about it, because it's not relevant to the discussion of whether the material in question is a BLP violation or not, which is the subject of this thread. BMK (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Query does this edit [6] which specifically uses this quote:

According to author, "The next signature murder was on 7 October when Anna Politkovskaya was shot on Putin birthday. They certainly could not afford another method – the whole effect would be lost should she die in a car accident or of a heart attack. It was all self-protection, of course, as the lady had slapped Putin in the face by publishing her book Putin's Russia in the West"

imply in any way that specific living persons ("they") were the ones who ordered her death because of an affront to Putin (also a specific living person as far as I know)? This has now been repeatedly added to the assassination article, but that does not make it immune to WP:BLP regarding living persons named or implied to have been involved in the killing. Collect (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This quotation is not the original question raised here. Here is page in the book this quotation came from. This is book "The KGB's Poison Factory" by Boris Volodarsky which qualifies as RS. Does this quotation represents a "majority" [of sources] view on the subject? Should this be included in the text of the page and how exactly? Is it a BLP violation? All these questions must be discussed on corresponding article talk page and decided by WP:Consensus if anyone is really interested. So far, no one discussed anything at the appropriate talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Kathleen Conway

I am a paid contributor for Kathleen Conway's Wiki page. I have been paid to upload this article by Hop Online.

Resolved

 – no article exists

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

List_of_violent_incidents_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_July–December_2015

I have a question about listing the ages of Palestinians killed or involved in incidents with Israeli forces and the fact that we are listing ages of people in the article. Does this violate BLP? I realize most of the victims of these tragedies were killed but the article is very large and I wanted to ask this question. Thanks for your attention. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the article if very tersely written and is a large amount of highly condensed information. There has been a lot of tagging of the article as POV by drive by editors. The terse nature of the authors writting style seems to preclude POV concerns, but the overall tone of the article could be improved with BLP in mind. It's a big job and I need some guidance. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Editors addressed with reliable sources

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Swapnil Joshi

The article has a lot of poorly sourced content in early life and career section also in the introduction part and most of the sources are not opening and showing errors from many days. Please can someone remove that poorly sourced content. I tried removing but it is always reverted. Regards, Rishika.dhanawade (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific about the issues?Minor4th 21:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Like all the content in the introductory part in the career section and in the early life section is poorly sourced . Each and every source either shows page not found or error . The content in those three sections which I mentioned in the first sentence do not cite any valid or reliable source so it should be removed. Regards, Rishika.dhanawade (talk) 1:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Removed dead links and tagged for references

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

M. V. Nikesh Kumar

Under the heading black marks, someone abusing the above personality. Please remove those from the page as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.231.218.234 (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Removed unsourced and copyvio materials

Category:British monarchists

Recent edits by Mabelina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have added the category "British monarchists" to a significant number of articles, e.g. George Osborne. I see nothing on that article that would lead us to add that category, and I wonder about the basis for adding it to the range of articles Mabelina has edited recently. Even so, I'd rather not revert them all unilaterally; perhaps others will have thoughts as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Should I thank you Nomoskedasticity for this approach to matters, unlike those with Bocaj12, whereas you could have approached me directly to seek clarification. It so happens that George Osborne is very much pro-monarchy; it is not immediately clear to me why you should mention (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) in your first message, unless your ulterior motive (not explicitly stated) is of a (misconceived) political nature and that you are agitating for support to have me blocked without further recourse? Please advise - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

PS. a cursory look at your recent edits reveal ongoing discursions about Jeremy Corbyn & his unprecedented handling of non-appointment as a PC and a range of other comments (which don't appear to me at least as being politically neutral), so given all that why did you choose to post me on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard rather than approaching me initially? Many thanks in advance for your co-operation and looking forward to hearing. Best M Mabelina (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think this discussion may possibly belong on ANI rather than here. (Mabelina has been called up on ANI several times, and is possibly due a topic ban or possibly a CIR consideration.) Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No objection; I thought to address the content issue first and I'm not all that familiar with the editor's conduct issues. But I imagine you're right. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be rallying support for your own purposes, rather than addressing any valid concerns (which I can come to if allowed) with me. M Mabelina (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
what is a CIR by the way?
PPS. pls note that my full response to the above disappeared by apparent edit conflict - I shall post it again shortly when poss. Many thanks

Mabelina, Categories need to be explicitly supported and cited in any article they are added to. You need to go back and remove all categories you added that did not meet that qualification (yes, you need to actually check each article to see if the article states and cites the indication you are adding). Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: - thanks yours & attending to the matter accordingly; M Mabelina (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC) qv. User talk:Softlavender.

Ariel Fernandez

Ariel Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have a content-related issue regarding the Wikipedia Biography article Ariel Fernandez. The matter has come up at least twice in BLP notice board. Yet, there is a line repeatedly being removed and added back that mentions three papers by the subject that have been questioned by the journals where they were published. Challenged papers are a common occurrence in science and, in regards to the papers in question, no definite action has been taken by the journals. Furthermore, nobody has pointed to a serious breach of ethics in the research practices of Ariel Fernandez. In our opinion, the paragraph is not adding meaningful content to Wikipedia, while some Wikipedia contributors have referred to it as potentially libelous given the lack of balance of the article itself. Please advice. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

The recent discussion on the matter focused on the notion that there wasn't sufficient secondary coverage of the matter. Well, now the Chronicle of Higher Education has published an article about it: [7]. Apart from that: there's a long history of Ariel Fernandez editing this article (e.g. Ariel Fernandez (talk · contribs), Arifer (talk · contribs)), and it's natural to wonder whether someone signing as "Argentine Natl. Research Council" is in fact the Argentine Natl. Research Council. In fact, there's an interesting comparison to be made between information in the article infobox and the geo-locate result for the IP address. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as we can see, the article in the secondary source mentioned is about the blog Retraction Watch, echoes the personal conflict between Retraction Watch and Ariel Fernandez, and makes no assessment on the impact/importance of having 3 challenged papers for the career of Ariel Fernandez. Challenged papers are relatively common in science, especially for prolific authors. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council181.228.138.187 (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No hatred is involved; never heard of him before the BLPN postings. NPOV is exactly what is at issue here. And I suggest stop pretending to post on behalf of the research council. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View: The paragraph you keep inserting mentions papers for which there is no mention of ethical breach on behalf of Dr. Fernandez and for which no definite action has been taken by the journals. This is not adding meaningful information and is potentially libellous as per BLP discussions. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Challenged papers are a common occurrence in science - this is wrong or misleading. Yes, in all of science, there are a lot of challenged papers. But a) most of these challenges do not take the form of a retraction or correction by the journal, and b) such challenges for each individual scientists are rare. I'm not aware of any scientist in my field whose paper has been formally retracted, or tagged with a note by the journal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

{{ec}} "Challenged papers are relatively common in science, especially for prolific authors." is a big {{cn}} for the pattern or a reliable source as to what the "right" or "acceptable/normal" level of this situation is for authors. Multiple occurances of this sort of journal and co-author response to a single author seems to be saying something about the author, not just one-off or back-and-forth debate among similarly-referreed articles. DMacks (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of this material was debatable in the past, but it isn't anymore. The Chronicle of Higher ed is without question a very high quality RS, and the new article repeats the same info that was formerly sourced to retraction watch - as statements of fact, in its own voice. I can see no valid reason for removing the content now. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Note also the recent RSN discussion here - with multiple admits and veteran editors defending retraction watch alone as a source for this. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The article in the Chronicle of Higher Education is about the blog Retraction Watch and does not inform us on any ethical breach on behalf of Dr. Ariel Fernandez. The impact or importance of the challenged papers for the career of the doctor is not assessed by any reputable source. Since no definite action has been taken by the journals in regards to the challenged articles, and there is no mention of a serious breach of ethics, the whole is issue is not worth mentioning in a neutral article on the subject.181.228.138.187 (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

As far as we can see, the questioning of research articles authored by Dr. Ariel Fernandez is not noteworthy, and there is no source justifying or supporting inclusion in Wikipedia. Please advice.181.228.138.187 (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

The questioning of articles, in particular by Retraction Watch and as a highlighted example in particular Fernandez's articles, seems to be exactly what the Chronicle article is about. If RW is indiscriminate about what it publishes, there are dozens or hundreds of examples possible, but CoHE chose this one as presumably a good example for their purposes. So that means CoHE is an independent and (presumably) reliable source that thinks the controversy over Fernandez's articles is worth mentioning. That may not be the most significant aspect of Fernandez's career, but by cite it appears to be a notable one in the world outside whatever his scientific niche is. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education is about Retraction Watch, not about the career of Dr. Fernandez and the information on Dr. Fernandez's spat with Retraction Watch was provided by Retraction Watch itself as example of "nobody messes with us". The Chronicle of Higher Education is simply echoing Retraction Watch, not stating that Dr. Fernandez career is significantly affected by the anonymous questioning of his scientific papers. In other words, CHE is not specifically supporting the inclusion of questioning of Dr. Fernandez papers as a noteworthy issue when discussing Dr. Fernandez's scientific career. The Wikipedia article is out of balance. There are six references out of 15 dealing with the questioning of his 2 papers while Dr. Fernandez has published over 350 papers. The article reads like something about Dr. Fernandez issues, rather than about his career. To paraphrase senior editor Gamaliel:"His online CV mentions a number of secondary sources which discuss his work. We should improve the sections which discuss his work if we are going to include stuff on the retractions, otherwise his article is just blah blah blah chemist retractions. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)"

Thanks for your attention. Plase advice. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Your understanding of how articles are edited here is simply out of line with the normal way of doing things. It also misrepresents the CHE article -- I do wonder if the IP editor has read all of it; it discusses Ariel Fernandez more than any other single individual. And I reiterate: there is no reason to believe that the person posting from the IP address is in fact a representative of the "Argentine Natl. Research Council". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

We apologize if we are missing something here. We cannot find anything in the CHE article that supports inclusion of the questioning of Dr. Fernandez papers as a noteworthy item when featuring Dr. Fernandez career. The CHE article merely echoes Retraction Watch who provided the case of Dr. Ariel Fernandez as illustration of "don't mess around with us". Merely questioning 2-3 scientific papers anonymously is not noteworthy when describing a scientific career, especially given that the subject has published 350 papers or perhaps more and no breach of ethics is mentioned. As editor Gamaliel and others in the BLP notice board have said, that is grossly disproportionate, and, we believe, potentially libellous.181.228.138.187 (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Resolved

 – editors fixed by arriving at consensus

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but what about this discussion in the Talk page of the article? Resolved? Far from it. Pasted below are the argument by editor Rubiscous:

It isn't mentioned elsewhere in the context in which it is presented in your edit, ie without mention of the spat with Retraction Watch. If there had been no heated exchange, if there had been no legal threats from Dr Fernandez, there would have been no mention of events in The Chronicle of Higher Education, and I dare say there would be no attempts to make mention of them in this Wikipedia article. The questioning of the papers are currently being presented as noteworthy events in and of themselves, which is not something that is supported by the source. Rubiscous (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

181.228.138.187 (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Dinesh Singh (academic)

Recently, I posted here concerning Dinesh Singh (academic). An IP editor has removed all of the controversial content, apparently in response to my initial posting here. I do not feel that this is an optimal solution, that meets the demands of NPOV. Please comment at Talk:Dinesh Singh (academic). Sławomir
Biały 13:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – removed poorly sourced content, tagged for references, listed for Afd

97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)