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



Erroneous birth year of 1986 CONTINUOUSLY inserted. CONTINUOUS deletion of IMDB citing.

Correct birth year is 1984. [1]


BillieReed (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

IMDB says 1984, but The Economic Times says she was 27 years old in 2013.[2] IMDB is often considered an unacceptable source although there is no clear consensus. Search WP:RSN and you will find dozens of discussions. The Economic Times on the other hand is a reliable source. So I would not accept the 1984 date without better sourcing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


Thomas Woods[edit]

Thomas Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stubb05 is again removing content with multiple reliable primary and secondary sources from the article. In these last days there was a discussion in the talk page, and the edits on the article were blocked, waiting for constructive suggestions and proposals from that particular user, and others who opposed my edits. No constuctive suggestion was made on the talk page, except for one source, which I removed. I re-added the sourced content again, after waiting 2-3 days. The user mentioned above is removing it again without giving specific reasons for removing entire paragraphs with reliable sources.

This is the content I'm trying to add with the respective sources:

My edits

intended as part of the first section of the article[edit]

Woods was a co-founder and member of pro-secession neo-confederate League of the South[1][2][3][4] and he wrote different articles for the Southern Patriot (the official magazine of the LoS).[5][6] Woods has also contributed articles for the Chronicles (publication of the Rockford Institute)[7][8] and the Southern Partisan[9][10][11] called by the SPLC "arguably the most important neo-Confederate periodical".[12]




In an essay for the Southern Patriot (the League of the South's journal) Woods characterizes nineteenth-century abolitionists as "utterly reprehensible agitators who put metaphysical abstractions ahead of prudence, charity, and rationality".[6][13]

Bill of Rights[edit]

In an article for the Southern Partisan magazine in 1997 Woods writes: "The Bill of Rights, moreover, erroneously invoked by modern Civil Libertarians, was never intended to protect individuals from the state governments. Jefferson is far from alone in insisting that only the federal government is restricted from regulating the press, church-state relations, and so forth. The states may do as they wish in these areas."[14]

Jake Jacobs, a conservative author and historian critical of his view writes: "Dr. Woods a passionate defender of States' Rights and Secession ironically treats States' Rights as if it were an object of religious veneration-a form of Southern state worship that is bizarre and creepy and in the end not a true representation of classic consistent libertarianism but a discombobulated cacophony of orchestrated academic chicanery that under the guise of limited government advances the tyranny of The STATE over the glory of liberty from Government control".[15]


  1. ^ "About Thomas E Woods". 2003-07-16. Retrieved 2016-09-14. 
  2. ^ Young, Cathy (February 21, 2005). "Last of the Confederates". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2016-09-14. 
  3. ^ Young, Cathy (2005-06-01). "Behind the Jeffersonian Veneer". Reason. Retrieved 2016-09-14. 
  4. ^ Muller, Eric L. (2005-02-02). "A Bigot's Guide to American History". AlterNet. Retrieved 2016-09-14. 
  5. ^ Woods, Thomas (1995). "Copperheads". Southern Patriot. 2 No. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 1995): Page 3–5. 
  6. ^ a b Woods, Thomas (1995). "The Abolitionists". Southern Patriot. 2 No. 5 (Sept. - Oct. 1995): Page 36–37. 
  7. ^ Woods, Thomas (1996). "Battling Cyberhate". Chronicles. 20 No. 5 (May 1996): Page 49. 
  8. ^ Woods, Thomas (2003). "Book review of "God and the World" by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger". Chronicles. 27 No. 5 (May 2003): page 28–30. 
  9. ^ Woods, Thomas (1997). "Christendom's Last Stand". Southern Partisan. 17 (2nd Quarter 1997): Page 26–29. 
  10. ^ Woods, Thomas (2001). "Sitting Amidst The Ruins: The South Versus the Enlightenment." (Cover Article)". Southern Partisan (2nd Quarter 2001): Page 16. 
  11. ^ Woods, Thomas (2002). "Book review of "Revolt from the Heartland" by Joseph Scotchie". Southern Partisan (Sept. - Oct. 2002): Page 31–34. 
  12. ^ Hague, Euan. "Essay: The Neo-Confederate Movement". Southern Poverty Law Center. Archived from the original on 2015-07-31. Arguably the most important neo-Confederate periodical, Southern Partisan began publication in 1979 and was established by two men who subsequently became leading neo-Confederates, Clyde Wilson and Thomas Fleming. 
  13. ^ Muller, Eric (January 30, 2005). "Thomas Woods' Southern Comfort". American Constitution Society. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. It would include Dr. Woods' insistence that nineteenth century slavery abolitionists were "not noble crusaders whose one flaw was a tendency toward extremism, but utterly reprehensible agitators who put metaphysical abstractions ahead of prudence, charity, and rationality." It would include Dr. Woods' endorsement (in an essay appealingly entitled "Christendom's Last Stand") of the view that whereas those who sought the abolition of slavery were "atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, [and] jacobins, those who owned slaves were "friends of order and regulated freedom." 
  14. ^ Thomas, Woods (1997). "Christendom's Last Stand". Southern Partisan. 17 (2nd Quarter 1997): Page 26–29. 
  15. ^ Jacobs, Jake (December 5, 2014). "Thomas Woods' 1861 Secessionist-Libertarianism": A defense of a slave-civilization gone with the wind!". Renew America. Retrieved 2016-09-14.  C1 control character in |title= at position 20 (help)

--GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Users who might be interested: @Dsprc:, @Srich32977: , @SPECIFICO: , @The Four Deuces: . --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This does not appear to involve any interpretation of WP:BLP policy as such, and belongs nly on the article talk page unless such a policy argument arises otherwise. I commend you to read WP:CONSENSUS in the meantime. Collect (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thnx for the response. A user opened a discussion in the talk page because two users opposed one source. I removed the source from the contet I was adding. 2-3 days passed and no other proposal and/or suggestion was made. What does that mean? Can I re-add the sourced content, whithout being reverted from a user who doesnt want secondary sources displayed in that article? --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Collect: The user mentioned above contends that those sources I'm using are non RS. This is the policy--GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC) issue.
The noticeboard for actual discussions about sources is WP:RS/N. I note that one must carefully separate a person's actual current views from his discussions of views held in the past being presented in an essay - though I have not read enough of the journal to opine on this. I read enough of the Jacobs article/diatribe to suggest that it is not a reliable source for anything more than Mr. Jacobs' personal opinions about Woods, for example. Checking further, opinion sources such as AlterNet are not usable for claims of fact made in opinion columns either. Please be careful in using opinion sources. Collect (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Edward J. Zajac[edit]

Someone take a look at Edward J. Zajac. ThomasNDT blanked the page and tried to explain a privacy violation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward J. Zajac. I am not sure if page protection, editor blocking or a speedy deletion is appropriate. I have restored the content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Might be worth opening up another AfD? Meatsgains (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Berzin (scholar)[edit]

A copyright violation notice was recently put on this WP article Alexander_Berzin_(scholar) and nearly all of the text deleted since it was allegedly largely based on the subject's own professional website's biography. The subject has since added the following notice to the foot of his website's biography:

"The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

This may be viewed here:

The copyright violation allegation is thus invalidated and the issue resolved. The pending deletion notice may therefore please be removed urgently since it may be prejudicing the subject's professional activities.

The deleted text may also please be reinstated for further improvement and being made to read less like an advertisement, as has also been alleged. Many thanks. MacPraughan (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

since it was allegedly largely based on the subject's own professional website's biography Nothing "allegedly" at all. The article was copied. I'm very concerned that basic facts regarding article content cannot be agreed upon.
Because WP:CP has a backlog and the copyright entry hasn't appeared there yet, I contacted an admin who works on the backlog: User_talk:Diannaa#WP:CP_backlogged_problem_-_entry_I.27d_like_to_get_addressed. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remind me again, why would we reinstate an autobiography? Guy (Help!) 16:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

UK Rapper Sway[edit]

UK Rapper sway wiki page keeps getting deleted after i've uploaded it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessien23 (talkcontribs) 11:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe you want Sway (musician) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. But I'm a business partner and family member and I have been editing his wiki for the past week or so now and a lot has been deleted. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessien23 (talkcontribs) 12:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

From taking a quick look it was removed because it was unsourced. Wikipedia requires information to have a reference to a reliable source. (see WP:V and WP:RS) the best advice I can give is look at the info you want to include and find a reliable source that can be used to reference it. For example - details about his background could be sourced to an interview in a music magazine. Otherwise unsourced information will generally be removed straight away in a biography of a living person. This is not specific to Sway, unsourced information is generally removed very quickly from biographies. Another option is posting the material you want to include on the talkpage and asking for help to see what can be used/sourced from experienced editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, That makes sense. Thank you. How can I go back to edit the page as it says its semi protected and only registered users can use it, as I am a registered user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessien23 (talkcontribs) 12:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Use this link to view your edit and request specific additions on the talk page here. Meatsgains (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Need to be corrected[edit]

The title of the article Sepehr salimi should be corrected to Sepehr Salimi Sepehr salimi — Preceding unsigned comment added by حامد صوفی (talkcontribs) 21:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Salix alba (talk): 22:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Adore delano[edit]

Adore Delano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article on Adore Delano repeatedly switches between gender pronouns "He/him" and "she/her". Inconsistency here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:a82:3d00:2106:3fc8:5c7f:92dd (talkcontribs)

Seems similar to Conchita Wurst - masculine pronouns when referring to the actor and feminine ones when referring to the character. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Kartika Affandi-Koberl[edit]

In the section for Artistic Career, it was stated that Kartika never received formal art education. According to this website, it is untrue. She did receive formal education in Indonesia and Rome Italy. Kartika Affandi was born on November, 27th, 1934 in Jakarta. She is Affandi’s daughter from his first wife, Maryati. Her educational journey started from Taman Dewasa in Taman Siswa Jakarta, then she studied art at the University of Tagore Shantiniketan India. She also learnt about sculpting at the Polytechnic School of Art London. In 1952, Saptohoedojo married her and they have eight children. In 1957, she joined a painting exhibition with other woman painters in Yogyakarta for the first time. In 1980 she went to Vienna, Austria to study at the Academy of Fine Arts majoring in Mechanical Preservation and Restoration of art objects, then she continued studying at ICCROM (International Center of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property) in Rome Italy. Nowadays, Kartika’s paintings and sculptures are also exhibited in Affandi Museum, in the third Gallery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirley.theresia (talkcontribs) 01:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying the information above is false but the source you provided does not seem reliable. Rather than keeping the claim that she has never received an education on the page, I will remove until an RS can verify. Meatsgains (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Alicia Machado[edit]

Alicia Machado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should the article concerning Alicia Machado mention her appearance in court accused of being an accomplice in an attempted murder, and the allegation that she threatened to kill a judge? (RS are available) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talkcontribs) 03:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@NPalgan2:. Of course not, because she was neither indicted nor convicted. Because she was mentioned in the Trump/Clinton debate last night, this article has been subjected to a wave of very ugly BLP violations and at least one IP editor has been blocked. I hope that many experienced editors will keep an eye on this article to prevent it from being transformed into a hit piece. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cullen328: "WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN." This is not "tabloid gossip". Machado was a well known Latin American actress and celebrity and (in the words of the LATimes) has been "publicly campaigning" for months in the US election. Thus the murder trial and the judge claiming on national television that she threatened to kill him are notable and part of a balanced article that mentions the fact that the charges were dismissed. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Alicia Machado was recently in the news, because Hillary Clinton said she told her that Donald Trump had called her "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeper," which she says caused her (Muchado) to develop anorexia and bulimia. Clinton congratulated Muchado when she became a U.S. citizen this year and recently arranged for a press conference for her. Machado was Miss Universe and had a career as an actor. There are however several controversial items in her background: as a reality show contestant she engaged in sexual intercourse while being filmed, and prosecutors alleged she had a child by a Mexican drug cartel lord, assisted in a murder and threatened to kill a judge. She denies these allegations and they have not been proven in court. All of these stories have been covered in mainstream media. Are we allowed to mention them, or does BLP protect her? TFD (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:. Our BLP policy protects every living person without exception. We do not include tabloid gossip, thinly sourced and unsubstantiated allegations, politically motivated attacks or gross violations of personal privacy. There are no exceptions. None whatsoever. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
TFD, this is EXACTLY the kind of crap that BLP is suppose to prevent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of BLP is to prevent unsourced or poorly sourced information. All the information provided is well sourced, mostly having been reported by news wires such as AP. Wikipedia is not a tabloid means "details about an individual that have not been published in the mainstream media and are not widely known." This is not "tabloid gossip" but information has been published in mainstream media. So the test is, are the allegations widely reported in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually unsourced or poorly sourced information needs to be removed from ANY article. That's just WP:RS. BLP is stronger. And yeah, this is tabloid gossip.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You keep saying that but are misrepresenting the policies and guidelines. Reliable sources not you determine what to print. IF you think AP and other mainstream sources are tabloid gossip, what news sources do you recommend. TFD (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
If accusations have been reported in reliable sources, and she has denied them, then the accusations cannot be included in a BLP without also including her denial. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out....If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
But whether to include her denial is not the point at issue - her denial was already included (I believe) or could easily be added. The discussion here seems relevant. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, it is the primary point. If she denied the charges and we omitted the denial, then removal of the entire material is justified, until such time as the denial is included.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
So you agree that the all the information should be provided - the allegations by the judge and prosecutors and her denials. TFD (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why not, as long as there are multiple reliable sources reporting the allegation, and we include that she was not prosecuted or convicted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, at the moment I don't agree, so hopefully this will be discussed on the talk page first along with the relevant sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You don't agree with what? That she denied the accusation? That we should follow the portion of BLP policy that I quoted? That the info can be included if there's adequate sourcing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
For myself, that there's adequate sourcing to include any of it. The article has other BLP problems as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought I was clear. I don't agree that all the information should be provided until the sources are presented for discussion. Of course that means developing consensus for the sources and the added material. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I already discovered two sources that are not adequate for the material covered. Two gossip magazine sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I mean this is already in the article - but it is in lock down so I can't remove the material or the sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, it has been reported in the Daily Mail,[1] the Inquisitr, CNN,[2] the Daily Beast,[3] and the LA Times,[4] The story was carried in The Economist[5] and Associated Press[6] (reprinted in the Daily Mail in 2016) in 2008.[7] Those are just the first sources I found on Google news search. If you want to suppress the story, you are too late. TFD (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Which of those sources provides a sober historical overview of the entire case instead of tossing out some sensationalistic unsubstantiated claims that were never proven? Why is it that editors who favor inclusion have no interest in summarizing her denial? This incident happened in the 1990s. We should rely neither on breaking news stories published back then, nor on sensationalistic stories published in the last 24 hours. We need thoughtful, comprehensive sources published months or years after the original incident, soberly placing the matter in context. Do such sources exist? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, all I am seeing is these accusations sandwiched in between stories about Trump, Clinton, gaining weight, American citizenship, and so on. None of these have in-depth coverage of this - and it seems they are all repeating the same two or three factoids. I can't see how these support that type of highly charged material. I think this would be going into wp:undue territory (or wp:weight). All we are left with is repeating sensationalist or titillating claims. And anything negative we write impacts the person we write about. Just look at her strong feelings about Trump's remarks about her weight, and the press conference with cameras rolling that he held while she was working out.
In an Anderson Cooper interview (CNN video), she says that she was only 19 and her self esteem dropped to the floor. We would really need better coverage in sources to place unproven accusations in a Wikipedia article. Maybe it's best to keep in mind, most of our articles are in the first ten listings on any Google search. What we write has that kind of impact on another person's life. And believe it or not there are possible liability issues for WMF - please see: Outside view by New York Brad ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The facts around this incident are just so shaky. If you follow it back to the original news report of the alleged death threat, it's not even clear whether the alleged victim of the relevant murder case was even dead. As for the coverage by mainstream media, it's just the same blurb repeated over and over about the accusations - none of these many sources seem to have actually done any independent reporting, they are just repeating each other. So in fact, I would consider the coverage to be totally insignificant from an NPOV perspective, which combined with BLP makes it completely inappropriate for inclusion, even if we also added Machado's rebuttal. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The facts are not shaky. Reuters, AP, The Economist, El Tiempo, all agree on the claims made against Machado, her denial, and that the shooting victim survived with brain damage. They do not repeat the same blurb, if they add new details as the events happened chronologically throughout Jan/Feb 1998. She was asked on CNN about the claims today, and only responded that she was 'no saint girl'. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Not on the sources that are listed here. Please present them. Checking all that's listed here, only the Economist goes into any detail. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Scroll down for my suggested, sourced version. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Has any news source gone to the bother of reporting how this got resolved? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
This story is really outdated - it happened 18 years ago and no new information has surfaced. This doesn't seem to be useful for a biography article on a living or dead person. There is nothing there - just innuendo and accusations. I think it is a big so-what, who cares, and what difference could it possibly make. I agree with Someguy1221 - the facts are so shaky and the current sources are an echo chamber, and the coverage is not significant anyway. It is almost passing mention - a few sentences inside a much larger topic or subject. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the incident is worth a mention, but I think we need to be careful in how it is presented. I do think there are enough reliable sources now to be able to put together a more straightforward, yet brief, paragraph that includes the incident, Machado's alleged involvement, and what Machado said about the matter. As written previously, the section over emphasized statements from a prosecutor and a judge. Knope7 (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Given how the attempted homicide and death threat cases are no longer current events, I would be uncomfortable including them at all without a source that states how these matters were concluded. If everything was later dismissed, then by not including that we are committing a rather large BLP violation by omission. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
May we assume that the discussion about her weight should also not be included, since it isn't a current event either? If you argue for its inclusion because it came up during the Presidential campaign, you'd have to argue for inclusion of these accusations of serious crimes as that came up during the Presidential campaign as well. 2601:602:9802:99B2:3091:69:7ADE:127B (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you missed the point, or I didn't explain it right. These accusations happened 18 years ago, and so we can assume the issue is resolved or has at least been updated since then. Accusations to this level don't just vanish into the aether, there is some conclusion to them at some point in time (or maybe not, do criminal accusations regularly vanish into the aether in Venezuela?). Actual arrests were involved, so something must have come of this. If the attempted murder case were a current event, then there would be no expectation for a firm conclusion, and we might conclude we have presented all relevant facts. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
She was never charged, so as to Machado that's the resolution. Like I said, I think that there are sufficient reliable sources that a brief, relevant summary can be written. I would see how respected news sources are summarizing the incident now. Knope7 (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

House intelligence report on Edward Snowden[edit]

I'm writing to solicit feedback on these 4 edits to Edward Snowden by Brian Dell. Brian is quoting the following source and treating it as reliable:

However, this source does not appear reliable to me in any way, and citing it approvingly or giving it equal validity as reliable sources, effectively smearing Snowden, appears to be a gross BLP violation. The source has been harshly criticized, most notably by Washington Post national security journalist Barton Gellman who called it "aggressively dishonest" and "verifiably false" and pretty much dismantled it piece by piece, at least in my view. The dispute between the House intelligence committee and Gellman has been covered by U.S. News & World Report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I will make it clear from the get go here that I have no problem at all with presenting Gellman's view and thus both sides of the argument. What I have a problem with is suppressing one side entirely like you insist upon, Doc. I am more than happy to point out false statements Gellman has made about Snowden and provide the evidence for that. But let's just take the first item at issue here for a starter, which concerns Snowden's claim that he broke both legs in a training accident. The House intel committee report says that isn't true. The committee surely must have tried to fact check the accident claim before saying it's false. They fact checked it and then decided to lie after discovering Snowden's claim was true? All 23 Committee members, Republican and Dem Congressmen, then proceeding to sign their name to this lie? That's a rather significant conspiracy, is it not? But even before we get there, when Gelman steps into the Snowden vs the Committee explanation for the reason he was discharged, what is Gelman's basis for saying the Committee statement is "verifiably false? Why, it's that the Committee says "shin splits" while the Army paperwork Gelman has seen apparently happens to also mention "bilateral tibial stress fractures". Now what do medical professionals say about this difference? "Medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) [is] commonly known as “shin splints"... MTSS and tibial stress fractures may be considered on a continuum of bone–stress reactions...." So where the Committee says Snowden washed out because of the repetitive stress to his legs that training posed and uses the vernacular term "shin splits", Gelman steps in to call the Committee liars because the shin splits happened to to in fact be a severe form of shin splits. This somehow vindicates Snowden's broke-legs-in-an-accident claim? I invite others to comment on whether the paperwork Gelman cites in fact proves Snowden's narrative is accurate or actually proves that the Committee's account of Snowden's discharge is closer to the truth than Snowden's.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Galeotti and Klintsevich on Edward Snowden[edit]

I'm writing to solicit feedback on this edit to Edward Snowden by Brian Dell. Brian is quoting statements made during the following NPR interview:

In the interview, Mark Galeotti, a Russian security expert, said that Snowden "was bought and paid for," and Frants Klintsevich, a Russian politician, said he thought that "Snowden did share intelligence" with Russian authority. These allegations were never fact checked by NPR or anyone else. In my view these unsupported allegations should not be repeated per WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPCRIME. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

NPR is notorious for publishing spurious material in your view? The byline here is that of Mary Louise Kelly. She's not a legit journo? You've reviewed her work and then came to the definitive conclusion that it was not up to your fact checking standards, did you? You're stepping up to the plate to block material that NPR's editor failed to? How about this for compromise: the NPR cite stays in but you can do your level best to try to smear her reporting by having a mention of it immediately followed by the views of partisan critics like you did for the Sunday Times report. Speaking of which, are we going to get a repeat of the Sunday Times antics here? Last year you edit warred to suppress the Times story claiming BLP violation and out of 8 editors besides us who give us an indication of what they thought about its inclusion you got support from just one of them for your BLP violation claim. It eventually took admin intervention to shut down your edit warring and force you to leave a mention of the Sunday Times report (a report independently backed up by the BBC, by the way) in this particular bio. By the way, WP:BLPCRIME is supposed to apply when WP:PUBLICFIGURE does not so you should pick one of those two instead of trying to run with both.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Lee Man-hee[edit]

Came across this on RC. A couple of IPs seem very interested in the article. I reverted at first because it seemed like drive-by content removal, but I honestly know nothing about the subject, so someone more familiar might want to take a look. TimothyJosephWood 13:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Can wounded be named if they speak to the press[edit]

At Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, Unnecessary thread here, an objection is being made to the inclusion of testimony about, or from the survivors and wounded in terror incidents. The testimony comes from interviews given to a reliable newspaper regarding that event. The editor in question cites WP:BLP. It is not unusual for such data to be included on articles dealing with Jewish victims, without WP:BLP being invoked. It is cited as a reason why Palestinian survivors and wounded shouldn't be mentioned, as 'insignificant',

Expert neutral input on the issue would be appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It feels a bit wrong to me per WP:BLPNAME, but I don't think it's a BLP violation per se. Regardless of context, I think it would be the best practice to describe the victims without proper names where possible. But I am wrong about a great deal. Dumuzid (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Its not a 'violation' as such, the key parts of BLPNAME bolded: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context". So has it been widely disseminate yes/no, and by removing it does the article suffer in any real form? "Dave McDaverson spoke to the BBC" vs "A victim of the bombing spoke to the BBC" etc. Most times having their name adds nothing so the presumption of privacy is foremost. In some cases the persons identity may be relevant - it would depend on context. this would seem to be unnecessary. Although since the victims are dead since 1994, I wouldnt even say this is a BLP issue. The surviving family members should not be named ("So and so's wife/son/etc spoke to blah") should suffice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The editors deleting material are not just removing the names -- they're removing the details about victims and their injuries. The victims could be described without their names -- I don't object to that, though I also don't mind inclusion -- but wholesale removal isn't justified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I just took a closer look, I have no problem with the list of victims name being in - if thats the convention for Israeli and Palestinian atrocity articles (it seems ghoulish tbh), but the surviving victims should definitely have their names removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree, Mr. Does Duty End. If I had the right magic wand, I would make the lists of proper names no longer a feature of these articles. Dumuzid (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hang on. Are you saying policy requires that a person who identifies himself, and speaks to the mainstream media for an article, cannot be named? Where is it written that a person who gives his consent to an interview cannot be named in Wikipedia articles concerning the event s/he was involved in? Apply that reading and I can think only that there is a massive abuse I n thousands of articles that is not being fixed (except for the Palestinians) Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the other commenters here are all in the same ballpark, but I'll only speak for myself. I think they can be named, I'm just not sure it's optimal. Dumuzid (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
As per Dumuzid. My first post says I dont think it is strictly a violation. BLPNAME is best practice in this regard and strongly says we should not name non-notable people unless their name has been widely disseminated and adds to the context in some way. The surviving victims injuries can all be easily described without their names. Even the 8 year old who survived because his father died sheltering him can easily be written in prose without naming him directly. Its not necessary, so the BLP advises us we should not do it. If you want to line up more articles where this would take affect, feel free. Unless the context changes significantly I doubt my/our opinions will. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree with the above. Unfortunately, Nishidani is misstating my position. --Wiking (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's look at this in practice. You are all advising the following rewrite:
Lions' Gate stabbings under Victims

The dead were Aharon Benita, 21, and Nehemia Lavie, 41, who attempted to come to the couple's rescue.Adele BanitaHis wife and her small son were injured, AdeleShe was wounded seriously with stab wounds. Visiting Mrs. Benita her in hospital along with Minister of Public Security Gilad Erdan, etc Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Exactly. --Wiking (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's a bit clunky, but it's more what I would trend toward personally. I would actually remove the entire "victims" section there as redundant. Also, the article should settle on a transliteration of Aharon/Aaron. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said below, several hundred wiki articles have a victim list. I've always been against that, preferring narrative, but I doubt one could ever get consensus for banning them. If that does come about, it would find no objection from me-Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought you would understand that 'not notable' in WP context does not mean 'insignificant'; I certainly did not mean to belittle innocent people's suffering. --Wiking (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Otherwise non-notable victims' names (whether living or dead, and if named/interviewed by the press) is not a strict BLP issue (though privacy issues are to be kept in mind), but more an issue that runs against the level of detail and also the concept of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. If these people aren't notable and their name only needed to be mentioned once, it becomes noise in the rest of the article, so best to omit and overall summarize. However, if it were the case that a victim had a role in trying to end the crisis, it should be kept but keeping the name as part of the narrative explaining the events, and not called out separately in describing the wounded/fatalities. (eg if in the event "John Smith had been seen wrestling with the attacker but was then fatally stabbed...", then describing the aftermath "There were four deaths, including Smith.") --MASEM (t) 18:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree but I can name a hundred articles just in the I/P area where victims' names are listed. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is breached in the creation of these articles every other week, but the practice at AfDs is generally to keep them. I've always argued for deletion but this place works by consensus, and that rarely is compatible with a strict reading of the rules.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It wouldnt surprise me in the least there are hundreds of articles with similar lists. If you brought them here you would likely get the same response. Unless there is something specifically contextual (see Masem's good example of this) that requires them, living people should be left out per BLPNAME (but it is not prohibited to include them), and dead ones are not a BLP issue (but may be an undue one). I suspect you would get a different answer on I/P talk pages, however the people who respond here are less invested in the area and generally more concerned with the BLP than political conflicts. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity doctor[edit]

This article mostly deals with living people. On one hand most of them are bad people who don't deserve respect. On the other the tone of the article seems a bit unprofessional for WP. As I mentioned on its talk page a lot of it is quoted from newspaper opinion pieces, with or without quotation marks. Again I am not suggested remove any of the criticisms, just make the language more professional and neutral.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems to be an enthusiastic editor with a bad ear for the English language. It will probably settle down over time.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sam Harris[edit]

The article on Sam Harris is rife with libelous claims. While including criticism that has been leveled against a controversial figure can certainly be appropriate, the criticism included consists nearly entirely of straw mans and is, by far, the main emphasis of page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylescoen12 (talkcontribs) 22:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I can see the single thing you objected to on the article, what are the others? We need specifics. Regarding that criticism you objected to, I agree that as currently presented it is unbalanced and presents a BLP issue. The critics are making inferences that Sam Harris supports the mass-murder of people of faith. If the actual complete context of his quote is far different, then it is unbalanced to only give the warped critical perspective. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone should advise Mylescoen12 that saying that the article is guilty of libel could be interpreted as violating WP:NLT: 'It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous," that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention'. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

References which contains subjects Home Address[edit]

Is there any guidance about a reference containing a possible home address of the subject. I was looking at the references to a British MP, and notices one of the external references had their home address. Should we remove such references, and if so should revisions with the link be deleted? --Salix alba (talk): 22:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If the home address is some manner of obvious public knowledge, there is no need to purge a link that contains it, though it should not be given directly on Wikipedia regardless. If the home address is non-public, or was only made public due to some kind of doxxing offence, then all effort should be made to avoid it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Here the address could be readily found by through searching official records. So I guess no need to purge. --Salix alba (talk): 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)