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.

Nick Griffin

Nick Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=646793119&oldid=646333056

the question I want to ask is does Griffin belong in these groups? Is he a noteworthy criminal from London and is he only one of two noteworthy criminals from Suffolk? - the other one being a footballer who got a sentence of four and a half years in prison for rape - Griffin has only received a nine month sentence that was a suspended sentence given for - In 1998, Griffin was convicted of violating section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to the offence of 'publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material' in issue 12 of The Rune, published in 1996.? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criminals_from_Suffolk Is he really for this crime one of only 22 noteworthy criminals from London, this list which includes mass murderers and famous gangsters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criminals_from_London ? I have now linked the user that added these groups to the article and I have decided it's important and so I have removed the groups from Griffin as disputed while discussion occurs, The basic question is, can or should anyone that has been convicted of a minor offence be added to these criminal groups? Griffin is in this group, which I don't oppose at all - I see a lot of missing names there, please assist to expand that group, there are many missing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_politicians_convicted_of_crimes Govindaharihari (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin was guilty of the crime of 'publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material', as you say. Why is he then not a criminal? I don't understand why you're disputing this -- you even say you 'don't oppose [it] at all'. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the grouping - I have removed it - he is not a noteworthy criminal - he can be included is a group of politicians that have committed a crime - but classification as a criminal for such a minor conviction is excessive ? Govindaharihari (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Griffin is in this group, which I don't oppose at all" -- confusing, then. I don't understand why his is "not a noteworthy criminal" -- in fact he is quite well known in the UK for having this particular criminal conviction. Perhaps you don't think whipping up racial hatred is a big deal? I don't see why this is a "minor conviction". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Suit yourself, add it back if you support it in agreement with wp:blp, but a nine month prison sentence suspended for two years for a minor conviction that is that persons only conviction and is 17 years historic allows him to be grouped as a notable criminal. I advise you that there is arbitration related to living people articles - Govindaharihari (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I likely will add it back. You haven't offered any reasons why it should be considered a "minor conviction". I'm inclined to think that Griffin's offence is not so lightly dismissed. But the more important issue is that it's widely known here, because it has been widely covered in sources that we would have no trouble describing as reliable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity go on then - I will report you to wp:arbitration Govindaharihari (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The «Criminals from Suffolk» category contains Nick Griffin but not people like Steve Wright (serial killer), this is crazy, it is used to make Griffin look bad, not to categorize articles properly. Spumuq (talq) 11:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So Steve Wright can be added. (As for Griffin, he doesn't need much help in this respect, seems to me.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: "criminals" is defined as a "sensitive category" per WP:COPS and WP:BLPCAT. In the case at hand, the use of the category is,IMO, used more to discredit a person as being of poor character than anything else, and is thus improper. Collect (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, he's a criminal, as per his criminal conviction per the OP above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not surprised at your stance. I suggest we get additional input here then-- a I fear your desire to label people as criminals as a nice scarlet letter may not be in absolute accord with the intent of WP:BLPCAT at all. The question is (I recognize Griffin is a thoroughly despicable character who should be pilloried in every possible BLP, of course) whether where a conviction results in a suspended sentence, whether we ought then label the person in every possible criminal category known to man, to make abundantly sure folks know precisely how horrid he is. Or whether the purpose of the categories is to list people who have been convicted of serous offenses and then incarcerated for substantial periods of time. The purpose of categories is can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. Are you asserting Griffin is or should be primarily defined by his status as a "criminal" per that stricture? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Note: The crime was specifically related to the category of Holocaust deniers, already in the BLP, and I would note that the others in that category are not placed in the "criminal" categories as well. Category:Criminals_by_crime, vs. People_convicted_of_Holocaust_denial_offenses which has no overlap (except that was not what he was convicted of, in fact). Is there a reason for making an example of Griffin? Collect (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, he is what he is; a person convicted of a crime can't really hide from what he or she did. If you check, say, Dan Rostenkowski, he is a member of "Category:20th-century criminals". Tarc (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you note the term "felony" by the way for Rosty by any chance? Was Rosty given a 9 month suspended sentence? Do you really think the two cases are so similar as you appear to claim? Collect (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What I note is that both were found guilty of committing a criminal act; what the sentences were is immaterial. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Make sure you note that when you edit on all the anti-war demonstrators who got suspended sentences, the equal rights demonstrators, and Martin Luther King Jr. (Wikipedia dictates he lost his comma), all the union demonstrators etc. -- they are all criminals, each and every one who was convicted of anything, and we should make sure they keep the scarlet letter visible. Or is this person special in some way? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, Dr. King's "crimes" were either misdemeanors (trespassing, etc...) or were eventually dismissed. Less hyperbole would be welcome here. Tarc (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually MLK served time in a number of jails -- and the claim made here is that what we call "misdemeanors" are "crimes" - thus a person with a suspended sentence is a "criminal". Would you place a person who has a 9 month suspended sentence in the "criminals" category or not? [1] shows him serving a jail sentence without any dismissal. IMHO, unless a person gets a sentence of "a year and a day" or more - they ought not be labelled as "criminals." Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. We're talking in this section about Nick Griffin. And yet someone seems to think that MLK Jr. is relevant. That's a really interesting equivalence being drawn. Just really interesting that someone would think to come up with some notion of relevance along those lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If a person gets a suspended sentence - and someone asserts they are as much a criminal as a felon and more a criminal than serial killers - there is a chance that the reasons for labeling the person a criminal has naught to do with seriousness of the crime. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I find it hard to understand why the User:Nomoskedasticity would twice replace these labels/categories [1] [2] edit warring disputed detail about a living person whilst under discussion and without any clear consensus here? There is no clear support for their inclusion in the discussion above? I removed them again. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The category should only be used for people who are notable because of crimes they committed, like Jack the Ripper, the Krays or the Richardsons. People using this navigation tool are not looking for famous people convicted of minor offenses. TFD (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Another person who seems to think that inflaming racial hatred is a minor offence... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The charge was distributing printed material. Did you not notice that? The question is - should we state that being a "criminal" is a defining characteristic of Mr. Griffin? You appear to find it a "defining characteristic" and others do not agree. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Griffin was convicted in 1998 under Part III, Section 19, of the Public Order Act 1986, and given a suspended sentence. The conviction has been considered "spent" since one year following completion of the sentence, and the offense was not repeated. It is no even an offense in the U.S. The Krays were given life sentences for murder. Indeed the legislators and courts saw Griffin's offense as relatively minor, in the sense that any offense is minor. It could be that the law should have treated this offense more seriously, but the fact is they do not, and it is not our role to second guess them. TFD (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Griffin is in Category:British politicians convicted of crimes, subcat of Category:British criminals, and in Category:People from Suffolk, and thus the usual rules of logic place him in Category:Criminals from Suffolk. Oculi (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy (2)

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another link was redacted [2] from the Gamergate talk page with the stated reason that other articles on the site violate BLP, and while this article does not appear to, the redacting editor " didn't really want to have to trawl through the extensive comments" to confirm. [3]

Previously I asked [4] whether a BLP-violating article could be cited for its compliant, non-BLP material. That discussion has yet to reach a conclusion, partly it seems because my question is general and the answer depends on specifics. Here we have specifics - and they address an even broader question: can a BLP-complaint article be linked to, when the site hosting it contains BLP-violating material.

The answer is important whether or not the redacted article is usable since that question can't be asked without linking the article. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've got some concerns with the comments below the article (namely those twitter screencaps), but the article itself seems okay to me. I guess the question becomes: do we bar all links from a given site if that site has a reputation for BLP violations? Not sure I have an answer to that, but that seems to be the thinking behind this link's removal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir said it better than I did. That's exactly my question. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I thank both EncyclopediaBob and EvergreenFir for raising this question; I have now provided a policy based answer to EncyclopediaBob's question at WT:BLP.

In short, WP:BLP:

• relates to adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, and requires any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source. If we are not actually adding contentious material to Wikipedia there is no violation. As a logical consequence, sources do not inherently (in & of themselves) violate WP:BLP.
• does not contain anything which would prevent the use of a source (Per WP:V#Reliable_source, a triplet consisting of work, author, publisher) based on other works by the same author or publisher, or other sources hosted on the same website.
• does not support the redaction of links to sources from Talk pages, regardless of the content of the source. (As was done here[5]). Such links are explicitly permitted per WP:BLPTALK; as supported by an ArbCom consensus here[6], and the consensus at WT:BLP[7].

I thank EvergreenFir for their clear phrasing of the question. To directly answer, with a slight rephrasing :- No, we do not bar all links from a given site if that site has a reputation for BLP violationscontentious material about living persons.

As always, I appreciate & welcome any policy based, alternative opinions of other Wikipedians.

Note: I initiated and contributed to the discussion at WT:BLP. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with Ryk72 on this. Unless the website is patently offensive and its mere mention in relation to another person potentially libelous (e.g., Stormfront), non-problematic pages from a problematic website are fine to link to in a talk page. But I would love to hear more opinions on this. Might start an RfC so we can hear more on it. Let me ping HJ Mitchell, Callanecc, and Future Perfect at Sunrise as they have enforced GG sanctions in the past and this topic is related to that. Specifically whether or not linking to a page on a site like gamergate [dot] me is a BLP violation, regardless of the content of the actual linked page. This is in relation to recent links by now-topic-banned Ghost Lorde. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether it's a BLP violation in and of itself is not a question a single admin can answer. But isn't that site user-generated? If that's correct, then I can't think of any good reason to be linking to it, especially if the site contains libellous material. As with most things, it's a matter of judgement, and whether it's sanctionable would be decided on a case-by-case basis at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The possibility of using that particular site as an RS seems remote, but I believe it has potential as an WP:SPS for information about the movement. Is seems impossible however to discuss that broadly without risking redaction or even sanction. I'm curious as well if there's precedent (pre-Gamergate) for applying BLP to links of any kind (even libelous) on talk pages. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There is zero potential for the site being used as an WP:SPS for its own article, we would require high-quality WP:BLP compliant sources for such an article, and that site would never pass muster. I'd suggest dropping this paper tiger before it gives you a paper cut. Dreadstar ☥ 23:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:V, articles must be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". At the same time, we should rarely use questionable sources, which "rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion". The question is whether a source with a reputation for publishing egregious gossip and opinion about living persons—the type of material that would be redacted as a BLP violation if used on Wikipedia, even on a Talk page?—can simultaneously have the opposite reputation about its other articles. I would argue that, in most cases, they cannot. Many well-known, otherwise reliable sources have opinion or gossip sections, but these are still under some sort of editorial control and are nonetheless clearly defined as opinion/gossip. That demarcation between news and editorial sections, as well as solid factual reporting, is what earns newspapers their reputation. (And Pulitzer Prizes.) With a source that fundamentally lacks such a reputation in the first place and has no clear distinction between fact and gossip—as evidenced by their other articles—we should consider everything published by that source as questionable. Woodroar (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we do need to bar all links from an attack site that contains BLP violations, even if the singular landing page itself doesn't contain BLP violations. Further, I question that a site which has content that violates BLP is being used or proposed to being used by editors as if it were a Reliable Source, when it clearly is not. Dreadstar ☥ 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dreadstar, many thanks for your thoughts on this matter; and also for your efforts as an Admin, they are greatly appreciated.

W.r.t this question, I think it's fair to say that our opinions considerably differ, but I accept that we are both proposing what we in good faith believe is best for the Wikipedia Project, and for the improvement of the encyclopedia.

To this end, I humbly suggest that the standard that you are proposing is not in the best interests of the Wikipedia Project, and will not lead to improvement of the encyclopedia. It will lead to suppression of good faith discussion of sources; suppression of good faith source-based discussion of article content; frustration of the consensus building process; and general all round un-WP:CIVIL behaviour. I would suggest that this is already occurring.

It may seem to be purely a question of semantics, but I again assert that as WP:BLP relates to adding information about living persons to Wikipedia that sources do not inherently (in & of themselves) violate WP:BLP. Regarding sources as containing BLP violations or violating BLP is a fundamental misapprehension of policy, which leads to its misapplication.

Questions that I, and I believe many other independent editors, have include, but are not limited to:

• How do we determine what is and what isn't a "reliable source" without discussion of that source? (Source as defined at WP:V: work, author, publisher triplet).
• How do we determine what is and is not an "attack page" or "attack site" without discussion of that page or site?
• How do we prevent POV-based determination of what is an "attack page" or "attack site"? (We have a hard enough time with POV-based determination of what is a reliable source).
• By extending the test across an entire website are we placing an undue burden on editors to vet not only the contents of a proposed source, but also (all?) other sources by the same author or publisher?
• Why must links be verboten? How does this directly benefit Wikipedia? (I respectfully suggest that the burden is on those desiring a stricter interpretation of WP:BLP to show how this benefits).
• Why is it not sufficient for other editors to simply respond to a proposed source with "Source would not seem to be reliable WP:V & WP:RS" or "Source contains contentious material about living persons WP:BLP; suggest we use alternative source X" or even "Proposed content seems WP:UNDUE; suggest that the article is better off without it". (Any of these is more collegial than redaction; more likely to promote discussion & consensus building).

In considering the implications across the whole of Wikipedia, not solely focused on a narrow range of contentious topics, I firmly believe that we are better as a project, and will build a better encyclopedia, if we allow discussion to occur, and consensus to form. I firmly believe that WP:5P (especially WP:NPOV), WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP (as currently written) sufficiently protect Wikipedia from the implications of "contentious material about living persons" which is not reliably sourced. I believe that extending these as proposed is both unnecessary and detrimental to the project. I would only hope that sufficient editors are of a similar mind.

I again thank you for your efforts and dedication to the Wikipedia Project, and look forward to your thoughts, and to those of other Wikipedians. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me reiterate to you, if you link to an attack site with BLP violations, I will block you or anyone else who does so. Dreadstar ☥ 01:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES failed. How/why are you acting contrary to WP:BLPTALK which is policy? Reopening closed discussions might qualify as tendentious but just pointing people offsite for background material or ideas is protected by policy. If Site X makes a statement about Jane Doe that could not be made on WP for BLP reasons, it's not blockable to point to it for discussion. The reason is simple: Jane Doe can point to the same site and expose it and it can often be the springboard for reliable sources to backup or refute the link content. The key for assessing it from WP's side is whether an editor is doing it out of malice or to improve or broaden the encyclopedia. It's quite a departure from AGF to presume a single link presented for discussion was malicious. Reverting or blocking without discussion is the larger abuse than just a link of unrepeated verbiage. There is currently no news site that doesn't contain information that WP would consider a BLP violation. This sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT than any serious BLP concern. It's specious to throw out terms like libel for discussing a link. Wikipedia editors cannot commit libel by providing links so throwing that legal term out there has a chilling and threatening tone that is not conducive to editing per WP:NLT. --DHeyward (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll be a little more blunt. Boastful threats to block editors to prove a point contribute to the noise, not discussion, and if carried out would be an abuse of tools. Plenty of sites contain BLP violations. Discussing them outside of article space so as to improve the encyclopedia is what talk pages are all about. The Gamergate article space on Wikipedia, much less the world at large, won't be improved by decreasing the signal to noise ratio. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that any editor who posts a link to a web site that contains a BLP violation should be banned? Does that include CBS News? Because I can post such a link. And you can ban me. It would have nothing to do with Gamergate, but the freedom to discuss the reliability of a source should not be compromised. Honestly, I've had enough of this zero-tolerance atmosphere. If we as editors are not allowed to discuss the reliability of websites on Wikipedia, then WP:V is dead. And if WP:V is dead, then where is Wikipedia? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Dean Jones biography...

Dean Jones is my father. I'm the youngest of Dean and Mae's two daughters. My step-brother Michael Pastick, is 3 years older than my older sister Carol and is Lory's son from a previous marriage. Dean and wife Lory never had a child together. I love my step-brother, but he is not my blood brother. Just trying to set the record straight. Please change this on the bio. Thank you, Deanna Jones Demaree I'm not sure what proof I have, ie references. Look it up. It's in Dean's book... " Under Running Laughter" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean's daughter (talk • contribs) 07:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Page number? Exact quote? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the wrong information which was unsourced anyway. It is up to Wikipedia editors to have reliable sources for what they include. The onus is not on people mentioned in articles to prove anything unless there are reliable sources saying otherwise. Thincat (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Ombudsman, André Marin, David Paciocco

There seems to be a couple of single purpose accounts doing some muckraking/neutralizing here, versus an editor with an admitted COI. I removed a bit of the immediately apparent worst, but noticed I'd left a bunch. More eyes, maybe? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

This diff shows how it's more complicated than just reverting. Both versions are pretty bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

Also extends to André Marin (the man in the chair and his article). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

I was about to post here, after I saw this posted at WP:COIN, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ontario_Ombudsman.2FAndre_Marin.2FDavid_Paciocco. I agree - we have advocates on one side, and conflicted editors on the other. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

same cast of characters has extended the conflict to David Paciocco Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Email received to OTRS about this. I've decided the best course of action is to stub the articles while this is ongoing, particularly the BLP's, to avoid issues in real life. I'd welcome people working with me on this point. Mdann52 (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this makes sense. Not exactly knocking the plan, I just don't get it. It's like bulldozing a house because a window was leaking. Why not simply find and fix problems? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:15, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

• We're now in a situation that has arisen a few times with Mdann52's editing following an OTRS communication. Mdann52 often (always?) feels it is inappropriate to reveal the nature of the concerns communicated via OTRS. That means that the concerns themselves cannot be considered by other editors. Editors then have no choice but to edit in the normal way: consider sources, NPOV, BLP, etc. Material can be restored once those issues have been considered, and it would then be inappropriate for that material to be deleted again "per OTRS". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Shadow governments have their place, but it does feel a bit weird on Wikipedia. In the meantime, if anyone has specific problems with the old versions, hit up the talk pages. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

Ron Clark Academy

While I'm sure they do excellent work, after stumbling across this article it's pretty clear that they wrote it themselves and almost all of the footnotes reference stuff they've written themselves elsewhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.61.244 (talk • contribs)

Ephraim Padwa

Ephraim Padwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi, as a wikinewbie not sure whether this should be brought up here but there seems to be a bit of a wikiedit war going on between a couple of wikieditors with this article Ephraim Padwa. a look at the revision history shows edits being entered then reverted with no reason given. can someone look into this? thanks:)Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like that happened last year. Chesdovi reverted on the basis that "policy does not allow" the inclusion of the material among other things, but I'm not sure what part of BLP they are referring to (if at all). Judging from the coverage from reliable sources, I don't see how we can realistically exclude it. There are articles from The Independent, Channel 4, IBT, Times of Israel and so on. If the concern is weight then the bio should be expanded, but removing the information is not appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've restored it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to re-add this infomation without expansion. Chesdovi (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E anyone?--ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really -- there's more to write about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Jackie Joyner-Kersee (section: 1992 Summer Olympics)

The entry under this section reads that "Jack Joyner-Kersee... died after an exploding salmon was thrown at her." This is fictitious. She actually won a bronze medal in the long lump. http://www.biography.com/people/jackie-joyner-kersee-9358710#olympic-star — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.130.54 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

In_Touch_Weekly#Controversy

I'm not sure how exactly to deal with this, so. I'm wondering if that controversy section should be there at all when it describes (in length) certain rumors about people which we've not written about in the articles of those persons themselves (and shouldn't because it would appear to be WP:BLP violation). I'd blank it completely, is that wrong? Or should those two controversies be written about in a different way? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverted to an earlier version before that section was added.--ukexpat (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

David H. Murdock

Hello. Can someone please protect David H. Murdock to prevent further violations of WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:BLPPRIMARY (see the edit history)? 137.110.48.116 (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sachiin J Joshi

The article has many flaws. It does not meet notability guideline for biographies. Firstly, it uses self-published sources. The article uses person's own website as a reference source. The "Other achievements" section praises the person using his own website as a reference source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywoodan (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sherman Brothers

Rudyard Kipling wrote The Jungle Books at his home near Brattleboro, Vermont, in the 1890s, not at Browns Hotel in the early 1900s, although Browns was a favorite place for him to stay. I wrote the book Rudyard Kipling in Vermont, published in the 1990s.

Best wishes,

Stuart A.P. Murray Berlin, New York — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.21.253 (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Steven Emerson - Part 3

Steven Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing Emmerson as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, while Carl Enrst, the Kenan Distinguished Professor of Islamic studies at the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, described him as a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse.

References

ChrisGualtieri is of the opinion that the material above is a violation of BLP, and claims that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies here based on his argument that The claim is highly contentious, purely opinion, lacking veracity, decidedly non-neutral. I argue that this is not the case, and the opinions are significant enough to warrant inclusion, and that opinions need not to be neutral to be significant for inclusion: NPOV requires us to include such opinions.

This has been discussed extensively already at BLP/N:

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive215#Steven_Emerson
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive216#Steven_Emerson_part_2

While I appreciate the concern about "getting it right" in BLPs, I object the use of the BLP policy as a bludgeon used to exclude criticism from BLPs, when the criticism is supported by good quality sources, as this will violate NPOV - Cwobeel (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to repeatedly insert accusations of bigotry sourced to persons connected to an organization in protracted disputes with Steven Emerson. This is a highly contentious opinion sourced to less than a sentence which basically states "Islamophobe Steven Emerson" from a Google string search. Swap "Islamophobic" with "Anti-semite" or "racist" and you have the same BLP issue. Verifiability and veracity - not passing petty insults. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely verifiable that Emerson has been criticised for some of his views, and the criticism has extended to the view that he has produced Islamophobic discourse. You appear not to like it, but it meets our policies quite readily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

His views can be criticized but you do not go about calling someone a bigot on their biography without any merit and sourced to the personal enemies of the subject. This is why "misinformation expert" is fine, but not a bigot. You seem to be unable to reconcile the differences. Swap "Islamophobic" with "Anti-semite" - is it still appropriate? No. We do not go labeling or accusing people of being bigots when there is no evidence they are bigots. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's clarify something once and for all: Wikipedia (which I assume is what you mean when you use "we" above) is not calling anyone a bigot. What we are doing is reporting on criticism of Emerson as described in reliable sources. That is a big difference and a crucial distinction in this discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You (CG) want "evidence", as if it had to be a fact. But haven't you also argued that being a "bigot" can only be a matter of someone's opinion? You can't have it both ways. What matters is whether it's a characterisation that is supported by reliable sources. There's no question that the sources meet WP:RS. (And no, it wouldn't be different if it was a characterisation of someone as an anti-Semite.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The text shown above is a fine example of a BLP-compliant, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV-compliant summary of what prominent views are held about Emerson. Many more sources agree with the evaluation, so the above text is arguably too weak, suggesting that only these two sources think Emerson is an Islamophobe. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There are additional sources that can be used to expand the sentence to address your concern, and even Emerson himself refers to the Islamophobe criticism leveled against him, rebutting that "[...] any criticism of Islam means you are an Islamophobe." [8]

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Seeing as there are 3 conversation about this subject now, if the content being discussed at the prior 2 is the same as here, I suggest WP:CLOSE closing procedures be used after this one concludes. Let all 3 be collectively reviewed and a consensus be determined based on them, Lest we open a 4th one here in a few more weeks.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I actually agree with Serialjoepsycho. Prior comments supported WP:BLP policy, and considered the addition in the lede to be noncompliant with NPOV: [9] and [10]. Also, WP is not a tabloid that needs to be updated each time a biased source says something derogatory about the subject. Emerson's gaffe was actually included in a section of its own in the body of the article. How many BLP-N discussions must we undergo considering this is the 3rd, and beginning to look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Atsme☯^Consult 21:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It doesn't look like forum shopping at all Atsme. What's clear from viewing some of the discussion elsewhere, some of you have interpreted a different consensus. So let who ever add what ever new, no one continue to repeat the same old, and then go seek an ADMIN Closure. They will determine the consensus based on what has been said.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a plan to me, Serialjoepsycho. Atsme☯^Consult 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Note that this discussion is unrelated to the article's lede at this time. The dispute is about the validity of this material for it to be included in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Related? Unrelated? When your done go seek an official close is the relevant part of the above. If the other discussions about Steven Emerson are related point it out to the closer so they can take those views into account. If they aren't but since there seems to be some issue related to them seek to have them officially closed as well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an expanded version, addressing concerns expressed by Binksternet, as well as including Emerson's attempt at rebuttal in a Fox News oped, for balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, while Carl Enrst, the Kenan Distinguished Professor of Islamic studies at the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, described him as a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse. Emerson responded to these and similar characterizations in an op-ed for Fox News, stating that criticism of Islam labeled as Islamphophia, and the labeling of "Islamic terrorism" as a racist generalization of Muslims, is "one of the biggest and most dangerous national security frauds of the past 30 years."

References

Yes... I like the phrasing "responded to these and similar characterizations" as it gives the reader the correct sense that Emerson has a greater level of criticism than just one uninvolved scholarly book and one involved but respected scholar. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing much of an issue with this honestly, but I would like to view some some further comments, and well really get the meat and potatoes of the Issue that Chris has with this. Has this particularly already been discussed?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been discussed extensively (follow the other discussions here at BLP/N, liked above). The issue ChrisGualtiery has with it, is summarized in his comment to my talk page [11] The claim is highly contentious, purely opinion, lacking veracity, decidedly non-neutral and sourced to nothing more than half a sentence quip. There is no place for unsupported accusations of bigotry. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly that diff provides no context. The only bit of discussion I've actually looked at specifically was related o the lead and you have expressly stated that this material here relates in no way to the lead. There are probably a few things change, but in principal I don't not see an issue with mentioning these views if by prominent individuals. I do find myself questioning who in context to, "Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam" because it doesn't seem Enrst is the person behind this point of view. It actually seems that we are attributing this opinion to Cambridge University thru their press. Probably not the best Idea. I wonder if the views can be attributed to the editors of it or specifically to someone the editors interviewed while writing the book. But really I'd like to hear I'd like to hear more from others to really get a view of this dispute to get a little more context.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that bigotry and/or hate speech doesn't belong in the lead. It is not the prevailing view, rather it is a biased minority view and should not be given WP:UNDUE. I'm not convinced that it improves the article and is actually reminiscent of tabloid journalism. The public's perception of how proponents of Islam feel about Emerson is obvious considering the COI and/or bias toward him and his line of work. Also, several important comments are missing from this discussion as a result of separating it into 3 parts. Where are the opposing views, including what ChrisGualtieri and others stated in Parts 1 & 2? Atsme☯^Consult 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd absolutely agree that it would be inadvisable to put that in the lead like that at this time, but above Cwobeel has specifically stated that this conversation doesn't relate to the lead at this moment. As for the other parts, that is why I suggested that an official close be sought and related discussion all be closed as one. If there are any points contextually that you feel would help here please provide diffs and link them. Please though attempt to be brief.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If the discussion is not about inclusion in the lead, then most certainly include it in the body of the article. I have no problem with that at all. Atsme☯^Consult 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to wait for an admin to close this discussion "officially". Admins are not here to be arbitrators for content disputes (I don't see any mention of an admin role in WP:DR besides conduct disputes, neither I see that in WP:ADMIN). We should be able to handle the close by ourselves with the kind assistance of uninvolved editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to do anything but follow the procedure at WP:CLOSE. Because you have already been unable to close yourself. I recommend a admin closure just to avoid any unneeded drama in relation to a non-admin closure. It can be a non-admin closure by an uninvolved editor that is prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale if asked. But regardless it does need to be formally closed and that is the whole point. And I know the perfect place to seek an uninvolved party to assist in the closure, WP:ANRFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. ANRFC is for cases in which there is no clear consensus. And as far as I can see from this discussion, there is consensus for inclusion, as consensus does not imply unanimity. So, in this case we don't need admin help. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

The Emerson biography should say that Emerson screwed up in his guess of who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Why is that not in the biography? Many authors bring it up when they mention Emerson.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Even Emerson acknowledges his mistake as a personal "albatross".[23] Apparently, Atsme doesn't think it worthy of the biography, which is astonishing. It's a prominent part of his career which everybody including Emerson agrees upon. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Mary-Jean O'Doherty

Can I have some more eyes on this article and a second opinion. I am on my second revert and will not revert again.

RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs) with a long history of warnings for adding unsourced or poorly sourced dates of birth to BLPs, has been repeatedly adding an exact DoB to Mary-Jean O'Doherty with no source, although she has claimed on my talk page, that she got it from this web page. That page is from a website that is based in Russia, is not the official Eurovision website, and uses information "gathered from fans around the world". It is not a reliable source for a biography of a living person. I can find no other source for this date and it appears in none of her official biographies. There is also the issue of privacy in including a full DoB, especially a potentially spurious one. Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer - if there is a dispute about a DoB or the reliability of its sourcing, we leave it out.--ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It may need to be noted that per a previous discussion at WikiProject Eurovision, it was found that the ESCKaz website that Voceditenore linked to above, had been found to also be in violation of copyright from Wikipedia text (full discussion can be found here). And as a consequence the project placed ESCKaz on their project's banned sources list, and thus ESCkaz should not even be used as a verifiable source whatsoever. It should also be noted that I had reported RebeccaTheAwesomeXD to WP:ANI back in October 2014 (linked here) about similar disruptive behaviour, as well as the numerous warnings on her talk page - some of which she use threatening tactics in response to warnings; such as "Fear not, Wes! For I hate when certain articles get deleted." and childish remarks like "Oh no! I'm doomed! DOOMED! Sarah and Julia has been deleted. Some of Rebecca's contributions are perfect and reasonable. But others have caused more damage than good. I feel that Rebecca should either be faced with adoption tutorial from an experienced editor; or topic ban across BLP and Eurovision-related articles. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs) for 1 week for continued violations of the WP:BLP policy. I've also blocked 112.208.61.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which appears to have been used by her to evade scrutiny. I will consider further action as needed. CT Cooper · talk 17:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite the fact this block has now been put in place, it would appear that Rebecca has a pattern of adding or altering dates of birth on BLP articles for quite some time, and all of them being unsourced.

• Jesse Money diff 1
• Ula Ložar diff 2

Maybe a block isn't going to teach her anything about the seriousness of this kind of incident. Perhaps a topic ban on BLP articles is necessary? Her contributions on other articles are good, but when it comes to BLP's she just does what she wants and ignores all warnings from editors including admins. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. I've given it some thought, and my conclusion for now is that competency issues are apparent here and it is therefore not likely that Rebecca will not likely follow any complex sanctions imposed. I've decided to keep it simple for now and to keep blocking her until she understands that her current behaviour is unacceptable. I'll be reviewing the situation again before the block expires though. CT Cooper · talk 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Russell Tovey's "effeminate" comments

His comments are publicized, but are they worth being added to the article? --George Ho (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No. They are an off the cuff comment, over blown by the tabloids. Next week they will be forgotten. --Fæ (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

They are not overblown off the cuff comments Fae, they actually have offended segments of the LGBT community and Tovey has a history of denigrating what he considers "flamboyant and camp". It's well known. --5.69.175.246 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Tovey is a gay man prides himself on being "straight acting" and passing for a straight man. His comments clearly reflect this. It's also clear he is unconscious of why he makes such 'off the cuff' remarks in the first place, hence why they were highly publicized. They were harmful to those 'really effeminate' men within the LGBT community who consider him a role model and do not conform to the heteronormative standards of behaviour he speaks of and has spoken of in the past. For you to undermine the comments as 'overblown' is dismissive of their potential impact which is why I think you should consider keeping these comments in the article itself. --5.69.175.246 (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There are some unreliable and/or primary sources there, lack of NPOV and a lot of weight. "came under fire on social media" is precisely the kind of thing we want to avoid. However, if there was reaction from reliable sources or notable people and a consequence of some sort, and all that can be sourced to stuff other than twitter, then perhaps it merits a shorter paragraph. Right now it looks like it was worded by an angry LGBT advocate, which is not ideal for a BLP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sherry Lansing

The Bio on Sherry Lansing claims she was the first Female Studio head. I believe that Lucille Ball was the First, after buying out Desi Arnez to become the presedent of desilu. Thank You Joseph C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.119.246.162 (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

nomgqibelo ntombzakhe

nurses who treat their patients without care.nurses often get angry with patients when they asked to assist they are sometimes heart less with people it.s not our fault they dont enjoy their jobs for ill patients sometimes when you waiting for help they wont come to assist you and ask whats the issue even if the issue is serious they dont care — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.168.223 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

How does this relate to Wikipedia? I can find no reference to anyone of that name in any of our articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Kamal Mehta

This is a short BLP stub about a Indian university head who is currently involved in a local scandal. He's not really A7 worthy, I wouldn't think, but I'm not sure he's truly notable beyond the current scandal. The stub appears to exist mostly because of the scandal. Maybe it's A10 worthy, maybe it can be cleaned up/expanded so that the scandal isn't the core of the article. I'm personally unsure of what to do with it, but I know that it's problematic as-is. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that the sources cited state that there are allegations, whereas our article claims that he is 'guilty', it is certainly problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Elie Wiesel

I think it's pretty clear what the issue is here. If you could just revert the article to how it appeared before the most recent edit I would appreciate it.

"Wiesel was born the 21st of Nyestember 0021 A.C.C, Franks Apartment (now Sighetu Marmației), Maramureș,[6] Romania,[6] in the Carpathian Mountains. His parents were Frank and Safari Man. At home Wiesel's family spoke Chromosomian most of the time, but also Chinese.[7][8] Wiesel's mother, Safari Man, was the daughter of Chin Chin, a celebrated Vizhnitz Hasid and farmer from a nearby village. Chin Chin was active and trusted within the community. In the early years of his life, Chin Chin had spent a few months in jail for having helped Polish Jews who escaped and were hungry.

Wiesel's father, Frank, instilled a strong sense of humanism in his son, encouraging him to learn Chromosomian and to read literature, whereas his mother encouraged him to study the Torah. Wiesel has said his father represented reason while his mother Sarah promoted faith.[9]

Wiesel had three siblings – older brothers Salamander man and B0ss, and younger brother Prometheus. B0ss and Salamander Man survived the war and were reunited with Wiesel at a French orphanage. They eventually emigrated to North America, with B0ss moving to Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Prometheus, Frank, and Safari Man survived the Lycra Holocaust the Holocaust."

I was just reading this article the other day and happen to know that his siblings names are not Salamander man and B0ss, and Chinese was not the language most spoken in his household. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.110.82 (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism - fixed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Meredith Viera

Insults Meredith when talking about the Meredith Viera show, referring to her as a racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B843:4CE0:CD34:EE6A:91B1:E020 (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a link or diff? I see no evidence that the article has ever included such a claim. RolandR (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The OP is apparently referring to this edit, which you reverted. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That was just a routine reversion of mindless vandalism. I didn't see any reference to racism. RolandR (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahmad Givens (recently deceased)

Ahmad Givens died a couple of weeks ago, apparently at age 33. One source does say 35 years old, but even its URL has the number 33 in it, which makes me think they know something we, and those other sources, don't. In addition, two single purpose accounts have tried to change it to 35, so there might be something to this. The article is Real Chance of Love, and Ahmad Givens is currently a redirect to the television show. Thanks. :> Eddymason (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)