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.

RfC: Should we name Paul Nungesser?

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

---

Should the name of accused rapist Paul Nungesser be included in Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), Columbia University rape controversy, Andrew Miltenberg and related articles? –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The FAQ at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) currently states A criminal allegation was made, but the accused was not convicted or charged. An additional consideration is that he is otherwise not notable. Although he has given interviews to newspapers that have named him, he has been photographed for these from behind, so he appears to want to preserve some anonymity. One discussion concluded that the accused could be named only if his full defense was detailed in the article. This condition has not been met, so the accused's name currently cannot be included. which is based on several talk page discussions and a BLP discussion dating to 2015. Since the lawsuits related to the case were settled in 2017, it may be time to reassess the situation. –dlthewave ☎ 22:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Previous (one of many) discussion is here. Arkon (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Has he been charged, is he well known, if not then no. As a note, this is en wikipedia at its worst - Govindaharihari (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• This should take place on the article talk if it’s going to be an RfC. That way there is a record of the consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  Meh, sorta makes sense here since the FAQ was partially from the previous BLP/N discussion linked above. [1] Arkon (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  And dlthewave is asking about including the name in more than one article (one of which has prominently included the name for a few years, and the other of which has an FAQ advising against including it). I don't have any objection to moving the RfC to one talk page or the other, but I also don't see a problem with having it here as long as it's mentioned (and, later, its result is mentioned) on both articles' talk pages. -sche (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Reality check: Nungesser has been named by sources as diverse as the New York Times, National Review, Washington Post, the New York Post, Newsweek, Inside Higher Ed, CBS News, Fox News, etc., etc., ad infinitum. This cat has left the bag, bought a passage to Milan, and sung at the opera, so there's no need for Wikipedia to pretend otherwise. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Several of these sources have even interviewed Nungesser. Even the indirect quotes which appear in the article are attributed to "the accused student".

User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris However, the WP:BLPCRIME guidance is clear that we should consider NOT including material in any article mentioning the person, unless a conviction has been made -- and here the person was found not responsible by the university inquiry. The specific person already objected by lawsuit to others for exposing him to gender-based harassment at that time, so we have a clear policy saying no and a person who does not wish PUBLICFIGURE and has made no admission of it. The specific identity does not even seem needed for the narrative of what Matress Performance was, so ... what is the reasoning for putting forward a name ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Have to agree that at this point, trying to hide Nungesser's name is fruitless. It looks really out of place on the Carry that Weight article to call him "the accused" when one link away from that page will be his name on the legal case page. --Masem (t) 04:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. This is a relatively unimportant question. The number one question is: how many articles do we need to adequately tell the story of this artist and their artworks? Some are arguing that we need to create a fourth article to tackle this subject area. That is the main issue. It can be seen at the Mattress Performance Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This is just plain silly, I say WP:BOLDLY nuke all but one, merging information as required. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: WP:BLP says it is "preferable to omit" a name "when the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated", but as others have said, he has been widely named in reliable sources, including about interviews he himself has done to publicize his arguments, and in the title of the notable lawsuit he filed, so I think it's reasonable and consistent with WP:BLP for the articles to continue naming him, as two already do prominently in section titles and the corresponding sections' prose (following the last BLPN discussion) and as a third does in the title and quoted text of one of its references. BLP also says "publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories", and he has been named in articles in e.g. the U. Pa. Law Review.
  As an aside, it's interesting to notice the situations where some people think a notable widely publicized name should be excluded with situations where some people think a non-notable obscure deadname should be included.
  -sche (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• As others have noted, his name is well-known at this point, and he's given a number of interviews. I think it might be gratuitous to mention Nungesser's name in an article like Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol where he is only tangentially related to the art, but his lawsuit is covered extensively in Mattress Performance and in Columbia University rape controversy - so it seems difficult to justify treating him as a private individual while simultaneously highlighting his case. Nblund ^talk 16:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an important point. Assuming that Emma Sulkowicz continues to produce performance pieces all influenced from the case, but without Nungesser being a fundamental aspect of it (as he was in Carry that Weight), keeping up bringing the name is not helpful there - one can just mention the Columbia University rape controversy article as the point of influence, and the reader can figure that out themselves. He's essential on Carry That Weight and to Sulkowicz' article, but that's it so far, to date. --Masem (t) 17:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• No - WP:BLPCRIME guidance is clear that we should consider NOT including material in any article mentioning the person, and the prior FAQ at Mattress Weight was clear. The specific identity does not even seem needed for the narrative of what Mattress Performance was, and the only things that seem to have changed are that inquiry found him not responsible and the university settled his lawsuit against them. We could mention both those points without going into his identity and counter-evidence, and have no apparent need to name him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a whole section on the performance piece about his reaction to the work; it seems extremely silly to mask the name even with the accusation and case being dropped. --Masem (t) 22:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Markbassett: he's also named at Columbia University rape controversy, Andrew Miltenberg - are you saying that his name should be removed everywhere or solely from Mattress Performance? Also: WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say that we should avoid naming people, it says we should consider avoiding mentioning the allegations all together. Perhaps WP:BLPNAME is relevant, but that refers to individuals whose names haven't been widely disseminated - which probably doesn't apply to Nungesser, whose name has popped up repeatedly in the press and even in some academic journals and law reviews(1, 2, 3) Nblund ^talk 22:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    • User:Nblund The RFC asks with an ‘and’, for all the articles. Clearly Mattress has previously and repeatedly concluded NO. It is the FAQ Q4, covered in TALK, is clear example of BLPCRIME, naming is something they externally showed as undesired, and... really is just not needed for the narrative about the performance art. The only thing that has changed is the inquiry found him not responsible and the lawsuit was settled. Even that could be added without naming the person, though it seems a bit OFFTOPIC. Going into the entire case is Farr OFFTOPIC ... and just giving one side would be an NPOV issue. Best to stick to the existing “do not name him”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) p.s. (a) What would be the reason to add the name, and (b) exactly what else additional is being asked for to exclude, or is there nothing at all that would ever be enough? Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Except that the guy has spoken out about the performance piece as it portrays him negatively. Omitting his name feels extremely NPOVish here. I agree anywhere else tied to Sulkowicz (including her BLP page, and any of her other performance art pieces), his name is not necessary or will appear through links. But the Mattress performance the CU rape controversy articles are far too tied together to name him on one and not name him on the other. That's being overly cautious, given that we have every reason to name him on the controversy article (particularly since he has been cleared of any wrong doing). --Masem (t) 04:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• User:Masem Aaaaaand he said he did NOT want to give up his privacy, and brought lawsuit on that point which means he is not a Public figure re WP:BLPCRIME. Mattress article does not need his name and would be damaged by OFFTOPIC junk about court cases and determinations against her position. The artist herself leaves his name off, articles about it do not name him. If Mattress is to continue separately as an article on a piece of art and feminism then the name is not needed. If you are proposing to merge them to one article then say so, otherwise whatever one article has or does not is not going to mean much about a separate article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• It is really really short-sighted that we have a section on the mattress performance called "Reaction by the accused student" where one link away on the extremely relevant article and on the links for citations in that section, the student is named. (I only speculate that Sulkowicz did not mention his name in any aspect of the Mattress performance for sake of avoiding any legal complications while cases were occurring, even though everyone else knew exactly what the work was alluding to.) And again the fact that Nungesser has willingly given interviews to the press means that while he's not a high profile public figure, he's long passed any reasonable expectation of privacy of keeping his name out of the public eye for the purposes of where we can name him. It would be far different if he avoided all media contact but the media circulated the name freely; then we can assume some reasonable privacy on the matter despite the media attention. --Masem (t) 05:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, mostly per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris I will have to use that cat phrasing myself, soon. (I have to say that naming the man in the title of the discussion about "shall we name him?" is rather disingenuous, though.) As to Markbassett's citation of WP:BLPCRIME, he is absolutely right, we should definitely consider not including the material in the article; we are considering it right now, and the weight of sources (from Boris's comment) is pretty great. I also pinged SlimVirgin who wrote the FAQ, and she abstains. --GRuban (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes as proposer. There are no legitimate outing concerns at this point. Any previous expectation for privacy was relinquished when he began participating in news interviews. We can't "leave him out of the article" by omitting his name; he played a central role in the case and is discussed and quoted multiple times. It's quite odd to include a quote without naming the person who said it. Additionally, each article that mentions Nungesser also covers his side of the case. –dlthewave ☎ 12:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Dude has given interviews. I don't think there's any pretence keeping his name out of one of our articles can be about privacy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Even if BLP could overrule WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT as some of the "BLP as a magic talisman that instantly lets me exclude something" crowd sometimes assert (a dubious proposition given they represent a pillar policy), BLPCRIME would still not apply here. For one thing, the policy language makes it clear that editors should "consider" the value of information contained in disclosing a criminal accusation, but makes it clear that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS ultimately governs, and of course there are thousands of articles which by necessity make reference to criminal investigations and accusations even if they have never led to a conviction or even a criminal charge, and even where everyone involved was a non public figure. Numerous articles about the unresolved murders of children, for example, often include details of suspects whom the investigators have focused on. Such information is often vital for the completeness and accuracy of an article, and those considerations (and indeed the important public role Wikipedia plays in summarizing reliable sources on such topics) cannot be lightly set aside just because some editors have not been personally convinced of someone's guilt and believe that is a good cause for trying to overextend BLP beyond it's intended purposes.

Additionally, even if we did allow for such a standard, it still would not apply here, because, as others have noted before me, the accused in this case has sat for interviews and has been involved with (indeed, initiated) civil litigation relating to the case, meaning he is very much within the public sphere in relation to these matters, and very much under his own steam. Lastly, as has also been noted previously, albeit in different terms, there is also the Streisand Effect; attempts to censor aspects of a story like this only paradoxically raise the profile of those facts, pretty much invariably. All in all, a straightforward call for me. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - per WP:NPOV, we should be including all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources, Nungesser's view is significant and it's been reported in reliable sources. It's also important to remember that Nungesser is from Germany and was an exchange student at the time, he's back in Germany now, so there has been significant international coverage as well. In addition to the American sources provided above by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
  • Germany - Die Welt, Die Zeit, Focus (German magazine), Süddeutsche Zeitung, Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung
  • Australia - Marie Claire (AU), The Australian, news.com.au, The Sydney Morning Herald
  • United Kingdom - BBC, University World News, The Independent, The Guardian
  • Italy - a Repubblica, Il Foglio. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply. It says "unless a conviction has been secured", and a conviction can't be secured because the cases were settled. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 14:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Nina Menkes

Hi, I'm concerned: someone keeps editing Menkes page to read that 'she donated' her films to the Academy. As though any person can send their video to the Academy and the Academy will create a formal Collection. This edit obviates the very important fact that the Academy is AN ESTEEMED CURATORIAL INSTITUTION which has SELECTED Menkes' work, to INCLUDE IT IN THE CANON. Continually re-editing this page denigrates the status of Menkes' work and erases the reception it has received. Given the extreme under-representation of female artists on Wikipedia, please DO NOT ALLOW the continued erasure of Menkes' achievements. thank you, Miss Wagular — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagular2018 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"The Archive's collection comprises 85,000 titles" ... ? Anyways, I have changed the wording and watchlisted the page. MPS1992 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

MPS1992, a few comments: Wagular2018 is indeffed as a sockpuppet; the Nina Menkes page has a long and tedious history of people trying to remove referenced content, even though it was originally created by User:Nina Menkes (which makes "please DO NOT ALLOW the continued erasure of Menkes' achievements" a particularly bizarre request); and the oscars.org page on the Nina Menkes Collection specifically states that the films came from her. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Simon Hussey

Simon Hussey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To whom it may concern,

My name is Simon Hussey,

I am the subject in the page Simon Hussey Australian Musician.

It has been bought to my attention by authorities that do checks validity of work history, for example, trying to rent accomodation in Australia is difficult as the wikipedia page, to them suggests I am of dubious character due to some page warning.

I never asked to have my career on here and I am a sufferer of long term Mental health issues which have forced me to stop work.

Could someone please address the page issues or delete it. I don't understand why I have to be the victim.

Thank you so much.

Simon Hussey,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.111.14 (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you believe there are inaccuracies on the page about you? Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I think he'd like to get rid of the "A major contributor to this article..." template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the editor involved in the CoI argument was highly active on the page as recently as a month ago, that'd probably be unwise for the moment. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

All of the above may be true, but it seems this living person may be asking for the article to be taken down completely since it is hurting his career. Shouldn't this be a candidate for speedy deletion? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 01:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Under certain circumstances, especially where the subject is not really notable, that may be an acceptable reason, but usually not. Much easier for the writer to get something deleted that way than the subject. Now don't get me wrong, because I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy, but in this case I think he's notable enough to have his article pass AFD. Some of the sources seem dubious, but I haven't gone through them to know that for sure. You're welcome to trim it up and try nominating it, but I'd carefully assess it first to see if it has a snowball's chance of getting deleted.

It might help if they could clarify as to what exactly the problem is. The article to me seem quite neutral; ie: no overtly boisterous statements and yet nothing that seems disparaging either. The original post seems to indicate that the template notice is the point of contention, but this doesn't say that he himself is somehow a bad person, only that some Wikipedian thinks the article itself may be the product of a little COI editing, which may or may not even be the subject (tag doesn't specify, and is duly ambiguous). I can't imagine this would hurt someone's career, but we need more info from the OP. (Keeping in mind that the OP may not always be who they say they are, but giving the benefit of the doubt unless/until it becomes a problem.) Zaereth (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I've edited the article a number of times over the years. At least two editors have claimed to have a connection with the subject. Many of their edits are disruptive and provide a reason for adding the CoI template. I've had to revert those changes and fix up content problems. Other editors have also made similar reversions. Much of this is detailed at the article's talkpage. I am heartily sorry if Simon Hussey is being denied accommodation by authorities doing checks and using the WP page as a rationale for disruption to his life. He certainly should not be a victim. I believe Australian governmental agencies have mechanisms to reduce such problems. However, I don't believe removal of the whole article would help. The subject is certainly notable enough to have an article and there are sufficient reliable sources to verify their notability. I would welcome any copy editing to reduce CoI or other issues to improve the article. The template could then be removed if the disruptive editors (or their ilk) refrain from further interruption with the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Golriz Ghahraman

Golriz Ghahraman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article contains a controversies section based on primary sources stuff.co.nz (which appears to be tabloidesque) and Radio New Zealand (which is a state-sponsored channel). Prima facie, the content in the section appears to be well-balanced, however the attention given to this particular issue is likely WP:UNDUE, and the existence of the controversies section itself is not conducive to a balanced, NPOV article. I'd like to hear your thoughts before I set about editing the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Stuff is the combined web site of the Fairfax newspapers (including the second and third major papers in the country) and is about as reliable as any other mass-market newspaper (they went to tabloid size recently, but the weekend papers are still broadsheet and the content isn't excessively tabloid). RNZ is a neutral public broadcaster (not comparable with propaganda outfits such as RT). However Stuff (in particular) also prints opinion pieces which aren't anywhere near the reliability of their news coverage. Most of the controversy is about her volunteer work and is written by people who don't understand even basic legal processes and is typically only repeated in reliable sources as claims and rebuttal. I agree that the coverage given to the issue in this article is WP:UNDUE. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the sourcing: Radio New Zealand is a very reliable source and stuff.co.nz is as well (as Daveosaurus notes). I find it concerning when people impugn the integrity of prominent mainstream sources they've got no understanding of whatsoever ("state-sponsored channel"? really?). This is a Bad Thing and people should do their homework if they're going to throw these claims around. I do agree that it is undue weight: I don't think the second paragraph adds anything significant that isn't conveyed by the first. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Technically, it is a state-sponsored channel in the sense that it is a "public-service radio broadcaster" and a "Crown entity". This is not a value-laden judgement. Additionally, having "controversies" or "criticism" sections on biographies of living people is highly discouraged as these sections tend to become troll magnets.

I do agree with Daveosaurus's observation above that these news articles cited as sources have been written by individuals who do not appear to have even rudimentary understanding of basic legal processes, and the ethical framework in which legal counsel participate in judicial proceedings. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The suggestion that this has any bearing whatsoever on its validity as a source is a value-laden judgment (and a bad one). I'd also suggest that people refrain from trying to dismiss obvious reliable sources because they come to some conclusions they dislike: I'm a fan of Ghahraman, have done my share of pruning crap from this article over time, and am well familiar with legal ethics in criminal defence and even I can see it's a weakness in her biography. The implication that volunteering on a war crimes defence as an intern is beyond question by reasonable sources (or that criticism suggests anything about their "understanding of basic legal processes") is POV nonsense that doesn't stand up to scrutiny from people who do, in fact, understand these things. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Controversies sections are inherently biased and should not be in articles. Instead the controversy should be incorporated into the sections of the article about where they arose. In this case, instead of saying, "In November 2017, it was revealed that, along with prosecuting war criminals, Ghahraman had also volunteered as an intern for the legal defence team of accused war criminals, " (note the tabloidesque language) it could say, she "volunteered as an intern for the legal defence team of accused war criminals." Being a defense lawyer is not illegal or unethical in itself. This could then be followed by criticism of her choice and her response. TFD (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Default protection for BLPs?

Want to float this idea here first, to see if this may be a perennial proposal that's already been discussed.

• Would it make sense to permanently protect BLPs upon request as a matter of fact?

The latest story that is relevant is "Someone in the House Just Doxxed a Bunch of Republican Senators on Wikipedia", which discusses how an IP address added personal contact information, including cell phones and home addresses, to the pages of several US senators. The article mentions a Twitter bot that tweets the changes as they happen. The account (@congressedits) also tweets a screen grab of the change. In this particular case, the edits were quickly suppressed on Wikipedia, but it took some time for Twitter to delete the pictures, so when I read the article, they were still there.

In general, BLPs attract a lot of vandalism, some of which is "weaponised", intended to doxx or embarrass the victim. With that in mind, I'd like to find out if default or on-demand permanent protection for BLP articles is worth discussing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, it appears that this was discussed and rejected on WP:VPR at least once (in January 2010): [2] IntoThinAir talk 19:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for it. It would cut down on a lot of the vandalism and SPA edits without a doubt. There are others who believe this would disrupt the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" model, in that it would deter those good-intentioned IP editors from editing at all, but I tend to think the benefits would far outweigh the disadvantages. False or libelous info, even if only posted for a short time, can have very adverse effects on not only our subjects but their friends and families as well, and I think it's better to err on the side of caution, but that's just me. Who knows, it may even encourage many of those well-meaning IPs to open an account. Zaereth (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I would also wholeheartedly support this idea. IntoThinAir talk 23:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW Me too. Also, what Zaereth said. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. It contains a basic flaw that many similar proposals share; it assumes that vandals, POV pushers, and trolls are too stupid to react to our countermeasures with counter-countermeasures of their own. This is known in security circles as "installing a pickproof deadbolt on a cardboard box". When proposing any countermeasure, you need to present an argument that a simple behavior change won't bypass the new countermeasure.

Example: some new countermeasure automatically prevents a new editor from vandalizing Donald Trump. So he vandalizes President of the United States, The Trump Organization, The Apprentice (U.S. TV series), and Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. We apply the countermeasure to those pages and the vandal reacts by vandalizing Donald Trump in popular culture, Mar-a-Lago, Russia–United States relations, and United States presidential election, 2016. All we have accomplished is starting an arms race that we cannot win.

Our current methods of protecting BLPs are not broken and do not need to be fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Seconding Guy Macon on this. Default protection is not going to help. -- The Anome (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This seems very reminiscent of the "criminals don't follow laws" argument often used by opponents of gun control. Both the above arguments and the anti-gun control argument appear to be motivated by a pessimistic belief that attempting to make it harder for people who shouldn't be able to do things to do them will be futile (whether those things are editing a BLP or obtaining a gun). But I think that such efforts are not necessarily futile: in the case of Wikipedia BLPs, making it more difficult for vandals/trolls/other unconstructive editors to violate BLP policy is a good thing and will undoubtedly prevent some (but certainly not all) such editors from making problematic edits to our most sensitive pages. I think that some, but not all, such editors will be sufficiently dedicated and resourceful to know how to become autoconfirmed, or edit non-BLPs, etc. but the remaining editors will be prevented from making BLP-violating edits. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This seems very reminiscent of the "criminals don't follow laws" argument often used by opponents of gun control. While I agree that taking steps to mitigate harm doesn't require that each step be a foolproof solution, we also have to bear in mind that each new mechanism adds a layer of difficulty, and brings problems of its own.

In other words, I don't think Guy is saying that the proposal need be perfect, but rather that the proposer needs to make a compelling case that implementing it is better than doing nothing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a fair point, and I appreciate the clarification on Guy's behalf. In some sense this proposal would start an "arms race" that can never be won. But I would argue that this "arms race" has already been happening, and that this proposal is merely a common-sense step to try to fight back in said arms race against any editor intent on violating BLP. Recall that after the Siegenthaler incident in 2005 Wikipedia (at least this one) required users to be logged in to create articles. To my mind this proposal would, similar to the logged-in article requirement, be an entirely reasonable way of enforcing one of our most important policies (though I would also be OK with putting all BLPs under PC1 rather than semi-protection as a compromise). IntoThinAir (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I could see an argument for using some sort of semi protection, like EC protection or even semi. But I don't think I'd find those arguments compelling, because I've seen far more good edits from IPs and new editors at BLPs than I've seen problematic ones. When I do recent changes patrolling, I accept probably 70% of the edits on a typical bad day. A good day can hit 100% without too much difficulty. (To be fair, I've had really bad days that dip as low as 20-30%, but I've never had a zero percent day). I've seen IPs reverting cleverly hidden vandalism, subtle BLP vios and balancing out POV problems. And yes, I've seen a lot of vandalism, too. But the harm (blocking all IPs and new editors from editing BLPs) seems to outweigh the good. Remember, every good revert from an IP is a revert we registered users don't have to make. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel like this discussion is at least a little bit related to WP:PERENNIAL#Prohibit anonymous users from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I also oppose this, per WP:NOTFINISHED. I could see some sense in automatically semiprotecting all BLPs because of the potential for harm, but the reality is that there are thousands of BLPs that are just fine without protection, and we've protected the ones where there are problems (or we will when the problems become evident). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm against this, too. Many BLPs are never vandalized, and protection of these is unnecessary. The vandalism tends to be concentrated on BLPs of controversial individuals and this can be managed. I'm not sure which level of protection we could apply, anyway, as there needs to be a mechanism to allow BLP articles to be improved - we can't just freeze them at the initial version. Semi-protection thwarts drive-by vandals but the more determined ones just have to wait a few days and make a few innocuous edits until they're autoconfirmed and semi achieves nothing. Placing pending changes protection on all BLPs would put a huge workload on the pending changes reviewers, while full protection would give the admins that workload. We can't have a relatively few editors having to vet or implement every change to every BLP, surely? That just leaves extended-confirmed, which might work to some extent but would still prevent a lot of less-experienced editors making what would be perfectly uncontroversial edits. Neiltonks (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Automatically semi-protecting BLPs, in particular high-profile BLPs in contentious areas would be a boon. I spend a good share of my editing on manually reverting completely useless edits made by IP numbers on BLPs. I worry about the harm that these editors are doing to pages that are not being patrolled by regular editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I live and mostly work in a WP area (The United Arab Emirates) that is little loved by experienced WP editors and much loved by IP drive-bys. The casual, daft vandalism is endemic - and requiring autoconfirmed user status to modify a BLP would be helpful. I understand that's not everyone's cup of tea. But it's mine... :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I am against this for obvious reasons. But, seriously, permanent protection, no (or few) questions asked, potentially applied as a matter of policy to how many millions of articles, all in response to a single event that was caught and responded to rapidly and appropriately? That would be a huge overreaction, and would also inevitably create a mess in the future. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Protecting all BLPs by default would be excessive, but the proposal is to protect BLPs upon request. We should set a very low bar for on-demand protection of BLPs that may be subject to vandalism due to current events or controversies. Although there are good reasons that we don't normally do this preemptively, doxxing has the potential to make information public in the way that can't be undone and it's troubling that Wikipedia may be co-opted for this purpose. –dlthewave ☎ 19:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• For the record the doxxing also occurred on non-BLP articles. So in terms of the recent incident, this wouldn't necessarily improve anything. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Charles Aznavour

The noted French singer is deceased today and we are already beginning to get drive-by IP vandalism. Please watchlist this. Coretheapple (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Pete Mckee

Pete Mckee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NOT NOTABLE OR NOTEWORTHY

This entry is for an illustrator who only has a limited and very local appeal in his local area Some links to his own website His "Gallery" is a small shop on a side street. Exhibitions referred to have no links or proof that they were of any significance. Chiefly Original Research (OR) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Rusling (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC) BBC items are archived links to local radio website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Rusling (talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• There is a bit of puffery in the article, but as far as I can see, not much OR. National coverage -The Guardian has an in depth article on him; the BBC (and not just the local version) have short articles on several of his exhibitions, and NME have run two galleries on his music industry inspired works. Plenty of local coverage as well. Looks like enough to meet WP:GNG. Curdle (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bill Rusling: feel free to nominate the article for deletion using WP:AFD if you believe it is not notable. GiantSnowman 15:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Russia indictment

The Murder of Seth Rich says, "his murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents for hacking the e-mail accounts and networks of Democratic Party officials...." A copy of the indictment naming the 12 Russians can be seen here.

Is this statement in violation of People accused of crime: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction>"

TFD (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No. The content does not state that anyone in particular has committed a crime, only that 12 unnamed Russian military intelligence agents have been indicted for the hack. Also, new participants should be aware of prior discussion at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#POV/Original research problems in second paragraph. The original proposal was to make material changes to the article based on an IP's OR; the discussion about this in particular starts about 2/3 of the way down, at the first outdent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

All twelve people are named in the indictment. Per Legal persons and groups, it is not necessary to name each member of the group, so long as the individual members can be identified. The article is saying that each and every named individual is guilty of a crime. TFD (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course they are named in the indictment. But the content in question does not name them, or say they are guilty of a crime. You quoted the content yourself, how you can contend otherwise is beyond me. Even the "contradicted by..." doesn't claim they are guilty, it just implies that Rich is not an actual suspect in the crime. If your problem with the content is that a reader might come away with the impression that the indicted Russian intelligence agents are guilty and Rich is not: too bad. That's an impression provided by a reading of the facts, and any reading of the facts will provide it. Here's the dry-est possible form I can think to put them in:

• Rich has never been a suspect in the email investigation, except in the claims of known conspiracy theorists.
• The evidence supports the emails being hacked from the outside, not leaked from the inside.
• Following a lengthy investigation, the FBI indicted 12 Russian military intelligence agents.

Even when put that dryly, it strongly suggests that the Russians, not Rich are responsible. So the only way to change that would be to violate WP:V. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Peter Mathieson (nephrologist)

Hi folks, could someone take a look at the article on Peter Mathieson (nephrologist)? My feeling is it's not balanced and some editorial judgement is needed. For instance there's a quote in there from Lo Chung-mau which I'm not sure is adding much and is repeating an ad hominem attack without context. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Atuk kumar (opthalmologist)

Recently, there was a strike in Aiims as he assaulted a fellow doctor and RDA demanded his resignation, Relevant changes should be made to make a honest and truthful biographical page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.154.250.233 (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

David M. Cote

Three years ago I requested a third opinion on Talk:David M. Cote, and received what I felt was a very well-thought out and measured response. I've since been unable to gain any real traction with implementing the necessary changes (in part due to my COI). I later requested mediation between the editor who added the content that I felt was unsuitable and myself, but he rejected that request. Another editor removed the content entirely, but it was later restored. I requested an edit to move the content to Honeywell instead, by that request was deferred with the placement of a split and merge template. At this point I'd just like to reach a real consensus on the issue. Is it appropriate to include material regarding a company's political donations under a CEO's tenure on his BLP? It seems to me that it unfairly implies that the CEO was directly responsible for the rise in political donations.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Denis Mukwege

Can somebody please update the POB in the infobox per my request at the article talk page? GiantSnowman 14:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

GiantSnowman; The article was changed to use local infobox now. You could've just done so. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: I wasn't sure if there was a reason it used the Wikidata infobox. GiantSnowman 07:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Graham Linehan

There is a lot of animus and some fairly contentious editing going on at Graham Linehan. Apparently the guy has made some politically incorrect statements and well-meaning editors are conflating someone reporting him to the cops with being charged, having legal problems etc., and it has found its way in to the article and talk page a few times with flimsy sourcing (opinion pages, etc.). It appears that some off-wiki WP:STEALTH is going on too based on the sudden appearance of uninvolved editors with limited WP experience. Additional eyes appreciated. Toddst1 (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

....but are they using RS? Can the content they add be improved? (per WP:PRESERVE) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

While there are a lot of problematic edits, This source isn't an opinion piece, and including that he was reported to the police doesn't seem inherently a WP:BLP problem. I also found this piece in The Times, which is about this incident and includes that he was reported to the police; one sentence per WP:PUBLICFIGURE on this incident/kerfuffle would seem non-problematic vis-a-vis WP:BLP to me. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added his views with the times as a source. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

User subpage deletion discussion

Deletion discussion : Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Politics Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC

RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

peter Oxford please note there is a notice of a clean up on this page, can this notice be taken down please

Peter Oxford there is a notice at the top of this page can a volunteer please have this removed please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.142.92 (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Not unless the concerns in the note are satisfied. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not immediately obvious why @Rentier: placed the tag on this page; there was no note left on the article talk page, nor the article creator's talk page, and the edit summary indicates nothing beyond the fact that the tag was added. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Then there are no concerns to satisfy, and any editor should feel free to remove the hat note. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Renuka Arun

What is the problem in this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.215.172.186 (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What issue are reporting? Its not clear. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Weird quote

I cannot make heads or tails of this quote, which I removed. If an admin is reading this, perhaps they can revdel it? I do not see the purpose of a quote on scratching asses and looking up skirts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be revdelled as it doesn't meet the criteria. And it's verifiable in the source, even though the citation was malformed (original source is here). But thank you for removing it, as it's clearly not appropriate. I don't think even with an article on the commando-going artist in question, that this would ever rise to the level of being WP:DUE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Canary Mission and Adam Milstein

Two users have repeatedly removed the following sources from the two linked articles, all of which report on Adam Milstein being named as the founder of Canary Mission. Those sources are Haaretz, Le Monde Diplomatique, and The Nation. Other sources covering this, and Milstein's denial that he is the founder, are The Forward and the JTA. They have argued that because Le Monde and The Nation based their reporting on an al-Jazeera documentary that was not aired that this makes this a BLP violation. I feel funny asking this, but are Le Monde Diplomatique and The Nation suitable sources for saying that Milstein has been accused of being Canary Mission's founder in both the article Canary Mission and Adam Milstein, because currently that material has been censored on BLP grounds. nableezy - 21:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The text in question is based entirely on a statement made by a person who was not even employed by Canary Mission but by another Milstein enterprise, interviewed in a Project Veritas-type ambush itnerview, that did not get aired, regardless of who repeated it. One of the articles cited, JTA, is devoted in the main to the subject's denial. I think better sourcing is required for a contentious and disputed statement in a BLP, and I also believe that this whole episode is UNDUE and that the article itself, created by a paid editor, is of marginal notability in the first place. I became aware of the article by the RfC bot, as there is an RfC pending on whether that material belongs in the article at all. I agree with Nableezy in the sense that I feel funny that such shoddy sourcing is being pushed with such vigor, but then again this is the I-P parallel universe. Coretheapple (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that this subject was raised previously on BLP/N by the person who initiated the RfC[3]. Secondly though The Forward is listed as a source above, there is no mention of Milstein in this article. Thirdly, the other sources, to the extent that they mention Milstein, simply repeat what was stated in the non-broadcast documentary and it was not further researched. Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it is based entirely on Le Monde Diplomatique and The Nation's reporting. My question to this board is those sources are sufficient. You are simply not qualified to judge if they further researched anything, and in any matter that is immaterial. Is The Nation and Le Monde Diplomatique sufficient sourcing for this material? nableezy - 01:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please drop "and The Nation" - this is a straight up reprint of the French piece, with LMD's logo and the French author. The French piece itself merely describes the canned doco which was leaked, and is not based on any actual investigation by LMD.Icewhiz (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• I pointed this out in the RFC on his page, but I feel the Jewish Telegraphic Agency source is the best and is sufficient to mention it somewhere in the article (though not in the lead.) WP:SECONDARY coverage lends weight to the original story; and while, yes, it leads with on his denial, the bulk of it is devoted to exploring and discussing the allegations; and either way, it's still an entire story devoted to the topic in a reputable, reasonably neutral, reasonably mainstream publication. That sort of extensive mainstream coverage of his denials is exactly the sort of thing that we look for in a WP:BLP situation to determine that something is worth mentioning in an article. Obviously the caveat is that if using it as the main source, we do have to emphasize his denial in the same way they did, and still make it clear what the WP:PRIMARY source of the story is (because that secondary source does so); but I don't think it's credible to argue that it fails WP:DUE or WP:BLP. Relative to the coverage other aspects of his article gets, having an entire article in a prominent mainstream publication devoted to the scandal obviously satisfies policies enough to justify a few sentences devoted to this. People can make the argument that it shouldn't be a story, that this scandal is still a tempest in a teapot, that JTA was foolish to devote an entire article to responding to it, or whatever; but those things aren't relevant to how we determine weight or article content (since they amount to second-guessing the sources and imposing our own point-of-view on what "deserves" coverage.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• A number of problems here:
  1. It is only Le Monde Diplomatique. The Nation reprints Le Monde Diplomatique with the logo of Le Monde Diplomatique, with the French author listed as the author.
  2. Le Monde Diplomatique is merely a description of the canned doco (that AJ decided not to publish)- and is not based on any actual investigation by Le Monde Diplomatique. The claim in the canned doco (based on a street imterview with a weakly conmected person is weak) - the leaked segment this is based on may be seen here.
  3. Other sources merely cover Milsteim's denial or say he was mentiomed in tue unpublished doco.
  4. Subsequent reporting on Canary (of which there has been quite a bit) does not mention Milstein - but rather other people, e.g. one guy and another guy. Milstein is mentioned for ICC, not Canary.

In short - this is all based on a rather sketchy interview in a long unpublished doco that AJ decided not to publish and segments of which were leaked (as AJ's canning was news). Subsequent reporting mentions other people.Icewhiz (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying canned doco (assuming documentary) as though that means something. Whether or not Al-Jazeera ultimately chose to publish the store isnt relevant to whether or not the material is appropriately sourced. There could be a thousand reasons for them to chose not to air the piece. And you, like the other commentator, have no evidence that Le Monde did not do any investigation, that is a claim made based wholly and entirely on nothing. And even if it were true, even if Le Monde say fit to publish what Al Jazeera decided not to without any other investigation, that still does not negate that Le Monde did in fact see fit to publish it. You disliking that does not make it a BLP violation to include what a rock solid reliable source says is a fact. We do not allow Wikipedia editors to substitute their own investigation for that of reliable sources. nableezy - 06:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• These contorted efforts do not succeed in undermining the utility of the sources in question. I agree with Aquillion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle

Article Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle has come up for AfD. I am not fully cognisant of the different expectations for editing, so would be grateful if anyone could go and improve on my edits to the article. Noting that WP:DEL-CONTENT states, 'If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page,' I was wondering if someone more adept with Wikipedia than me could improve the article to acceptable standards, if appropriate. Thank you. 82.129.81.98 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The New York Journal of Mathematics retraction controversy

• The New York Journal of Mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Mathematical Intelligencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ted Hill (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sergei Tabachnikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Benson Farb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Amie Wilkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm wondering what (if anything) can be done about controversial edits across these articles. Here's the background: mathematicians Ted Hill and Sergei Tabachnikov submitted a paper on sex differences to The Mathematical Intelligencer and it was rejected. Then they submitted to The New York Journal of Mathematics, which published the paper briefly but then rejected it after a vote among NYJM editors. That much everyone agrees on, though there are accusations and controversial claims basically everywhere. This has been raging in right-wing circles because something something censorship by liberal academia. And in true post-Gamergate fashion the first allegations were against Amie Wilkinson who happens to be married to Benson Farb, one of the editors at NYJM. Some may remember this from a month ago at BLPN where the content was removed and the articles on Amie Wilkinson, Benson Farb, and Ted Hill (mathematician) were protected.

At that time, the only source covering the controversy was written by Ted Hill himself and published at Quillette, a right-wing "free thought" magazine which openly accepts submissions. Later it got covered by the Reason.com blog and student-run "academic freedom" site Campus Reform. The first (as far as I can tell) reliable but very niche source to cover the issue is Retraction Watch, though that source is careful to simply quote primary documents without any substantial fact-checking or editorializing, and in the end notes that "[s]o much remains a mystery about this story". Another editor from Retraction Watch later wrote an editorial based on those sources at The Boston Globe, this time more affirmatively pushing the censorship angle. Finally, we have an article from The Scientist, which appears to have actually investigated the issue rather than simply quoting primary accounts. The Scientist interviewed the editor of The Mathematical Intelligencer (where the paper was originally rejected) as well as two third-party geneticists who point out flaws in the paper's conclusions. All of them gave reasons why the paper would have been rejected.

Which brings us here. Protection on those pages expired and editors again started pushing the censorship angle based on questionable sources (Quillette and Retraction Watch). Claims from The Scientist have been cherrypicked to push only the censorship side. I feel that this whole controversy is a BLP minefield, but also a tempest in a teapot with very little substantial coverage and so probably not worth mentioning at all. If we were to mention it in any of these articles, a complete, BLP-compliant summary would likely be lengthy and UNDUE. I've reverted the edits multiple times and editors continue to add questionable BLP claims. I'd rather not edit war so I'm stepping back and bringing it here. Woodroar (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have only been paying attention to this issue in terms of the journal pages and not the BLP pages in question. I agree that we need to be particularly careful with BLP and mentioning individuals on the journal pages. However, from my reading of both of the journal pages, there is nothing much controversial on those and no BLP issues. I certainly think there is room for improvement on both of these. Am I missing something?

On more specific points:

-What about the Boston Globe article indicates that it is an editorial? I am not seeing any indication of this, but could have missed it. Based on https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/brainiac it looks like the column this is written under is identified as news.

-My understanding from The Scientist coverage and other is that the article was accepted by the Math Intelligencer and then retracted later due to pressure (different than a normal rejection)--contrary to the above "agreed upon" summary.

-While I think it is fine to point out scientific issues raised with the paper, the sources are pretty clear that barring outright fraud or other severe mistakes, pulling a paper after acceptance goes against scholarly norms. For the journal pages, these are clearly noteworthy events and I think far less noteworthy things are regularly covered on journal wikipages. -Pengortm (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Globe's "Brainiac" section is a subsection of its "Ideas" blog, which is a WP:NEWSBLOG and part of its opinion coverage (albeit, in this case, opinion-pieces about the news.) They offer it to high-profile thinkers, major websites, etc. in order to get their takes on things - hence why each one has the byline of the site, column or institution that contributor is from. For that matter, even The Scientist, the best source available, is still under its "news and opinion" section. I think it's appropriate for our articles on Ted Hill and Sergei Tabachnikov, but that we would need more coverage unambiguously tying it to discussion about the two journals for it to be WP:DUE coverage on those pages - especially given that they're stubs and that your rewritten versions would devote nearly half of their text to this one issue, whose best coverage is still in pseudo-opinion pieces at best. The only BLP issue, though, is the mentions of Wilkinson and Farb. The Scientific American article mentions them only in passing (in a way that lends them no significance), while the Brainiac piece doesn't mention them at all. Based on that, I'd say that mentioning them in connection to this topic in any capacity is currently a WP:BLP issue. We need at least one or two good, unambiguously non-opinion sources discussing them directly (rather than just mentioning them in passing) before they'd be drawn in; the other things we can argue about, but this seems way below the level of coverage that WP:BLP requires for something that (based on the blogs and such) clearly seems to be making negative insinuations about them. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• My immediate thoughts: Probably worth a sentence or two on the pages for Ted Hill and Sergei Tabachnikov, since it's a significant event in their biographies and raises no WP:BLP issues there as long as nobody else is mentioned. Probably doesn't pass WP:DUE for the pages on the journals in their current form; the current inclusions turn nearly half their text into coverage of an incident that appears mainly in blogs, with the one reliable source saying nothing significant happened. This is not a major - or even, based on the current coverage, particularly significant - event in their histories. Absolutely undue for Wilkinson or Farb (which is the only WP:BLP issue raised); the one possibly non-blog, non-opinion piece mentions them only in passing as people who sent emails objecting, and not in a way that implies that this says anything meaningful about either of them. Inclusion on either of those pages, or any mention of either of them on the other pages listed, should be instantly reverted on sight until / unless non-opinion sources discussing them directly come up. --Aquillion (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)