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)
Shortcuts:

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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


Nicholas Schorsch[edit]

Nicholas Schorsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The wikipedia article seems to include everything up to June 2014, when in October 29, 2014, his company American Realty Capital, reported accounting errors that had been previously covered up in q2 2014 10-q. His company has since fractured, he has been rumored to be investigated by the FBI, the SEC and the State of Massachusetts for everything regarding the accounting scandal to allegations concerning proxy voter manipulation. He had a lot of his other non work related positions tarnished, and has had to close down his business. This article only shows the Nick Schorsch everyone in the industry knew of before the bombshells dropped. Its a less extreme example of only writing a wikipedia article on Bernie Madoff that only goes up to June 2008.

Brian Martin[edit]

Brian Martin (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking at this article I found one example where the statements in the article reflected the source content inaccurately, to the denigration of the professionality of the subject. I deleted and started a section on the talk page. Diff 1 [1] Then I found another. Diff 2 [2] And now I've found 2 more. "He has been (xxxxxcenscored) for his support of Michael Primero, whose PhD thesis alleged the Rockefeller Foundation had declared a war on consciousness through the imposition of musical tuning standards,[3] his defence of Andrew Wakefield, who lost his medical license due to research fraud and ethical violations[4]" Both of these statements are not supported by the sources cited.

I have not checked the rest of the article. Nor have I ID'd the editor/s involved.

I AGF however am aware that the subject of the article is a professor with a recent anti-vaccination PhD student. He describes some of the attacks in "Mobbing of a PhD student: lessons and responsibilities" [3]

I would go DE but do not have access to a acceptable account. I am out of time. Inaccurate and negative statements are currently in the BLP article. 124.171.109.96 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

References


I've been watching things unfold with the Brian Martin (professor) article, and wrote this a day or two ago, and hope it helps...
This article is quite derogatory about Martin himself, and his work, yet this is not based on strong evidence. It seems to be mainly based on slanted views of a WP:SPA editor. I would think the article, and Talk page, contravene WP:BLP.
More clarification and context on Martin's publishing record is needed to better examine this situation, but details of Martin's key publications have been removed from the page several times: [1], [2].
Despite what is being said in this WP article, Martin has published many peer-reviewed journal articles. But, yes, he does publish widely in a diverse range of publication outlets, as many academics do. The article is portraying Martin as an activist, but to me he is just an "interdisciplinary academic" working in the area of "science and technology studies (STS)." He is a full professor employed full-time at a major university.
There is an amazing amount of criticism of Martin in the second paragraph of the article, relating to Michael Primero, Andrew Wakefield, and Judith Wilyman. Yet, material about Martins' STS professorial colleagues, Mark Diesendorf, Ian Lowe and Jim Falk has been removed from the article with little discussion. Johnfos (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Not that amazing. An academic going into bat for Wakefield is sticking his neck out big time, given that Wakefield's fraudulent studies with their concealed conflicts of interest and unethical unapproved tests on children caused a resurgence in a deadly and highly infectious disease. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Negative, yes, but not inaccurate. He has a history of misidentifying cranks as whistleblowers, and his supervision of the Wilyman PhD calls into question his fitness to supervise further PhDs, as that document used confirmation bias and conspiracist thinking in place of actual evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Strong words, but without any supporting references. This is reflective of the poorly sourced derogatory material in the WP article itself. Thankfully, a recent paper by Martin helps to clarify his position and some basic issues: "On the suppression of vaccination dissent", Science and Engineering Ethics. 2015 Feb 21(1):143-57, where Martin says:
    • "Dissent is a disagreement with or challenge to standard views ... and in practice scientific dissent remains risky."
    • "... the existence of suppression of dissent, does not necessarily mean dissenters are correct."
    • "The vaccination debate can be incredibly emotional on both sides."
    • "My own involvement in the vaccination debate is primarily as a defender of fair and open debate on contenious issues, given my long term interest in dissent. Personally, I do not have strong views about vaccination."
This type of material would provide more context and clarification, and I don't see why it is being excluded from Martin's WP article. Johnfos (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Comments:
1. IP 24.171.109.96 listed this article on this BLP discussion page, an IP editor. I suggest the *Brian Martin* entry on this BLP page here be removed as this seems IP 24.171.109.96's disagreement dressed up as a BLP issue.
2. As quoted above, Martin's supporters agree that Martin prides himself in dissent. In this context the article as it stands would be seen as mostly flattery not "denigration". Martin is an academic who encourages non-violent rebellion and as such "both notable and tres cool" according to his fans - talk page.
3. IP 24.171.109.96 obviously has not read the sources and claiming an "inaccurate reflection of source" is misrepresentation and a false reflection by this IP editor - talk page.
4. IP 124.171.109.96 removed the content on page she didn't like, and it was promptly reverted or re-entered by a senior WP admin.
5. IP 24.171.109.96 has stated "legal consequences" (against WP?) on talk page. OK!
6. She also states "Nor have I ID'd the editor/s involved", so does she intend to 'out' the identity of editors of article? Concerning.
Gongwool (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the IP has a point that the sourcing definitely needs improvement as it doesn't actually well support the statements in the article very well. For example the first source [3] mentions the student and what he did, but doesn't actually say he was criticised for it or anything similar. The reason why the journalist included it is obviously because the journalist felt it was another controversial student, but this is never stated. The second ref [4] is even worse. It doesn't even say Martin defended Wakefield. It only mentions the aforementioned student was connected to Wakefield. Actually the only part where it directly connects Martin and Wakefield is where it says Martin said he wasn't aware of the connection between the student and Wakefield. Note although it mentions the student and his connection to Wakefield, it doesn't actually say Martin was criticised for it (perhaps it implies it by giving Martin's defence that he wasn't aware of the connection between Wakefield and the student). Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I made the changes as requested by the IP just prior to your additional criticism after the fact. You may try and fix any inaccuracies you think in the para, but try not to whitewash it as there is a level of chameleon type nature to the subject that can't go unsaid, and the critical mainstream media reports about Martin's PhD supervision topic are now possibly over 20 articles. I think we're making progress from the original position of the IP wanted simply to return it to a puff peice as the IP ed would have preferred. If Martin would prefer to have the article removed he needs to say so, but I doubt it will return to it's puff-peice status, that would be improper. Gongwool (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The article still says he was criticised for his support for Wakefield, despite the fact the source doesn't say he supported Wakefield (so obviously can't say he was criticised for it). Note the IP's complain was left on the 4th February and it's now the 9th and whatever else they may or may not have wanted, they had a point that the statements in the article don't seem to be supported by the cited sources which is something explicitly required by BLP regardless of how many criticial sources there may be. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a small problem here in that Martin actually did support Wakefield (e.g. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-014-9530-3) and actually was criticised for it. I suspect that someone has switched or removed a reference at some point. We do need to eb vigilant here as both this article and the Wilyman PhD article are very likely to attract antivax activists. A negative overall tone in the Martin article is more or less inevitable given his continuing support for the bullshit OPV-AIDS hypothesis and his ongoing apologia for antivaxers. People who play a part in protecting deadly diseases against eradication do tend to come in for a bit of stick. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Support for Wakefield; Drafting submissions for AVN;

- http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/14/brian-martin-and-judy-wilyman-promoting-antivaccine-pseudoscience-as-dissent/
- http://luckylosing.com/2012/06/07/wollongong-uni-dr-brian-martin-judy-wilyman-how-far-is-too-far/
- http://luckylosing.com/2011/11/11/wakefield-innocent-deer-lied-earth-flat/
Gongwool (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
all concerns now attended to Prof Opvaids, no need to list in many wiki forums - Jewjoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewjoo (talkcontribs) 02:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Lester Coleman[edit]

This article, about a man convicted of fraud, has been a trouble spot for years. It has repeatedly seen bouts of editing by sock puppets and SPAs (possibly all the same editor, but that can't be proven), with the effect of whitewashing the subject and inserting information not supportable by sources. Over the years a number of editors, including me, have kept watch on the article and stepped in to insist on rigorous adherence to Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Another such bout of editing is now under way, carried out by Sure Footed1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), but this time it seems that I am the only editor paying attention. I reverted a mass of edits once, asking for changes to be made incrementally so they can be evaluated; the editor simply undid my revert and continued. Since I have a policy of never engaging in one-on-one edit wars, I don't feel that I can do any more without input from other editors. It would be a black mark for Wikipedia for this article to turn into a mass of unsourced information after all the effort that has gone into maintaining it. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has stepped in and reverted the SPAs additions.-- KeithbobTalk 20:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey. I asked for inputs, and I was responding to Looie496's comments, and some guy named JzG came in and reverted me, claiming I should talk on the talk page. I *was* talking on the talk page.

I'm sorry that there was a lot of problems on that page. The BLP subject was running a lot of sockpuppets, and he clearly has some issues. But that's not grounds for reverting me like that, when I was trying to communicate. Sure Footed1 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

ps: I'm not a SPA.
Your intentions don't really matter. The point is that edits need to be made in small increments, allowing time after each edit to check its support by reliable published sources. When large numbers of edits are made all at once, it becomes nearly impossible to fix any that are problematic. In most articles that wouldn't be a serious issue, but this article has seen so much abuse over the years that it is essential to rigorously check everything. Looie496 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, Looie496, but you need to take responsibility for that - after I asked you for cooperation help, and after I responded to your requests - you put this up here. The net-result was that people like JzG came up and unilaterally responded with a comment like this:
If you continue making substantial undiscussed changes to this article then you may be topic-banned or blocked altogether. Your edits are disputed, you now need to discuss them at Talk:Lester Coleman. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There's simply no way to respond to a person like this. Or to be more accurate, there's no way to communicate with him. He just came-up, wrote this, and *then* there's nothing I can do in response.

How about if you tell me what to do now? I'm labelled by this unilateral-communicator. And if you search on his name, he's not the kind of person to let-go of an argument, in fact, if he's wrong, it looks as-if he'd fight 10 times harder to win.

Thanks for the help. Great website. Sure Footed1 (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is what you should do now ... Stop making undiscussed and unsourced edits to the Lester Coleman article, which from your talk page, it appears you have been doing for two years. Then you won't get perfectly reasonable messages like the one you reproduced above. In response to that message, you might consider saying "I'm sorry, I won't do it again." Remember, you mustn't do it again, or you may be topic banned or blocked altogether, and you don't want either, do you? -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Edward Furlong[edit]

Edward Furlong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've collapsed this discussion because it is TLDR, is wrapped in concerns about behavioral issues which are not the purview of BLPN, is primarily a spat between two involved editors and lastly is disrupting the flow of business here on this noticeboard. Please take your discussion to another more appropriate forum. For more information see: WP:DR and WP:DRR. Thank you.-- KeithbobTalk 20:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What a relief. I'm sure a collapse may dissuade yet more additions to this growing wall of text. Yes there are "concerns about behavioral issues", but I suspect posting into another noticeboard, such WP:DR or WP:DRR, might bounce back here, as it does seem to be a dispute about the relevance and WP:WEIGHT of biographical detail. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
oh really? because right up until this post, your objections were based on "RS"? Lx 121 (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The disputed material was first brought to the article by Lx 121 in December 2013. Lx 121 was doing some revert-warring at various times in the 14 months since he showed up. The revert-warring behavior has always been related to BLP-sensitive material, since the actor Mr. Furlong comes into collision so often with the law or with community morals. Lx 121 was always trying to put more controversial information in, while others were pruning it out. I think we should be conservative with controversial BLP information, keeping a carefully neutral WP:TONE. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • this user is LYING, blatantly; quote "The disputed material was first brought to the article by Lx 121 in December 2013." -- IN ACTUAL FACT i was restoring material REMOVED BY THIS USER here [6] & by his buddy hillbillieholiday, here [7]. the user is DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING the record; his edit comment AT THE TIME even acknowledges the material is "of long standing dispute" and that was in response to A DIFFERENT USER, at a time when i was not involved in the discussion or the editing. in fact, i did not "first introduce" ANY of this material; i've barely written an original word on the article, & when i have it's been minor rephrasings in an attempt to "appease" user b & user h.; aside from copyedits & finding additional sources my involvement here has been entirely about RESTORING verifiable adequately-sourced information to the article, that these users have repeatedly & inappropriately removed. Lx 121 (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I collapsed the discussion because "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons...." It is not a dispute resolution forum. Content disputes are handled at WP:DRN and behavioral issues are handled at WP:ANI. Items are simply reported here and then handled on the article, article talk page or at a dispute resolution forum. In some cases brief discussion is appropriate but this one was long and disruptive :-) -- KeithbobTalk 20:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not fair use photos of living people for leads?[edit]

Can someone explain why we are unable to add a non-free image to a bio lead when a commons photo is not available, so long as the person is still alive?

I often come across articles of famous actors, such as Barbara Harris (actress) or Armand Assante, who lack an image because of that. It makes no sense, at least from a U.S. perspective, why a non-profit encyclopedia can't at least include a fair use image. The only rationale I could find is in Wikipedia:Non-free content:

Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people.

However, that definition seems mostly useless for famous people:

  • For one thing, it's not reasonable to expect an editor to take a photo of those kinds of people. We're not paparazzi, and WP should't expect that. We don't get paid.
  • A retired actress like Harris has been inactive for 20 years. She's also 80. Is it even useful to have a photo of her when her prime career years were over 50 years ago? Is it a reasonable expectation to think a WP editor is going to track her down, invade her privacy (since she's no longer acting,) and take a photo, which wouldn't even add to the bio as being unrepresentative of her career look?
  • WP was established and is still based in the U.S., which implies it should abide by U.S. copyright law. The U.S. has very clear fair use laws which would permit a non-profit encyclopedia using a non-free image. Those fair use laws don't require that person be dead before allowing us to use a non-free.
  • The rationale that WP is stricter than U.S., therefore why someone in Bulgaria, for instance, shouldn't be allowed to view an online WP photo is unclear. We're not giving it to them. The non-free tags explain that it is non-free and can't be copied just because it came from WP. In fact the tag explains more than 99.99% of the images that anyone anywhere can copy from the web.
  • And, FWIW, for publicity photos, copyright law in the U.S. is clear that rarely, if ever, were they even copyrighted and were actually intended to be free. Therefore allowing a fair use one would be more than reasonable.

If this issue is posted in wrong forum, let me know and I'll relocate it. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if you get 100% agreement with your views, it won't change policy, since WP:NFCCP isn't a Wikipedia policy but a Foundation resolution, so getting it changed would require a formal decision of the WMF Board. If you do want to try to get An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals removed from it, you'll need to go here and follow the "Contact the Board" instructions, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a reply; if anything, the Board would likely be more sympathetic to banning fair use altogether. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The resolution says "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. " My emphasis. Just to show that we have leeway here and editorial discretion might allow the use of fair use in some contexts where a photo cannot reasonably be expected to be uploaded.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The only case I have seen somewhat supported is the second bullet-point...what someone looked like long ago, as the notable timeframe. Essentially, the current-era free one (or potentially-creatable as of now) would not "serve the same encyclopediac purpose" compared to an old one that would be rationalized as "for purposes of identification of the subject" (based on the actual sources of notability). It's been kicked around from time to time on...probably WT:NFCC. But this hasn't been enshrined in any policy or guideline that I can find (but maybe some child-actors have been accepted as special cases by this reasonsing?). DMacks (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I know there were a couple of cases of 1970s punk bands where consensus was that their image was significant enough to justify illustration, and that the subculture of the time was one in which people were unlikely to have taken personal photos they'd release into the public domain, but that's something of a special case as what they looked like at a given time is such a significant part of the story. Certainly for Elvis Presley (who isn't even alive) the WMF ruled that fair use photos shouldn't be used since the number of people who saw him made it statistically too likely that there would be a potential free-use photo in circulation. (If you search Jimmy Wales's talk archives for "Elvis" you should find the original debate.) ‑ Iridescent 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw this discussion, looked around a bit, found and added a free picture of Armand Assante in the appropriate place. Sort of as a proof that these things can be found; not always, but not never either. It's not a great picture (why was he always tilting his head to one side during the whole interview?) but it's not terrible, so it's better than nothing, especially as one of the advantages of having a mediocre picture in the article is that the actor will tend to see it, and will be motivated to donate a better one. Barnstars gratefully accepted. :-). --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

i respectfully agree with the original commentor's basic premise;

it would make a lot of sense for us to amend the rule to some thing like

'When a free-use photograph (or other image, or whatever other media-content) of adequate quality is AVAILABLE (to illustrate the subject), this should be used instead of a fair-use image (or whatever other media-content).'

our working standard should be based on the availability of the needed free-use content, not just the hypothetical possibility that "it might turn up some day'".

when something does turn up, then we can replace the fair-use item; until then, better fair-use than nothing.


Lx 121 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

congrats @ gruban about finding the picture though; good job! :) Lx 121 (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Pierre_Bellanger[edit]

This edit by a non-English-language native added information about conviction for corruption of a minor, somehow involving a sister too, which seems to have some basis in fact. The amount of detail and the wording should be reviewed. I'm not familiar with exact standards and the sources are in French language. --doncram 20:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the section. It's very poorly written and very derogatory information about a living person. If someone who speaks French would go an review the two "sources" for the alleged information, it may be that my edit should be reverted and the text copy-edited. But until then, it seems preferable to delete this material. David in DC (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Google translate appears to verify that the source says what the article says (albeit, badly written ), however, I've pinged Anthere who is a french speaking sysop to take a look as well! KoshVorlon 16:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The statement is entirely correct. The sources are completely reliable, there are several other sources if needed. The information is already mentioned on the French Wikipedia. And given the notability of the person and the publicity this affair received in France... I'd say that this information should be on Wikipedia. It is factual and significant. Now... on the specifics of the wording, I will note that the reason for the conviction was clearly " corruption of minors" (she was 17). The girl went to the police to report "rape". I have not found the details of the legal report (which is probably normal given that the victim was not 18), so I can not estimate how much the fact the person was introduced to same-sex, group-sex and BDSM did influence the legal decision. However, I must stress that 1) these three considerations are properly sourced and 2) the reason why the affair hit the news so much was precisely because it was not a "simple one shot rape", but several months of eye-opening experience within a polygamy group. You will note that the statement added in English exactly reflect the statement on the French Wikipedia [8], including the specifics. Also note that this information has been on the page for several years (though details were added only in 2014). I noted that some anon tried to remove the information, which was reverted [9].
This is one of those cases where some will argue the "right to forget" since the trial is over. But where it is hard not to put it on Wikipedia given that it was hardly a confidential and unimpactful story... My view... it should be there. But I know the English Wikipedia tends to self-censor itself more than the French version. Also... the article is quite short... and it would be a little bit unfortunate that a big part of the article ends up being about that affair whilst there are so many other things interesting and relevant about this person. Anthere (talk)

Rita Pam Tarachi[edit]

Rita Pam Tarachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would somebody mind taking a look at Rita Pam Tarachi since there seems to have be some disagreement about certain article content. I tried discussing this at Talk:Rita Pam Tarachi#Activism and charity article talk page, but got no response until today when Adrian 8076 removed all the talk page posts [10][11][12][13]. For reference, the same editor also posted User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/January#Malicious/Personal attack a few weeks back, despite there being nothing wrong with my edits (which were later checked by Tokyogirl79). "Rita Pam Tarachi" was submitted and rejected twice by AfC reviewers due to notability concerns before being added directly to the mainspace by Adrian 8076 after the second rejection. The subject's notability is questionable per WP:GNG and I've been trying to find sources and improve it in good faith. Tokyogirl79 and myself have previously tried to explain these concerns to Adrian 8076, but so far there's been no response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • It might actually just be better to take this to AfD, Marchjuly. You've given the editor quite a bit of leeway and time to produce sourcing. There are only two decent sources on the article, one of which refers to her only in passing. I'll post a rundown of the sources on the article's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tokyogirl79: I figured AfD would be the last resort and was going through WP:BEFORE to make sure. In addition, I didn't want it to seem as if I was nominating the article at AfD out of spite because of the This is the same behaviour that discourages people from editing on Wikipedia statement and general tone of Adrian 8076's first post on my user talk. However, I have been unable to find anything on Tarachi other than minor mentions and social media stuff. This, of course, could just mean reliable sources do exist per WP:NEXIST, but I have just been looking in the wrong place; on the other hand, it could just mean she simply does not satisfy WP:GNG at this time per WP:TOOSOON. The more I try and search, the more I think it's a case of the latter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've asked around a little and posted at the Nigeria WP talk page, just in case there are sources that we can't find. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you for doing that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Lucy DeCoutere[edit]

The Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault trial began this week, and over the last couple of days anonymous IPs have been adding content to our article on Lucy DeCoutere (one of the plaintiffs) to declare her allegations discredited on the basis of what's been reported in the media. Of course, it's not for Wikipedians to decide whether her testimony has been nullified or not — it's for the judge to decide that, and our job on here is to wait for the judge's ruling and not jump to any conclusions of our own. Several editors have been involved in removing the content as not appropriate under our WP:BLP policies, only to have it continually readded again by more anonymous IPs. Accordingly, I applied one week of semi-protection to the article to clamp down on IP activity.

But now, one of them has registered a brand new user account just for the purpose of accusing me of being biased toward DeCoutere and against Ghomeshi — and another editor who has less than 50 contributions in their entire history, and hasn't edited a single time since June 2015, has also come back just to revert the disputed content back into the article while claiming in their edit summary that anybody who removes it is engaging in "bias to protect DeCoutere's interests". But, of course, it's about WP:BLP policy, and not about anybody trying to protect DeCoutere — it's simply not our role to reflect anybody's opinions about whether she's telling the truth or lying, until such time as a judge makes the final ruling on Ghomeshi's guilt or innocence.

Accordingly, this needs some extra eyes on whether the content is justified or not, and whether it's appropriate to lift the page up to full protection for a period of time rather than semi. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've already had to escalate the protection to full admin-only (1 week), because the sleeper account re-reverted another editor who reverted the sleeper's first reversion. If possible, I'd still welcome some outside eyes on whether the content is appropriate or not, particularly because while a talk page war hasn't broken out about it yet I'm predicting that one will erupt shortly. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
After looking at the article history and recent news reports, I share your concerns. The article is on my watch list. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ri Yong-gil[edit]

There are media reports that North Korean general Ri Yong-gil has been executed in a purge. The news reports are full of qualifications and equivocations. Over the years, several stories of North Korean "atrocities" have been shown to be fabrications. I encourage experienced editors to take a close look and comment as sources emerge. I do not know what the truth is but I do believe that we need to be cautious. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Amba Shepherd Wiki Page[edit]

Hi there, My name is Amba Shepherd, someone that I do not know has made a wiki page up here on me. While I appreciate the effort, much of the information comprising my biography and discography as an artist is incomplete. We have made two edits here to correct and made contact with the editor to explain why but both edits have been reverted to the editors original incomplete page. Reasons given were that our edits were overly promotional however imo they merely contained my actual credits & accomplishments. That being said Im open to rewriting the facts in the tone of Wiki if required, and abiding by all the rules here. I would like to delete the page and recreate a new one that reflects me & my work properly. I look forward to hearing your advice. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASMGMT (talkcontribs) 04:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ASMGMT. Although I have no immediate way to verify that you are actually Amba Shepherd, I will assume for the sake of discussion that you are that person and will respond accordingly. The only way that we would delete this article is if you are not notable enough for an encyclopedia article (in which case it would not be recreated), or if it consisted almost entirely of indisputable falsehoods. The fact that the article is "incomplete" is not an argument for deletion. A large majority of Wikipedia articles are incomplete. We expand and inprove incomplete articles; we do not delete them. As the subject of the article, you have a Conflict of interest and should not be editing the article yourself. Instead, you should propose very specific changes at Talk:Amba Shepherd, backed up by references to reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mark Hudson (footballer, born 1980)[edit]

The part referring him rejecting a deal with Chesterfield is probably libellous, I suspect it is a malicious edit by a Chesterfield supporter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.73.236 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The text in question certainly was lacking in neutrality. I've left that he rejected a contract extension but removed the rest. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin paying off right-wing groups represented as fact[edit]

I am concerned about this recent addition at Vladimir Putin which states that Putin directly funded right-wing groups in Europe. The wording is as follows:

Russia's foreign policy towards Europe under Putin has also included funding extremist far-right parties in Europe. These include the Neo-Nazi National Democratic Party in Germany, France's National Front (France), and Hungary's fascist Jobbik party. National Front's Marie Le Pen has confirmed receiving funds from Kremlin, which were transferred via a Russian bank in the Czech Republic. According to the Guardian, Putin has been funding far right parties in Eastern Europe since 2009 which, in addition to Jobbik, include Bulgaria's fascist Attack party and Slovakia's People's Party - Our Slovakia. Russia under Putin has also reportedly made loans to Greece's Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party, as well as Italy's Lega Nord, and Belgium's racist Vlaams Belang party.

The sources use lighter language than this. For example:

  • The Independent: "Vladimir Putin is widely suspected of"
  • NY Times - amid allegations that it has received funding from Russia
  • The Guardian - source says "cultivated links" but the addition states it received direct funding
  • The Week - Russia has also reportedly lent money

Whether this is notable, I doubt it. But strong claims need strong wording from strong sources, especially in BLP articles. In my opinion, such kinds of grave allegations, rumors, and suspicion should not be added to BLP articles, even if they are represented as such in the corresponding article. I would like to see what the BLPN community has to say about this before we can proceed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I changed the wording to include "reportedly", although in several instances (Le Pen, Golden dawn) the funding has been confirmed. And this is certaintly notable as it has been widely reported on (even the links EtienneDolet provides above exemplify that fact).
And one more time - this is not a BLP issue. It's a policy issue. Of course since this is Russian policy, and Putin is Russia's leader it's about Putin. But in this instance EtienneDolet is trying to WP:GAME BLP to remove anything that he/she thinks is critical of Russian policy not a person.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Vladimir Putin is a BLP article. By adding this info to his article, you are attributing it to him. Or else, why would you add it there? Also, adding the word reportedly doesn't change anything. It's a BLP and we shouldn't be adding such grave claims and allegations to it especially when they are merely reportedly or allegedly made. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
So criticism according to you can only be added when there is solid universally accepted proof, whereas adding praise to a BLP is never problematic regardless of how insignificant the source is or implausible the claim is. No wonder the article reads like it was redacted at the Kreml. Would you make the same argument about mentioning the accusations of sexual abuse in the article about Bill Cosby?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
A better analogy would be accusations against Cosby's employees.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
No it wouldnt.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • BLP is not meant to guarantee the exclusion of critical or negative information in biographies. It is meant to guarantee only that we only include criticism and negative information if it is significant and well sourced. If critical information is found repeatedly in reliable sources, then we can and should include it, especially when the accusations are grave, and hence more significant. Failing to accuse grave accusations that are found in reliable sources is to fail to comply with our responsibility to present the reader with a summary of the relevant information about the biographical subject.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


  • "Contentious claims" must be strongly sourced.
Where the claims are made as an "allegation" they generally do not belong in any BLP. Where there is a strong claim of fact, then the source of that claim must be clearly given. This is what is required by WP:BLP and is quite important. Else we would have "The National Enquirer reported that Putin has an illicit affair with Bat-Boy" or the like littering BLPs.
  • The Independent is circumspect "President Vladimir Putin is widely suspected of being behind an extraordinary Russian cash and charm offensive that is reported to be trying to woo Europe’s far-right populist parties in order to strengthen the Kremlin’s political influence within the European Union." No claim of "fact" other than a small bank lent money to FN.
  • The New York Times gives "Europe’s right-wing populists have been gripped by a contrarian fever of enthusiasm for Russia and its president, Vladimir V. Putin." and nothing much else.
  • The Guardian: We should beware Russia’s links with Europe’s right by Luke Harding is an editorial opinion column, not a piece of journalistic reportage of fact. He ascribes the charges to "According to 'Political Capital (Institute)', a Budapest-based research institute which first observed this trend, the Kremlin has recently been wooing the far-right in western Europe as well." Harding does not ascribe this as "fact" but to a Hungarian source's report. Harding also made a now-deleted reference to "(This article was amended on 27 February 2015 to remove references to) Yuri Kudimov for legal reasons." And in the same editorial "Since at least 2009 Russia has actively cultivated links with the far right in eastern Europe. It has established ties with Hungary’s Jobbik, Slovakia’s far-right People’s party and Bulgaria’s nationalist, anti-EU Attack movement." Note that Harding does not say "funding" here at all -- the diff shows a very poor misreading of the actual content of the editorial.
In short - the diff as worded is highly troubling. The most that can be said is "Putin has sought ideological common ground with some right-wing European parties. The FN received a $9 million loan from a Czech-Russian bank when no French banks would make any loans to it." And that is about it for the sources provided. Collect (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
This is not just something that can be sourced to news articles, the close relations with European far right groups is treated also in Academic peer reviewed articles: For example "Polyakova, Alina. "Strange bedfellows: Putin and Europe's far right." World Affairs 177, no. 3 (2014): 36-41.", "Pomerantsev, Peter. "The Kremlin's Information War." Journal of Democracy 26, no. 4 (2015): 40-50."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Seems obvious that "Putin" in this context means the Russian state or the Putin administration. It doesn't belong in the article on Putin, just as we don't mention drone killings of civilians in the Obama article. Prevalence (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, of course the two are related since Putin is the head of the "Putin administration". And this is about Putin's foreign policy regarding Europe. So a more appropriate comparison would be with Obama's foreign policy in regard to Africa or Israel or Libya or something rather than the more narrow issue of drones.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Of course we should mention Obama's reliance on drones and the resulting civilian casualties in the article about him. This is an extremely prominent critique that has been made of him as a person responsible for the actions of his administration.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
They are, but in the dedicated article Foreign policy of Barack Obama rather than his biography. Likewise Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin has coverage of Putin's influence on right-wing parties in Europe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Well that seems like a completely wrong-headed editorial decision, especially given that the Obama article currently includes a paragraph on trinkets he keeps in his pocket.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I would argue what he keeps in his pockets shouldnt even be on the encyclopedia. Personally the editorial decision (assuming there was one rather than the natural placement of relevant info) to keep the fine details of his foreign policy decisions to a separate article where they can be covered appropriately is not a bad one. His use/promotion of drones while notable, is but one aspect of his administration's approach to armed conflict. Likewise Putin's supposed funding of right-wing groups is covered and attributed better on his foreign policy article - it makes it clears its reported and not a fact. But again its but one aspect of his foreign policy. The reason there *are* separate articles is because as men who have a significant amount of personal power and control in the decisions made during their administration's, there is just too much info to have it all in their biography. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, no of course what he keeps in his pockets shouldnt be in his biography, but the most widely critiqued aspect of his military policy of course should.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
How about we shorten it to roughly what Collect proposes above and then include a link to Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
(although it most definitely shouldn't be "right wing" - it should be "far right". That's a big part of what makes this notable) Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
(and I think those parties need to be listed).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anyone disagrees that this is about Russian policy. So such contentious information should might as well go to the Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin, but not in a BLP. As for the claims being made in the sources themselves, N-HH makes a good point regarding them. The only explanation given as to why this could be considered factual in any way is the bit about Le Pen admitting to accept money from the Russian government (i.e. Putin). But, as it turns out, it's merely borrowed money from a Russian (and also Cypriot) bank. To say that it was Putin sending money to her would be a bit of a stretch, even if the wording in the article says "reportedly". That would misrepresent the sources by turning these mysterious funds into alleged funds from Putin. Such misrepresentation of sources raises major BLP alarm bells. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Interpreting BLP to mean that a Presidents biography cannot include unappealing aspects of their policy is absurd in the extreme. A biography of a president should of course cover ALL significants aspect of the presidents policy. Their political office and police is what makes them notable. It is as absurd as claiming that BLP prohinbits us from including bad reviews in the biographies of musicians and authors. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no rule that states that a "biography of a president should of course cover ALL significants aspect of the presidents policy." That's just absurd. Russia is a powerful and influential country. There can be arguments made as to how each and every rule the government makes is significant in that regard. If we were to lay forth every single policy that the Russian government has done since Putin took charge, then we'd have a real mess on our hands. And that's starting to happen as we speak. So that's why we have separate articles (i.e. Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin, Domestic policies of Vladimir Putin, and Foreign relations of Russia). It's best to defer such information over there. But as of now, such contentious information needs to be left out of a BLP article, especially when there's no consensus to have such information included in the first place. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is such a rule. It is called common sense, and cognizance of the fact that we are writing an encyclopedia. Your interpretation of BLP to as an argument for the exclusion of critical information about a presidents policy is a travesty and in fact I think you should be sanctioned for trying to make that argument because it shows a fundamental failure to understand the encyclopedic mission that would threaten to convey vital biographic articles into mere propaganda pieces. That would be the death of wikipedia as a relevant source of information about the world. And note here that I am not rweferring here to whether we decide to exclude this particular piece of information, which is an editorial decision that can make sense if this is not deemed to be a significant issue. But the specific argument you are advancing here is destructive for wikipedia and cannot be allowed to stand uncontradicted as it flies directly in the face of WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK and WP:NOT.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
My argument is that we should be wary of adding such contentious information into a BLP article, especially when it can be more appropriately added to other more relevant non-BLP articles. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that argument is invalid. Whether or not something should be added to a BLP article depends on two things only 1. is it reliably sourced? 2. Is it significant enough relative to the whole of the biography to merit weight? Those are the only two considerations we have to make. Whether it could also be included elsewhere is 100% irrelevant. Whether it is negative or positive is also irrelevant as long as it is sufficiently significant and reliably sourced.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope, those two points aren't the only factors necessary. Please see WP:BLP. Verifiability, NPOV, and UNDUE come to mind. The section appears to have failed those requirements. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Those two points encapsulate Verifiability, NPOV and Undue - policies that you apparently do not understand.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
So, that was fine on page Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin? Then it should be fine elsewhere because BLP and other rules equally apply to all pages. The only question if everything was properly summarized on his main BLP page. I think it was because the summary here is very brief. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I took part in discussion and editing this page and did not see any actual BLP violations. What happens are a couple of people who repeatedly insert irrelevant and ridiculous materials, like here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Flotsam & Jetsam (band)[edit]

The bulk of this article has no supporting references and appears to be written with original research. The band is fairly well-known in the heavy metal genre, so it shouldn't be difficult to find references.SwampZombieCult (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz[edit]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fellow editors, I have removed a Controversy section from this biographical article on the basis of WP:COPYVIO, WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV & WP:BLP. Looking at the page history, the section appears to have been removed & re-added a few times. Input from uninvolved editors would be appreciated. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Janae Marie Kroc[edit]

@Flyer22: suggested I should bring some stuff up here. (As a disclaimer to pre-empt sock accusals, I've edited this before while logged in but I'm using a shared tablet during the day that I don't log in on -privacy mode- to avoid cluttering it with cookies). Apparently we do not normally rely upon Facebook or Instagram for BLP stuff. But in this case I have 2 sources which identify a person's Facebook and Instagram as topics of note since they were used to come out as genderfluid:

I figure if I am going to cite Daily Mail's article about Janae's Instagram I should also cite the Instagram accout, and if I'm going to cite Mirror's article about Matt's Facebook that I should cite the Facebook account.

Above and beyond that though, I want to know if this would qualify as verifying the accounts to use as references for other stuff.

Like, what first comes to mind, is that when someone asked on Facebook about the name Janae, the above-cited account MattKroc replies and says it was a name chosen by Kroc's mother, so I thought that was informative to include on the article since people might be curious when someone changes from presenting male to presenting female what influenced their name choice. Was probably some other stuff too.

Due to the problems of imposters (Kroc actually reports a problem with this on all accounts, and I found an imposter on Twitter) I completely understand the problem with citing stuff like Facebook/Instagram wrecklessly, but in this case since we have secondary sources affirming the two accounts I want to know if it's okay. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you've got a layer of problem here that you do not see yet. You're relying on the Daily Mail as a reliable source, which discussions like this one should show you is at the least controversial. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Saunders[edit]

Page has no relevant third party references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.156.156 (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It could use more sources but it does include this one, which is secondary. Meatsgains (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Spencer Hawken[edit]

I need some people to keep an eye on the article for Spencer Hawken. Long story short, this was previously deleted at AfD back in 2013. I became aware of the director after I created an article for one of his films, Death Walks, back in 2014. I was and still am worried about its sourcing, as the coverage was fairly light and the movie hadn't released yet. It's been about 2 years and it still hasn't released, as the date keeps getting pushed back.

Earlier this month the article was created by someone that I'm fairly certain has a conflict of interest, as their edits appear to be predominantly Hawken-related and the article was fairly casually written, to the point where it was mildly promotional. The article also heavily relied on primary and unreliable sources like IMDb. I tried cleaning this up, but was reverted without any true explanation. I've left a fairly long message on the talk page about the article and another one they created, No Reasons (now a redirect), as the sourcing on that article was all trivial, primary, or unreliable except for one source, a local radio interview.

I'm leaning towards merging and redirecting the article for Death Walks since the film still has yet to release and I think that the sourcing for that film could help justify an article for Hawken, but I don't think that there's really enough for two articles at this point in time. In any case, I'm almost 100% certain that this will be reverted back to its poorly sourced, semi-promotional state and I'd really like to avoid having to drag stuff through AfD or other deletion routes if at all possible and I'd like to avoid Hawken's article getting deleted. I think that having others come in to help back up my claims will also help prevent them from thinking that this is just something I'm pulling out of a hat. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers[edit]

Christina Hoff Sommers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on Christina Hoff Sommers has been subjected to biased editing by Binksternet. See here, where he alters the lead, changing the statement that "some feminist scholars have called her works and positions anti-feminist" to "most feminist scholars have called her works and positions anti-feminist", thus changing the article from being reasonably neutral to being strongly slanted against Sommers. I have attempted to engage with Binksternet on the talk page, asking him what the source for "most" is; he has not only failed to provide one but is now asserting that such a source is not necessary. He asserts that his change, "summarize[s] what is generally true, in fact quite well known in the field, thus being a sky-is-blue statement, a statement not needing a reference." In my judgement, the "not needing a reference" claim is blatantly contradicted by the spirit and letter of WP:BLP, and Binksternet's edits should be reverted. Outside opinions or comments would be welcome. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

We should not whitewash the Sommers biography. Rather, we are obligated to tell the reader that many feminist scholars describe her in terms of working against feminism. One sentence in the lead section stating that fact is not a violation of our BLP guideline, nor is one sentence in the article body. We can take the list I compiled (see the above link) and say that 33 or more feminist scholars say that Sommers is antifeminist, contrasted by some number of feminist scholars who think she is a proponent of feminism. There are very few of the latter. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Note that a previous ANI complaint by the same person ended without any of the desired changes being implemented. Nobody in this discussion thought that it was any sort of violation to represent Sommers as antifeminist, since so many reliable sources do so. This new complaint is the same thing; it should be closed as inactionable. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
You asserted that "most" feminist scholars see Sommers as anti-feminist, not "many", as you now claim. Why misrepresent the text that anyone can see that you added to the article? You failed to provide any source for the "most" claim, and when challenged you effectively admitted that you did not have one. You could be right that most feminist scholars see Sommers as anti-feminist, but the claim is hardly "fact" in the absence of a source. Your suggestion that discussion here should be ended immediately because of an ANI discussion more than a year ago is ludicrous. If you consider your position well-supported, why so anxious to stop further discussion? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • While I agree that we should not whitewash any article, we must ensure compliance with our core policies; including WP:NOR & WP:NPOV. In this instance, I concur that there are issues including this information without a verifying reliable source for that exact information. The claim is clearly contentious; not least in that it is contested by the article subject, and therefore covered by WP:BLP, which requires sourcing. WP:OR & WP:SYNTH require that we do not perform our own research or use multiple sources to reach a conclusion not included in any of those sources. I am also unable to read WP:BLP and find support for the use of "sky is blue" reasoning to include information. (cf. essay WP:BLUE). Phrasing including "some" or "many" may be permissible, but "most" is not reasonably within the realms of the "simple arithmetic" permitted by WP:OR or WP:BLP. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Dorothy Reitman Wiki[edit]

The following allegations should be either cited properly or removed. They are currently unverified anywhere with the exception of one source. That source does not appear to have verified that information since at least one of the claims is provably wrong (see below).

These claims were re-added (twice) after removal on the grounds that since the sites no longer included the names of the founders the claims couldn't be disputed.

Other biographies about this person do NOT contain the following claims:

1 She was a founding member of the Match International Centre
2 She was a founding member of the Council of Canadian Unity
3 Honorary chair of the McGill University Centre for Research and Teaching for Women
4 Educated at McGill

In my opinion, the claims that can't be demonstrated to be wrong (like the following) can be disputed on the grounds that they have not been verified properly at the source.

Match International clearly states that there were two founders and names them:

"The organization that created The MATCH International Women’s Fund is called MATCH International. In 1976, two Canadian women created Canada’s first international organization to place the issue of women’s rights and empowerment as central to successful and sustained development in the global South. Inspired by the women they met at the United Nation’s First World Conference on Women in Mexico City the year before, Dr. Norma E. Walmsley and Ms. Suzanne Johnson-Harvor created MATCH International to MATCH the needs and resources of Canadian women with the needs and resources of women in the global South."

http://matchinternational.org/history/

Dorothy Reitman is NOT one of the founders.

I have removed all 4 of the above claims (again) and ask that page be considered disputed unless the above claims can be verified and proper citations attached, if it is re-added a third time.

Tobeme free (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

Common practice of adding arrests and minor legal infractions: "legal controversies"[edit]

I think it's long past time that we have a serious discussion about how we are handling the routine insertion of DUIs, traffic offenses, misdemeanor convictions, and other minor legal scrapes in our BLP articles, especially for relatively low-profile BLP subjects. When we have a four- or five-sentence BLP article, and someone inserts a three- or four-sentence description of a DUI and related proceeding, the DUI instantly becomes the dominant focus of a relatively brief bio, with obvious WP:WEIGHT issues. Frankly, more often than not, we would probably do well to simply omit such matters all together, except when they become a significant public proceeding and/or have a significant impact on the subject's career. We need to do a better job of striking the right balance in handling these matters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)