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.

clinton email controversy and editorials

There is ongoing discussion at Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Washington_Post_opinion_piece regarding the recent State department audit of Clinton's email practices. In particular dispute about the suitability of a WashingtonPost piece by the Wapo editorial board [1]. Additional voices familiar with BLP would be welcome. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The material in question,[2] sourced to the Washington Post's editorial board, described Clinton's behavior an "inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules". This is a highly derogatory, potentially harmful, contentious statement that was challenged by at least a couple users on BLP grounds. Calling something inexcusable applies a negative value judgment rather than any description of facts, and "willful disregard" depending on circumstance is a key element in calling something a crime. These kinds of claims, inherently, cannot be reliable. No amount of fact checking, opportunity for correction, editorial oversight, or so on, apply because they express opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to show where BLP mandates such a standard. Here's what BLP actually says...

• Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources
• In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article
• Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN.

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The standard that poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be excluded? That's the bedrock statement near the beginning of the policy, which I have invited you an equal number of times to consider: "Contentious material about living persons … that is unsourced or poorly sourced … should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." You're looking for an exception to that policy, and there is no exception for editorial writers who are not experts or related to the events in question offering derogatory value judgments about a person, certainly not the ones you listed. No secondary source has been offered to state that the Washington Post calls her behavior inexcusable. There is no reliable source saying that her behavior is inexcusable. There is no noteworthy allegation, suspicion, or accusation Clinton committed a crime, certainly not from the Washington Post. The Washington Post's editorial is not used to support the incident and FBI investigation concerning her email server, as those are reliably sourced to other articles and already covered in the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is that the Washington Post is not a reliable source for (very harsh) criticism of Clinton.By extension that reasoning would extend to the dozens of other sources Critizing Clinton in the context of this report, and in deed all criticism of every person everywhere on Wikipedia. That is a bullshit argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You should probably calm down and stop cursing at me, also take a little time to reflect on the reliable source guideline. The source here is an editorial which, RS points out, is reliable only as a primary source as to what the editorial states. There is no reliable secondary source here. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

They are commenting about the audit. Its a secondary source for the audit. You are asking for a tertiary source. The content is attributed to them. Its clear it is their opinion. If you think BLP policy mandates that every opinion be commented on by an additional tertiary source, I think you should run a big RFC on to confirm your radical interpretation of RS and then get started with AWB, because there are a few million articles that need cleanup. But that is NOT what policy says. "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." WP:YESPOV WP:BIASED WP:WEIGHT WP:RSOPINIONGaijin42 (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• The argument here, so far as I can determine, is about whether these comments negatively addressing Clinton's behavior are "well-sourced" or not. If they are from the Washington Post's editorial board, while I am not necessarily a personal fan of that journal, I have to say given its reputation it qualifies as being at least a reliable source for that opinion as an opinion, and probably one of the better sources available for opinions as opinions regarding this matter.
• Now, there may be an additional question, whether the content of the article merits having such opinions included in it. Given that this is a rather significant matter, and one which has gotten some degree of attention already and is likely to get more, I think that somewhere in wikipedia some outside opinion on the conduct involved deserves to be mentioned, and I have every reason to think that this opinion from the WP's editorial board is probably one of the best possible ones out there. It may not be the only one, and I certainly wouldn't mind seeing comments from the NY Times or Time or Newsweek or U.S. News or whatever else included as well if and when they become available, but that is probably a bit of a separate matter best resolved when such material is available. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

[EC, addressed to Gaijin42] You are not trying to introduce the editorial as a secondary source about the state department audit. That report is already sourced just fine to stronger, non-editorial sources. What you're trying to introduce here is the scorn that the editorial board personally voiced for Clinton, which as RS correctly says is a primary source for that opinion. The BLP exception you are claiming here is that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". If you can find secondary sources duly noting that Clinton suffers criticism from her use of email servers, which surely there is, then we move away from BLP and start getting into matters of weight, POV, and how to present that criticism. Indeed, the article does in a number of places present sourced content saying that various people have criticized or accused Clinton. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Another point to consider is whether the editorial itself received secondary coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I don't see it as a violation of BLP to include a short summary of the editorial.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! Not all of those are reliable sources or even sources at all (one just reprints the editorial), but at least one of those is a reliable secondary source as to the Washington Post running the editorial. That, not the editorial in isolation, moves things away from BLP territory. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• The link to the editoral was broken for me. It is here. In my view, a statement by the editorial board of a major newspaper like WaPo deserves WEIGHT, should be attributed, and is not a BLP violation. It would be useful to put this in a paragraph with statements of other editorial boards of major newspapers (NYT, WSJ, maybe the LA Times; not politically niche or small; major ones) to ensure NOPV; this one should not just be plucked and stuck in. That said if no other major newspaper's editorial board has weighed in, I would reconsider and wait until others have so we have some encyclopedic content and context. Jytdog (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Editorials are pretty much good only for citations of opinion. In many occasions (including, it seems, this one), verifiable facts are better determined by more "straight" sources. Guy1890 (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Noerdlinger

Should this biographical article include discussion of criminal acts or allegations committed by the subject's adult child when there is no source which makes any connection between the subject and her child's alleged acts? As per precedent established in the biography of George W. Bush, which does not mention unrelated criminal acts committed by his daughter Jenna Bush, I believe it should not, and have removed such material. More eyes on the subject will be appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree - because Noerdlinger was not directly involved, it should not be included on her BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Rashida Strober

Rashida Strober — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:4001:7790:B44D:49:592B:980 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What about it? Meatsgains (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There was some attack material in there but looks like it's already been removed. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I see [3]. I've watchlisted the page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Carol Wayne

At top of article is placed a warning regarding "biographies of living persons". Ms. Wayne passed over 30 years ago. For the author's sake, this warning should be removed, as it is inaccurate. I have no personal interest in the outcome, this is just a noticed error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.145.72 (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The tag is there due to BLP policy violating information about someone else (who I assume is living) being in the article. The tag is badly worded, and I am not sure if there is a more appropriate one. Really it needs one that says 'Any information about living people' rather than implying the subject is still alive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The template 'BLP others' is the appropriate one for the talkpage (Credit to Jytdog), so I have put that up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Javad Marandi

Hello there -

Some of you may recall that I posted a request in the BLP Noticeboard some weeks back, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2016_May_17#Javad_Marandi. In the interest of full disclosure, I work at PR agency Weber Shandwick on behalf of Javad Marandi. After consulting with an Administrator, it was recommended to me that I again engage via the BLP Noticeboard as the content in Javad Marandi's Wikipedia page is in violation of the following two BLP guidelines regarding the use of reliable sources:

Context matters: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: (1) is unsourced or poorly sourced

Again, the two edits I am requesting are:

1. After legal action, the Guardian Media Group has decided to remove articles in the Guardian/Observer which are citations 4 and 6 on Javad's Wikipedia entry. Owing to the fact that these articles have been removed and the publisher refuses to stand by their content, I do not believe they constitute verifiable third-party sources and in the interest of honest and accuracy, references to these citations should be removed from his page. You can see the removed article here: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/09/tory-donor-was-trusted-middleman-for-oil-firm-involved-in-bribes-inquiry.

2. Additionally, Director Magazine has made corrections to their article about business in Azerbaijan to accurately reflect Javad's business interests. Specifically, he is not an owner of Pasha Construction (the 'construction company' mentioned in his Wikipedia article), but rather he is an adviser. Additionally Chinar is actually a restaurant in Baku, and Javad Marandi does not own it. We feel this sentence should be altered to more accurately reflect the content within the cited article: "Marandi owns a company in Azerbaijan called Chinar, the country's "largest distribution business" and a construction company.[3]" A more accurate statement would be: "Marandi owns the country's largest distribution business and is an adviser to a construction firm." The Director Magazine article is citation 3 on Javad's Wikipedia page and you can find it here: http://www.director.co.uk/9071-doing-business-in-azerbaijan/. If you look through the article, you’ll see what nowhere does it corroborate the information contained within Javad Marandi’s Wikipedia page.

Again, as with my previous attempts to get these rectified, I hope you'll agree that I'm not seeking to embellish or editorialise, but rather to have this article accurately reflect correct information, and I'm attempting to do so within Wikipedia's own COI guidelines. I'm reposting this request again to specifically point out which of Wikipedia's guidelines are being violated within Javad's Wikipedia page.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions or concerns. Btgolder (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've done a bit of clean-up in connection with the Guardian source. Most of what was being supported by that source is supported also by the Sydney Morning Herald article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nomoskedasticity for your time and consideration. It's very much appreciated. I should mention that Javad Marandi’s legal team has actually made a formal complaint to the Sydney Morning Herald owing to libellous material contained within their article as well, so I will very likely be in touch soon to request edits based on the outcome of this activity. Thanks again for taking the time. Btgolder (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Note I happen to follow this noticeboard. Another editor has done:

[4] restoring the following which seems to be undue as no major reliable source has made an issue of the person:

Marandi is named in the Panama Papers and has been described as a "trusted middleman" for Unaoil.

The source given is http://www.smh.com.au/business/unaoil-scandal-and-the-panama-papers-20160409-go2jr7.html . The source does not use the term "trusted middleman" , nor even the word "trusted" nor the word "middleman." I consider the use of quotation marks for material not in the source is misleading and an affront to WP:BLP.

The editor also added "well-known" to create

Marandi and his wife Narmina are well-known donors to the Conservative Party (UK), with donations totalling nearly £150,000."

Using the exact same source.

The source states "The revelation of Mr Marandi's link to the Unaoil affair is likely to create headlines in the UK, where he is well known as a major Tory party supporter – he and his wife, Narmina, have donated £150,000 ($280,000) since 2014 – as well as being the owner of exclusive London properties who flies between London and Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, in private jets."

The issue is whether the phrase "well-known" is misused here when it refers only to him being known in the UK -- but the Panama Papers stuff is not sourced to UK reliable sources at all, and the term would reasonably have to have been used in the UK.

Several people here are aware that I read this noticeboard, but the editor involved made a snarky comment: oh, but are you following me around?? I now assure the (expletive) editor that I do not follow him around at all and that I regard such snark as ill-suited to anyone on Wikipedia. I am, in fact, amazed that anyone would so write about a person who has made a significant number of edits (over 1250) on this noticeboard. Only SineBot has more edits than I. Warm regards. Collect (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Just anecdotally, I would say he is well known in the sense that anyone who has paid attention to tory party donations when they come up in the press will have heard of him. Not 'well known' in the pop star sense. No idea how that would translate to 'well known as a tory party donor'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I find the UK press does not use the term - so it is possible the Australian press is more qui vive on this than the Daily Mail is. YMMV. Collect (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations - need more eyes on this

FYI: Over the past three days, an anonymous IP editor added a bunch of unsourced or unreliable content to Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. I've removed the offending content, but this article could use some more eyes on it to keep the poorly sourced dreck off it. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 15:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard Cole & John Bindon

Richard Cole

John Bindon

A proxy hopper has attempted to insert this text into these articles. [5]

There are two issues with this text. The first is that 'assault' might be read in the legal sense, and there is no evidence the subject was ever prosecuted. The second is that few if any sources state as fact that the guard struck the boy, most only acknowledge some kind of confrontation that MAY have involved physical contact.

If any of this sounds familiar, it's because the same text from likely the same proxy editor was repeatedly inserted into the Peter Grant (music manager) article before a request on this noticeboard [6] and the comments of the editor who responded to the request on the article's talk page [7] brought that activity to a halt, at least for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.76.220 (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have added Cole and Bindon's articles to my watchlist. I already had Grant's after the last incident. For anyone interested, Cole's biography/account of his years as tour manager for Led Zep is a fascinating insight into the backstage of a touring band. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

While it may be a fascinating read, I think Cole's version of events and "the truth" don't necessarily align together particularly well, and I would not particularly consider anything he has ever contributed in print to be a reliable source for a BLP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Steve Lombardi / Brooklyn Brawler

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

Ladies and gentlemen. Numerous times, people have changed his place of birth to Detroit, which is entirely fabricated.

A copy of his birth certificate CLEARLY states that he was born in Brooklyn, hence, the Brooklyn Brawler nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhkzero (talk • contribs) 00:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Brooklyn Brawler" was a gimmick. Kamala wasn't really from Uganda, The Undertaker Mark Calaway wasn't really from Death Valley, etc. Just because someone grew up in one city doesn't mean they weren't born elsewhere. Where is this birth certificate? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Aditya Rudra

Aditya Rudra is the Managing Director of Victoriya Machinery Consulting LLP- India and Kazakhstan. which was established in 2011 as an organization under the Companies Act of India, aimed for the provision of Consulting advice in relation to establishment of business and representation of Indian partners in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditrudra (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Libby Garvey

I have removed some material from this article which I feel violates BLP policy. I outlined my rationale on the talk page. Can others please review my rationale and join the discussion? Thank-you. That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

mary cullinan article error

The article Mary Cullinan incorrectly reports the percentage by which Dr. Cullinan received a vote of "no confidence" from faculty senate. The wikipedia article reports that she received a vote of 76% "no confidence," but in fact she received a vote of 63% "no confidence." The figure of 63% can be found in the minutes for March 10, 2014 on the following website: http://www.sou.edu/senate/minutes/2014/index.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.104.148 (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

140.211.104.148, I looked into this, and I am moving this discussion to the article talk page. I'll meet you over there. —Prhartcom♥ 14:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Rahul Easwar

Rahul Easwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fellow editors, I have reverted a few additions on the basis that they contained contentious material which was either unsourced or poorly sourced to a YouTube video, and requiring significant interpretation of that source. Additional input would be appreciated. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with your revert on the BLP. The information was contentious and unsourced. I've watchlisted the page. Meatsgains (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Parag Khanna

Some overly promotional concerns for this article. Article appears to have been largely neglected, or I wouldn't bother posting here. I don't have time to rewrite the article, but I think it would be best if someone with the time could look it over. See my brief comments on the article's talk page . . . but it should be pretty obvious what the problems are just reading through it. Thanks! --Jp07 (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)