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.

Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)

At Talk:Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)#Heilman statement and Talk:Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)#Let's start afresh There is a disagreement about whether this edit[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] is a BLP violation. I would like some experienced eyes to look it over and comment about whether the statement is a BLP violation. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is referenced. And I did state something similar but stated that it was only part of the reason. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Doc James, that was the old wording. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

1. A source says "The first response appears to have been the dismissal of board member James Heilman, who was critical of the project."[9]
2. A source says "The speculation and the struggle for information culminated in the fact that the Community elected representatives James Heilman from the "Board of Trustees", the highest decision-making body of the Foundation, was released in December."[10]
3. A source says "Wikimedia’s reluctance to detail the restricted grant, from the Knight Foundation, was a factor in the departure of community-elected WMF board member James Heilman in December."[11]
4. A source says "What is more, this story resonates with the eviction for "default of trust", in December, James Heilman of "board of trustees", the Governing Body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on the Signpost, The Journal of Wikipedia, he claims to have repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. A insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his eviction."[12]

1. A source says "Late last year, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees member James Heilman was dismissed from the board. Heilman has hinted that his internal quest to make the Knight Foundation document public led to his firing."[13]

James Heilman has spoke publicly about why his removal from the board and gave reasons why he was dismissed. The claim that it is somehow a BLP violation is dubious. It is not a violation of Heilman's privacy or work history record when it is documented in reliable sources. This is no privacy concerns, especially when Heilman spoke publicly about it. Heilman documented some of the events in text published in The Signpost. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-13/Op-ed. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus.

These are not my assertions, but statements backed up by reliable sources. No evidence to the contrary has been presented. It is directly related to the topic when the source indicates it is related. For example, a source stated: "What is more, this story resonates with the eviction for "default of trust", in December, James Heilman of "board of trustees", the Governing Body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on the Signpost, The Journal of Wikipedia, he claims to have repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. A insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his eviction."[14]

Heilman wanted the grant to become public and transparent without success. The Heilman content is germane to the topic, especially when the WMF is being questioned about transparency regarding the grant and KE project. The reliable sources have connected the Heilman content with the issue of transparency with the events that happened with the KE project. Since Heilman is a former "board of trustees" with the WMF his statement carries weight. There is no reason to wait for more press coverage regarding the Heilman content, especially when there are at least 5 sources discussing it. User:Jayen466 originally added the statement regarding Heilman. User:Nocturnalnow previously stated "This may belong elsewhere but not in the "development" section, imo."[15] Rather than take sides the text was rewritten to state Heilman's opinion per WP:NPOV. The same editor now maintains it is a "possible BPL violation".[16] The current wording is "Late 2015, James Heilman suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees." Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. Translation fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. Translation fixed according to this comment by User:DracoEssentialis. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Note. Koebler 2016 (Vice) is being used to verify the claim that is being discussed here. Morgane 2016 (Le Monde) is being used to very another claim. There are different claims using different sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. Guy Macon is asking Heilman (User:Doc James) about the text on his talk page. The discussion should continue because other editors may have a concern about a possible BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Having been a BLPN regular for years, I am confident in offering a clear view that the material in question is not a BLP violation. I've had no previous involvement with this issue, no COI, no off-wiki activity about it, and I have no opinion about whether the sentence should or should not be included -- but the notion that it is a BLP violation should have no influence on those discussions, because it isn't one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is not a WP:BLP violation.- MrX 12:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP definitely applies by definition - as the claim appears to give far more weight to a single issue than the living person gave to it directly and there are no "reliable sources" used for the claim as fact. Those who say simply "it is not a violation" are whistling in the wind - it is a claim which implies that one specific issue (KE) was the primary reason for the departure of Doc James from the board, where the sources indicate it was not a primary reason thereof. "Motherboard.vice.com" is not a reliable source for claims of fact relating to living persons, as far as I can tell. (Koebler counts, as best, as an opinion blogger, and not usable for claims of fact about a living person). The Tual cite does not make the assertion that the KE was the specific and primary reason for his boardectomy. Any use of either source should present and cite the opinions properly as opinions of those holding those opinions, and not make claims of fact based thereon. This is a common occurrence, alas, in biographical articles, which is the case at hand. Collect (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources are also pretty clear that while James was the only one forced to walk the plank, this is a much wider disagreement within WMF and elsewhere. I would be inclined to avoid even naming James here. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that I have no disagreement with that view. What bugged me was the attempt to use "BLP violation" as a trump card in the discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And to note I still disagree with you -- any claim of fact about any living person which is so poorly sourced to opinion sources is, indeed, a "WP:BLP violation" - has been, is, and shall continue to be. Until you get that policy rewritten to allow opinion sources to be used as "fact." Collect (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I am still on the fence on this, but am leaning towards "BLP violation" (would we allow a claim of why anyone else was dismissed from a position based upon such sources? I think not), I would like to say that I absolutely do not believe that User:Nocturnalnow was "attempting to use 'BLP violation' as a trump card in the discussion". He clearly has a good-faith belief that this is a BLP violation -- a belief that is shared by several administrators who have commented in this thread. User:QuackGuru, on the other hand, appears to be on a spree of creating and expanding articles about internal Wikipedia disputes that he is involved in. He created The Signpost (Wikipedia) while in the middle of repeatedly citing Heilman's op-ed that was published in The Signpost. He is the major author of Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation) (he expanded it from a stub), where his editing history shows a strong tendency to make the article support the POV that he has expressed on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere, and User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia (moved to talkspace from article space against QuackGuru's strong objections) is all about internal Wikipedia disputes that QuackGuru has been involved in. Then there is his block log[17] and his many trips to ANI[18] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Update. Heilman commented about the text on his talk page. There is no longer any doubt that this is not a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure Collect will find a reason to continue thinking it is... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And the second-place WP:AGF award goes to... Nomoskedasticity! (Everyone else is tied for first.) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that talk page comment means much re: whether or not there is a BLP violation in the article. Also, even if, today, James does not mind being named in this way in this article, I'm not sure that anyone can know whether he will always feel that way. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, what Doc James said was acceptable to him on his talk page is significantly different from what QuackGuru want to say about him in the article. Are there are high-quality secondary sources supporting the claim? Or do we just have things like nonprofitquarterly.org saying "According to the Signpost..."? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The text in question says "Late 2015, James Heilman suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees."

Heilman's said I do believe that my "internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees."[19] Claiming that it is "significantly different" from what is in the article is absurd. At least five sources discussed it. That makes it notable. But the issue here is if it is a BLP violation. Asserting it is a BLP violation is very different than showing it is a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• The Le Monde source is very strong and supports the current wording above, and the weaker ones are in line with Le Monde. There is no issue here. And it doesn't matter what the subject thinks about it. Not ever (outside of courtesy and trying to resolve POV-pushing by subjects, within limits of what we can do) Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  With respect, the Lemonde article's wording, according to Google Translate (see below), not only does not support QuackGuru's text, it actually contradicts it. Lemonde says "could be linked to his ouster" whereas QuackGuru says "was a factor". Lemonde even goes further by saying there was a different reason for James's ouster, i.e. "eviction for "lack of confidence"". In addition, if Collect is correct, that, for BLP violation purposes, the sourcing should identify KE as the "specific and primary reason" for James's dismissal, Lemonde actually does the opposite. Lemonde muddies the water substantially by referencing "lack of confidence" as the reason for dismissal. Jytdog's second point about a subject's opinion not ever mattering, I'm sure he is correct about that. Translation :directly below:

French: Qui plus est, cette histoire résonne avec l’éviction pour « défaut de confiance », en décembre, de James Heilman du « board of trustees », l’instance dirigeante de la fondation Wikimedia. Dans un texte publié sur le Signpost, le journal de Wikipedia, il affirme avoir demandé à plusieurs reprises à ce que ces documents soient rendus publics, sans succès. Une insistance qui, laisse-t-il entendre, pourrait être liée à son éviction. to

English:" Furthermore, this story resonates with eviction for "lack of confidence" in December, James Heilman's "board of trustees", the governing body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on Signpost, Wikipedia of the newspaper, he said he had repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. An insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his ouster." Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nocturalnow you are bringing up all kinds of irrelevant stuff here, and passionately. Please tone it down. The article is not about James or his dismissal. It is about KE. The content said "for other reasons" and we don't have to enumerate all of them. Collect is a good egg but he has an idiosyncratic (and fierce) take on BLP. The background here is that the Board didn't give any reason for dismissing him; it just announced the dismissal. James said the conflict with the board arose over transparency over the KE (see here and here, each of which in my view are already reliable enough for the fact that he said that. In response board members have said herehere (the latter of which is the origin of "loss of trust" as far as I know) that he was dismissed b/c they found they couldn't work with him. We have a he said/she said. Any content in an article about the dismissal would need to deal with that messiness. The sources being rejected as not being of good enough quality do deal with that. Le monde deals with it. You are trying to read fine nuance via google translate, and this is not wise. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I will take your advice and tone it down, thank you. You make very good points, but I still agree with what Guy says above. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We are using one source for each statement. Koebler 2016 (Vice) is being used to verify the claim being discussed here. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• There are numerous reasons why Google Translate should not be used in an academic context, especially when dealing with unrelated languages such as English and French. Some are listed here. You can find plenty more online. Hey, you could google them. ;)

Anyhow, QuackGuru's translation is correct. In the case of "défaut de confiance," the naughty Google truc-machin chose the less common meaning, confidence. If you don't speak the lingo, you may want to remember that in most constructs, "confiance" is synonymous with "trust." But don't take my word for it: Oxford Dictionary, anyone?

For those of you who don't like Le Monde, here's another high-quality source, Le Nouvel Observateur:

"James Heilman, médecin canadien et wikipédien, élu en juin 2015 par la communauté comme représentant au conseil d’administration de la fondation, en est chassé le 28 décembre (nombreux documents dans sa page d’utilisateur de Wikipédia).

La majorité des autres administrateurs auraient jugé qu’il y a incompréhension et manque de confiance mutuelle, mais le peu d’explication à ce limogeage ouvre un débat dans la communauté.

James Heilman indique ensuite avoir poussé le conseil à la transparence sur un projet de moteur de recherche et son financement."

(Free translation, just this once)

"James Heilman, the Canadian medical professional and wikipedian elected by the community in June 2015 as its representative to the Foundation's Board of Trustees, was shown the door on December 28 (see numerous documents on his Wikipedia user page).

Most of the other Board members allegedly stated that there had been compatibility issues and a mutual lack of trust, but the paucity of information released in the wake of this sacking led to a debate within the community.

James Heilman subsequently pointed out that he had pushed the Board toward transparency regarding a search engine project and its bankrolling."

You're welcome. And, no, this translation is not up for debate. I usually get paid handsomely for this kind of work and I've become quite good at it over the past 20 years.

Lastly, this entire discussion as well as several others seems somewhat WP:frivolous, with a whiff of Eau de Bromance Gone Wrong between Guy Macon and QuackGuru. It also looks mighty embarrassing from the outside, if you get my drift, Guy Macon. This is no time for sweeping issues under the rug, personal animosities be damned. Draco^E 01:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation Draco - I was reading it that way too. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Draco, I think the middle sentence beginning with "Most" clearly shows what the better sources are saying were the primary reasons for Heilman's dismissal; "compatibility issues and a mutual lack of trust", and those 2 reasons are not connecting Heilman to Knowledge Engine at all within the sources. The third sentence, therefore, is diminished to a non-primary speculative status and those words also require synthesis and outright imagination to morph into the words connecting Heilman's views on Knowledge Engine with his dismissal. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to arrive at QuackGuru's wording from the sentences you translated. I could be wrong, but, I'd suggest reading those 2 sentences again. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Goodness, then just add that other board members contradicted that or called it "utter fucking bullshit". At any rate, there is no BLP violation here. This is an extremely well-publicised controversy by now. --Andreas JN466 04:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

If its so well publicized, there should he at least one high quality source which says "James Heilman suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees." Find that and the discussion is over. Until then, nobody has the right to get absolutist , imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

But that's what sources 4 and 5 listed at the top of this section, and the Nouvel Observateur, are saying. And if you feel they are not saying that exactly, then simply summarise what you think they are saying. Andreas JN466 13:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think source 4 says James was dismissed (eviction) for "lack of confidence", source 5 says James "hinted" that his internal quest to make the Knight Foundation document public led to his firing, and Nouvel Observateur says that Board members pointed to "compatibility issues and a mutual lack of trust" and James "had pushed the Board toward transparency regarding a search engine project and its bankrolling." Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• can I please get clarification on the exact content currently being proposed? There is too much handwavy stuff here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume QuackGuru is proposing what he has already put into the article, i.e. "James Heilman, who was dismissed from the WMF's Board of Trustees in late 2015, suggested that his push for transparency about the Knight Foundation grant public(sic) was a factor in his dismissal – a suggestion Jimmy Wales rejected as "utter fucking bullshit"." I think the sentence in its entirety is naming names and their opinions within an article which has no use for their names or their opinions, thus, inclusion of the sentence in question is just some sort of coatracking and possibly a Blp violation for frivolous usage of their names and opinions.Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Nocturnalnow, it is time to close the entire discussion and move on IMO. It is clearly not a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• QuackGuru, thank you for your patience. I have studied and thought about the various points made by yourself and other editors, including Collect, and I have come to the opinion that sometimes, as in this case, tangential connection, vagueness, and lack of importance to the article in question(e.g.Knowledge Engine) regarding a typically very personal matter, i.e., being fired, in combination, causes there to be a BLP violation where there would normally be no such violation ( in accordance with our editing parameters).

I realize this is quite esoteric reasoning but I think it is reasonable reasoning. One analogy I would offer is the Fruit of the poisonous tree, whereby evidence ( in this case "content" re: dismissal) is disallowed because of a combination of seemingly unrelated characteristics of the entity (in this case vagueness, minimum if any notability and tangential connection). The vagueness and inferiority ("hinted","suggested""one factor") is such, that by including it we cross the BLP violation line in relation to the subject's privacy, personal history, and in this case, even his Curriculum vitae. And as Jytdog says, it does not matter at all whether the subject is ok or not ok with the inclusion of this information within this or possibly a myriad of other articles that relate or may in the future relate to Knowledge Engine or Wikimedia or an almost unlimited array or future articles about various topics. The bottom line is, the content in dispute is so vague, of so little importance to this article and so personal, the combination of these 3 characteristics constitutes a BLP violation. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely relevant, particularly to the issue of transparency. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the Heilman info should be in his BLP?

I did not think of looking at the Doc James BLP before now. Obviously, this disputed content about his dismissal should be/ belongs there if anywhere at all, I would think. His dismissal is discussed in the lede and body, but nothing/no connection with Knowledge Engine is mentioned, see:

LEDE:::: In June 2015, he was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, a position which he held until he was removed on December 28, 2015

BODY:::In June 2015, Heilman was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.[10] In December 2015, the Board removed Heilman from his position as a Trustee, a decision that generated controversy amongst members of the Wikipedia community.[11][22][23] A statement released by the board after Heilman was removed stated that he lacked the confidence of his fellow trustees. Heilman himself later said that he "was given the option of resigning [by the Board] over the last few weeks. As a community elected member I see my mandate as coming from the community which elected me and thus declined to do so. I saw such a move as letting down those who elected me.''

QuackGuru might want to put what he wants to put about James, over there, at least first, to see if it is accepted there as a non-Blp violation? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. User:Jayen466 and User:Everymorning added information to the James Heilman's article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did too. Maybe we can just agree that is where it belongs and not with KE as it is too tangential for the KE article and as being tangential, fits into Collect's BLP violation definition possibly. So let's just leave it out of the KE article, please. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? I never heard of the word "mused". QuackGuru (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, that explains a lot. With your vocabulary issues I suggest you stick with less demanding articles. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation. Other arguments might pertain as to whether to include it or exclude it, but "BLP violation" doesn't work in this context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Nomoskedasticity, if Collect agrees with you then I, who have less experience with BLP issues, will agree. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

My comments are intended to stand alone; I really don't care whether Collect agrees with me... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

) I understand. I just realized that I don't think any info "hinted at" belongs anywhere in an encyclopedia and in respect to such a personal matter "hinted at" info seems to me to be a Blp violation in a kind of gossipy way. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if the source said he speculated or alleged it still belongs in an online encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Nocturnalnow, the wording "hinted" is too close to the source. I think "suggested" or "indicated" is better. They are synoyms.[20] There is a discussion on the talk page over a single word. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Nocturnalnow wanted the information in the article and now claims it is not notable. What is going on here? QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Its good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, that's what is going on. Its a living, breathing exercise. It is not static. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on your edits it appears you think it is embarrassing to the Wikimedia Foundation. You claim it is not notable, but it has been repeated in multiple sources. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting; perhaps a Freudian slip by you. To spell it out, maybe you think it is embarrassing to WMF. Until you just mentioned it, I had not thought about that entity at all in connection with this topic. Quit speculating about what's in somebody else's head; its a silly waste of time. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we are done here until there may be newer sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the Lila Tretikov info should be in her BLP?

WMF Executive Director Tretikov resigned on February 25, 2016, as a result of the Wikimedia Foundation's controversial Knowledge Engine project.

References

Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No; those 2 sources are not good enough. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC) `

I am not going to add more sources at the end of a sentence.

There is no shortage of sources. See another new source: Mullin, Joe (February 29, 2016). "Wikimedia Foundation director resigns after uproar over "Knowledge Engine"". Ars Technica. Retrieved March 1, 2016. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Would I be politically incorrect in asking for an English language source for en.wikipedia? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Google translation can translate the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the Jimmy Wales info should be in his BLP?

In early 2016 Wikipedia editors perceived the WMF's Knowledge Engine project as a conflict of interest for Wales, whose business Wikia might benefit from having the WMF spend a lot of money on research in respect to search. Wikia attempted to develop a search engine but it was closed in 2009.

References

Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, aren't you getting a bit pointy? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Terry Brennan

Paul Horning was not the only Heisman trophy winner to come from a losing team. The first winner, Jay Berwagner. University of Chicago, was from a losing team. See Wikipedia article on him.

User:Nevets20 - draft about Satanic cult and child sexual abuse

I've just templated this with the user draft template to try to keep it off Google. It's about Satanic cults and sexual abuse of children and has some really bad sourcing, eg [21][22] and David Icke's Forum] It probably needs deletion at least, but I'm bringing it here first.Doug Weller talk 19:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"Burn it at the stake" might be extreme here <g> but I see no promise in this intrinsically BLP-problematic minefield of a draft. Collect (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nevets20, I am going to delete this as a BLP violation, because of a lot of reason--an easy one is the use of unreliable things as sources, which serves to give broader attention and perhaps additional credence to those sources, even if the text suggests they are not reliable. Copy it quick if you want to save it; I'm deleting it after I make a cup of coffee. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Adande Thorne

Adande Thorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There have been lots of edits to this page recently which change Thorne's birthday to any of multiple different years, none of which are sourced or which I could verify in a reliable source. Others' eyes would be appreciated on this page. Everymorning (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the DOB but I removed some trivia and fluff.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

There is an RfC involving a BLP at Talk:Deepak Chopra#RfC: Is the lead, among other parts of the article, reflective of the sources and a NPOV?.BlueStove (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dan Wagner

Dan Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I came here from this story that recently appeared in Business Insider. The story claims that one user (User:Techtrek) has only edited Wagner's page and has done so in a whitewashing manner that downplays "the recent collapse of his business [Powa Technologies, which Wagner co-founded]". I would like other editors to look at this issue as well as the recent IP edits to this page that reduce Wagner's net worth by 4 orders of magnitude--this all seems rather fishy to me. Everymorning (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Martin_Brunton

(OP notes the person might fail notability) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.89.67 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed that the article be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Help needed on trans name issue

We've got a person claiming to be listed under a prior name in various articles over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Help_requested_on_trans_name_change_issue. She is seeking to have the name updated or removed. We could use someone who has experience with verifying identity for Wikipedia purposes over there to help in the handling. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Herb Greene

Hello,

We recently published a book about the architecture and art of Herb Greene (the architect)- not to be confused with the other Herb Greene, a photographer. I have pasted a link to the incorrect information (on Google) below and would request that Generations (the book title) be linked to the correct Herb Greene, if that content was generated by Wikipedia:

https://www.google.com/#q=herb+greene

Thanks!

My best to you,

Julie Anglin VP Marketing & PR USA

ORO Editions / Goff Books / AR+D Publishers of Architecture, Art, Design & Photography +1 415.883 3300 x 208 San Francisco l New York l Buenos Aires | Montreal | Singapore l Hong Kong �� | Shenzhen www.oroeditions.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.247.125.61 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning...again

User:ParkH.Davis has created this article on the Peyton Manning sexual assault allegations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyton_Manning_sexual_assault_case. It is an absolute violation of WP:BLP. It should be deleted immediately, and ParkH.Davis should seriously reconsider continuing to edit in this area. He has been disruptive on the article, talk page, NPOV noticeboard, and WP:ANI. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

BLPs have three requirements: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Peyton Manning sexual assault case adheres to all three of these requirement. It presents all sides, it is well sourced by reliable sources and does not include any original research. The BLP policy goes on to say: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Peyton Manning's sexual assault case has been widely covered by reliable sources for two decades and is most certainly a notable event in his life. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal opinions. Just because some people may not like that the sexual assault allegation is being discussed, does not mean that it can be censored. There is precedent for having an article dedicated to the sexual assault case of a prominent professional athlete in Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a dispute at the main article. This new page appears to be a POV FORK. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that Peyton Manning sexual assault case does not violate WP:BLP. It is also clear that Peyton Manning lacks a NPOV. The allegations must be included, as they are noteworthy, relevant and well documented. Wikipedia is NOT censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed a RfC on the main page regarding the text. The new page is a POV FORK. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the RfC. The creation of the separate article has been discussed. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And the result was no consensus for the new bias page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"bias page"? Huh? Peyton Manning sexual assault case adheres to BLP policy as I previously stated. It is well sourced by reliable sources, and neutral. Wikipedia is not censored and is not based on personal opinions. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The lead is a straightfoward violation of WP:BLP. If you can't understand that, you should stop editing BLP areas, as an administrator advised you when you were on WP:ANI. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The lede does not violate BLP. It is well sourced, neutral and lacks original research. Just because you personally disagree with it, doesn't mean that it can be censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:ParkH.Davis, you did not specifically disagree with the previous statement that the new page has "no consensus". Why did you create a new page without gaining conseusus first while the discussion is still happening? QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I created the page as per WP:BOLD. Peyton Manning sexual assault case does not violate WP:BLP and is most certainly notable enough for its own article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You only write one side of the story in the lead. "She claims..." I do not see "Peyton claims..." That is a BLP violation. Anyways, it does no good to argue with you, as seen by the past 2 weeks of "discussion." Let's wait for uninvolved editors to chime in. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The entire event is based around Dr. Naughright's allegations, hence why that is included in the lede. The body discusses Manning's rebuttal to the allegations and his apology. The article does not violate BLP in any way, shape or form. The BLP policy explicitly says: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You still don't get it, or you're pretending not to. This goes well beyond a clear violation of BLP; it's an issue about content that destroys the rules of WP:UNDUE. People have explained the undue weight factor to you numerous times, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. This was an allegation for heaven's sake; there was no conviction, no trial, not even an arrest! And once again, you cite a policy but completely misunderstand it. This is not about the insertion of controversial content in an existing article, which the BLP quote you just cited is referring to, but rather about you creating a completely new article solely about the allegation. In my opinion, your creation of the new article and your endless comments in numerous discussions indicates that your mission is simply to make Manning look as bad as possible. An editor like you is a danger to Wikipedia's credibility. Tracescoops (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly not a violation of BLP though, as it is well cited by numerous reliable sources. The sexual assault scandal was a major event in Manning's life, it does not violate WP:UNDUE to discuss it. There is a ton of precedent for discussing sexual assault allegation on the articles of prominent professional athletes, Kobe Bryant's sexual assault allegation even has its own article. BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.", you can't pretend like the allegations never occurred. My mission is to make this article neutral. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page. Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions, just because you personally think the Manning is a good guy, doesn't mean that you can censor this article of all mentions of his scandals. I did not make up the allegations out of thin air, they are well documented by numerous reliable sources. It's not my fault that the allegations exist, but they do. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"My mission is to make this article neutral. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page." Oh, brother. Do you seriously want us to believe that your "mission" is neutrality when everything you've said and done over the past month shows the complete opposite? And you are correct, it's not a fan page. But it also not an attack page. You've shouted your buzzwords like "censorship", "whitewash", "Major", and numerous other words, phrases, and points dozens of times, but it doesn't do anything to strengthen your position. In fact, I think it only causes editors to stop listening to you. Tracescoops (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, ParkH.Davis is clearly unable to work cooperatively with other editors, as is evidenced by his very heavy participation on the Manning talk page over the past month. He refuses to listen to or accept the very sound explanations and proposals by other editors, and has shown no ability to reasonably compromise. It appears that his clear bias and obstructionism has been the primary reason that the matter has gone unresolved for so long. It is undisputed that the content in question relates to an allegation of misconduct, yet ParkH.Davis has chosen to ignore a complete lack of consenus to not only create a separate "sexual assualt allegation" section in the Manning article, but also, amazingly, a complete new, detailed article about the allegation. I feel his ongoing and very inappropriate actions warrant sanctions against him. I think he not only should be banned from editing the Manning article and participating in the resolution discussions, but the restrictions should also extend to similar types of "controversy" content in any other aritcles. ParkH.Davis has only been editing for five months, yet has already been blocked three times and has been very disruptive at two other noticeboards. Tracescoops (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Everybody is "picking on" User:ParkH.Davis. But the fact remains that these are important topics and they are 100% non-existent in the main Peyton Manning article. That is NPOV. And some editors are attempting to white wash the article. Anything good about Manning stays; anything bad, goes. That is the very definition of NPOV. I don't understand how these allegations (sex assault and performance drugs) are not even mentioned at all in his main article? How can that be? Yes, we can abide by BLP. But that does not mean the entire body of information is to be removed from the article. I am sure there are tons of reliable sources. And I am sure we can craft -- at the very least -- one single neutral sentence about all this. So, as much as you all rail against User:ParkH.Davis, he makes some very valid points. If it wasn't for his squeaky wheel, that article would never mention a single negative thing about Manning. And that's not what Wikipedia is about. Since these discussions are quite lengthy and have gone on for a while, I only speak to the facts that I know. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means neutral point of view, and it is desirable on Wikipedia. Judging from what you write above, you seem to be under the impression that NPOV means the opposite, i.e. that something is biased, non-neutral. That is not the case; it's the opposite. Sorry if I nitpick, but if people use opposite definitions of the same term, only general confusion will result. LjL (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh? If an article will only present positive info and affirmatively refuses to present negative info, how is that neutral? That's the very definition of violating NPOV. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Yes, the very definition of violating NPOV, not "the very definition of NPOV", which is what you said. You also said that important topic are non-existent in the article and "that is NPOV". No, that would be against NPOV. See the difference? LjL (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: Yes, you are correct. That was a typo on my part. Sorry. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Joseph, please educate yourself on WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Any editors who truly do not understand how they are blatantly being violated with regard to this dispute should not be editing. Tracescoops (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Tracescoops, educate yourself and read my post. Your reply indicates that my post went completely over your head. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And, Tracescoops, you have been editing here for -- what -- a week? A week and a half? LOL. And, within that week, you have become the expert? You, of all people, are assessing who else is qualified to be editing here? Gimme a break. Please. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Joseph, I may have only been an active editor for a short time, but I've followed Wikipedia for many years. In any case, I certainly know how to read and comprehend policies and guidelines, as well as all of your and Park's comments here and elsewhere regarding this matter. Apparently, all your "experience" over me hasn't helped you much. Writing an encylopedia is not at all about the quantity of edits, but rather the quality. So if resorting to the "I've been here longer than you" card and "LOL"ing is your way of trying to "win" a debate, we'll see how that works out for you. I see that you've been blocked four times – including one that was indefinite and lasted 15 months – for harassing editors, incivility, abuse of process, disruptive editing, personal attacks, harassment, and BLP violations. So your track record doesn't lend much credibility to your opinions of other editors. Tracescoops (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. You being here all of a week -- yes, a week -- bestows all sorts of credibility on you. LOL. You're probably a millennial. That would offer a likely explanation. No clue. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, the immature behavior you're exhibiting here is not isolated, but rather a long-term pattern. This is evidenced not only by your disturbing history of blocks, but also by comments such as this one to editors with whom you disagree. Hopefully, you'll learn how to control your temper before your editing privileges are taken away for good. Tracescoops (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So, again, you keep avoiding the substance of my posts. Yet, you expect to "dazzle us" with your technical and administrative "know how" and ability to dig through old archives. LOL. Typical self-important millennial. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributor. "You are probably a millennial" is not an appropriate dismissal of someone's points on a public forum on Wikipedia. This must stop. LjL (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:ParkH.Davis has refused to provide diffs showing consensus for the new page. The new RfC does not show consensus for the new page. See Talk:Peyton_Manning#Request_For_Comment. QuackGuru (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Coverage in reliable sources = notability + due weight.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Could we possibly get an admin to weigh in here? We have a complete lack of AGF as seen above (this comment by Joseph A. Spadaro is a head scratcher "You're probably a millennial...") What does that even mean? How is that relevant? There is complete consensus to add the contested material to the main article. However it seems to be far easier to come to the talk page to complain about the article, accuse editors of white washing, etc than to just edit collaboratively. Who cares how long someone has been an editor? Mr Ernie (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Censoring all content which discusses Manning's scandals is a violation of WP:NPOV. There is no way for the article to be neutral if it only presents arbitrarily positive information on a subject that is highly divisive and controversial. Wikipedia is not censored and reliable sources have determined that the scandals are notable enough for continued and in depth coverage. Why is there such a strong movement to whitewash this article? ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Before one shouts "Censorship!" in order to "win" a content dispute, one should read Wikipedia is not censored to see what is not considered censorship. The policy against censorship only involves the deletion of content because it is offensive or not suitable for children. It does state that content can be deleted because it is not appropriate, not balanced, not neutral, or violates another policy such as the BLP violation. I haven't reviewed the content in question, but objecting to its removal as "censorship" is enough to make it clear to me that the editor making that claim is misconstruing the censorship policy, and probably the BLP policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The sexual assault allegation had been part of this article for 10 years, until about a month ago when it was removed without explanation or consensus. The sexual assault allegation has been well documented by numerous reliable sources for over 10 years. There is a ton of precedent for including info on sexual assault allegations against prominent professional athletes. All I see is an effort to whitewash the Peyton Manning article of anything that makes Manning appear as anything less than a deity. Not mentioning the scandals a single time, is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and is clearly censorship. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There was consensus to remove the policy violations. I'm sorry you personally disagree with why these policies are important to Wikipedia. You are deliberately misrepresenting what happened. I have explained to you multiple times why you are wrong. Other editors have explained to you multiple times why you are wrong. Administrators have explained to you multiple times why you are wrong. You've been blocked from editing several times because you were violating Wikipedia policies. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What policy violations? Where was the consensus? Which policies? The only policy violation was the removing of all mentions of the scandals, which stripped this article of its NPOV. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis, once again you are being very disruptive and obstructing the resolution process by pretending that the answers to your questions haven't been provided countless times here, on two other noticeboards, and most extensively on the Manning talk page. Disagreeing with or misunderstanding those answers is one thing, but refusing to even acknowledge that those answers were provided is ludicrous. For the past month, numerous editors have clearly explained the problems with the content, provided links to all of the relevant policies and guidelines, and explained specifically how they apply in this case. Repeatedly shouting "censorship" and "whitewash" only damages your credibility further, particularly since you obviously don't even understand what it means with regard to writing this encylopedia. As WP:CENSORED makes clear, "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view)". Please summarize for everyone your understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, so that everyone can see how you're interpreting them with regard to the Manning article. Tracescoops (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not "undue" to discuss major life events. You can't arbitrarily downplay negative life events. The content in question does not violate either BLP or NPOV policies. Whitewashing this article to promote a POV which is indiscriminately positive of the subject is the real violation of WP:NPOV. The main objection to including the content seems to be the perception that it violates WP:UNDUE. This makes no sense as the scandals have been widely covered by numerous reliable sources and are Major events in Peyton Manning's life. Reliable sources have determined the scandals to be notable, therefore it is censorship to not include content discussing the scandals. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal opinions. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

According to what source, it was "major life events"? QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

For example according to the sources that allege that Manning spent significant efforts trying to handle the accusations by damaging the reputation of the accuser. And in general it seems very odd to suggest that having significant media coverage seeking to damage ones reputation is not "a major life event" for any public personality. Really as an outsider to this debate I cannot see how not mentioning the accusations (as well as Mannings response to them) can be justified under our content policy. BLP is not here to shield biography subjects from criticism or accusations that are as widely circulated in the media as it clearly is in this case. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the main article. See Peyton_Manning#College_career. QuackGuru (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The defamation lawsuit is not mentioned a single time, nor is the illegal drug scandal. Also, the sexual assault allegation has literally nothing to do with his football career. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is the amount of undue attention that seems to have been given to the case, but which at the end of the day, that Manning was not found guilty of. It should be included, because it did happen, there's RSes that document the situation. But the level of detail that I've seen being put into this (both when it was originally part of the Manning and now on the separate accusation page) is far greater than I would expect when Manning was not charged with anything. The whole situation seems to be something that can be suitably described at the encyclopedic level within one or two paragraphs at most (barring what is happening recently about the larger situation from that school). We are not a tabloid, looking for all the juice details to shame a person. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

My entire proposal would have made up less than 5% of the entire article and came at the very end. My proposal for the sexual assault allegation was less than 500 words. The scandals were both Major events in Peyton Manning's life and have both been extensively documented by numerous reliable sources. It is not "undue" to discuss major life events. My goal is not to "shame" anyone, my goal is for this article to present all relevant POVs. Peyton Manning does not control this article and does not get to decide whether or not the negative aspects of his life get included in it or not. Both scandals have been extensively covered by esteemed reliable sources such as The Washington Post, the New York Times, Al Jazeera, The Nation, The Denver Post, the USA Today, etc. It is censorship, plain and clear, to pretend like these scandals didn't happen or to downplay their significance. Also, Manning most certainly was NOT found "not guilty". In fact, there is evidence that UT may have helped him cover the incident up. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The only way, under BLP, we determine if a person is guilty is by court of law. you can't make presumptions like this last statement at all under BLP. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said that anyone was guilty of anything, I said that Manning was never found "not guilty", as he was never criminally charged. There is evidence that UT helped cover up Manning's incident and other similar incidents. Please read my comments, before responding. You can't pretend like the allegations never occurred, because, as it extensively documented by numerous reliable sources, they did in fact occur. As is precedent with other prominent athletes, it is common practice on Wikipedia to include content concerning sexual assault and other criminal allegations, see Kobe Bryant, Cristiano Ronaldo, Ben Roethlisberger, Brian Banks, Adrian Peterson, Wilt Chamberlain, Ray Rice, etc. Peyton Manning does not get any special treatment; if sexual assault and criminal allegations are to be included in other athlete's articles, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be included in his article as well. Kobe Bryant's sexual assault allegation has its own freaking page and yet there is barely a sentence on Peyton Manning's sexual assault allegation. Both scandals were Major life events for Manning as is evidenced by the large amount of coverage concerning them by reliable sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I like to play football but never could stand to watch it. I never heard of this man before seeing this post, but the rounds of filibustering and circular arguments provoked me to look into this. The big issue is weight, and in the scope of someone's entire career, how much weight should be given to an unfounded allegation and conspiracy? The next issue is synthesis, and a clear inference is being made that an accusation equals guilt. (Even worse than stating a conclusion is trying to lead reader to one.) The third is neutrality, as the connotations of the language and structure both show an emotional involvement that is not encyclopedic in tone. This was very clear in the spin-off article, as the lede failed to cover all points, but only one side.

As an uninvolved and uninterested editor, those are my observations. It is very clear that this is something that the author is very passionate about, but it might be helpful to stop repeating the same arguments and address the real issues that people are making. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be better than the sources we use, and the editorial judgment of all is necessary for that. (For tips on how to write in a balanced, neutral way, see User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer.) Zaereth (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said anyone was guilty of anything. The accusations occurred, we can't pretend like they didn't. My only interest in making this article neutral and for it not to be a Peyton Manning circle jerk. I will continue to fight the whitewashing of this page. It seems that some editors want to censor the article of any content which they perceive to be critical of Manning or describe the less flattering aspects of his life. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis, I see no point in editors continuing to discuss this matter with you because you are simply unable to listen to anyone, and have either misrepresented or misunderstood all the policies, guidelines, and issues involved. Even the few who have agreed with some of your points have demonstrated their willingness to reasonably compromise. Your overwhelming bias seems to cloud everything you think and say. Therefore, to other editors I would suggest discontinuing this discussion unless and until sanctions against Park are issued that would either ban or limit his participation in this matter (and any other disputes about "controversy" content in articles). I believe that a timely resolution can easily be achieved if Park isn't involved. Tracescoops (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. ParkH.Davis is either unwilling or unable to edit collaboratively. I don't see a way forward at this point. I'm hoping more experienced editors or admins can lead the way. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have listened. What I heard is that many of you are whitewashing this article. I am 100% allowed to edit on Wikipedia. You will not silence me. This page will have a NPOV eventually. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit at [23] made a specific "claim of fact": "In 1996, while attending the University of Tennessee, Manning, while being examined by a female trainer, pulled down his shorts as she bent over behind him to examine his foot to determine why it was hurting." You have repeatedly removed ("redacted") the word "mooning" from the BLP talk page - "There is no evidence that a "mooning" ever occurred and therefore saying one did, violates BLP policy. Wikipedia is based on facts and reliable sources, not on conjecture and speculation. Also, as was made clear to me, BLP policy is still in effect on talk pages. Censoring this page of all mentions to the scandals is by definition, POV pushing. You cannot have a neutral article here without mentioning the scandals." and " There is a ton of evidence that Mike Rollo fabricated the "mooning" story as per [6]. The "mooning" hypothesis has been widely discredited and it is false to say that it happened." Which appear, alas, to indicate that your preferred edit does, in fact, assert guilt of deliberate sexual assault. Allegations and rumours make for very poor biographies of living persons. Collect (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

My edit there only stated the facts. Did you even read it? There was never any "mooning", this a fact. There is evidence showing that Mike Rollo invented the "mooning" story to help Manning cover up the incident, this is well documented in the case facts from the 2003 defamation case.[24] I never said that anyone was "guilty", deliberately or otherwise of anything. I am only trying to point out that Peyton Manning was accused of sexual assault in 1996, which is a fact. BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". It violates BLP, not to mention the allegations. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Straw poll

Perhaps now would be a good time for a straw poll to gauge consensus on the matter? Perhaps something like;

• Option 'A' - Leave the article as is, with the current paragraph mentioning the sexual assault incident placed in the "College career" section.
• Option 'B' - Remove all mention of the incident.
• Option 'C' - Add even more info and place it all in a "Controversy" section.
• Option 'D' - Go with the separate Peyton Manning sexual assault case article.

Sometimes when a discussion has hit a wall, these polls are a useful way of pushing through. - ^theWOLFchild 00:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Option A without the badge of shame tag. QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option A and agree with QuackGuru that the tag should be removed. One or two editors should not be able to hold an article hostage. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option A and remove the nonsense tag. A strong no to B, C and D. Tracescoops (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option A with no POV tag. Meatsgains (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option A this is a soft choice, I also have leanings towards "Option C". - ^theWOLFchild 03:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC) (poll creator)
• Modified A - right now we have a strange image of Manning being able to place his genitals close to his own foot (presuming that an examination of feet generally requires the examiner to get somewhat close to that foot). I suggest "exposed himself" (which fits the use of "assault" in a legal sense) is the normal "term of art" for the more likely act. Collect (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• STRONG Option D - Wikipedia is not censored and reliable sources have shown that the scandal is notable. The tag should remain regardless, as the article comes nowhere close to having a NPOV and I will not rescind my objections. The article as it stands now still does not mention the defamation lawsuit or the illegal drug scandal, both of which are Major events, which have been extensively covered by numerous reliable sources. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page. ParkH.Davis (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sherry Farrell Racette

Help--I've started to clean this up, and am at a loss as to how to proceed, other than remove the entire resume-like body of the biography. Unsourced and interminable lists of publications, exhibitions, edited and co-edited papers, etc. If I fillet the whole thing someone's liable to take it for vandalism, but I'm unsure as to what ought actually remain. Assistance appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite a resume. Fillet away. I would start by removing all of the bullet lists, which are unsourced and can be removed according to WP:BLPSOURCES. - MrX 21:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I've come across this as regrettably symptomatic of a wider series of biographies, which I may bring to ANI. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No, don't do that! ANI is not for fixing content. That's up to us gnomes. Feel free to fix what you find, leave good edit summaries so other editors know why you are making such edits, and consider signing up for a free account.- MrX 22:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Jacob Green, Seahawks football player

Last paragraph should be removed.

Vandalism reverted, thanks for reporting it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

2014 Youtube Abuse Scandals

2014 Youtube Abuse Scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Originally unsourced, newly created article w/lots of negative claims in violation of BLP. However, these claims seem to be at least partly true. Advice requested. (Note that I added 1 source for Montoya stuff toward the bottom, but there are no other sources in article). Everymorning (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is largely derived from the article you source, to the degree to be a WP:COPYVIO concern, even though it is not word-for-word. Additionally, there is some horrible BLP violations here (someone is said to have been "found guilty by the FBI", despite 1) the FBI does not find people guilty, they are not a court; 2) the article apparently being used as a source does not say that the FBI found him guilty; 3) the source doesn't even claim that the FBI found anything, but rather claims that some vlogger claims that the FBI found something, which makes that problematic sourcing for anything, particularly a BLP. Honestly, I would say that instead of trying to save the material, first thing would be to nuke most of it including the naming of any names, and then allow the article to be rebuilt only with care. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Mike Lombardo has his own WP article and has been convicted for child pornography. I agree with NatGertler that it should probably be nuked and started from scratch with high quality sourcing that adheres to WP:BLP.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The article has now been deleted, as the author blanked it after being pointed to WP:BLP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User Immu 01

Immu 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User page looks like a BLP article/Advert. I mentioned this last week on their user page, here. They replied, but haven't made any changes. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can take a look and determine if any action is required or not. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 14:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• BLPN notice added. - ^theWOLFchild 14:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It takes some time I can't just change my userpage in a day!! I am currently working on it! IMЯAN™ 18:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 (talk • contribs)

Ross Perot

He is listed as dying on Sept 11, 2001 in Tijuana Mexico and being married to Helen Mirren. [25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8701:3F00:DD0E:464F:7BF0:522 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like some vandalism has been already been undone. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Coy Wayne Wesbrook

The count of 5 killed is incorrect. I've made several attempts to get this corrected. The original police report listed 5 shot but only 4 were killed. One woman survived. As well He is being executed for 3 murders. The facts are being checked against Newspaper articles that are checking facts using Wikipedia. The original report also contained 1 minor error the rifle was a .30/.06 not a 36 caliberJoebrown1958 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

".36 caliber hunting rifle" sounds like a mistake. I've commented to that effect on the talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 16:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Fay Hartog-Levin

Fay Hartog-Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On December 9, 2015 a paragraph was inserted in this BLP article purporting to describe a vehicle accident and ensuing litigation involving the subject of this biography, former U.S. Ambassador Fay Hartog Levin. The description of both the accident and lawsuit are disputed, and the only cited source was the self-published blog posting of the attorney who represented the party who sued Amb. Hartog Levin. The contentious material was removed from the article shortly after it was posted (apparently by an editor unconnected to Amb. Hartog Levin), but subsequently re-inserted. I am an attorney who represents Amb. Hartog Levin, although not in connection with the lawsuit described in the text at issue. Consistent with the guidlines on biographies of living persons, on behalf of Amb. Hartog Levin I have removed the contentious and improperly sourced material.

A more detailed explanation of the basis for removal follows:

The removed text purporting to describe a traffic accident and resulting lawsuit involving Ambassador Hartog Levin is factually inaccurate and inconsistent with several Wikipedia policies, including those governing the biographies of living persons and prohibitions against the use of self-published sources.

First, the entire passage describing the incident and lawsuit cites to a single self-published source. That source is a blog entry authored by Brendan Kevenides, who was the attorney for the plaintiff in the personal injury lawsuit described in the removed text. . In that promotional blog post, Mr. Kevenides inaccurately describes key facts regarding the accident (which he did not witness), gives a first-person account of the history of the lawsuit, including depositions he took in the case, makes ad hominem attacks on Ambassador Hartog Levin and her husband, and touts the settlement that he obtained for his client. The blog itself is maintained by “Bike Law,” a self-described “network of independent lawyers and law firms who share a common approach to the law and to helping cyclists.” The blog appears to serve, at least in part, as a marketing tool for attorneys, like Mr. Kevenides , who represent bicyclists in personal injury cases. Mr. Kevenides posts regularly on the “Bike Law” blog about his cases .

Mr. Kevenides authored his blog post on the accident and lawsuit on December 8, 2015. The next day, December 9, 2015, the offending text citing to that blog post was added to Ambassador Hartog Levin’s biographical Wikipedia article. Whether the December 9 revision to the biography was done by Mr. Kevenides, his client, or a third-party, there is no question that the only cited source for that text is the self-published and inherently biased blog post of the plaintiff’s attorney in the litigation described.

The sole reliance on a self-published and biased source is particularly egregious here because the article at issue comprises the biography of Ambassador Hartog Levin, a living person. Wikipedia policy on changes to such entries provides that information about living persons “adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia’s three content Policies: neutral point of view (NPOV); verifiability (V); and no original research (NOR). The content purporting to describe the accident and lawsuit involving Ambassador Hartog Levin violates several of those policies. The description of the accident and lawsuit taken from Mr. Kevenides’ marketing blog is not remotely neutral, relaying the self-promotional narrative of the advocate for one of the parties to the lawsuit. Additionally, it describes disputed facts that cannot be verified independently, including the false allegation that Ambassador Hartog Levin “fled the scene,” when in fact she stopped and sought to exchange information with Mr. Kevenides’ client, who declined to provide his name and told her that he was alright and that the accident was his fault. Ambassador Hartog Levin called the police the evening of the incident to report it, but was told that no report would be taken.

The policy on “Biographies of living persons” goes on to state that any contentious material about a living person that is (1) “unsourced or poorly sourced,” (2) a conjectural interpretation of a source, (3) “relies on self-published sources,” or (4) relies on sources “that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards” should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Accordingly, the removal of this paragraph is sanctioned, and in fact mandated, by Wikipedia policy.

Dmfeeney (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Sharon Presley

I Sharon Presley recently looked at my page on Wiki and to my horror I found that the book “Think for Yourself” was listed as one of my books. But that book was the subject of an arbitration that I won and has been withdrawn from the market. At the request of my lawyer, neither Amazon nor Barnes and Noble even carry used copies. Let me explain why I totally disavow the book and do not consider it even mine. Though there was a contract that guaranteed me final approval of the book, the publisher basically rewrote the book without my knowledge or approval even though I had told her that she no longer had my permission to even publish the book, period. She went ahead and rewrote the book, introducing literally hundreds of typos, misspellings, and grammatical mistakes. I was horrified. But even worse, she rewrote passages in ways that, in my opinion, make me look psychologically disturbed. The terms of the arbitration agreement are such that I cannot comment on why I think she did this. However, if you have any doubt about what I am saying, please contact my lawyer Allan Schwartz in San Francisco [(Redacted)] I would really appreciate it if you to take down the book as soon as possible. Thank you. P.S. You can contact me at (Redacted) --just so you know this is a legitimate request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B3D6:D8E0:D852:B85D:ACE7:88CC (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it because the authorship was inadequately sourced. Someone could re-add it to the article though, if they can locate a source that states that it is one of Sharon Presley's books.- MrX 03:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt the legitimacy of the situation but thought I'd provide some sources to stimulate some discussion. [26] [27] [28] Meatsgains (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a slight problem with this - as the author is clearly in a binding arbitration (the terms of which appear to be withdrawal of the book as long as everyone keeps their mouths shut about it) there is unlikely to be any reliable secondary sources covering why it was withdrawn. The subject is not a household name so is unlikely to garner media attention for dry and dusty legal issues. However there are reliable sources that state the book was written by Sharon Presley, published and is currently still available to buy. There isnt actually a BLP issue here. Normally we could request the author put a statement somewhere public (their website etc) however the post by the subject above seems to imply this wouldnt be possible. Perhaps a referral to OTRS? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There really is a BLP issue; it shouldn't need explaining, it's obvious from the initial post here. Under the circumstances, we won't use the links that Meatsgains gives, because they are primary sources, and it's evident that secondary sources are needed to clarify the situation in a more definitive way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Meatsgains, none of those are reliable sources. Google books merely lists books that have been published and does not do fact-checking. The information on Amazon is user provided. Per "News organizations", the review in The Skeptic is not a reliable source either. A reliable source would be a reliable biography of the subject, which AFAIK does not exist. Also, if no reliable secondary sources discuss the book, it lacks significance for mention. TFD (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Times of India on recent public complaint on Wikipedia issue

1. Times of India
2. NDTV
3. Telegraph India

Unfortunate incident, but could perhaps use some further looking into by respondents to this noticeboard.

Good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What's to look into? The offending edits have already been rev/del'd as blp/vio's and the vandals indef'd. This is just part of doing business here at the 'encyclopaedia that anyone can edit'. Nothing is gonna change from this. - ^theWOLFchild 03:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We could push to have all BLP's under semi-protection. IP vandalism being the most common method of erroneous information in BLP's. It would cut down heavily on the fly-by-vandals. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)

Timothy Parker (puzzle designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've got an interesting one for you guys, centering around a puzzle designer. I'm going to try to describe everything as good as possible since it's mildly complicated.

Long story short, Parker was accused of plagiarizing some of his crosswords and there's been a flurry of editing with the article, some of which was to add the content and some of which was to selectively edit it in order to remove any mention of the allegations other than a denial of the claims. There were claims that Parker was editing the article, which were somewhat persuasive, although I don't think that the IP edits are by Parker offhand. The account might have been Parker, but I've warned him against making direct edits (several times) and asked him to discuss edits on the talk page. I ended up giving the editor a temporary block (for edit warring) and semi'd the page for a few days, which kept the edits down to a minimum. The protection has lapsed and the IPs have returned. They're not as bad as they were, so I'm not going to semi it again unless it gets bad.

Anywho, I've created a subsection for this since the coverage is getting heavy-ish and this sort of thing is difficult to explain as just plagiarism since it's not exactly as cut and dry as all of that. I also wanted to include a section about Parker responding to the allegations. It's a bit lengthier than I wanted, but it's been getting quite a bit of coverage so it's mildly justified. If anyone can condense it a little without swaying it one way or another, feel free. I'm in my last week of classes right now so I'm not on as much as I otherwise would be and I'd really like to prevent this from turning into a perfect storm. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Byron Cook (politician)

Experienced eyes requested on this article, where new user Honest Abe2016 is edit-warring and complaining that it "has been hacked with false and libelous information". JohnCD (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)