Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
Sections older than 5 days archived by ClueBot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Centralized discussion

Rudolf Schumann[edit]

Timmy Tan might be poorly sourced, because I cannot find that much information about him.[edit]

In this page link-, there seems to be gibberish information that seems to be poorly sourced, update: I removed the poorly sourced information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PattyDay (talkcontribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattyDay (talkcontribs) 01:00, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

Jesse Taylor[edit]

Jesse Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The first entry on this page refers to Season 25 of The Ultimate Fighter and lists the two fighters who will fight in the finale of the show. Season 25 doesn't premiere until April 19, 2017, so the information listed on Taylor's page is either inaccurate or is revealing the results of a season that has not aired yet.

link to site — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:10, April 10, 2017‎

Odette Annable[edit]

Odette Annable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The exact birthdate was removed from this article as more than one date was added and at no point was a reliable source provided to meet the requirements of our criteria for inclusion of a contentious DOB. There is a notice on the article talk page, by me, explaining under what policies the date was removed and what type of sources are required to include an exact date of birth. An editor, Happy Evil Dude, continues to add a specific date despite the links provided not meeting reliable sourcing criteria and without any attempt at joining the talk page discussion to explain how the websites are useable, preferring to throw random Google search links at the wall and see if anything sticks. Perhaps another BLP-aware editor with an understanding of WP:DOB could explain why tertiary celebrity databases and primary sources do not meet the standard of verifiability for such dates? I've searched for a reliable source, even via offline publications available on LexusNexus, to try to put this to bed with no luck. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Mr. Ponyo would care to explain why the actress in question is being held to a higher standard of "birth date source" than virtually every other actor, actress or entertainer on Wikipedia, which he has at no point done? If Odette's widely reported and confirmed birth date (not by "random Google search links") of 10 May 1985 cannot be included on Wikipedia then no one else should have their birth date detailed either. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd hope we could use a combination of primary and secondary sources to resolve this, but consensus and the legal issues are not clear. It appears the Hoang v., Inc. ruling favoring publishing birth date information online will hold and the California laws will not, but in the meantime we have to be careful.
Given she's acknowledged her birth day on Twitter [1], I think we can include May 10 as the date.
What do editors feel of "Today in History" sources like this? --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Today in history can't be used as the provenance of the information is uncertain and is not vetted by the publisher. To answer Happy Evil Dude's questions above, all articles should be held to this standard per WP:DOB ("Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources"). The goal of BLP policy is to ensure the information included in biographies is correct and this is done through the inclusion of reliable sources. If no reliable sources can be found then the information is not included. The fact that there are articles that don't meet our BLP policy means we should be trying to fix them, not lowering the standard for all articles. And I'm not a Mr.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
So adding May 10 with the twitter link would be fine for you? --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ronz: Yes, that would should work per WP:SELFSOURCE.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
How about using for the full birth date? --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I used that source Ronz. My edit was removed by Ponyo. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
So why's the profile not acceptable but an article from the same source is acceptable?
Has she ever brought up privacy or other concerns over the year of her birth? Otherwise, I don't understand why a California-born celeb, whose birthday is easily verified from official birth records and backed by typical entertainment sources, is so contentious. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand either man. She has never brought up any such concerns to my knowledge. What can I do to make Ponyo accept the "May 10, 1985" listing? This is really frustrating. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added the full "May 10, 1985" date using the birth record (an authoritative primary source), the Us Weekly profile (replacing the Us Weekly article that did not give the year), and her tweet that indicates she doesn't object to the month and day. [2] I don't think we need another source, like the "Today in History" article mentioned above, to establish that the date has been widely published, but we could certainly add it if that's still a concern. --Ronz (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sir. It should be noted these were the same sources I'd added, but hopefully Ponyo will be satisfied this time. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump Jr.[edit]

Donald Trump Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It seems to me that some details regarding Donald Trump Jr. were added that although contained in WP:RS are not necessarily encyclopedic and are somewhat WP:POV. I don't really like to get into political debates, so I am asking others to take a look at the recent reversion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It belongs. Trump Jr. is active in politics, having campaigned for his father and is currently campaigning for other GOP candidates[3]. Trump Jr.'s political rhetoric is therefore notable. CNN, LA Times, The Hill and the other reliable sources that I added to the article substantiate that the content that I added was notable. If Trump Jr.'s actions and rhetoric weren't notable, there wouldn't extensive RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Susanna de Vries biographical details[edit]

Susanna de Vries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

page 1 block under photo amend Spouse to read Professor Larry Evans (correct title has been ommitted CAREER (THIS SECTION VERY RIGHTLY SAYS EDIT AND I HAVE RECEIVED COMPLAINTS IT IS ILLITERATE WHICH IS NOT GOOD FOR A WRITER'S BIOG content ok but ungrammatical please help 1st para line 5 (spacing wrong space betwen lines 1 and 2 should be removed. LINE 4 University of Technology's Department add apostrophe

change please.. due to concerns over legal complications after identifying forged Australian and European paintings.   

2nd para FIRST LINE Pandanus Press . PLEASE REMOVE The ENTIRE NEXT SENTENCE AS IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS AND NOR DO MY READERS AND i HAVE RECEIVED COMPLAINTS. tHE GENTLEEMAN WHO WROTE IT WAS VERY KIND AND VISITED ME ADN PARTS ARE GOOD AMD INFO IS CORRECT AND HE OBVIOUSLY WORKED HARD ON IT BUT i AM NOT SURPRISED IT SAYS EDIT AS PARTS OF IT DO NOT MAKE SENSE ADN FULL OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS. lINE 4 PARA 2 Launched by Governor Leneen Forde Pirgos Press (Pirgos is the Greek word for 'tower'as the company's logo is the silhouette of the Byzantine tower featured in Susanna's award winning title 'Blue Ribbons, Bitter Bread' now in its 7th edition and first published by Hale and Iremonger of Sydney and in 2016 was translated into Greek by Maria Dia. . para 3 De Vries has travelled to Europe to authenticate artworks is pretty meaningless. say instead authenticate Australian 19th century paintings on which she has written and lectured.

OTHER ACTIVITIES. GRAMMATICAL ERRORS LINE 5 ' SOME OF THE EARNINGS FROM HER PUBLICATIONS ARE (NOT IS) PERSONAL LIFE. LINE ONE. She married Dr (later Professor) Larry Evans in 1967 in London. date wrong was not 1962. PUBLISHED WORKS WRITING STYLE DESCRIBED AS 'mainstream' delete deadpan or delete whole sentence. Because her biographies cover some women written about for the first time and are very readable and bought by libraries many have gone into multiple editions and are still in print. please remove teh rest of the sentence it does not make sense.

final sentence should read De Vries has explored the lives of significant women whose stories deserved to be better known.


Ethel Carrick Fox, Triumphs and Travels of an Impressionist. TO HELL AND BACK add full title The Banned Story of Gallipoli with a Biography of Sydney Loch. Royal Feud, Diana versus Charles and Camilla. 2017 (only available in USA) A Colourful Life, the Memoirs of Susanna de Vries. (in preparation for 2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have copied this post to Talk:Susanna de Vries, so that it can be seen by the folks who edit that page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Laura Kipnis[edit]

Laura Kipnis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an entire section in the article about this person that is devoted to a controversy sparked around the recent publication of a book. I have updated the article to reflect that the subject is being sued. It is highly relevant given that this entire section of the article is devoted to this controversy. This is a recent update, so I put in this material to reflect the most accurate information about the current state of affairs. I have put in nothing regarding the subject's guilt or innonce, only one single line to reflect the filing of the lawsuit. I have also used multiple sources (The Chicago Tribune, Daily Nous, and Jezebel). Each time I put this up, and each time citing a different reason, the same person takes it down. This is highly inappropriate. I am simply trying to update the information and this person is clearly trying to conceal it. Please do something about this immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C602:4BBA:B04B:5266:7814:DC6E (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you reading the edit summaries ? You're being told that you're using a non-reliable source, therefore your information has to be removed. We're pretty strict on BLP's over here, so anything in there has to be reliably sourced or it's removed.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Andrew U. D. Straw[edit]

Andrew U. D. Straw is an article about an individual of marginal notability (if at all), and is created and edited by a single-purpose account of Hindtoad, who is someone close to the subject. It has multiple problems apart from conflict of interest; these include tone, uncited assertions, and citations to unreliable sources. He cites what appears to be a docket entry for a petition to the US Supreme Court (which has no content other than the fact that a pleading was filed)[4], and has self-published the petition itself on his own website.[5]

I don't know if the article can be saved, but in its present state does not meet our standards. Kablammo (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If, after viewing the 51 citations and the TV and newspaper coverage of Mr. Straw and his disability work, you find nothing notable in the article, obviously delete it. If what is on the page is of an equivalent level of notability to other lawyers who are listed on Wikipedia, by all means improve it in every way that makes it a more neutral and interesting article. I don't feel I own the article in any way, but I certainly do feel that some of the other editors are being unfair here.Hindtoad (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I have to say that I like the interface for making edits and especially the citations tool because it makes it so easy to add citations from news sources and others. I hope these editors will take the time to find citations and add information about this page rather than simply ripping large portions of text out and saying it was not written right. Find the citations you seek and add information rather than ripping apart what I and others have added.Hindtoad (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Kablammo has made malicious comparisons between Andrew Straw, a lawyer who works on disability rights and access, and someone under investigation by the FBI for porn. Kablammo apparently is not neutral toward this subject, but is on a rampage to defame Andrew Straw, using every argument at his disposal. I have suggested that Kablammo's neutrality is severely in doubt given the malicious and even defamatory statements he has made. He has removed material that was sourced and cited from the page to lower the notability in any way he can. This is the not the action of a neutral editor. He should be banned from editing this page after such malicious behavior.Hindtoad (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking at some of Kablammo's edits, his claims of sourcing problems seem to be accurate or at least reasonable. And the lawyer that he made a comparison to is under investigation for his disability access work. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Niki Ashton[edit]

The personal opinion of Michael Den Tandt or Andrew Coyne is not worthy of inclusion. Neither article featured a report on a survey of people regarding this. To characterize these two personal opinions as a widely held view is inaccurate. Please see below for a copy of the entry in question.

[entry in question] She was viewed as "too young and too wooden."[1] Her convention speech was characterized as "old-timey" and uninspiring.[2] [/entry in question]

--Mark Alfred (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Den Tandt, Michael (March 16, 2012). "Mulcair would hasten Harper's dream of Liberals' demise". Regina Leader Post. p. A9. 
  2. ^ Coyne, Andrew (March 24, 2012). "What the NDP speeches really said". The Ottawa Citizen. p. A1. 
Fixed Sorry for the slow response in addressing this. MPS1992 (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Altoon Sultan[edit]

Altoon Sultan is a stub article about a noted living American artist. The article needs additional citations. The article entries themselves do not cause a violation, but the order of its section and footnote presentation is not complying to the usual editing templates. I encountered these anomalies while trying to add additional categories, text, and citations. I need help to maintain this article--which I visited today for the first time--in good biographical form. Is this an issue which I should address elsewhere? I've never encountered a situation quite like this before.--Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where else I would report this, but this page is usually for serious BLP violations that need immediate attention. --Malerooster (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The Talk page for the article has links to four wikiprojects, (Biography, Visual arts, United States/Vermont and Women Artists), I'd start at Biography, but I have no idea what to expect. Hope this helps. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Burzynski Clinic[edit]

Hello, I'm new, so be patient. I believe this article is negatively one-sided. I will try to obtain sources to further back my claims. Initially however, there are many examples of non-compliance with the policies regarding Biographies of living persons, including Tone, Balance, Self Published Sources, Gossip and A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law and If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments....include all the explanatory information.

Under the heading Efficacy, the author states: "While the antineoplaston therapy is marketed as a non-toxic alternative to chemotherapy, it is a form of chemotherapy with significant known side effects including severe neurotoxicity.[17][28]", and although it is sourced, the sources listed are non-sourced opinions regarding the labeling of the treatment as "chemotherapy" as well as the "severe neurotoxicity" of the treatment. One of these sources is also a self published critic of the subject, David Gorski, who is also quoted later in the article.

Under heading Cost: Although this paragraph is fairly neutral in itself, in the context of other statements within the article it leaves the impression that the costs for treatment were unreasonable or fraudulent. Including the cost of standard chemotherapy within the paragraph would give readers a relative value to compare it to, to make their own conclusion. Otherwise the entire paragraph could be removed.

Under Legal issues:FDA warnings: I think this would just be a method to balance the article somewhat There are several paragraphs describing an FDA Warning Letter regarding the legality of claims made by the subject, the actual context of which was originally within the 2nd paragraph as denoted by the phrases "contain claims such as the following....." prior to and "by making representations such as those noted above" after the edited section. I think including the actual statements made by subject should be view-able, again thereby letting the reader come to their own conclusion regarding statements.

Later in this same section, David Gorski is again quoted from a self published blog, where he is making unsupported judgements and contentious statements that may portray a more unflattering picture than is evidenced by the actual sourced documents.

Under Legal Issues: Texas Medical Board and Legal Issues: Lawsuits The article cites many charges brought against Burzynski but often fails to report the outcome of proceedings. this includes the lawsuit section where the final entry in that section gives great detail of the complaints but fails to reveal the disposition of the suit. It also fails to list all of the instances that the Texas Medical Board (TMB) as well as the FDA brought charges against Burzynski that were dismissed or found to be without merit by the relevant proceedings. This included at least 3 censures/licensing attacks by the TMB and 4 Grand Jury proceedings instigated by the FDA that returned NO indictments at all but tends to illustrate a clear program of harassment. (I will find sources for this)

Finally, the whole section labeled - Legal Issues: Legal threats to online critics: is half hearsay about people Other Than the actual subject (ie an employee and his supporters) and it's all gossipy fighting between people loyal to the subject and self published bloggers attacking the subject.

Also the Section - Media and Commentary: Although there are many positive portrayals of subject including an extremely loyal group of patients (who voluntarily donated to subjects legal defense) (I know I need sources) the only listed Commentary are excessively condescending, negative and irrelevant self published gossipy type articles. The positive media that is listed the author goes on to heavily critique, (unlike the negative media) although only with sourced reviews by scientific giants such as The Village Voice and Variety.--Psylocyber (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The article falls under WP:Fringe theories and WP:General sanctions. Given that you are a new editor, and that dealing with such a topic requires very strict adherence to many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I recommend you work on something else while you learn the policies well. Working on articles like this leaves very little room for mistakes of any kind. If you want to continue on it, start with a discussion on the article talk page. After there has been some discussion, you might consider getting other editors' perspectives by using an appropriate noticeboard like WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN depending on the area of dispute. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
"the whole section labeled - Legal Issues: Legal threats to online critics: is half hearsay about people Other Than the actual subject (ie an employee and his supporters)" -- actually, the "actual subject" of this article is not a person, but the Clinic. The actions at question are within the range of what they were contracted by the clinic to do. And the significance of this material is made clear in that it's not just being covered by "self-published bloggers"; sourcing on this includes The Guardian and Discover Magazine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
If the Burzynski Clinic published the results of its research programme in reputable journals the article would reflect this.Martinlc (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

John K. Singlaub[edit]

John K. Singlaub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

John K. Singlaub was played a role in the Iran–Contra affair, however, there are three sections in the article related to his post-scandal affiliations with various organizations (i.e. Coalition to Salute America's Heroes, America's Future, and The Jedburgh Group) that appear to be unduly negative. The bulk of these three sections discusses misdeeds of the organizations and is cited to sources that do not discuss Singlaub's role in any of those misdeeds. I'm hoping another set of eyes could take a look. Thanks! -Location (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Shneur Odze[edit]

My attention was called to this article by this AN thread: Shneur Odze one long BLP violation.

The article is pretty much OK now, but there is an edit that is currently being disputed. Here is the diff that added the content and sourcing. Is this OK per WP:BLP? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

A more neutral wording of that notice would hav been good, but se la vie. Let's try to keep the discussion in one place at the talk page. Amisom (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The wording was perfectly neutral. Discussion here or there is fine. Doesn't matter. The discussion there is at Talk:Shneur_Odze#Daily_Mail for folks who want to see the prior discussion or pitch in there. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The wording was perfectly neutral. Oh, guess my opinion must have been mistaken then. Sorry for expressing it. Amisom (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Its gossip, where it would stop becoming gossip is if reliable sources have commented that the 'gossip' led to their being rejected by the voters - which would be relevant to their political career. Scandals that have an impact (which is covered by reliable sources) on a politician's career can be documented in their BLP. Provided the sourcing was reliable and it was worded appropriately. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    Copied to article talkpage and reply added tehre. Amisom (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Because Jytdog is determined to revert any changes that he hasn't personally approved (and to warn others for edit warring when they disagree wit hhim) I'm putting this to RfC on the article talkpage. Amisom (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit note quite misrepresents the status of the talk page discussion. hm. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Travis Konecny[edit]

Libelous, unsourced material repeatedly inserted into this entry. See diff here. In addition to false, defamatory claims, for 4 straight days now. This person's page continues to be vandalized for 4 days straight now following a gold medal final game (Travis Konecny is an athlete)

His bio is being altered to call him a "diver" and general vandalizations regarding him displaying embellishment tend to litter his page.[edit]

Don't have the time to edit now, but the page (as of 11:30 PM EST on 05/22/2017) has been vandalized in several places by some disgruntled individual. [1]. 2604:2000:6FC0:101:17:D314:C636:3FBF (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Charlo Greene[edit]

I was away for a bit, but recently someone has been trying to add that Charlo Greene was outed as a scam artist on Reddit via an AMA. The problem is that the Reddit thread is the only source they have for the bulk of their claims and the allegations came from a random Reddit user and not say, a reporter for the New York Times. They also posted about her doxing someone on the Reddit thread and that she posted someone's information on Facebook to encourage harassment. My own personal thoughts about the validity of the information aside, the problem I'm seeing is that this is all pretty much based on a SPS and also kind of comes across as gossip magazine type coverage. If there was enough long term coverage to justify inclusion that'd be one thing, but so far all they've provided is a Reddit thread.

I almost kind of think that there's a "make the truth known" type of deal here, so this article could definitely use some extra eyes. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 17:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Although I personally agree with the Reddit statements, that is definitely not a reliable source, and you were right to remove it per BLP. The problem with the Reddit statements are many, but primary is that they are all a bunch of leading questions (when did you stop beating your wife) with links to websites provided as answers. In other words, it is providing us with conclusions and then challenging us to read the links and connect the same dots. That is not reliable, secondary, objective reporting but a poorly guiled attempt to persuade readers to a particular set of beliefs. (What I call "Jack van Impe" reporting.) Aside from that, the text that was inserted into the article was atrocious; way too many pronouns so that is was impossible to tell which "her" was which. Zaereth (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Kenneth R. Bartlett[edit]

Libelous, unsourced material repeatedly inserted into this entry. See diff here. In addition to false, defamatory claims, subject's salary also repeatedly posted, which is not present in other entries on active professors. Request protection of page to prevent continued vandalism as well as removal of maintenance template. Risorgimento1871 (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Matter appears to be resolved; libelous material reinserted by accident when reverting to earlier version. See conversation here. Risorgimento1871 (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to have current templates on this article removed? Risorgimento1871 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Greg Gianforte[edit]

The current article of Greg Gianforte falsely and libelously states that a Buzzfeed reporter appeared to support Ben Jacob's claim. The Buzzfeed reporter was not in the room where the alleged assault or altercation took place and did not see the full altercation. Thus, the article in current form is in direct violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy. NHCAB (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing false or libelous about noting what the Buzzfeed reporter said; the reporter acknowledged not being a direct witness, but stated what she saw and heard from a location nearby. Taking a look at the article, it accurately describes what the reporter reported. Regardless, there's now a direct eyewitness account from another reporter so the sourcing can be improved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
What you said up above in relation to the reported facts is not what the article says or said at the original time of this complaint. The Buzzfeed reporter cannot substantiate Mr. Jacobs' claim because she wasn't there. I'm not here to debate Mr. Gianforte's guilt or innocence and I concede this issue may be moot as facts develop, but as this incident is a current event, we cannot be saying some witness supports the complainant's claim when the source does not say that and such a synthesis of information, which in itself violates Wikipedia policy, is suspect. NHCAB (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Information about the alleged assault and Gianforte's positions are being added to Rob Quist's article. You may notice that Quist is not Gianforte. The article has to include information that ties into Quist in some way. It can mention that Quist has refused to comment on the incident, or that the alleged assault impacted the election (which will take place tomorrow). But just simply adding information about Gianforte by himself is off topic. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It's notable and should be in both articles. But in the Quist article, could be a one or two sentence mention. Sagecandor (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Max Pemberton (doctor)[edit]

Trolling cannabis lovers have turned the entry into a silly parody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:797E:5B00:4D50:EDB6:1258:4FF6 (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, the vandalism has been reverted and the offending user blocked. CIreland (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Rob Quist[edit]

There's an election today, and Rob Quist's opponent has been charged with assault. The alleged assault, and what occured afterwards does not in any way involve Rob Quist. Myself and others have removed this information as off topic, but it is consistently being added back. Here is the section below:

Quist's opponent had been endorsed over Quist by three Montana newspapers, all owned by Lee Enterprises. The day before the election, Quist's opponent, Greg Gianforte, was cited for misdemeanor assault after attacking a reporter from The Guardian, an incident captured on audio recording and which was witnessed by reporters from Fox News.[2] As news of the incident broke, the editorial boards of these three newspapers rescinded previous endorsements of Gianforte. The Billings Gazette characterized the incident as “..nothing short of assault,” that “stunned” its editorial board.[3] The Gazette was joined by two other major state papers, the Missoulian, and the Helena Independent Record in withdrawing their endorsements.[4][5] The Missoulian stated of Gianforte, "He showed Wednesday night that he lacks the experience, brains and abilities to effectively represent Montana in any elected office."[5]

You may notice the above does not mention Quist in any way, and discusses only the actions of his opponent. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

For my money, the event definitely bears mentioning, but this is overdoing it. Maybe one sentence, along the lines of "Newspapers pulled support for Mr. Quist's opponent, Greg Gianforte, after an allegation that he had assaulted a reporter." I think brevity would truly be the soul of wit here. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

They keep adding it back. It's now a blatant Coatrack section. It has to tie into Rob Quist in some way. As it stands, they just make an unrelated section where they talk about what some other guy did. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Dumuzid. Worthy of mention, but above is too much. Maybe one or two sentences. Sagecandor (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


Otabek Mahkamov[edit]

The article contains false information about me. Please remove the following content.

In 2015, it became known that Mahkamov had made contradictory and false claims about his birthplace, academic qualifications, and skills.[1] The first article that brought to light the contradictions in Mahkamov's claims was published by the Osh-based literature website Ijodkor.[2] A month later the Uzbek entertainment website Sayyod published a short article which stated that Mahkamov had provided Uzbek journalists with false information about his background.[3] The author fell short of directly accusing Mahkamov, but promised to publish a more detailed account of the matter. In an interview with the Uzbek tabloid Bekajon, Mahkamov denied the accusations.[1] However, he refused to comment on the contradictions in his claims and only stated that "Those rumors you're talking about are unfounded".[1]

The sources/links given on this article either not working or doesn't contain the facts!

Thanks for your assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otabek.mahkamov (talkcontribs) 17:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ok, what I recommend you do first is start a discussion on the talk page of the article. Do not try to edit the article yourself. Try to remain calm and amiable, but explain clearly and completely what is wrong with the sources (besides your belief that the information is false).
A big problem is that the sources are not in English. I also cannot access them because they show as high-risk websites. Although it is not required that sources be in English, it is preferred on the English Wikipedia so that others can read them and verify the information as being reliable or not. As is, I am not able to read the sources so I cannot check the reliability. However, the very fact the websites themselves are high-risk throws up a red-flag. Another problem is that such information doesn't belong in the lede, but the lede should be a summary of what is reliably sourced in the body of the article, so this also represents undue weight.
Another red-flag is the title of the first source, which admits that it is reporting on rumors. Any source that deals in rumors and gossip is not a reliable source, so these are they kinds of things you need to demonstrate on the talk page. (Please chaeck the links I provided above.) Unfortunately, because I cannot read Uzbek (nor even access the sources) I cannot be of much help myself in that matter, but there are many people here who do speak multiple languages who may be able to look into this further. Zaereth (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Most probably this is an attack piece based on terrible sources, many not working, including a letter from Google drive(!). I have removed the lot. This is no way near BLP-compliant. Dr. K. 19:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Thanks Dr.K! It looks like the article has been page-protected due to the edit-warring, so hopefully that will help things calm down. Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you also Zaereth. I personally know two of the three editors involved and I would never second-guess their edits. The edit-warring was actually due to the foreign sources. Now all editors, including the third, agree with my reasons for removal. Please see that article talkpage. All the best. Dr. K. 19:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Rothenberg Ventures[edit]

Hello! I've posted an edit request on the Rothenberg Ventures talk page about what seems to be a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and plausibly BLP as well. More specifically, the company article's introduction includes highly charged negative content about its founder-CEO in just its second sentence. Full disclosure: I submitted my request on behalf of Rothenberg Ventures, which I've noted in the COI template at the top of the talk page. I'll have more requests for this article later, but for now, is a noticeboard watcher willing to assist with this concern? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The sentence does look very out of place where it is. The use of such adjectives seems rather cherry-picked, as the source also uses adjectives like "charming" and "convincing." This doesn't seem like info that should belong in the lede, but at the very least explained in a neutral manner in the article's body.
In examining the source itself, most of it looks like credible reporting. However, I'm always uncomfortable with general quotes from unspecified individuals. A quote should be traceable to someone. Likewise, while most of the reporting looks sound, I'm also uncomfortable by several insinuations it makes (ie: many people seemed to like him, but maybe they were just...). On a level of reliability, the source seems marginal at best.
Many of the other sources in the article look rather questionable at first glance, but I don't have time to go through them. The overall tone of the article is like lava and ice. On one had it seems overtly promotional while on the other rather scathing, so I'm sure there are multiple issues that need to be addressed on levels that I don't have time to get into right now. Zaereth (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, Zaereth. Whatever the merits of the reporting, do you agree they are not appropriate for the first paragraph of the lead section? I will plan to offer a proposal for a better introduction, but since this seems highly questionable per BLP, it struck me as reasonable to ask just to remove this—not just because it's so negative, but because it's not really about the company. I won't edit the article directly, because of my COI. Are you willing to remove just this extended clause, pending the writing of a better intro? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I do agree 1.) because it doesn't have any context and 2.) because it only reflects a handful of opinions rather than giving the balance provided by the source. The lede should be a summary of the article's body, not a place to voice opinions, so anything like this just sticks out like a sore thumb. One of my biggest concerns is that most of the article is not about the company, but reads like a BLP in disguise, so I wanted to get some input from others before just removing it myself. (I guess I'm just an overly cautious person. Comes from living so dangerously for so long.) Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed it per BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:Lede, suggesting that anyone who wants to restore it should do so neutrally, with the same context and balance afforded by the source itself, within the body of the article. Then summarize the facts in the lede without all the opinions and colorful adjectives. Zaereth (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with all of your reasoning, in particular the "BLP in disguise" comment. If you look at the edit history, the article largely seems to be the product of a few different SPAs, i.e. large additions made by accounts with no other editing history. Ultimately I'd like to propose a complete revision to the page; in the short term, I'll focus on the introduction and Controversies. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections[edit]

Not a BLP issue, as noted multiple times. Please take it to a different forum S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The following BLP material was deleted today:


The edit is here, and the edit summary said "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." This article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and 1RR, in addition to BLP. There is a talk page discussion about it here. Basically, the article mentions the word "collusion" repeatedly (20 times as of right now), Feinstein is the senior Democrat on the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee who has been briefed as much as anyone in Congress, and her comments have repeatedly appeared on CNN and elsewhere. So this strikes me as a blatantly absurd edit summary, and likewise for the edit itself. As usual, Wikipedia has a liberal slant, and editors are busily trying to apply that slant to this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree here with admin MelanieN, who said: "Basically she is just saying exactly what everyone else is saying: "We just don't know yet." She just said it in a way that conservative media chose to highlight. For that reason I don't see any reason to include her comments in the article.". That is the most cogent analysis so far amid all the fracas. Sagecandor (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for quoting me, Sagecandor, but please include the rest of what I said, for context: If the article included lots of quotes from people who think there IS evidence of collusion, then it would be appropriate to include Feinstein saying that she has not yet seen any. But as I look at the article, or at least the section on Senate committees where that was added, I don't find any quotes from anyone stating that there IS evidence of collusion. Also it should be noted that I am WP:INVOLVED at that article and so I function there as a regular editor, not an admin. Finally, I don't see any BLP issue here so I am unclear why Anythingyouwant chose to bring their issue to this board. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah no problem, MelanieN, your whole quote makes sense. I agree this venue post, combined by the revealing POV comment As usual, Wikipedia has a liberal slant, and editors are busily trying to apply that slant to this article above by Anythingyouwant seems like WP:FORUMSHOP. Sagecandor (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The article involves living people, and suggests that living people may be involved in crimes (e.g. treason); any violation of WP:NPOV in this regard is a blatant violation of WP:BLP, obviously. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Your comment about "liberal slant" betrays you. Sagecandor (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I confess to being an unslanted Wikipedia editor. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pardon me, but why did you bring this to WP:BLPN and why have you called my edit summary as "blatantly absurd"? I quoted Jimmy Wales advice which is part of WP:NPOV policy. The Feinstein sound bite was not extensively covered, except in notoriously questionable sources like Breitbart, Newsmax, Washington Times, NewsBusters, Redstate, and The Sean Hannity Show. I have laid out my arguments in the appropriate place (the article talk page), including pointing out that both sides of the collusion theme are already well-represented in the article. Several editors have agreed with me that this material does not improve the article.
I don't particularly appreciate the not-so subtle accusation that I was trying to apply a liberal slant to the article. That kind of disparagement doesn't resolve the content dispute.- MrX 16:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
At the end of the day, a serious dose of WP:RECENTISM needs to be applied. The day-by-day investigation with dozens of claims and accusations flying about is not encyclopedic; we are not a newspaper, and there is no deadline to get it right. That applies to the diff statement but as well as to much of the rest of that article. That will help resolve much of the BLP (and NPOV, and other content-related policies) issues that it seems to be having. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Masem. what will be the most notable parts in 100 years? Sagecandor (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This particular edit is not a BLP issue, and I don't see how this is imposing a liberal slant. Just because it involves quotes from a living person does not make it a BLP dispute, but a weighting dispute of what should be included in the article. If anything the edit by MrX is a more cautious presentation of the claimed BLP justification above even if you think that this involves the BLP policy. Regular discussion on the article talk is what is needed. No need to bring to to BLPN. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, Feinstein is not the living person at issue here under BLP; people under investigation or suspicion or interest with regard to criminal activity are. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Its not actually entirely clear to me what your BLP complaint is, and I don't see BLP mentioned anywhere in the talk page discussion. Again, if anything removing the comments is more cautious even if this is a BLP issue, which I still do not see it as. It is a question of weighting coverage, of which I have no opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The second sentence of WP:BLP explicitly requires adherence to WP:NPOV. Adding 20 explicit mentions of "collusion" plus plenty of other implicit mentions, while excluding recent statements in May 2017 that there is no evidence, is blatantly not NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
How is this a BLP issue? The quote removed mentions no names that are under investigation at all and neither does the section that it is in. This seems like a regular NPOV issue involving weighting to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
You really think that this BLP explicitly says "collusion" twenty (20) times but never hints about who may have colluded? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
So you're telling us it is not a BLP issue wrt Sen. Feinstein but it is a BLP issue regarding NeverHintsWho? That's not BLP. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, so the article mentions the word "collusion" 20 times. But it does not say, anywhere, "there is evidence that (named living person) colluded." So it's not a BLP issue. It does not even say, anywhere, that "there is evidence that associates of Trump colluded." All it says is that the possibility of collusion is under investigation. It's not a balance issue, because nobody has claimed they HAVE seen evidence of collusion. So why is it so desperately important (Very very very obviously it should be included. … Feinstein ought to be in the lead sentence, and you want to wipe her out of the article. Give me a break. ----Anythingyouwant) to put in a statement by somebody saying she hasn't (yet) seen such evidence? I agree with Fyddlestix, below, that we should go away and stop bothering these people who have REAL BLP issues to deal with.--MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue. Why are we even discussing it here? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2017 (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.

Spamming alt-right template to BLP pages[edit]

PerfectlyIrrational recently came off a block for edit-warring by admin El C. [6]

Now the user is spamming links to alt-right template on WP:BLP pages.

Now, I'm no fan of the alt-right, but this is a violation of WP:BLP, especially in this spamming fashion.

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Sagecandor (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The individuals were part of the alt-right template but didn't have it in their respective articles, so I added them according to guidelines. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
User was also changing on multiple pages to "expanded all" format so the template over dominates the entire BLP page as undue weight. Sagecandor (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Brittany Pettibone and "Reception" section ?[edit]

[13] [14] [15]

I'm not a fan of the views propounded by this living person, but I don't know about this creating a whole "Reception" section.

Do WP:BLP pages generally have "Reception" sections purely created to attack this person?

Can that instead be trimmed and then worked into the article body text instead? Sagecandor (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

People section at alt-right sidebar[edit]

I'm not a fan of the alt-right views, but I am concerned about WP:BLP and sourcing related to living people.

Is it appropriate according to WP:BLP and WP:V to have a "People" section at Template:Alt-right sidebar ?

Can we remove it ?

This seems like a way to have undue weight, especially in the "expanded all" setting when it takes up most of the article and pushes the body text to the side.

Can we leave this template to just have content topics and not "People" articles ? Sagecandor (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The "People" section will always by its template nature be unsourced in the template. This info is better instead for a "List" page, that can have inline cites. Sagecandor (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • If someone is confirmed as a neo-Nazi, I suppose the neo-Nazi sidebar is allowed... Drmies (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hassan Rouhani 3[edit]

Hassan Rouhani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) regarding text in section Hassan Rouhani#Personal life removed here by IP and later restored regarding Rouhani's son's death. See prior discussions Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive180#Hassan Rouhani, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive184#Hassan Rouhani 2, and Talk:Hassan Rouhani#Son's suicide claims. It looks to me like gossip that got slipped in and now being defended as the status quo. See the comment I made at Talk:Hassan Rouhani#private life. Can someone find out how this information got in the article and if it should be in there? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Marcus Hutchins[edit]

So, this guy does one newsworthy thing once, and then is doxxed by several newspapers, putting his safety at risk. And now some editors are insisting on keeping the article on him, rather than simply deleting it or redirecting it to the article on the underlying event. For shame. That is almost as disgusting than the behaviour of the newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)