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:

Ariana Kelly[edit]

Yesterday the Washington Post publicized that Maryland House Delegate Ariana Kelly was arrested a couple of weeks ago after a domestic dispute with her ex-husband. An SPA insists on having this information in its own section with the section titled as "Controversy", as opposed to mentioning it in the Personal Section. Are there any WP:UNDUE issues with such a section heading? Victor Victoria (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversy sections are overused IMHO so I agree with your approach.--ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unless there is some long-term consequence to the incident, it should be left out entirely as the encyclopedia is not a news outlet. ScrpIronIV 14:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far. WP:NOTNEWS means that the incident is covered with one or two sentences as opposed to a complete article as in a newspaper. For one thing, it probably means the end of her political career, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
for a politician,I think it is well established here that anything relevant to general behavior is relevant to their career,because it is based on public trust. We wouldn't include this for almost any other profession. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The only question is whether it needs to be showcased in a section titled "Controversy" or can it be mentioned as part of their personal lives, as it was just a domestic dispute. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
We wouldn't include this for almost any other profession is a bit far afield from reality, as such information would be included for most any public figure, from athletes to musicians . I agree that the "Controversy" section is unnecessary and sensationalist, and have removed it. I also took the liberty of trimming some of the graphic detail of the event. I think stating what the charges were and a general descriptino of the act is sifficient; we're not TMZ, there's no need to go into lurid, exacting detail when the reader can get that from the source if so desired. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The WP:SPA is edit-warring over this. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Brown[edit]

Wikipedia Censorship Incident Report: The following factual information with news article reference in this article is repeated being censored by Jerry Brown supporters.

Jerry Brown went to Vatican city where he told the Catholic News service that the statue of Junipero Serra will stay at the California Capitol. Reference:

This material really isn't positive or negative, so cries of "censorship by supporters" ring hollow. It was removed from the article because it doesn't appear to be relevant to browns biography, nor is it even a notable event, there's only a smattering of local coverage out there about it. Tarc (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Routine axegrinding on a minor political flareup where the anon is even misinformed as to basic, noncontroversial facts. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that that info is currently in the article should it stay or br removed?-- (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I have it removed it, all good now. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Campus sexual assault[edit]

There has been ongoing edit warring over this passage (sources included):

Both Sulkowicz and Sclove's activism has illustrated the challenges of schools investigating sexual assault and balancing between due process and the expectations of the accusers. After being called a rapist by Sulkowicz and the press, the man Sulkowicz accused responded by pointing out he had been cleared by the police and the school. He also provided months of seemingly friendly communications between him and Sulkowicz between the alleged assault and the accusation.[1] Once the Brown student newspaper outed Sclove's alleged attacker, he and his lawyer responded that Sclove has increasingly embellished her story; going from feeling pressured to have sex without protest while intoxicated in her early accounts, [2] to stating she was twice choked and then forcibly raped in her later public statements.[3][4]

Here's the passage in context [5].

Part of the BLP argument may be due linking to a digital copy of a Title IX complaint around the Sclove example. There is another source not previously included in the passage above that speaks directly to the accused's position rather than linking to the lawsuit text [6]

So two questions. Is there any BLP issue here? And if there is, what would alleviate it?Mattnad (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no WP:BLP issue that I can see, provided that the Scribd document citation and any text supported by it are removed. I also suggest removing "cause[s] celebre" from the previous paragraph.- MrX 14:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure there is - scribd is not a realiable source, and I don't believe the daily beast is either, so both would have to be removed and , if possible, replaced with a reliable source. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all. So the scribd and related content (unless it can be sourced elsewhere) is a no go. User:KoshVorlon, what is it about the daily beast that makes it not a reliable source? It's listed as a news site and part of Newsweek, and it even won a webby award for news in 2013, and shares that with the NY Times. [7].Mattnad (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The Daily Beast is generally regarded as a reliable source.- MrX 01:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey all, just some context: there's been an extensive RfC on this content fairly recently, the RfC was formally closed with a decision not to include the edits because of a lack of community consensus. The primary concerns cited by other editors were:

  • That the tone and sourcing of the paragraph are not balanced or state judgement in Wikipedia's voice (WP:BLPSTYLE)
  • That several of the claims cite a legal document from an attorney involved in the case (WP:BLPPRIMARY)
  • That the individuals involved are primarily notable for a single event (WP:1E), and the level of detail is inappropriate for inclusion in this particular article

No apparent effort has been made to edit the paragraph to address these concerns, or to re-open that discussion of this material on the article talk page, or even to inform other editors that this issue was being brought to a noticeboard. This seems perilously close to WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Nblund (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it is, this noticeboard is for determining if something violates our BLP policy, and that question has been answered. It was also answered in the RfC from a few months ago. My comments should not be interpreted as support (or opposition) for the specific content in the article, which is best left to those editing the article.- MrX 19:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Laurence A. Rickels[edit]

Laurence A. Rickels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Nothing spectacular, just a longterm accretion of unsourced credits, long lists of non-notable publications, with likely COI issues. The subject is notable, but this has become a vanity resume. I'm hesitant to clean up for fear of throwing out significant as well as non-notable content, and can't easily discern the difference without sources. Assistance from wiser editors appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    I cleaned it up a little.- MrX 13:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Christopher J. Grisham[edit]

Christopher J. Grisham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You state in your article that First Sergeant Christopher J. Grisham was demoted from his rank of First Sergeant to Master Sergeant.

That is not true. Had he been demoted he would not have been allowed to retire as a First Sergeant. He went from First Sergeant to Master Sergeant (both are pay grade E-8) because he was no longer the senior E-8 in the unit.

Please correct your error as it may be construed to reflect libelously on First Sergeant Grisham's military career.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:53, July 24, 2015

The source says that Grisham himself says he was demoted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC) does not meet WP:RS for contentious claims about living persons. Meredith Jessup is listed on it as a "member" and the article is specifically labelled as a "blog."
In fact, Ms. Jessup writes " I’m sorry if my comments offended you. TheBlog is a place for opinion and satire, separate from the site’s news stories. If you’re looking for news, check out the front page; if you’re looking for conversation, click over to TheBlog. All are welcome! Thanks for your comments." In short not RS at all -- and stated to be not RS by the actual blog writer, who is not even paid AFAICT by TheBlaze, and is specifically not "fact-checked" by anyone.

Jerry Speziale[edit]

OK volunteers, I have a challenge for you. This is an enormous puff piece (well, it's a bit smaller now, but I got tired of cutting fluff) but the person is possibly notable, so I don't want to send it to AfD. What the article needs is a neutral editor (too many jubilant IP editors from New Jersey in the history) to rewrite, find sources, do it right. Note that there's no negative material in it now, though there was some a few years ago, and a quick perusal of the archives shows stuff like this (yeah, full-time pay for a part-time job: nice work!). Anyway, I removed a bunch of stuff, much of it the boss being given credit for everything, and some of it just obviously stupid, like an enormous section on him bringing a 9/11 flag from NY and speechifying over it. There may well be more useful stuff in the history, subsequently wiped clean by IP editors. And if there's nothing there, send it to AfD. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Willem Buiter and Heleen Mees[edit]

A WP:SPA is insisting on adding misleading information to these articles. They keep focusing on whether the sources are reliable. However, the central problem, putting aside whether the material belongs in both articles, is that the material the SPA asserts is not supported by the sources they use. I could reword it to hew to the sources, but I don't like the material, so I refuse to implicitly approve it. I can't keep reverting, so I leave it up to others to review.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hans Kung[edit]

An IP editor has been repeatedly adding contentious claims about Kung based on an interpretation of canon law without any reliable third party reference linking this to Kung. Despite being reverted a number of times the IP is ignoring this and as well as messages on his or her talk page. I would be grateful for administrators and others to keep an eye on the article. Thanks. Anglicanus (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Would someone please block this IP for persistent BLP violations. Enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Heleen Mees and Willem Buiter[edit]

Editor Atlantacity seems to wish to include details of ongoing civil proceedings in the two WP:BLP above. Per WP:BLPCRIME I would suggest that this is inappropriate at this time and the editor appears to have a WP:COI see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm for the background. Would welcome review from none involved editors. WCMemail 11:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It passes the threshold for being discussed in multiple reliable sources (NYPost. WT etc). While we try not to have ongoing news shoehorned into articles, that is (sadly) rarely a successful argument for not including content. WP:BLPCRIME is for accusations of criminal (illegal) acts. WP:COI is a guideline - not policy. Ongoing civil proceedings are not accusations of comitting a crime. The best argument for not including it would be WP:UNDUE - however that is a content dispute over NPOV, not a BLP issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Adam Leitman Bailey[edit]

Adam Leitman Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is largely advertising. It may well be that the subject of the article created it himself, or had his employees create it, for promotional purposes.

John Sewel, Baron Sewel[edit]

This is a request for semi-protection and watchers. This chap John Sewel, Baron Sewel has appeared in The Sun, a gossip rag, and now in the Daily Mail wikipedia's article on him being subject to BLP vios is being mentioned, this is a very live story. The article clearly needs semi-protecting immediately. The story, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Worded more carefully now - the resignation is properly covered, the sensationalism is not. Collect (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
And I have been accused of making up a false headline in edit summaries there - will someone kindly note that I followed the Telegraph page exactly - and the edit summaries are simply and purely ad hominem attacks on me personally. Collect (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Zakaria Botros[edit]

Page Talk:Zakaria Botros contains libellous claims regarding subject of article. (See edit [8]). (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The problematic material is about a film where the source (LAT) clearly states the person was not connected with the film. Removed. Collect (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
User "Omar Amross" is accusing the article subject of illegal/immoral activities, without providing any sources for that claim (in section "False Information and Evangelical Propaganda"). His comment should be revdeleted. (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


Should the members of Echosmith have their full names and dates of birth published on their Wikipedia page if there are not a substantial number of sources to corroborate them? I have already reverted material on this page twice in the last day, so I can not change this again due to WP:3RR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No and I've removed them with an explanatory note on the article talk page. Why someone thought song lyrics were usable as a source for a birth date eludes me.- MrX 14:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply - @MrX:, should the dates of birth not be removed from the templates within the "Early life" section of the Echosmith article? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think they should.- MrX 17:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Reply - @MrX:, I can not do so today per WP:3RR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
If the material is unsourced, its removal is usually exempted from 3RR. Don't take my word for it though. Read WP:3RRBLP.- MrX 19:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Reply - @MrX:, WP:3RRBLP says "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption", which is exactly what I am doing. The article NOW has both their ages as well as the month and day of birth, from which the year can easily be deduced. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks like someone has taken care of it.
BTW, there's no need to add Reply to your posts. The indenting makes is clear that they are replies.- MrX 22:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────First off, this discussion should not be here without a property notification on the subject's talk page. I only found it by reviewing one of the above editor's edit history. Secondly The birth dates have been in the article for almost a year and yet, in one day, FOUR different editors have found it necessary to remove it from the article WITHOUT attempting to find proper sources. The last one coming after a discussion has been started on the talk page and has not reached a consensus. Almost all BLP's on Wikipedia have the subjects DOB in the lead sentence, for example Jimmy Wales, Taylor Swift, Lindsey Stirling, etc., etc. At WP:DOB I read Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject.... note the first five words: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth... The action should be to find proper sources FIRST and then only delete if they are not verifiable. And in regards to the 3RR rule, my actions have been to basically undo vandalism by FOUR different editors. See WP:3RRNO number 4. MrX above claimed exemption under number 7, BEFORE opening this discussion here which appears to me to be a violation of the second sentence of that policy. The sources that have been added, namely the VH1 source and the twitter posts that are linked from the band's website are clearly valid sources per MrK's own statement on the talk page. Furthermore, the link to metrolyrics was not added by me and was in the article form some time. Nyth63 01:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom has yet again removed the information from the article which should not be done while the discussion is on-going. Nyth63 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The note your edit summary that and the four editors are probably on to something is nonsense. It's just as likely that all four of the editors are wrong. All the reasoning given so far regarding removing the dates of birth, would also apply to every BLP in wikipedia and you should therefore remove them all. The point is that if valid sources are given, then the dates can be included. I still have not seen a valid argument to remove the dates other than they were unsourced or poorly sourced and that has been addressed, except that now some editors are also removing the sources. Nyth63 01:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Correction, there are now FIVE different editors that have removed the same information. Nyth63 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Continued removed of sourced information without a consensus is disruptive editing. Nyth63 02:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
No, WP:BLP and WP:V are quite clear - removal of improperly sourced/contested content regarding a living person is the default position. The use must have the consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You are correct that the policies are clear. The BLP policy very clearly states that DOB may be included if they are verified, which they are. So removing them without a consensus would apply to every BLP page. So therefore, on editor can remove the DOB on any random biography if there was no previous discussion and consensus to include it? That is rather nonsensical. Nyth63 03:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
And the is STILL no notification about this discussion here and the article's talk page. Nyth63 03:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
That's fixed now. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
But the problem of editors piling on and deleting sourced material is not 'fixed'. Nyth63 10:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Trevor Graham[edit]

Trevor Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been mentioned here before. In light of this legal threat, could I ask others to make sure the article is all in order. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a great article, but this is one of those cases in which the great weight of the reliable sourcing is negative. What the article needs most is expansion to deal with the subject's full career - he's a Olympic medalist and was a noted track coach before being swept up into the doping scandals - but the overwhelming majority of sourcing I could find is along the lines of what is in the article now. I have watchlisted it though. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Not that it has a great deal of import on the above, but there are an awful lot of "red-links" in the references. Doesn't give the impression of much of a quality article. Eagleash (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure those are just a formatting error. I'll see if I can fix it. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, I just don't/didn't have the time to go into it just at the moment. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Refs fixed. And having looked at the refs more carefully, isn't this list synthesis? It seems like it's meant to give readers the impression that all/most of the athletes he trained ended up testing positive, but (as far as I can tell) no one source specifically says that, or lists all of those athletes. A lot of the sources for the individual athletes don't even mention Graham or Sprint Capitol. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Quick work! I'm sure that would have taken me hours to sort. And yes I agree the list could easily be misinterpreted. Eagleash (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant) biased negative remark representing a tiny minority[edit]

Rick Ross (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See [9] See [10] I have requested an edit regarding a particularly negative conclusion offered by a reporter expressing his personal point of view about my morality. The reporter states, "Ross' moral credentials 'seem shaky at best...'" Other articles about me, which I have linked to at the talk page from reliable sources, don't include such a judgement. This reporter's point of view represents a tiny minority opinion amongst the larger pool of more objective journalists and should not be included within the bio. Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversial statement about an identifiable person[edit]

This edit by Superbootneck (talk · contribs) (and several similar edits in the article history) contains allegations and enough information to identify an individual at a school. It is supported by a link to a page on a website. That page is a long way from an WP:RS. The page appears to be the only page on the site and there are no contact details.

The editor's first edit on Wikipedia was in 2006, but is still making edit summaries sample and edits sample that go against our principles.

The edit history of the article shows a descent into an edit war. Any comments and advice on the way forward? Mr Stephen (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP issues aside, not even remotely a reliable source, so no inclusion until Superbootneck finds one. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What is unreliable about the source and how is anybody able to be identified? And incidentally, the treatment meted out at this school that I have referred to here resulted in one person I know who is now left scarred for life and another in a psychiatric hospital after trying to kill himself. I was under the impression Wikipedia is a resource that anybody can edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbootneck (talkcontribs) 04:46, 28 July 2015

'Anybody can edit' subject to such edits complying with our policies and guidelines.‎ It isn't however open to anyone to add anything they like, sourced only to random websites that could say more or less anything. Content needs to be verifiable in published reliable sources - which is to say sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - particularly so when covering controversial material. If such sources exist, cite them - and if they don't, the material isn't going to be included in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Stewart Jackson[edit]

Is [11] violative of WP:BLP? The claim in the edit summary is "this doesn't allege a named politician change, just that a party staffer has changed a range of articles call "Wikipedia biography changes" change language"

As the source does not in any way allege that Jackson did any editing, and is based on anonymous sources, it would be a weak source for any such claim in the first place. IMO, the placing of such an allegation not about Jackson, and not sourced to a reliable source for such a purpose, tends to be a contentious allegation by implication - which is not a proper sort of item for any BLP.

[12] is a poor source for anonymous innuendo at best - and "anonymous allegations" are generally not allowed even from major sources - "pinknews" is not in the category of a major reliable source for anonymous claims. IMO. Collect (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Luster[edit]

Andrew Luster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reads like a tabloid biopic. Minimal citations.

Later in life, he was referred to as the bored trust fund kid by neighbors. He attended college classes in Santa Barbara but dropped out before earning a degree. He spent most of his time surfing and fishing. He was known for neighborhood antics and mischief before his arrest for rape. He put Super Glue on the locks of a neighbor's house; shot a stranger's car with a paintball gun when the stranger parked in front of his home; and smeared surf wax all over the windshield of an ex-girlfriend's car. 

Et cetera. causa sui (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The referencing in the "Arrest and conviction" section is appallingly bad - paragraph after paragraph of uncited material. It needs to be heavily edited to comply with WP:BLP.--ukexpat (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mark Sadan[edit]

Could use another look on the added information about his arrest in 2014. A brief Google search indicates the information is probably OK (per several mostly regional newspapers). 1) Should the information be kept without additional information and context? Per WP:BLPCRIME this seems problematic (I already removed a detail, which was even more problematic (diff) 2) Does any US-based editor have any update on this incident per chance? (a bit off-topic for the BLP request here, I know). Disclaimer: Without more information I take no stance on the factual correctness of the mentioned allegations. GermanJoe (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Roosh V[edit]

There has been a disagreement regarding a BLP and a self published sources on the Roosh V article. I've removed the content in this diff [[13]]. There has been some discussion on the talk page, but since this is a relatively obscure BLP, I am bringing it here for wider input. Pinging @EvergreenFir:, @PeterTheFourth:, and @Cla68: since they were involved on the talk page.

To sum up the argument, The Anti-defamation league made a claim about Roosh V on their own blog. I removed the statement because it is only sourced to the ADL's blog, and per BLPSPS we should not use self published sources on BLP's. However, it has been restored on the basis that the ADL is a highly notable organization and is reliable for it's own opinion. My apologies in advance if I didn't sum up the arguments well. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Update pinging @Futrell: as well so they know of this discussion. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)