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.

Alice S. Fisher

Comments are appreciated on whether a Senator’s opening statement from a Judiciary Committee hearing of Alice S. Fisher are appropriate to include in a nominee’s bio. Talk:Alice S. Fisher#Proposal to Delete Paragraph Using Only a Primary_Source JZ at LW (talk)

Shincheonji Church of Jesus: current alleged persecutions

Greetings

I wrote it to Oversight, who advised me to address it here instead (see their reply below).

Self-paste follows:

---

I may be overly sensitive here and inexperienced (see my edit and WP history) but I have just come across a danger of using a current event and a WP article as a basis for witch hunts, harm and more. I am using this tool for the first time and am typing it on a mobile early in the morning, so please excuse brevity and style.

The article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shincheonji_Church_of_Jesus

the presumed danger here: https://en.shincheonji.kr/bv_covid19Response_9607 and my, maybe naive, public musings about it on its Talk page, diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shincheonji_Church_of_Jesus&diff=943849273&oldid=943847663 [This talk section updated since then]

Please monitor it, lock it, or else tell me I am being paranoid here.

Best regards

Zezen, far away from Korea and without any COI

---

Oversight wrote: Unfortunately, the edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy <" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="" style="">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight>;. If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard (<" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="" style="">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Noticeboards>;). Thank you for sharing your concerns and please contact us again if you have any in the future.

Sincerely, Primefac The English Wikipedia Oversight team

Yousef Al Otaiba

There is currently information on the Yousef Al Otaiba page that doesn't abide by WP:BLP guidelines, including inferences of wrongdoing that aren't directly supported by the sources and information about other people that is adding undue weight to the insinuations. I have been trying to improve the article for several months by using a more neutral tone and reorganizing to give proper weight to negative topics, but my edits have continually been wholesale reverted by another editor. I've tried to work with this editor, but received few responses until I attempted to make my proposed changes. We're at an impasse and I would appreciate others' thoughts on the situation. You can review our discussion on the Talk page. Quorum816 (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yousef_Al_Otaiba#RfC_on_hacked_emails_section

Sorry, but I'm not really seeing what your complaint is. I looked at the talk page discussions and really can't figure out your reasoning. How are words like "double life" defamatory? If this is how the source described it, then that is how we should. Use of synonyms would be acceptable, but "partying with friends" has a completely different meaning. Also university bios are perfectly acceptable sources for certain kinds of info. Even other bios are acceptable, including autobiographies to a certain extent. Secondary sources are actually preferable to primary and tertiary (third party) sources. And so are notable opinions if properly attributed. In short, from the vagueness of the comments both here and there, I have no real clue what you see as the problem. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

My issue with this section, and the page in general, is that I've tried to edit it to better align with WP:BLP guidelines, but the edits have been reverted because of the size of the edit rather than the actual changes. If there is a disagreement with a certain part of the edit, others are more than welcome to go in and edit that part, but that doesn't mean the edit should be reverted entirely.

The discussion with Huldra has continually devolved into niggling over small phrases, like "double life", which I removed per WP:LABEL and WP:WEASEL, rather than discussing the larger issues on the page, including the irrelevant, and unrelated content that is giving undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to an event. Quorum816 (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, you see, that's all a fine generalization, but it still doesn't explain the problem. What you've written basically boils down to "another editor keeps reverting me". It doesn't tell me anything about the BLP issue, as you see it. I am trying to see what it is that you see as the BLP violation, so I'm asking that you explain it in detail from your point of view. From what I've seen, Huldra is having the same problem at the talk page. You say this is a BLP issue, but give no indication of how or why.

For example, "double life" is not a label. It is an action that someone does. The idiom is "leading a double life", which means a person is being this over here and that over there. For example, Superman leads a double life, both as Superman and as Clark Kent. If I have a wife in my home town, and secretly have another wife the next town over, then I would be out of my mind, but leading a double life. The idiom itself can be either good or bad, but it's not a label. An example of a label would be "gay", "straight", "republican", "democrat", "catholic", "muslim", "jerk", "saint", etc... These are things people are, not what they do.

Likewise, "double life" is not a weasel word. Weasel words are vague words of authority, meant to add credibility to statements. These tend to be words like "they say", "authorities indicate", "according to some", "scientists say", etc... For example, "Scientists say that global warming is a myth." The weasel words are used to lend credibility to the statement. It sounds good to the untrained ear, but what scientists? We would need to exchange that with a specific name. So that's why I say I'm not following your train of thought. If you could clarify, that may help.

This board is for BLP violations. If you think the problem is with the other editor, then WP:ANI would be the place to report it. If it's a simple content dispute, which is what it looks like, then you should use WP:Dispute resolution. Talk it out, and if that doesn't work, get a request for comments. But wherever you go, be specific. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I've attempted to get additional opinions via WP:RFC, but no one has responded, hence why I posted here, I was looking for other editors to go to the talk page and weigh in on the discussion. If you feel it makes more sense to discuss this on WP:Dispute resolution, I will go there. Thanks. Quorum816 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, dispute resolution is actually a process that you do, not a place you can go. RFC is a part of the dispute resolution process.

See, this is part of the problem, and I am really trying to help you here, but I need you to help me. I think we have a huge communication problem here. The same problem exists at the talk page, and I'm sure at RFC as well, which is likely why no one replied. I'm replying here, because I really want to help you break down this barrier, so we can all understand each other. (And frankly, you're lucky that anyone replied at all.)

I've read the talk page discussions, but I still don't know what the problem is, so I'm asking you to explain it --clearly as you can-- here, so I can understand what you mean. My guess, however (no offense) is that the misunderstanding may be on your part more so than the rest of us, but if I can clear it up I would be happy to help. Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Assistance Requested

Hi. I am a fellow board member with Abdul Haqq Baker on a non-profit focused on reducing violent extremism.

The page about Mr. Baker was left in an awkward state, after it was converted from being a page about his "Convert's Cognitive Development Framework" to a biographical page about him, without changing the content of the page itself.

I put together a proposed proposed draft rework of the page that would implement a proper biography and shared it on the Talk page. I was hoping someone here with an interest in biographical pages would be willing to review my draft and let me know if it's ok to put in. Tsociprof (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC) @Tsociprof:, you might get a better response at the Wp:Teahouse. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden sexual abuse allegations

These are being used to include them in Media blackout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) despite the lack of sources using the term. I've raised it at WP:RSN#Media blackout - what sources do we need to include something in this article? but it's also clearly a BLP issue. Doug Weller talk 05:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This looks like WP:OR to me. Here are some sources where it's reported, but it's not in more weighty sources, therefore it's a media blackout according to... er... Rush Limbaugh? I don't know. Some of the other examples look like they have the same issue of Wikipedia-editorial interpretation of what constitutes a blackout. Guy (help!) 08:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Independent of that, the Joe Biden article is to be expected to become a honeypot for wild accusations now that he is the Democrat President candidate. For some unfathomable reason, people in that position have attracted fantastic stories depicting them as monsters or frauds in the last few decades. (It is probably just a coincidence.) But I guess all of you already know that and have the article on your watchlists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I know, right? It's almost as if there is a media bubble in which factual accuracy is irrelevant as long as a story supports your tribe or attacks the other one. Someone should write a book about it. Guy (help!) 14:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of court records in a BLP

• George Pell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

@Errantius: wishes to make extensive use of Australian court records in the article, and claims an exemption to WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Citing the High Court judgment "augments" the media reports already cited, which are based on the High Court's summary of its judgment." Elizium23 (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No case to answer. I am citing a new judgment by the High Court of Australia, which in terms of WP:BLPPRIMARY is to "augment" those media reports. Only the judgment itself is a fully reliable source. There is no "extensive" use. I doubt that this is the sort of "record" or similar that is contemplated by the policy. Moreover, the article concerns a very public figure. Errantius (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Using a court case to verify that somebody was found guilty or not, and if guilty what sentence they got? Fine. Trying to use legal arguments from a court case in an article? Absolutely not. GiantSnowman 07:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, why would anyone need to use court documents for that when all the news outlets report on the verdict and sentence? Elizium23 (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Because not every case is reported in the media. Obviously different with Pell - I was talking generally. GiantSnowman 07:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, hypothetically here, then, I would question the WP:DUE treatment of court cases that received zero media coverage. Probably not worthy of inclusion in a hypothetical article. Elizium23 (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm definitely with Elizium23 here. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23 and Doug Weller: I'm generally opposed to any use of something sourced solely the court documents, which yes includes judgments, in BLPs. And I believe BLPPRIMARY supports that view. I'm also generally strongly supportive of the view that if secondary sources didn't cover it, then it's not significant per DUE etc. So it's fine that we don't mention it. No matter how some editors may try to argue it is significant.

That said, out of fairness for the parties concerned I think at least with BLPs we have to WP:IAR in cases where an initial decision is covered enough for us to mention, but some followup judgement (probably an appeal) significantly changes things but we can't find any secondary sources. While I'm not aware of any examples off hand, I'm fairly sure I do recall cases which seemed like this 10 years ago. Possibly most cases there is some coverage of the appeal somewhere and it's just hard to find, and maybe it's easier now than it was 10 years ago due to improvement in search engines and better indexing of local news sources. But even if it is simply a failure of our part to find the secondary sources, IMO this still applies. And I'd suggest it can happen since often the media can go nuts about some case for some reason, and then over time as other stuff attracts their interest, forget about it over the long grind of appeals etc.

In other words, we shouldn't remove some very limited coverage of the subsequent judgement which significantly changes things even if we don't find secondary sources. We should keep it no matter if the reason is the secondary sources don't exist or we failed to find them. (Noting that the fuss above seems to mostly be about the appeal, I'm not surprised if User:GiantSnowman was thinking of this here.)

I did say "significantly changes". I'm not so fussed if, for example, someone's sentence was reduced from 20 years to 19 on appeal although still probably wouldn't remove it just for being sourced to court documents. But if a conviction was overturned for some charges, then I don't see how we can continue to mention a conviction for these charges without mentioning it was overturned.

The alternative is we have a good look at the secondary sources for the initial conviction (or whatever, this could also arise with civil judgments) and consider whether they are really enough to merit inclusion. Although my experience is that trying to remove significant convictions recorded in reliable secondary sources will lead to someone saying you're "whitewashing".

Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

In this instance the court decision is used, not extensively in my opinion, to provide a quotation that reads better than the choppy phrases found in the secondary sources. I note also that the policy in question says not to use court documents to "support assertions about a living person". The court decision is being used to provide a clear account of what the court did and its reasoning. It makes no assertion about the living person. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9, the court is not composed of living persons? Elizium23 (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned that if court documents are used directly and carefully in such a BLP now that they will creep into some other usage without very much oversight. Those refs are hot potatoes. Why take the risk? What gain from going outside the primary news sources? Elizium23 (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I agree that if something like a conviction that we report in an article is overturned we must find way of showing that, and in extremis that might be a court judgement. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Brien Taylor

Brien Taylor is a notable person as a draft bust in baseball. Aside from failing to reach his potential as a baseball player due to a career-altering injury that he suffered in a bar fight, he has gotten in trouble with the law. Herostratus has deleted a significant amount of text relating to his legal troubles under the "presumption of privacy". Diff here. These are sources that have been removed. I do not think Herostratus understands WP:PUBLICFIGURE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging Buidhe, who has been involved. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu that these should be covered in the article. They've been published by reliable sources and are a matter of public record. buidhe 18:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Brien Taylor is, essentially, a private citizen. He was a minor league baseball player, and minor league baseball players don't usually have articles. Taylor does rate an article tho mainly because he was a highly touted prospect and made the news for that, and secondarily because he never made the majors (he got hurt) which is somewhat unusual for such a highly touted prospect and that also was remarked on. And that's it. He's just a guy. He's a private citizen. He's a bricklayer in Bumfuck Carolina who has some stories about his minor league career. He's not Madonna, he's not Justin Truedea, he's not Phillip Roth. He's not even Richard Hell or Jenna Bush or Tom Carper or anybody else whom people know. He's just some private citizen who, in spite of not accomplishing anything, happens to have an article.

Anything else he might have done -- raised pumpkins, married a Chinese girl, had a brother who was a stock car racer, served in the Army, or anything else like that -- it's entirely peripheral to what we are trying to do here: describe a baseball player. Peripheral, but there's nothing wrong with noting trivial tidbits like that. Unless there is. And here, there is. There is.

(I'm entirely aware that some people here are unable to differentiate more shades of grey than NOTABLE/UNNOTABLE (or pretend to be). It's apparently a GAY/STRAIGHT, NICE/NASTY, YOUNG/OLD, RICH/POOR, SMASH/PASS world for these people. But for most of us, reality (of which the Wikipedia is a subset) doesn't work that neatly. It just doesn't, and we can't help people who aren't able to understand that or won't. We don't have to pay them much mind though.)

Hm, just came across this article "30 Greatest Baseball Players Who Never Played Major League Baseball" in Bleacher Report.[1] If fair use allows, I'll paste in the segment on Brien Taylor:

“ It's not often that the New York Yankees have ever had a first overall pick in the MLB draft, but that was the position they found themselves in during 1991, and they used that pick to select North Carolina high school left-handed pitcher Brien Taylor.

Taylor, pitching for East Carteret High School in his senior season, struck out an amazing 213 batters in just 88 innings, walking just 28. After his selection by the Yankees, Taylor certainly pitched well enough in his first two years in professional baseball, striking out 337 batters in 324.1 innings. Despite a high walk rate, Taylor was projected to be starting for the Yankees in 1995.

However, in late 1993, Taylor tore the labrum in his throwing shoulder while trying to defend his brother in a bar fight in North Carolina. Taylor tried to return after taking a year off, however he never advanced farther than Single-A ball and was out of baseball by 2000. ”

That's how you do it. That is how you inform people. That's how you give the reader the germane information she's looking for without going off into gossip, titillation, or character assassination. Bleacher Report can do it like that because they are not The Tattler and don't want to be. I'd hate to have private for-profit information sources show better character than us.

Leave the poor guy alone for goodness' sake. He's just a little guy, a private citizen. You're a great big website, your page comes up first in a google of his name, and will long persist, and so you largely define how how the world sees him. How would you like it? What'd he ever do to you?

Or if that leaves you cold -- not a good look IMO, but it takes all kinds I guess -- how about if I quote your own rules to you? Here's what WP:BLP (a core rule here, and a page that you ought to have a passing familiarity with if you want to work here) says:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity... Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment... Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether... even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject... Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. [emphasis added]

If you don't like the policy, go ahead and get it changed. Til then, we're not supposed to blow off core policies just because you don't like them (or haven't even read them). This board is a backstop for keeping up the reputation of the project. The rest of the community depends this board to do its job and enforce the policy. Herostratus (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is why we shouldn't have so many articles on so many obscure players. However, even then Taylor would still have an article. And once he has an article we have to follow the sources. So when RS like the LA Times nd Wall Street Journal (both listed at WP:RSP as reliable) cover a story so should we. Even when a sports source like ESPN covers his playing career they mention the conviction. This doesn't mean that we needed as much detail as had been in the article but at some level it needs to be covered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No we don't have to follow the sources. Who told you that? We practice editorial discretion all the time. No we are not the Los Angeles Times etc. and we aren't even similar to those entities. We don't have to do what they do. If we did we would print comics and horoscopes and be used to line birdcages.

Those entities print the news of the day. We present lasting information. We use them as sources to the extent that it fits our purpose, not theirs or anyone else's. One of our rules here is not to follow people around and make their lives miserable. The Los Angeles Times etc. can't worry about that: they have to make a profit, every quarter. We don't.

We are very large and very much read. Our article on this person comes up first on Google search. Our article on this person will probably persist for many decades at least (even if we don't). Because of this, we are strong. It's easy to for us harass and bully the weak. Let's don't.

I'm not getting what part of "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." is unclear. Do I need to keep the repeating this? Let's hear a refutation that this means the opposite of what it says, or some other reason we can ignore it. Anyone? Herostratus (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Except, Taylor is well known as a number 1 pick that didn't pan out. He's well known enough for newspapers and ESPN to continue to write about him long after his playing career. There's your refutation. You ignored WP:BLPPUBLIC: "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" Again, just because his career didn't pan out like projected doesn't fit him under WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if you argue that he is not known enough, WP:BLPCRIME covers this scenario "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." He was convicted and did his time. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV tells me that we follow the sources. You're right that they don't dictate what we cover (though even this isn't true, see GNG) but for what we cover we look to reliable sources to tell us how to neutrally convey information. Positive and negative infromation alike but only in as much proportion as is necessary. And we're choosing to cover Taylor of this we all agree. As for who is a public figure, many of the articles we have on professors cover non-public figures. Someone whose career is covered years later, as in that ESPN article, is a public figure. Someone whose arrest and conviction is covered not because because the crime is particularly notable but because who they are is a public figure. Taylor is a public figure whose crime should be mentioned to comply with our policies, including BLP but also not in as much encyclopedic detail as what had been there. In that we agree. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

John Horton Conway death?

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.

---

Some talk right now about the death of mathematician John Horton Conway (of Conway's Game Of Life fame) today due to COVID19. e.g. https://twitter.com/SamWangPhD/status/1249132655737790464

Not sure where's a good source for the news. I see the same tweet was picked up in a guardian news round-up

-- Harry Wood (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Leave it out until something more substantial is available. Conway is/was a giant and there will be no shortage of confirmation. WP:NOTNEWS applies and there is no problem if the article is a couple of days behind Twitter. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The news articles, of course, will all be based on Tweets. That's all journos do nowadays: trawl social media for stories and reprint posts. Like Ice-T and his bagel. Elizium23 (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I second the notion to wait until we have something substantial. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Being discussed here too: Talk:John_Horton_Conway#Death -- Harry Wood (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2020 (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.

Disappearance of Don Lewis, Unofficial theories section

Hi! I’m hoping someone experienced can have a look through Disappearance of Don Lewis, he’s the first husband of an animal rights activist pretty much smeared in the hit murder crime mystery Tiger King.

I feel I’m not very impartial towards the conspiracy theorists so hope someone with a keen eye can help with what I think are at least borderline concerns. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Should ILL links be established for actress/actors' foreign wiki articles even if they are relatively undeveloped?

See the central discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Should_all_actors_have_ILL_links_if_their_articles_are_on_a_foreign_language_wiki_but_not_ENwiki_no_matter_what?

Original discussion: Talk:Blue_Is_the_Warmest_Colour#In_most_circumstances_ILL_Links_should_be_present_when_possible

At this discussion another party challenged the inclusion of interlanguage wiki links for French and French-speaking actors and actresses. The rationale is that the French Wikipedia articles linked from the ILL Links have relatively little content and/or a lack of sourcing. A counterargument is that there are ENwiki articles that are also relatively undeveloped but one wouldn't remove blue links from those. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

A recent edit of the Bob Dylan article contains allegations about Dylan and alcoholism. [[2]] All the information is cited but has been written imho in a questionable way. I have reverted it and suggested a discussion on Bob Dylan Talk page. Mick gold (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say removing that is the correct thing to do. It looks like synthesis. I'm just judging by how many refs are used for single paragraph, which is usually (but not always) a dead give away. I have to ask myself, why is there a source for every sentence, often two? We're supposed to be summarizing the source, so that many refs for a single paragraphs looks unusual. This looks like a bunch of bits and pieces taken from multiple sources to form this collage of info, to create some narrative that may not be supported by the individual sources.

I don't have access to the books, but I would expect to see some page numbers. The one source I could look up was Rolling Stone, which all it says (quoting a friend of his) that in 1994 he just stopped drinking "on a dime". No indication of why. All it says is he just stopped. The second source for that sentence possibly may say something about his kids being an influence on that decision, I don't know, but we've omitted the "on a dime" part and made it look like something bigger than it may in fact be, which is a classic example of synth. Zaereth (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Zaereth. A discussion is now under way at: Talk:Bob_Dylan#Alcohol. I quoted your comment which agrees with my own view of this allegation. I can access the biographies cited and I agree with you that there should be page paste your com. I shall try to construct a more detailed reply today or tomorrow. Mick gold (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's the deal. This paragraph is implying that Dylan has a problem with alcoholism. Now every rock star back in those days drank and did drugs, so it's no surprise that he did too. That in and of itself does not make one an alcoholic or addict. Addiction has as much to do with a persons personality as it does with use, even more in fact. We need a single source that gives that conclusion (not implication) that he has been struggling with alcoholism. The only source I read actually gave opposite implication. Alcoholics do not just quit. They struggle with it, usually for the rest of their lives. Unless we have a source that goes into all this info and gives us that conclusion, we can't just pull a bunch of bits and pieces together that imply it.

And even if it is all legitimately sourced, then we have to put that into balance with the rest of the article. We need to show that this has had a significant impact on his life and career and give it due weight, by a preponderance of reliable sources. What's next, a section on pot use; cocaine; sleeping pills? If any of these things have caused a significant impact on his life and career, then they most certainly belong in the article, but we need sources that demonstrate that and come to that conclusion on their own, and we need to give it it's due weight and no more. Since nearly all rock stars were doing it at the time, it's just a collection of trivia unless sources (and our summary of the sources) demonstrate otherwise. Zaereth (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Zaereth. I shall paste your comments onto Dylan Talk Page discussion at Talk:Bob_Dylan#Alcohol. I shall add my own suggestions there, based on my scrutiny of the sources. Please make further comments there. Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the discussion, but keep in mind I'm very busy in real life and may not reply quickly. For now, I'll give you the tools you need. As an example, see this similar situation over at Talk:Potential energy#The gravitoelectric potential energy, also known as rest mass. It was all well sourced ... a little too well if you know what I mean. But none of the sources came to the conclusion of the author. It was a novel theory presented by the author (and not a very good one either) about gravity, not potential energy. This looks strikingly similar. Zaereth (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Kiki Camarena

A host of high-quality academic sources discuss the possible or even probable role of the CIA in killing the DEA agent Kiki Camarena, back in the mid-1980s. There's an academic review that summarizes other academic and journalistic writings on the topic, titled "Spies, Assassins, and Statesmen in Mexico’s Cold War", published in Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe (Amsterdam Iss. 103, Jan/Jun 2017, pp.143-155) and written by professor Wil Pansters, head of the Department of Social Sciences of University College Utrecht:

In May 1984, the influential journalist and columnist Manuel Buendía was brutally shot in the back in the centre of Mexico City... In a painstaking investigative process, the authors along with other journalists in Mexico and the U.S. became convinced that the Buendía and Camarena killings were linked, and much of the book is about the Bartleys trying to put the different pieces together. The most important element is that the interests behind both killings go beyond criminal interests and reach into the political domains on both sides of the border. In the mid-1980s, Mexico's one party regime confronted serious challenges, while the Reagan administration was deeply involved in a Cold War battle against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Buendía and DEA agent Camarena had each separately discovered that the CIA was running a dark network, which involved Mexican and Central American drug traffickers that imported cocaine into the U.S. and facilitated the movement of arms to the contras. Nicaraguan contras were trained at a Mexican ranch owned by one of the country's most notorious capos. CIA pilots flew many of the planes. The DFS functioned as the go-between, and hence involved the Ministry of the Interior. The Mexican army provided the necessary protection, and got a bite of the pie. Since the overriding concern of the CIA was the anti-Sandinista project, it trumped the DEA's task of combating drug trafficking, and covertly incorporated (or pressured) parts of the Mexican state into subservience. Buendía had found out about the CIA-contra-drugsDFS connection, which seriously questioned Mexican sovereignty, while Camarena learned that the CIA had infiltrated the DEA and sabotaged its work so as to interfere with the clandestine contra-DFS-traffickers network. They knew too much and were eliminated on the orders of the U.S. with Mexican complicity. Later official investigations attempted to limit criminal responsibility to the dirty connections between drug traffickers, secret agents and corrupt police, leaving out the (geo)political ramifications.

The review quotes from "Eclipse of the Assassins. The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía," by Russell H. Bartley and Sylvia Erickson Bartley, University of Wisconsin Press, 2015. That book concludes,

The preponderance of evidence... persuades us beyond any reasonable doubt that [journalist] Manuel Buendía was slain on behalf of the United States because of what he had learned about U.S.-Mexico collusion with narcotics traffickers, international arms dealers, and other governments in support of Reagan administration efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Camarena was... killed for the same reason.

When I tried to add this information to Camarena's biography, over a year ago now, the content was reverted with promise of discussion. No discussion has occurred. Help would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Just put it back in. This isn't a BLP issue -- he is long dead... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: it's done, here [3]. -Darouet (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Still unresolved

The content is again being removed [4], and without any explanation other than "fringe sources." But the sources being removed are academic and also from the mainstream press, and the Justice Department has reportedly opened an investigation into the issue. Jaydoggmarco can you please comment? -Darouet (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Turley Richards

• Turley Richards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good evening,

I wrote to you July 16, 2019 regarding violations of this Wikipedia page. You acted very quickly and removed the violations and I thank you for that.

I am sorry to say, that the young woman has again entered the same information, albeit with nominal different wording. I am hoping that this is enough to take further action to ensure that this person is not allowed to add this defamatory information in the future.

I am copying and pasting my original request from last July. Please help!

BLP message board

I believe that information posted to this page is in violation of the guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. I have attempted twice to delete the information, and my edit has been reversed, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turley_Richards&action=history. Please keep in mind, I am a novice editor to Wikipedia, however as an award winning writer, am willing to receive feedback on content and style. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this serious matter.

1. "Avoid gossip and feedback loops" As Richards was never charged and/or arrested, and the country prosecutor declined to pursue the complaint, inclusion of this television expose, although factual in it's report of the original complaint, is not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. The event occurred 16 years and 8 months ago, and is not relevant (by Richards' statement) to how he conducts business today.

2. "Public figures" the following is copied and pasted from this section: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."¹ As there exists only one third party source, the content about this television expose should be deleted. In addition, Richards' denial of the allegations is not reported.

3. People who are notable, but not well known. This rule states the following: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." Due to personal relationship with the subject (wife,) I have knowledge that this article has greatly adversely affected Richards' reputation and livelihood.

4. People accused of a crime. Please refer to the following: " For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. 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." See comments regarding #1 above. This point is also relevant to "false light" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light

5. Images. In the linked news expose, Richards states he does not authorize his image to be captured and used by the news station. Since Richards is blind, and could not see the camera, inclusion of this link violates Wikipedia's rule for situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed.

In closing, please be aware that Richards is a 78 year old, blind man, who until 9 months ago was revered in his community.  This article has virtually ended his career, even though he has coached hundreds of other individuals over 28 years with no incident reported.  It is of note, that the story was originally added to his Wikipedia page by a parent of an individual referenced in the news expose.

^i> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons></ref>

Veronika Cencen

• Veronika Cencen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the edit history it is visible that edits have been made specifically to make the person seem worthless . Inaccurate information about level of education and lowering of elite athlete status were repeatedly made Ronicencen (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruption at Douglas V. Mastriano

• Douglas V. Mastriano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DrWillow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See history. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

~ DrWillow Continues to remove content that maintains a NPOV, is verifiable and is not original research while adding sections that can be considered original research and does not maintain a NPOV.

The user seems to have some conflict of interest in the page as they continue to reference a "Adams county opposition" in their edits.

Examples of removed content include section about controversial statements made on the Senator's Official Campaign Facebook page that have been covered in the news.

Section Follows:

"Mastriano has been the subject of a number of controversies over his statements made on his campaign's official Facebook page. On May 7, 2019, Mastriano was accused of spreading Islamophobia after sharing several posts on his campaign Facebook page targeting Muslims. Mastriano has never retracted the controversial posts or addressed their content."

Sections removed also include local officials concerns about Mastriano.

~ DrWillow continues to add content that does not maintain a NPOV and is unsourced.

174.55.102.53 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The content of the page has been trimmed down here by User:Deacon Vorbis. Use the talk page if you think that any of the removed content ought be restored. User:MelanieN has applied semiprotection through 18 April, and has left a vandalism warning here for User:DrWillow. Let any administrator know if problems continue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Craig Murray

• Craig Murray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please refer to the 'Section: "Blaming Israel for Skripal Attack"' discussion on the talkpage of the article on Craig Murray.

At the bottom of the article, a section states that Murray blamed Israel for the nerve agents on the Skripals. This is a misrepresentation of the sources and comparison with Murray's actual blog articles shows it to be untrue.

I removed the content and initiated a talkpage discussion about it. Even though one other editor agreed with the removal, another editor has re-instated the content exactly as it was.

    ←   ZScarpia   04:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There is clear BLP violation here. First, the text does not accurately report what the sources say (even though one of them is a fairly useless rant). Second, balance demands that the subject's own words on the subject are brought to counter the charges against him. Zero^talk 05:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think a reliable, well-sourced re-analysis of the subject's views would not be out of place in an encyclopaedia, much like it is done in articles about, say, philosophers. However, the section as it stands, based entirely on two newspaper headlines, is as far from a reliable analysis as possible. Addding Murray's blog into the picture won't help much in my view. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The section is not based on headlines. The Times sources clearly states ""Craig Murray has written on his blog that Israel was more likely to be behind the Salisbury novichok poisoning than Russian agents", not in the headline. I hope no one here is suggesting that the Times is not a reliable source. We can tweak the exact wording, and add the subject's response, but there is no BLP violation in reporting what RSes say about the issue. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Murray's comments were made in the context of discussing the British government's blaming of the attack on the Russia government without either providing conclusive evidence or a convincing motive. Really, he was discussing what appeared to be a conspiracy theory of the British government's rather than creating one of his own. He was not trying, as the Wikipedia article made out, to pin the blame on the Israelis, merely showing that there were alternative suspects. You can, if you like, reintroduce the material, re-written to properly represent what the sources say and attributed to the sources. However, if you do that, I will add content quoting from Murray's blog pieces which will allow readers to decide whether what the sources say is fair or not. I think they will decide that it is not. At the end of the day, it will be a big waste of space. The sources may be generally reliable ones, but note that, even if sources are reliable, we're not obliged to include everything they say.     ←   ZScarpia   15:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

this is your opinion, based on your analysis of his blog - but it is not what reliable sources say. We go by reliable sources, not editors' opinions. I will reintroduce it with phrasing that matches what teh Times article wrote, and you can add Murray's response. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Murray's blog articles are reliable for what Murray actually wrote.     ←   ZScarpia   16:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, but in this case may well violate WP:UNDUE, since they border on conspiracy theories, so let's stick to independent reliable sources. Guy (help!) 17:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The quote from Murray appears to be a rhetorical device — i.e., it's unlikely that the Russians were behind the attack — rather than the invention of a conspiracy theory. But it's hard to evaluate this without more text / context. -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Links to Murray's blog articles are given on the talkpage of the article. It would be more accurate to say that his cental argument was that the evidence available was insufficient to pin the blame difinitively on the Russian government, that there were too many missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and that the Russian government would have reasons for not trying to kill the Skripals, rather than that it was unlikely to be the Russian government (of course, there's always the possibility that the attack may have been carried out by Russians other than the government itself), I think.     ←   ZScarpia   16:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There's certainly not enough in these sources to support the assertion that was in the article - none of them say that he blamed Israel for the attack. They do say that he suggested that Israel was more likely than Russia to have been behind the attack, but that's not quite the same thing. JungerMan Chips Ahoy, please be cautious about anything you base on the Times - while generally agreed to be a reliable source, is also a biased source (as all news outlets are, to a greater or lesser extent). The Times is a conservative, centre-right Murdoch-owned paper, reporting on an address by a left-leaning supporter of Scottish independence to the SNP - we shouldn't be taking their interpretation of his words as balanced or authoritative. There obviously some controversy over what he said, but as always we need to shouldn't be putting words into his mouth, or allowing others to do so because they write for the Times. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

As you say, all source are biased, so the Times being conservative or owned by Murdoch is really neither here nor there. But I agree with your comments re: accurately reflecting what the source says. I'll rephrase to something like "he suggested that Israel was more likely than Russia to have been behind the attack, and was criticized for that". JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, WP:BIASED. It's not 'neither here nor there', it's something you need to bear in mind when considering what they say about someone on the other end of the political spectrum. So long as we keep it factual though, and covers any rebuttal he might have made afterwards, we're probably OK. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

What WP:BIASED says is "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." - The Times easily meets all those requirements. We don't exclude news reporting from The Guardian (even on Right-leaning people or issues) even though it is left-leaning, and we're not going to apply a different standard to conservative-leaning reliable sources. But I agree - we'll keep it factual, and provide rebuttals if he made any. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, does The Times have a particular editorial line on this? As a generally reliable source I'd only normally exclude it if there's a credible and reasonably specific reason. And I'd only provide rebuttals if they are published in reliable sources. Anyone is free to publish bollocks then argue the toss when a newspaper calls them out on it, we need the filter of independent sources to work out whether a denial - be it rebuttal or mere repudiation - is plausible or not. Guy (help!) 17:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if they have an editorial line on it, or what it might be. The source in the article is not an editorial page, but news reporting. I agree with you that excluding The Times would requires a credible and reasonably specific reason, and simply having a general conservative-leaning editorial bent is not enough. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Considering this article, cited sources in its WP article, and the fact that political bias doesn't become a factor unless it is evident in the editor's choices of RS and the published material they cite, the latter is the process we expect to be compliant with NPOV, not whether or not the source is biased. I agree with much of what Guy stated as far as finding corroborating sources but keep WP:NEWSORG in mind and exercise caution. Online news today is not the same quality of news your grandparents read, and not necessarily because a source leaned right or left. It's either factual news, or it's political news, and the latter is riddled with bias all the way around. If a source is known to publish innaccuracies, stories from anonymous sources that are never corroborated, and/or stories that were later proven to be inaccurate, be wary of their reliability. We have entered the age of opinion journalism, and it even touches how a journalist reports a fire, shooting, mass killing. Propaganda is also tricky to spot because it's subjective, and appears to be trending of late. The most neutral news publications will publish all prevailing political views - allegations, denials, origin which is what we're supposed to be doing, too. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not simply a left/right thing either - there's also the Scottish independence thing - the Times is pretty unionist. That was partly news reporting, but it looked like a bit of 'look at the looney the SNP have got speaking to them' reporting to me. Which is not to say that we can't use it,so long as we're cautious, which I think we're all agreed on. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This bears no relation whatsoever to how RS and DUE have been interpreted in the past. Anyone arguing that The Guardian or The Independent should be given less weight when they write about Conservative MPs or supporters would be on a fast track to a DS topic ban. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

RaiderAspect, I'm not suggesting that it should be given less weight, I'm saying that we should be cautious, and stick carefully to the factual assertions, which our original content wasn't doing. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, well, apart from the obvious fact that critics of the Putin regime have a tendency to turn up dead of poisoning, anyway. And no, let's not include Murray's blog pieces: he has a rather obvious axe to grind. Let's stick to reliable independent sources. Much safer, much less likely to give udue weight to something. Guy (help!) 16:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The Skripals weren't notable critics of the Putin government, but, in any case, criticising Putin isn't the only reason why people are killed. Murray's blog articles are reliable for what Murray wrote and the subject of the article is, after all, Craig Murray. Perhaps the authors of the sources also have axes to grind themselves? As far as reliability goes, the sources we're talking about may be reasonably good as far as newspapers and political journals go, but they're not the Proceedings of the IEEE or the British Medical Journal. As I wrote, material from the cited sources may be re-added in a more accurate form if desired, but if so, on the grounds of neutrality, I will also add material, which will quote the articles of Murray's which have been criticised.     ←   ZScarpia   17:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, I have no idea of the motive, but the MO is consistent and of course it's now moot because regardless of any uncertainty at the time, it's no longer in serious doubt that it was the GRU.

But you'll see on the Talk page that I think the NS does not in fact corroborate The Times' claim, so the whole thing is a single source and thus undue. No need to speculate on the motives of the authors (see Hanlon's Razor for example).

Guy (help!) 17:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

However, the point at issue isn't who actually was behind the poisonings, but whether the cited sources were misrepresented, whether the use to which they were being put was neutral and whether, in the interests of brevity, it would be better to forgo using them. (On the last point, I think it would save a lot of tedium if we could have two templates for displaying messages at the head of BLPs, one stating, "this person has been accused of antisemitism by supporters of Israel," and the other, "this person has been accused of racism by supporters of the Palestinians.")     ←   ZScarpia   18:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, not necessarily - see WP:MANDY for my take on why not - but in this case it may be moot, if the accusations are not in reliable sources. Guy (help!) 16:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, the situation is not the same. In this case, the subject is accused of writing something that he didn't write, and we know he didn't write it because what he actually wrote is there for us to read. It isn't just an automatic denial like in the Profumo case. Zero^talk 00:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, but not by us, and that is not our problem to fix, because doing so requires WP:OR. However, it's probably moot since the entire thing seems WP:UNDUE anyway. Guy (help!) 08:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I agree with you that it is undue and thanks for stepping in there. Incidentally, I think your essay does apply, but the other way around. The subject did suggest that Israel was a suspect, alongside Russia, USA and UK. From this information alone, one knows the backlash against against him, including misrepresentation and worse, without reading it. Well, they would write that, wouldn't they? Zero^talk 14:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson

Good evening,

After reading Ms. Williamson's bio on Wikipedia, whoever wrote this biography has filled it with very negative material. It is subjective and full of untruths, misconceptions and inaccuracies. Please have someone from your staff erase this page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1527:c467:6d04:cbb3:3691:9a8 (talk • contribs) 01:07, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't written by "staff". Almost all editors are volunteers, such as yourself, and clicking on the View History link on that page shows me that dozens of editors have contributed to that article. Wikipedia articles are also required to be cited to reliable sources. If you scroll to the end, you will see 207 sources used for it. (That's a lot!) Of course, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so you are also free to contribute. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I might also suggest that, rather than leaping straight into editing the article, you take you concerns to the article's Talk page where you can discuss them with other editors interested in the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Dir En Grey members' real names

Hi! I was advised to ask here regarding the addition of the real names of the members of Dir En Grey: Kaoru, Kyo, Die, Shinya and Toshiya. They're provided on ASCAP as writer's credits, but I'm not entirely sure how trustable this website is. This was previously discussed here. I'd basically like to know if I can add them with ASCAP as a source or not. Seelentau (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

No, as was said at the earlier thread. It's a matter of WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Matt Gurtler

I am concerned this page has been edited in an effort to smear Mr. Gurtler. A lot of the information about his early life has been deleted and replaced with a arrest charge that has been dismissed below I have put edits that existed on a previous version of the article. Also it exhaustedly goes into a random event, it is one of many arguments that have taken place on the house floor and I am not sure why it would be included other than to try to paint Mr. Gurtler in a negative light. If the incident must stay, I have added here the full quotes from the citations already cited, which paint an entirely different picture than what is currently written. Towards the end of the article they purposely miss name a well-known bill to try to make it sound negative. I don't know how to correctly edit the article and I'd appreciate any help.

Suggested edits to early life and education:

Gurtler graduated from the University of North Georgia with a bachelor of Arts in 2012 with his B.A. in History and a minor in Sociology. During his graduate studies Gurtler also participated in R.O.T.C for 2 years at UNG while living in barracks on campus. UNG is one of only a handful of senior military colleges in the United States. In his college years is where his interest in politics first began. During his first run for office in 2016. He ran on the Republican ticket and labeled himself a "Limited Government Conservative Republican." (arrest charge was dismissed so it is unnecessary to include in the early life portion of the article)

Suggested edits to political career: edit 1: (In regards to the budget vote)

In a statement right after the budget vote, Gurtler said, "Growing the size of government and harming the free market goes against the values and principles I believe in and was one of the reasons I was elected. While I agree that there are times for compromise, I believe someone had to take a stand. That is why I voted NO." (this is important to add because it is a primary quote about one of the main topics of the article)

edit 2: (In regards to the incident with Mr. Riley)

Days after Rep. Gurtler told the press he was threatened by Governor Deal's Chief of Staff, Chris Riley, to vote YES to approve the budget a dismissed arrest charge was aired on WSBTV. In a written statement regarding the incident Rep. Gurtler stated: "This incident occurred four years ago," Gurtler said, "After requesting a jury trial to clear my name, the district attorney dismissed the charge, (If information about the arrest charge is left up, I especially think this quote should be included.)

edit 3: (Also in regards to the incident with Mr. Riley)

Rep. Gurtler further criticized the appointees actions to an elected official stating; "I am appalled by Mr. Riley's actions and bullying tacticsof an elected official," he said. "His actions were wrong and unethical, and this type of behavior goes against our system of separation of powers..." Gurtler also stated Mr. Riley's actions were also directed at his district; "Not only did Mr. Riley threaten me, he threatened my entire constituency, some 50,000 plus Georgians in the 8th District," said. Gurtler (This should absolutely be included because it gives the entire quote of a quote mentioned in the article) State Sen. Josh Mckoon, a Columbus Republican who has also infuriated Deal's office, defended Gurtler in the state senate on Tuesday. He said Gurtler was victim to a "sick and twisted" culture at the Capitol.

edit 4: (Constitutional Carry)

Gurtler has gained much attention following his re-election bid after he pre-filed HB-2, otherwise known as Constitutional Carry. With the backing of Governor Brian Kemp. Rep. Gurtler believes in HB-2 and Gov Kemp's backing will help; I'm just really thrilled that we actually have a governor that has gotten behind constitutional carry," said state Rep. Matt Gurtler (R-Tiger) who introduced the bill to eliminate the gun permit requirement. "I don't believe it is radical at all. I think it's conservative. It's constitutional," Gurtler told 11Alive News. "In the constitution it says (the right to keep and bear arms)'shall not be infringed.' We believe that's a no-compromise statement." (This is important because it addresses a bill written about in the article by its real name and adds a direct quote about the subject."

References

Oh my gosh. No offense, but that looks just awful. First, it's way too newspaperish. This is an encyclopedia, so what we need is just a summary; the gist of it. The style in an encyclopedia is also very different from a newspaper, and this reads like a newspaper. Second, blogs are not reliable sources. Third, what the hell is HB-2? Doesn't the original read better, where we leave out the political jargon and just say what it is? Fourth, the grammar is bad. Some sentences run on into each other, so you can't tell where one ends and the other begins. Capitalizations and syntax errors everywhere. Fifth, in many places it's too closely paraphrased to the sources. Sixth, there is some OR going on here, such as doing your own reporting from blogs as your sources.

Look, we don't need a bunch of quotes. It doesn't matter to the rest of the world about trivial info like what the official name of a bill is. Wikipedia is really not here to detail every little dispute between politicians, or to try and carry on these conflicts via the web. We just need a summary of this person's entire life and career, jammed into a nutshell.

Now I agree, the article needs work, because as is much of it is still too newspaperish. The arrest is one example of totally trivial info that just needs to go, not be added on to. What does it tell us about the subject. Nothing. It boils down to "he was arrested, never charged, and nothing happened". Nothing. Same with much of the little beefs between colleagues. What we need to know are things about him. What are his views? What are his accomplishments and failures? Who is this person? Those are the things we need to answer in order to make this a decent article. All these little details are beside the point. I'd suggest looking at how articles about other politicians are written and presented, such as Obama, Reagan, or Nixon. You want to try to go for the same style and format, not like sources. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I might tell you, since you're obviously new, that using multiple accounts will get you blocked, so you may want to pick one and ditch the others. Please read our policies, in particular WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, WP:Conflict of interest, and perhaps throw in WP:Manual of style. And sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) at the end, so people can tell who is talking. I also hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden#Allegations of...sexual assault

Joe_Biden#Allegations_of_inappropriate_physical_contact_and_sexual_assault Contentious, poorly sourced material has been restored into the article.[5] RS report that Tara Reade filed a police report alleging sexual assault in 1993 which Reade stated was about Biden. Most RS do not state that the "police report" does not name him.  The "police report" is confidential; it is the redacted "public incident report" which does not name Biden.  It is only the AP story which contradicts the other RS.  The article now again states that Joe Biden was not named in the "police report".  Please revert this edit until we finish the discussion at Talk:Joe_Biden#Why_the_police_report?. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kolya Butternut that this is a BLP issue, and it's unfortunate that User:SPECIFICO wants to allow misleading text to remain while we have a lengthy debate which is unlikely to be resolved soon. if SPECIFICO had remove the whole thing, that would be one thing. But allowing the misleading text to remain, while we discuss whether to remove the whole thing is simply not on. Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I've launched an RfC to hopefully clear things up.  petrarchan47คุก 19:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, the RfC does not discuss the text, so this will still need to be addressed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The text that Kolya Butternut has repeatedly removed -- calling it "poorly sourced" is verified by Associated Press, New York Times, and Washington Post (all familiar to those editing this article) among other references. SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The AP is actually contradicted by the New York Times and WaPo.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please specify the contradiction. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Our BLP policies apply to all persons, both Ms Reade and Mr. Biden. We report what the multitude of reliable sources report. Quite frankly, there should have been a consensus about what to what text to use concerning the allegations before anything was added. The RFC "Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?". closed with "Rather than focusing on whether the allegations should be discussed in the article, the discussion should now shift towards how the allegations should be discussed in the article. Relevant policies include the biographies of living persons policy, especially the subsection on public figures. In my view, there is no consensus yet within this discussion over any specific wording to be included in the article." Instead we have (predictably) a small handful of editors edit warring over their preferred text. Some of us are trying to work toward a consensus on the issue and IMO this edit warring is disruptive to the process. CBS527^Talk 03:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That's somewhat of a mischaracterization.  I'm removing text which we had no consensus to add, not changing it to my preferred version.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want to completely remove any mention of the allegation go ahead. I won't oppose although you may find strong opposition from other sources. The fact we don't have agreement on what to say doesn't mean it's acceptable to say something which is very likely misleading in the interim while we hash it out. I will say it even strong this time. Anyone who thinks it's acceptable to say something misleading while we hash out what to say, should not go anywhere near BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, what statement do you think is misleading? And do you think it is unverified by the sources or that it is SYNTH or otherwise a misleadin use of verified content? K.B. declined to answer, above. I think we can sort this out if we are specific about the content and sources. FYI, I have favored removal of the entire mention of the police filing, since I think that the essential content is the allegation itself and not a report that can have no official standing, per Reade's acknowledgement it is outside the statute of limitiations. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, if you want something in the article you have to contribute to the discussion.  What you're doing, asking other people to do all the work, feels like sealioning.  The WP:ONUS is on you.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

NPR has confirmed that the police report does indeed name Biden: "NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Paul H. O'Neill

• Paul H. O'Neill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please review and remove the first paragraph of the "Bush Administration" section. There are numerous misspellings and nonsensical sentences, and an obvious bias toward belittling O'Neill and elevating George W. Bush.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1a0c:44c4:69c9:d777:380d:2ad7 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Martin Tripp

Martin Tripp is a WP:BLP1E: accused of wrongdoing but has apparently not been convicted in a court nor criminally charged (according to a cited WP:BLPPRIMARY).

The accusations are properly sourced (except maybe for the WP:BLPPRIMARY) and as such the whole article has only the effect of being defamatory for this living person.

As such, it should be discussed if the article should be deleted, or with what content it can be kept. Lklundin (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete it. Tripp isn't notable other than being a victim of Tesla. The company or Tesla fanatics have an ugly history of attacking those they see as enemies. This article was created by a brand new account and seems to only tell the Tesla side of the story. Not a good sign. Springee (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)