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:

Vani Hari (Food Babe)[edit]

I came across the article on Vani Hari and found it to be extremely slanted toward smearing her, in my assessment. I've been following the controversy about her, voices in favor and against her, and critiques of her work as well as people who praise her work. I made an effort to edit the page to change some of the most glaring bias, and was promptly reverted and shut down by a small group of people who in my reckoning have occupied the article in an effort to make it into a soapbox for her critics, which is not what Wikipedia should be. I would appreciate some attention by uninvolved people, and hearing your comments on this. You may notice the recent edit history contains several edits by myself, and reverts by other editors, and plenty of dialogue in the talk page. Thank you for any time and attention you bring to this. SageRad (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who was brought to said page by an earlier RfC by SageRad, I would say I did not find the same bias that's being claimed. Further, I read through ensuing talk page discussions (since you posted the RfC) and disagree that you are being stopped by a small group of people "in an effort to make it into a soapbox for her critics." As I see it, I would say you are likely too invested in this article and keep trying to post unsourced claims against consensus. I might recommend you take a step back from this article and just be willing to let this one go dude... Sorry to be so blunt, but I don't have a dog in this fight and someone should give you a frank analysis of the situation. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 18:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I posted a sourced claim, and it was reverted. I'm not "invested" in the article, but rather i'm invested in Wikipedia having space for editors with differing perspectives. I don't have a window into other people's minds to know their motivations, but the circumstantial evidence seems pretty clear to me. You don't know my motivation, either. Thank you for your opinion, but i'd still like to hear others and i maintain my position that the article is occupied by a group who have essentially locked it into a single direction. Thank you also for your input into the RfC. Wish there were more people who would follow the bot and offer their view. SageRad (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
In its previous state the article seemed a bit unbalanced in opposition of Hari, to the point where it made scientifically inaccurate claims that contradicted the sources to add to the ammo against her.[1] The article also distorted a source to claim that Hari thought baking soda was a dangerous chemical!!!!!!! (thereby portraying her as stark raving mad) when the source clearly said no such thing.[2] This article had some seriously skeezy BLP problems. I've made quite a few changes to the article but one, removing a laundry list of bullet pointed accusations against Hari based on a single source was reverted based on a "consensus" which seems incredibly dubious (both in terms of numbers supporting inclusion and the strength of their arguments).[3] What do the wise folk of BLPN, think of the validity of including such a laundry list? Brustopher (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I have returned that bullet list to the article, in a different way, hopefully to satisfy your objection to the over use of one source. The illustrations of her strange approach to facts is a vital part of her BLP. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I am thankful to Brustopher for the careful and thoughtful work. The article does indeed look much improved to me. SageRad (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
... and yet no thanks to me for improving further? Why not? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Your edit uses the word "sell" whereas the source uses the phrase "she recommends—and earns an affiliate commission from". Your claim in the article is that "Hari claims that aluminium in deodorants leads to breast cancer" whereas the source reads "Hari links aluminum in modern deodorants to horrific diseases such as breast cancer and Alzheimer’s" and when i go to Hari's own writing on which this is based, i find she actually wrote this: "I researched the ingredient Aluminum, and found out it is linked to all sorts of diseases, including 2 that I sadly personally have witnessed in close friends and family members – Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease. The link of aluminum to these diseases is hotly debated, some studies find a low risk factor (probably those funded by the chemical companies) and some find horrible results, like those studies that find aluminum accumulating in breast tissue or breaking the blood brain barrier leading to Alzheimer’s." So, there seems to be two levels of some distortion going on -- from Hari to the source, and then from the source to the Wikipedia article. Each distortion leans toward making Hari look bad. And the issue of weight. That's why i have some issues with your edits, Roxy. Hari does appear to have made a mistake there, and does recommend a deodorant that does contain alum, which does contain aluminum. That is certainly a mistake. But it seems that the use of this is mean spirited. SageRad (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Along a similar note, i made this edit as it appears to be a claim on a secondary source level (review statement) regarding human health, which would require MEDRS sourcing standard, and this source is definitely not up to par in that regard. Also, the claim is flawed anyway. It's based on this sentence in the source, which is an op-ed style essay: "It’s important to stress that experts in science and medicine have time and again debunked Hari’s claims that the ingredients discussed in this piece are as dangerous as she claims." Well, as i stated about Hari's clim regarding aluminum and disease, the source distorted that claim's magnitude as i have shown in the previous comment, and her claim does hold some truth. Aluminum has some link to breast cancer, and to Alzheimer's. Neither is definitive, but Hari does not claim that. This is emblematic of the nature of the bias that i see in the article, especially as it stood a couple days ago before some corrective edits were made. SageRad (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't find the article "extremely slanted toward smearing her", however there may be too much detail and quote mining in the criticism section, and probably some WP:NPOV concerns. The sentence "d'Entremont received death threats for her criticism of Hari following her article." and the phrase "... and in a 2011 Twitter post stated that flu vaccines have been used as a "genocide tool" in the past" are poorly sourced and should be removed. [4] and [5] are primary sources. They should not be used for the contentious claim "The statement became widely controversial... with public organisations promoting science, such as McGill University's Office for Science & Society and the American Council on Science and Health.". The last paragraph in Marketing strategy depends on one source and seems WP:UNDUE. The source is also somewhat biased.- MrX 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A few days ago, the article was substantially different. Much progress has been made at restoring some balance, thankfully. SageRad (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This is the sort of biased crap that this article has to put up with: SageRad hiding behind MEDRS to strip content they don't like. Our cliche "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" does not mean that we demand the "extraordinary" level sourcing to support basic claims of common sense, just because they are uncomplimentary to Hari. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You mean you have to "put up with" another editor who insists on good sourcing as per Wikipedia guidelines, and who also doesn't like to see Wikipedia used as a soapbox for people to slander their enemies in a BLP? I'm sorry for your troubles. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
No, you are not "insisting on sourcing per WP guidelines" you are making highly POV and ridiculous edits, then hiding behind an irrelevant policy in a feeble attempt to justify this. Your edits overall speak for your huge bias in this article, and in your other edits.
Vani Hari operates by making stupid statements and untruths, hoping that her fans don't notice them (Aluminium in anti-perspirants is bad. My anti-perspirants contain alum. Alum is not aluminium.) Very simple sources suffice to support this debunking. Yet you are demanding sources to the same standard for simple statments like "Water is wet" as we would (reasonably) for the truly extraordinary claims like, "Nazi microwaves make water toxic." You leave Hari's outlandish claims unchallenged, but you strip the simple stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see my comment above on this edit. The claim in the article was a biomedical claim that "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous have been strongly refuted by experts in science and medicine" which is a blanket statement that is not well-bounded, for one thing (which claims of Hari's), is based on a simple assertion in the source for the claim, and is definitely a biomedial claim about human health, which does require MEDRS. I'm not being technical or semantic here to push a point of view. I am removing POV pushing that was already present in the form of a bad claim, which essentially claimed that any link between aluminum and breast cancer or Alzheimer's is "strongly refuted by experts in science and medicine" as well as any claims as to potential effects of potassium sorbate, and any other claims that Hari has made that might be mentioned in the source document. It's a false blanket statement being attributed strongly to "experts in science and medicine" and present in a Wikipedia article. That was not a good situation. Furthermore, i have shown in detail how the source distorted Hari's original claims, and how Roxy's edit had distorted the source's version. The devil's in the details. I am paying attention to details. SageRad (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
There will never be a systematic review of Vani Hari's claims to satisfy MEDRS because no one will write it. Per WP:PARITY, we can use reliable but less-than-unassailable sources to counter fringe claims such as Hari's. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
What makes her claims fringe? For example, her claim that science suggests that there is a link between aluminum exposure and Alzheimer's? What makes it fringe? SageRad (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is a link between aluminium and Alzheimer's, I read it years ago when it was first published in Nature. But, to this day we don't know if the increased concentration of aluminium is cause or effect of the disease. Perhaps you have heard the mantra "correlation does not prove causality". We only have correlation, we don't have causality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I knew nothing about Hari before seeing this thread. But yes, anyone who can write "water that was microwaved did not form beautiful crystals – but instead formed crystals similar to those formed when exposed to negative thoughts or beliefs" and not burst out laughing is fringe. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Does Hari have a right to respond to accusations in her own article?[edit]

Quick summary:Hari said something about fish bladders which the press deemed as fear mongering. In a blog post Hari responds to these claims. I added her response to these accusations to the article, because it's her BLP and I believe she has a right to respond to serious accusations. User:JzG has removed her response claiming she is a serial liar who can't be trusted.[6][7] From BLP policy standpoint, who is in the right here? Brustopher (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We're here to create encyclopedic content first, and not to provide anyone with a soapbox. Hari's claims are deep into pseudoscience and fringe territory, so it's unlikely she'll ever accept encyclopedic content about her beliefs. Given we've reliable sources about her attempts at hiding her past claims, she probably shouldn't be seen as a reliable source about anything other than WP:BLPSELFPUB content that is not contentious an any way. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
We are not asserting that what she is saying is true. The idea that Hari's article is a soapbox is laughable, as it accurately calls out all her pseudoscientific or exaggerated claims. We are not asserting her claim as fact, we're allowing her to provide her own opinion about what happened. If a BLP has published rebuttals of highly negative accusations against them (such as being an ignorant fearmonger), then we ought to use it. Otherwise we could be smearing a BLP. Brustopher (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but adding her responses is indeed using the article as a soapbox, in addition to violating BLPSELFPUB, and NPOV for that matter when using such sources to "balance" those from independent, reliable ones. --Ronz (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that she has a long history of making clueless comments and then trying to undo the damage after the fact without actually admitting she was wrong. That means we should leave all analysis of her statements to third parties. This is not a newspaper, we don't have an even notional "right of reply", we report the consensus view of reliable independent sources, we don't then "balance" that with the subject's own special pleading. The solution to her problems is for her to take more care over accuracy and clarity. I know you want to be fair, but as my old schoolmaster said, "don't go expecting life to be fair, 'cos it ain't." There is very little recent commentary on Hari that paints her in a good light, and there is only one person to blame for this: Vani Hari. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
We report the consensus of reliable independent sources, as determined by the consensus of the editors evaluating those sources, and in a case such as this, we seem to be split about including Hari's response to various allegations against her, such as her "any chemical, ever" comment. Her reply to that one was that it was taken out of context, and i tend to agree with that response. She's given to hyperbole but in the context that one made sense, and she explained why in her response. It was in a chapter about endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and therefore in the context of high potency modes of action, where indeed there is no safe level of any of the relevant chemicals.
There was some positive coverage of Hari, and i added it, and it was promptly reverted by other editors here. In that source, a U.S. Congressman praised Hari's efforts to bring some light to chemical additives in food, and whether or not they are all necessary. SageRad (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
So it sounds some editors are ignoring BLPSELFPUB and specifically cherry-picking "positive" coverage to include? That would be a BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh wow, you are so quick to jump to a snap judgment that favors one side of this conflict. The article was highly slanted toward denigrating Hari, and i engaged in discussion at the talk page, and it was suggested that if i knew of positive coverage, to include it, and i did so, and it was promptly reverted. What's your beef, Ronz? Balance in coverage is a good thing. There was coverage both positive and negative, and the article included almost solely the negative and spoke in Wikivoice the claims of those who hate her. That's a violation of BLP, a serious one. SageRad (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
At best it merits a 'although Hari has responded/denied this' at the end of the section with a source to her response. Her actual response would not be covered in detail due to it being, well, rubbish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
That's quite judgmental, and your own judging of her words as "rubbish" shows your proclivity in regard to the article. This attitude of hatred for Hari among those who are editing the page is the source of the extreme bias that was there and still remains to a large degree, in this BLP. There is a contingent of editors who really seem to hate Hari who are editing her page and attempting to lock it down in a negative way, and blocking people who want to move it the other way. SageRad (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC and try to refrain from using this forum (and the article) as a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not using this forum as a battleground, sir. I am pointing out that the Vani Hari article is a battleground and that this is a bad situation. Do not shoot the messenger. Do not confuse the messenger with the message. The battleground dynamic is highly relevant to the content that is created in an article and therefore it is relevant to the content. I am focusing on the content, but to do so, one must diagnose why the content is so biased. SageRad (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense: "you are so quick to jump to a snap judgment that favors one side of this conflict" "What's your beef, Ronz"
Good luck at ArbCom. I think a ban is in order. --Ronz (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, can you not even see your bad behavior? Do you really think "Good luck at ArbCom" is an appropriate comment here? My comments that you quote above were a direct response to your insinuating comment as follows: "So it sounds some editors are ignoring BLPSELFPUB and specifically cherry-picking "positive" coverage to include? That would be a BLP violation" wherein i believe that you were saying that my addition of one single piece of positive coverage of Vani Hari (which was promptly removed by another editor) was "cherry-picking" and i did in fact see you as snapping to judgment favoring one side in this conflict. Now you are saying that i'm creating a "battleground" by saying that i thought you snapped to judgment in a biased way? Ok, then. I'm done with this thread. You've targeted me here, wrongly. Please take your own advice and focus on the content, and speak with substance and integrity. Please cease from trying to frame me as wikicriminal just because i brought up an issue of bias in an biography of a living person that seemed to be an attack informercial against her. Don't shoot the messenger. Talk about the substance, if you have anything to add. SageRad (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I took "Ok, then. I'm done with this thread." as an indication you were, done. What is the nature of your BLP emergency? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggest closing[edit]

I suggest closing this thread for two reasons: first, there is discussion on the article talk page which seems in the most part to have converged on a consensus version witht he exception of two minor elements over whihic I have started RfCs; second, this article is related to the ongoing arbitration case on GMOs, and SageRad's presence there is primarily in furtherance of his agenda on GMOs, so encouraging him to continue arguing here risks tempting him to dig an even deeper hole for himself. Guy (Help!) 06:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that we continue to talk as long as there are relevant things to say, and that there is no need to close this dialogue. And please get off your targeting of me. You're onerous, sir. You're out of line. I bring up issues that seem relevant to the integrity of Wikipedia, and you attack me as a result. I'm not here for any agenda except to restore some balance and integrity. You're confusing that with something else, apparently, and you have taken to a pattern of attacking me with ad hominem remarks like this for the past month or so, and i am seriously tired of this behavior of yours. Please cease. Let's talk about the topic at hand if you have anything to offer regarding it. I created this thread for good reason, and it seems to be serving to foster discussion about the topic of the Vani Hari page and whether there is bias on that page. Let's not shut this discussion down just because you want to. SageRad (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Why the rush to close this thread?[edit]

I am really wondering why this thread was closed when there remains the possibility that further discussion would be useful. That was an inappropriate closing of an active thread.

The reason given by the editor who closed it was "Since SageRad is done here, so are we all. Related Arbcom case will likely have direct influence for future editing." There are problems with this:

  • I'm not done here necessarily and i just stated that plainly in my response to Guy/JzG.
  • This is not about me. I opened this thread as an editor on Wikipedia for other editors to also discuss this issue and this has happened, and is still happening. People have been discussing this issue, despite the harassment and bad behavior by several onerous editors here.
  • The mention of the ArbCom case, just like Ronz's comment above, is threatening language and inappropriate here. SageRad (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
This thread explains itself, and its purpose was and still is to discuss bias in the Vani Hari article. Give it enough time to complete naturally. Strange to see the impulse to shut this down, and the reason being given that "SageRad is done here" and also the very strange off-topic reference to the ArbCom case. Discussions take some time and it's usually apparent when a discussion is completed because people are no longer contributing to it. There is room for discussion on Wikipedia. The presence of this thread does not impede or hurt anyone, does it? Where i wrote "i'm done with this thread" i meant the sub-thread in which Ronz was going ad hominem -- i didn't mean this whole discussion section. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I had just replied to JzG that i would prefer to keep this section open for the time being as i see it having been and still being useful. SageRad (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
This thread has been open since the 22 September. There is no indication there is a pressing BLP issue, information in the article is reliably sourced. Your main complaint is that the article is overly negative and positive information (eg, Hari's response to criticism) is not being included. That the majority of reliably sourced information from secondary sources is negative about Hari is not a BLP issue when reliably sourced. Your complaint that positive information from Hari/elsewhere is not being included is a content issue currently being discussed (where it belongs) on the article talk page. Unless there is actually a BLP issue that needs to be resolved this conversation really is done. What outcome do you expect from further discussion here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I see no particular problem in providing SageRad with WP:ROPE. "Ok, then. I'm done with this thread" was confusing at best. But no big deal -- except that if things degenerate into unproductive bickering I'll close it myself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"Rope" comment inappropriate -- threatening/insinuating language not welcome here. The article still appears to suffer extreme bias to me, and i am still interested in others seeing this and evaluating whether this seems to be an issue to them. Wikipedia works by diversity of perspectives and by good dialogue. Please engage in helpful dialogue or refrain from dialogue. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
And I suppose there's nothing to learn from the fact that everyone who has evaluated it has come to the same conclusion. That's the difficulty here, of course -- your notion of "helpful" dialogue has a particular meaning. With that in mind, I hope you won't continue to try to discourage others from participating -- the same way you want not to be discouraged from participating yourself... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Your first sentence is not correct. The rest, i don't really understand what you mean. Anyone can participate, of course, as long as the guidelines and ideals of Wikipedia are respected. SageRad (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Jim Carrey[edit]

(I posted this at the Help Desk three hours ago, but no one has replied. So I just found this noticeboard and figured this is a better place to ask anyway.) Should content about the death of an ex-girlfriend/boyfriend, or even current girlfriend/boyfriend, be included in a celebrity's article? If so, how much? Content about the suicide of Jim Carrey's girlfriend was just added to his article, in the personal life section. This is the content as it appears right now; it starts with "On September 28, 2015". Numerous mainstream media such as NBC News and FOX News are reporting that she is an ex-girlfriend, not current.[8][9] Some others are claiming that they recently got back together or possibly got back together, including TMZ, where the story apparently originated. The only source currently included in the Carrey article is Gawker. So, putting aside the sources, should that content be in the article? I'm not sure if it matters, but they only dated in 2012 according to sources, and again this year if they actually started dating again. From reading many celebrity bios on here over the years, my understanding has been that only "significant" relationships - like marriages and long-term relationships - should be mentioned in an article, and that brief or on/off relationships should not. I have never edited the article and will not touch this content. I'll leave that to editors who are much more familiar with the rules of biographies. Czoal (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS spring fairly readily to mind. I would consider prudence might be best advised. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please look at the content and make any appropriate edits so I can see how it should be handled? Czoal (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I used my best judgment and made the edit. Czoal (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 7 millions web mentions, it is important in his personal life, she mentioned him in her last note, I won't call it a suicide note at the moment and he has commented already, it is important, I took out gawker and added a less exciting verification. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Govindaharihari, I see you reverted me and restored all of the content. I realize that there are many sources, but that's surely because she dated a very famous celebrity. But I don't understand why it qualifies to be in his encylopedia article when (a) she is not notable at all, and (b) they only dated for a short time and may not have even been dating at the time of her death. At the very least, quoting his entire tribute comment about her seems quite inappropriate. I thought Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be used for tributes like that. But I see that Ryk72 removed the tribute content. Nevertheless, I'm still concerned about her not being notable and them never being in a long-term relationship. Czoal (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I edited the content and improved the verifications. This issue seems quite important to him, so much as for him to post a lovely tribute to here, here is the content at issue. The quote from Carey about the death of his girlfriend has been removed by User:Ryk72 citing WP:UNDUE - here is the quote

Carrey's representatives released this statement:

I am shocked and deeply saddened by the passing of my sweet Cathriona. She was a truly kind and delicate Irish flower, too sensitive for this soil, to whom loving and being loved was all that sparkled. My heart goes out to her family and friends and to everyone who loved and cared about her. We have all been hit with a lightning bolt.

the online verification was from I was asked to discuss it, so if Ryk could please explain and others could comment, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72 is absolutely correct with regard to WP:UNDUE. She is not notable, they were never in a long-term relationship, and there are many conflicting reports among media outlets about whether or not they were even dating at the time of her death. And, of course, the article is about Carrey, not her. Nevertheless, even the brief content that Ryk72 left in may still be more than should be included based on the status of their relationship and the circumstances of her death. With regard to the tribute quote, the policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a very clear: "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements". Czoal (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
also on a similar vein, Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.
All of this is about a separate article, she is not notable, he is and his comments about her death are. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
We cannot have a two simultaneous conversations going on in different places about this issue. Now that there is a thread on the Carrey talk page, that is the place it should be discussed. But the policy on the tribute content is very clear, so there really is no issue any more. Czoal (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
lets continue the discussion here as the whole chat is here, I was unaware it was still under discussion here. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Czoal You post as a certain reason for the quote from Carey to be removed as, Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements - this is however false, the content and article is about Carey and his comments, not her Govindaharihari (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding the policy. WP:MEMORIAL is Wikipedia's policy that precisely applies to tributes like the one you want included. Tributes to people who are not notable are not allowed. Period. She is not notable. Therefore, it's not alllowed. Carrey's notability is irrelvant; the sole issue is that person the tribute is about is not notable. Yes, the tribute is very nice and it is very important to Carrey, but the content does not qualify for inclusion in this encylopedia. Sorry. Do you understand now? Czoal (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Govindaharihari, Many thanks for your questions. I am happy to provide a certain amount of discussion of the reasoning for the removal; but, given the nature of the subject matter, I am disinclined to wax lyrical. The short answer is that, on balance, the level of detail included in this section was inappropriate for documenting the subject of that article. Per WP:BALASPS, Discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.; the inclusion of the quote was undue (cf. WP:RECENTISM). Given the comments of other editors above, I am open to the suggestion that this might be true of the entire section. Per WP:ONUS, Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted ... The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.; and editors wishing to include additional information on this aspect will need to provide a compelling rationale. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ryk72 Those were all very good points. I am still very concerned about even the brief content that remains about the woman ("On September 28, 2015, Carrey's on-off girlfriend, Cathriona White, was found dead from a possibly intentional prescription drug overdose. The couple first met in 2012."). I can't think of any good reason why this information about someone Carrey only briefly dated should be included in his article. It's undisputable that she is not notable and the cirumstances of her death are contentious and inconsistent among sources. Therefore, I believe all that content should be removed. Czoal (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Reports are that they have been back together since May. Carrey has now reportedly visited the house where she died and spent one and a half hours there with her sister and left with some cardboard boxes. Carrey and her split from him was mentioned in a letter beside her and her death occurred shortly after their split, to me he seems devastated as his statement portrays and it is an important personal grief in his life and being reported widely. I don't think we are doing readers or him a good service to remove it. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but none of that changes anything we have told you. His feelings about her, and most certainly your personal interpretation of those feelings ("to me he seems devastated"), have absolutely no relevance in terms of how we edit this encylopedia. For the record, Daily Mail is a tabloid and therefore cannot be used as a reliable source, particularly in a BLP article. And not that it matters, but for every source that says she was his current girlfriend, I can find a reliable source that says she was his ex-girlfriend. But, again, their relationship status doesn't matter because it's undisputed that she's not notable and they were never in a long-term relationship. And, more to the point, tribute quotes like that are a clear no-no. Czoal (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, ex-girlfriend because they split up just before she was found dead with a bottle of pills and a note mentioning her split from Carrey beside her. I will happily disagree with your interpretation of Carrey's statement as being a violation of wp:memorial, so leave his statement out but any suggestion of removing any mention of his relationship with her is beyond the pale in my opinion. Yes, before you lecture me, my opinion is irrelevant.Govindaharihari (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not your opinion that is irrelevant. What is irrelevant are all your reasons for believing the quote belongs, when the guidelines clearly tell us that it doesn't. For the record, that is a very standard quote than just about anyone in the world would make when someone dies that we are/were close to. It was very nice, but it obviously doesn't belong in an encylopedia. As editors, we don't care how long he spent with the woman's sister, that he took boxes from the home, or that you personally believe he was "devastated", etc. This is an encylopedia, not a fan page or gossip forum. In terms of the remaining content, you are still missing the point with regard to her lack of notability and the insignificance of their relationship from an encylopedic perspective. Therefore, none of the content about her belongs in the article. Czoal (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree but don't object to removal of his statement but I do object to removal of all mention of the relationship Govindaharihari (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
For now, I will not remove the remaining content. I'll give some time for others to comment. But from reading thousands of celebrity biographies over many years, I'm sure that content doesn't belong for the reasons I've stated. Czoal (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Tribe[edit]

Laurence Tribe is a highly-respected constitutional lawyer and law professor. He is usually considered a liberal and civil liberties proponent, best known by the general public for his representation of Al Gore (v. GW Bush) in 2000. Someone or more than one person keeps adding OR material to try to show that he is somehow really a conservative. I really think he deserves a better article here. Skylark777 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, you could not be more wrong, I don't think and am not trying to show he is a conservative, at all. Just the opposite. I am trying to detail his ostensible underestimation (intentional or otherwise) of the magnitude of Windsor v United States and its consequent nation-wide developments, which Scalia accurately predicted, which Tribe, for lack of a better alternate verb, dismissed, using faux moderate arguments. For an eminent legal scholar, author, Ivy league educator and academician and onetime possible SCOTUS nominee candidate, this is worthy of note, particularly his attacks on Scalia. Otherwise "I really think he deserves a better article here" doesn't make much sense. He doesn't "deserve" anything that anyone else would on Wikipedia, but he happens to have a good article. It would appear you disagree with me on one aspect of how to update it, or I should say, not update it, as you deleted the text in question. I am not a brilliant legal scholar; obviously I will have to abide by whatever results from the talk page consensus. Quis separabit? 17:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
From what I can see, unless I missed something, there are no secondary sources provided which agree with your view on the importance of this one incident.Skylark777 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
No? Well aside from the reflinks in the article in the pertinent section, there are these ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) and a book by Windsor's counsel, Roberta Kaplan, Then Comes Marriage: United States V. Windsor and the Defeat of Doma (ISBN 9780393248678). Quis separabit? 18:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Well, by yout own words: "[Tribe] is a highly-respected constitutional lawyer and law professor. He is usually considered a liberal and civil liberties proponent, best known by the general public for his representation of Al Gore (v. GW Bush) in 2000." He is, by my words, he is "an eminent legal scholar, author, Ivy league educator and academician and onetime possible SCOTUS nominee candidate". In other words, his credentials entitle(d) him to make his comments re Windsor v United States and to assail Scalia's dissent (which happened as usual to be the most forceful on the Court). Should he not be responsible for his own words, advocacy and actions? We are not talking a run of the mill lawyer or some ambulance chaser, but with a man who is a pundit, a talking head, an Ivy League staple and one of President Obama's teachers at Columbia, apparently. Harvard Law. Quis separabit? 18:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding here Quis separabit?. As I said on the article's talk page, the sources you just listed show that United States v. Windsor is an important and notable case. However they do not say anything about Mr. Tribe, or even mention him. It takes WP:Original research to say that his statement about it (and the material in the article about some other cases) is something that should be included in his article.Skylark777 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have posted my thoughts on the article's talk page thread, but will also add them here since I'm not sure where this discussion should be taking place. It certainly is a credible BLP issue. I find the content Rms added problematic with regard to WP:UNDUE, particularly by creating it's own subsection and including the extensive quote. If any of the content were to be included, it should simply be a summary sentence or two that is merged into the existing "political involvement" section, and the quote eliminated. Readers can look at the sourcing for the quote. I also see that Rms changed the word "citing" to "claiming" in the sentence, "He resigned eight months later, citing health reasons." An edit like that raises a red flag, but I see it was reverted. I have no personal views on Tribe one way or the other, but the inclusion of all of this content, the way it is being given such prominence, and the changing of the neutral "citing" to the non-neutral "claiming" - which implies that he may have lied - is troubling and could perhaps indicate to some readers that the editor has an agenda and is motivated by negative personal feelings about Tribe. Czoal (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography[edit]

This isn't quite in the remit of this noticeboard, but this seems as good a place as any to solicit opinions about BLP issues. I've just discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Popular pages, which includes quite a few people who are noted for something unrelated and just happen to have a criminal conviction in their past (Boy George, Justin Bieber, Naomi Campbell, Pete Doherty, Chuck Berry, Floyd Mayweather, Jr. etc). These are technically "criminal biographies", as they're biographies of people who have been convicted of crimes, but it seems to me to be giving fairly substantive undue weight to file these people alongside serial killers and mobsters. (The list also includes the biographies of a number of people who were the victims of crime.) Does anyone else think this is an issue, or am I over-reacting? Since I assume this list is auto-generated from WikiProject tags, and it's an article of Wiki-faith that nobody can prevent a project tagging articles, I'm not sure what can be done about it. ‑ iridescent 10:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well actually we can prevent tags/categories on BLP's if consensus is to do so, but its almost always either ambiguous/something contentious like sexuality etc. While criminality would fall into those areas, its often much better sourced. Ultimately someone convicted of a crime is a criminal, so its difficult to argue against. UNDUE would be the appropriate place, however then you are up against the 'categories are just for navigation!' crowd. Take Boy George, he has been tagged with 'British people convicted of drug offences', 'English people convicted of assault', and 'people banned from entering the united states'. Are these really necessary? Technically they may be accurate and reliably sourced, but are they undue? In Boy George's case given his issues over the years the argument would probably come down yes, but some of the others would not be so clear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

RT (TV network)[edit]

There is disagreement about a specific characterization of a politician in RT (TV network). For the disputed statement see this diff. The source is this Buzzfeed article. A second source was added later, this Guardian article.
The first source says basically the same as the disputed text, instead of "admirer of" it uses the words "confessed fan" (and those words hyperlink to the Guardian article). The Guardian article (which doesn't mention RT) gives a full quotation that includes the words "but not as a human being" and "Not that I approve of him politically".

The statement was first added months ago, has been removed and reverted six times since September 26. (not including last change and revert)
Diffs of the reverts, in most cases the previous edit was the removal: diff, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6. This version added context: diff7, was replaced by the last version: diff8. Here is a link to the history.

Discussion on talk page started after the 4th reversal. There is fundamental disagreement between editors on whether this is a BLP issue, some argue that calling him an admirer is misleading without the context, others argue that the sources justify it, or/and that it cannot be a BLP issue because it is well-sourced, and that adding context would be OR.
Outside help would be helpful to resolve this conflict, thank you. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

RT (TV network) is not a person. Why this is a BLP problem? My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
From looking at the talkpage I believe its because Nigel Farage is being described as an admirer of Vladimir Putin on that article. BLP applies to all living people in any article (or talkspace etc) on wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Took a look, its reliably sourced he is an admirer of putin (when asked 'Who do you admire most?' and you reply 'Putin', its hard to say that is not reliable) and it is actually relevant in context - RT TV is Russian-based, and it is included in a section on notable guests, Farage has been on 17 times - thats a large amount by any standard - and his admiration of Russia's current leader is certainly relevant to that. So not a BLP violation that I can seeOnly in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
He replied "Putin, but not as a human being". Omitting that last part makes a significant difference in my opinion. Ssscienccce (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I admire Isaac Newton, but not as a human being, but as a genious. What's the problem? My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If the comment has been cherry picked out of context then without the full quote then it should be removed post haste, the additional comments "but not as a human being" and "Not that I approve of him politically" change the limited quote significantly. Mentioning of Farage like this in a fake quote is way excessive and I will remove it now. IMO anyone replacing the cherry picked portion of a quote should be removed from this article Govindaharihari (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If you are asked 'who you most admire in the world' and you answer 'X person, except for the bad things' that in no way negates that you *still* admire them more than anyone else in the world. Despite his human rights record, stances on homosexuality etc, Nigel Farage admires Putin more than any other person in the world. Including the Dalai Lama, Hitler, or Margaret Thatcher. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

John Glen (politician)[edit]

John Glen (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I work for John Glen MP. I note that this article has been subject to numerous edits, to include a biased description of Mr Glen's beliefs, and disproportionate weight given to his position on the same-sex marriage bill. Obviously all of Mr Glen's voting positions are a matter of public record, but it is evident that this article is not attempting to be based on a NPOV. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, or edit warring, we don't wish to continuously delete or edit the article, and would be very grateful for any help in restoring it to be a factual rather than ideological biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WMinster-2015 (talkcontribs) 14:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@WMinster-2015: Best would be for you to suggest edits and improvements in the talk page, so that these suggestions can be evaluated and implemented. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Mushtaq Omar Uddin[edit]

Mushtaq Omar Uddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The information displayed is a violation of privacy and defamatory. This page has not be authorised by Mushtaq Omar Uddin which would like to have this page remove as of immediate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrak15 (talkcontribs) 19:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Massive amount of WP:BLPCAT / WP:EGRS violations[edit]

I'm hoping that some editors who are familiar with WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS can help me clean up the edits made by Alexander Iskandar (talk · contribs). They've added hundreds upon hundreds of ethnic, descent and religious categories to biography articles that are not supported by the policy or guidelines regarding such categories. I've rolled back the edits made today (numbering in the hundreds) and will comb through each of the articles to ensure that any unsupported religious categories are removed (and restore any that are BLPCAT compliant), but this will require clean-up on a very large scale. If anyone can pitch in to review edits made prior to today I would be extremely grateful.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Iskandar has agreed to help review the edits and add sourcing here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Venus_Palermo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, I saw that the page Venus_Palermo is experiencing an extended amount of vandalism like changing the name of relatives or changing the name of the living person into name of genitals etc, and as well probably good faith edits. It is a concerning fact though, that these users also remove references, which messes up the site on reliability. I am therefor asking for page protection of the site, since even warned users repeatedly return to delete relevant information or mess up the page with random words within names or other highly possibly vandalistic acts (like putting visa instead of names and repeatedly deleting references), even creating bots for vandalistic acts and as well simply blanking the page. The amount of vandalism is increasing, so the protection of the page seems to be necessary. Thanks for your kind help. (talk)

Um, wow. I removed some of the worst cruft just now, but this article is a mess. It's mostly sourced to this person's own youtube and social media accounts, and contains a lot of non-notable or un-encyclopedic info. Needs more work, but I'm out of time just now. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Fyddlestix Your answer to protecting the page was: deleting relevant information like modelling career, working as a judge and references to music videos. You didn't take a look into all the vandalism taking place on the page, but topped it in some ways. (talk)
None of this is vandalism. The info has been (repeatedly) removed because it is not reliably sourced, and isn't appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. See WP:RS and WP:NOT - we cannot include long lists of this person's appearances and activities when the only source is their own you tube channel and social media accounts. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Fyddlestix true, but that is not the case. You delete reliable infos, with a lot of proof from various pages. If the person says on her own instagram, that she married, e.g., then we have to accept this announsement as reliable. If her youtube channel says, that the channel has 0ver 140,000,000 views, then it is a reliable info. And about other infos you delete: they are well sourced from external pages like movie trailer, modelling contest, and chart ranking etc. Please stop the disruptive editing and plain deletion of well sourced information. (talk)
IP 146, You are being very disruptive and are edit-warring over content that clearly does not belong. Fyddlestix's removal of the content was perfectly appropriate. Content that is not notable and/or does not have reliable sources should never be added. Educate yourself on what vandalism is, and stop your baseless allegations of sockpuppetry and collusion among editors. There is no conspiracy against you. Czoal (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@, are you Venus Palermo or do you have a personal connection to her? Czoal (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, my question has been answered. See this thread at AN about IP 146, where admin NeilH said that IP 146 is also Maggie.7537, whom he blocked. And Maggie.7537 said in this edit summary from August 2013 that she is Venus Palermo's mother. Czoal (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm Bricklin[edit]

Could someone with an auto industry background have a look at this article in light of this newspaper report [16]. (The web site name "Stuff" may not sound too serious, but it's the on-line presence of one of New Zealand's two main newspaper groups). Article appears to my inexpert eye to be a large pile of self-promotion sourced to such reliable sources as Tumblr. Thanks. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed some puffery and removed a bunch of non-rs. Still needs work. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
On a related note, the overly detailed history of each single automobile type doesn't even belong in this biographical article. Of course, some development background and Bricklin's role in it needs to be covered, but the amount of product details is far over the top here. GermanJoe (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Jim Walsh (politician)[edit]

Jim Walsh (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has recently been in the news because the article subject edited it, complaining it was a hatchet job (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/In_the_media). It needs more eyes. Also see talk page discussion. Andreas JN466 08:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Added to watchlist. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Patrick J. Kennedy[edit]

Patrick J. Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should some of the content be removed from this article? I'm neutral on the matter. I went to the article because Kennedy was featured on 60 Minutes today, which I supsect will prompt a lot of people to read his Wikipedia article. I noticed the POV-check template at the top of the page. I wasn't familiar with it, so I read Template:POV-check and WP:NPOVD to learn how it's supposed to be used. A now-archived discussion titled "POV check tag" was started in April 2014 and went nowhere, with only two editors posting comments. When I arrived at the article a few minutes ago, this is how the political controversies section looked. I felt the subsections were over-the-top and violated WP:UNDUE, so I made this edit to remove them. But I did not remove any content. I'm concerned that some or perhaps most of the "controveries" content is not notable, but I don't want to make any edits to it without the input of others who are passionate about BLPs. So your thoughts, or anyone who feels bold and wants to make edits to the article, would be appreciated. Czoal (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Priya Bhavani Shankar[edit]

This article content contains looks like an advertisement or promotional. Please remove it from the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahamed5zal (talkcontribs) 05:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Terren Peizer[edit]

The article on Terren Peizer popped up on my watchlist, it is absolutely horrible. It has survived AfD and the guy seems notable, but this article is ghastly, so Ihave moved it to Draft in the hope that someone here can clean it up to meet policy (e.g. by removing peacock terms). Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 14:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)[edit]

There is a problem with the first sentence. I still do cult intervention work, so I am not "formerly a cult intervention specialist." The first sentence might be changed to read -- Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is an author, consultant, expert witness, lecturer and cult intervention specialist, formerly known as a "cult deprogrammer." Also the lead itself might be made shorter by cutting everything after the first paragraph.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This is being discussed at Talk:Rick Alan Ross#Lead and that appears to be the best place to continue the discussion rather than splitting it to here. -- GB fan 15:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Huma Abedin[edit]

Huma Abedin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Huma Abedin's biography has, for several years, accurately described various highly-defamatory, scurrilous and widely-repudiated claims about her as being a "conspiracy theory," based on the widespread description of those claims as a conspiracy theory by a broad array of reliable sources, including major newspapers, a bipartisan group of lawmakers and the Anti-Defamation League, among others. This has been a longstanding consensus dating back to 2013. Recently, User:Nocturnalnow has taken to a slow-motion edit war to remove the well-supported description of the claims as a conspiracy theory. I would request additional eyes on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Added to watchlist. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I actually was attracted to the heading "Conspiracy Theory Allegations" which seems like a self conflicting and unnecessarily judgmental phrase to me. I then noticed that the User above kept reverting the efforts of other editors to improve the heading which is why I got involved. I also endorse the suggestion that you keep an eye on this BLP as it seems full of sanitizing, whitewashing and misrepresentation to me. Especially so with the newer section on Abedin's RS reported involvement in the Clinton email issues. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
If you'd like to suggest something better which maintains the RS-backed mainstream description of the allegations as a conspiracy theory, please make that suggestion on the talk page. When discussing widely-discredited, scurrilous and negative allegations about a living person, we must depict those allegations as mainstream reliable sources do — as little more than a McCarthy-style conspiracy theory. That the above user has proffered writings from the noted right-wing conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney in defense of his arguments is merely further proof of how they are viewed by mainstream sources. Fringe theories must be depicted as what they are — fringe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 12:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Mohamed clock incident[edit]

Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, sources uses the colloguial term of "arrest" for when Ahmed was taken into custody. texas law and the Attorney general make clear that 10-14 year olds are not arrested and if asked they can truthfully answer "No" to the question have "Have you ever been arrested?" In addition, all records of custody including photographs and fingerprints have been destroyed as no further proceeding have occured. Since "arrest" has real-world implications for future jobs and the eternal nature of wikipedia, it my position we should use "taken into custody" so as not to contradict his possible future answers on job apllications and what not. Those arguing that it should be "arrest" in wikipedia's voice seem to agree that "taken into custody" is equivalent to "arrest." It seems we should err on the side of caution and attribute the word "arrest" to the source, and in Wikipedia's voice only use "taken into custody" because of the above mentioned concerned. --DHeyward (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The relevant detail to support "taken into custody" is provided by the Texas Attorney general interpreting the laws of Texas here[17]. On page 6 in the section called "Taking a Child into Custody" where it explains the terminology. I have yet to see an argument from those advocating "arrest" that "taken into custody" is different than "arrest" but I very clearly see the AG stating that "taken into custody" allows juveniles to later state they were not arrested. It seems obvious when given the choice between to colloquially identical terms, we should use the one with least harm. --DHeyward (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the nuances of Texas law as it pertains to juveniles, all the sources covering the incident, including LA Times[18], NYT[19], WaPo[20], CNN[21], ABC[22], CBS[23], The Guardian[24], and many others, describe the incident in the context of an "arrest", i.e. Arrest, when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension of a person or the deprivation of a person's liberty . DHeyward is arguing for the application of Original research, and asks us to dismiss the overwhelming number of sources that describe the arrest of the 14-year old in non-ambiguous terms. As for the concern of "harm for future jobs", Ahmed Mohamed will always be known as the 14-year old that got arrested by bringing a clock to school, given the massive coverage of the incident and the use of the term "arrest". - Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
in addition to the first class sources from around the world, the TEXAS sources use "arrest" to describe what happened. Houston Chronicle: "The 14-year-old Irving ISD student was arrested. " Dallas Morning News: "Irving’s police chief announced Wednesday that charges won’t be filed against Ahmed Mohamed, the MacArthur High School freshman arrested Monday after he brought " Austin Statesman: "Irving police arrested MacArthur High School freshman " El Paso Times :A 14-year-old Muslim boy has been arrested in North Texas . If there were in fact any peculiar Texan distinction between police officers dragging a 14-year-old in handcuffs to the police station from "arrest" they would know. We do not utilize WP:EUPHEMISMs or WP:JARGON. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the action/event in question as an "arrest," and so should wikipedia. The argument that RS are wrong because a particularly narrow interpretation of what "arrest" means (and of Texas law) suggests that he wasn't "really" arrested is WP:OR, as far as I can tell. And it contradicts the vast majority of RS on the subject. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
This *is* an encyclopedia, there is nothing preventing us from describing it as an arrest (as that is what the reliable sources use) and also pointing out the Texas law enforcement opinion on it. Its certainly interesting that someone 'arrested' by any common usage of the word can reply that they havnt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Referring to Texas Law, when there are no sources discussing to that law in the context of the incident, would be a violation of WP:NOR. Now, if sources emerge that make that connection, we can surely add a mention if and when that happen. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
If it's obvious that reliable sources are fudging things and that there is potential harm to a 14-year-old child, then I agree we should err on the side of caution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
What harm are you referring to? This kid is now a media sensation because of this incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no 'harm' in stating he was arrested, since that is what happened and that is what reliable sources have reported. The harm was the reaction to the kid, not the reporting of that action. This is just a smokescreen by DH. It's original research and synthesis. Not some altruistic way to protect the kid. Dave Dial (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldnt even say fudging to be honest. The main issue would be that in many jurisdictions being taken into custody is an arrest. That it is not necessarily in Texas is unlikely to cross the UK Guardian editor's mind. If the police put handcuffs on you, take you to a police station and lock you in a cell, you have been arrested by any common language definition. That you might not officially been 'under arrest' is a minor point. But to be honest, all this rubbish would be resolved if the damn article had been deleted as a clear BLP1E like it should be. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I offer no opinion on the substance of the matter because I've commented on related disputes as an uninvovled admin (though I agree that deletion would have been in the best interests of the project), but just FYI, one can be 'detained' by police in the UK (for example to be searched for drugs)—a process that can involve handcuffs and being taken to a police station and placed in a cell, but which does not necessarily involve formal arrest (so the detained person could be released if found not to have drugs, and there would be no record of them having been arrested). Just food for thought; I don't know (and am not particularly interested in) whether "arrest" is the appropriate term here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell:, that is what happened to this fellow...legally he was detained is all. I don't have any rationale to not use reliable sources which refer to this as an arrest, but it should be clarified as to what that terminology means under Texas law if reliable sources discuss this matter.--MONGO 04:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It is false that no other sources refer to it as "taken into custody." The police press release scrupulously follows the Texas AG guidance. There is no police report or release that refers to an "arrest." That is not political, it is the law. It is not a rare occurrence that breaking news misses the details that would be provided in a refereed journal. All of the sources of news are "primary sources" under the guidance of using breaking news coverage. Once the police press release came out, the language used there should be used in the article as it is the most accurate of all the primary sources and has the backing of the secondary source of the AG's interpretation of Texas Juvenile law. Don't defame and libel him by saying he was arrested. He was not. --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that the news media in Texas regularly applies the term "arrested" to people who are the same age (and who aren't Mohamed). See:[25][26][27] for a few examples. Even if it's not technically an arrest, "arrest" appears to be common parlance, even in Texas, for what happens when the police take a 14-year-old "into custody." Fyddlestix (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is colloquially an arrest. There is no colloquial distinction between "taken into custody" and "arrested." If we want to get even more technical, it's a "seizure" within the meaning of the fourth amendment. The point though is that is no colloquial difference between "taken into custody" and "arrest." Wikipedia can use either term and it has the same colloquial meaning. No one has argued that "taken into custody" is different from the word "arrest." They are colloquial synonyms. However, in a legal context, they are different in Texas law as applied to juveniles. Just as the offence that predicated taking into custody is "hoax bomb", the charge would be "delinquency" in juvenile court. In 20 years when the news has long faded, and Ahmed applies for a job and the question "Have you been arrested?" comes up, we should not be in disagreement with that answer. More to the point, if they toss his application in the bin for lying because Wikipedia has dead link sources to his "arrest" we are doing him a great disservice. I think everyone agrees that "taken into custody" is a an acceptable descriptor of the action by police. But not everyone agrees that "arrested" is okay to use in this case. Choosing "taken into custody" doesn't change the nature. He was taken into custody, put in handcuffs and transported to a juvenile detention facitlity. That is just as accurate as "arrested". as an aside, the software police use for writing reports in Texas does not allow the word "arrest" for disposition of 10-14 year olds that are taken into custody, only adults are "arrested." That's personal knowledge though but the distinction is real in legal documents just as "delinquency" charges instead of criminal charges is real. It doesn't hurt the article or change its meaning to use "taken into custody." The police press release carefully uses "taken into custody." --DHeyward (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The uproar was about a 14-year old being arrested for bringing a clock on a box to school, and the article describes the response to the arrest. Given that the overwhelming number of sources describe it as an arrest, so shall we. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Breaking news stories are primary sources. Use the language in the police press release. It is the most accurate. We are not news and defaming a 14 year-old kid by sayin he was arrested when both the AG and the police department dispute it, is not acceptable. --DHeyward (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The same (primary source) document written by the Texas AG's office that DHeyward uses to try to justify the assertion that a child cannot be arrested itself uses the phrase "a child's arrest" to refer to the sort of thing that happened to this child. In this case the child himself and his family have also repeatedly said he was arrested, and there are roughly 50 reliable secondary sources cited in the article that universally apply the word "arrest" to what happened. None of those reliable sources that discuss this incident, as far as I know, say that the word "arrest" does not apply – the word is used universally without comment or question or clarification in those sources. If we look up the definition of "arrest" or the article about Arrest, we see that it is defined merely as "the act of depriving a person of their liberty" by law-enforcement authorities (that's person, not adult). To avoid applying this word to this incident, when it is used so universally in the reliable sources, would be a textbook case of WP:Original research. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said, there is no colloquial difference. There is a technical difference which is quite apparent when Ahmed can truthfully answer that he was never arrested. My question to everyone clamoring for arrest: 'What's the difference between "taken into custody" and "arrest"?' If nothing, why not opt for the AG guide that allows him to answer "No, I have never been arrested?" If there is a difference, please explain how "arrest" is a different descriptor than "taken into custody." I choose the least harm to juvenile which affords him the privacy and dignity to answer "No, I've never been arrested." (and no, it's a secondary source with expert interpretation of Texas law regarding juveniles. The primary source is statutes.) --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Bob Cornuke[edit]

I am a colleague of Dr. Robert (Bob) Cornuke. The information contained in the Wikipedia article "Bob Cornuke" is full of personal "opinons" and remarks that has been and continues to this day to be damaging the career of Dr. Cornuke. If you carefully read the article, it is a full scale attack on everything that Dr. Cornuke has ever done. The articles that are presented of peoples "opinions" have been cleverly weaved to paint Dr. Cornuke in a highly unfavorable light. This article has directly caused Dr. Cornuke financial loss. Dr. Cornuke has been contacted for speaking engagements over the years, only to have them cancelled when they read the article in Wikipedia. Instead of this article being one that is biographical in nature only, it is a total assault on Dr. Cornukes character, research and professionalism. I am upset that Wikipedia even allows this type of character assassination to be on their site. Please consider removing this article, for the sake of journalistic integrity and fairness.

Thank you for your consideration,

Jeffrey Harbuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessmm (talkcontribs) 18:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If people are cancelling speaking invitations upon learning that "Dr" Bob's doctorate was granted by an unaccredited institution, then I'm not sure this amounts to a serious concern for us. That said, the article could use some cleanup. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yu Tsai[edit]

Yu Tsai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Almost all of the content is unsourced, and virturally all of the sources and external links are junk. Czoal (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Signa Vianen[edit]

Signa Vianen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I want the Signa Vianen page removed although I was not the one who published it. But I am that person in the article. What do I do to ensure it gets done. Do you need to see my passport. Article was recently altered by one individual intentionally aiming to defame subject plus a minor, her son. In order to prevent recurrence (which is bound to happen)do keep a close watch. Subjects are Dutch, not Surinamese.

Also, I would like to report the insultive manner in which editor TheRedPenOfDoom tried to justify edits he made, whilst deleting authentic sources. He literally used the words ´´crap´´. I am not the only one complaining about his manners. Eraser of Stalker Edits 23:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTurk (talkcontribs)

Looking of the history of the article, there's a lot of noise and not much signal. The BLP violations alone aren't grounds to delete the article, but I'm not convinced that the claim of significance was enough. So, I'm erring on the side of BLP-caution and deleting the article—at least as much because of TRPoD's tagging the article for speedy deletion as well as LondonTurk's request. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It was I, MRS VIANEN, who prompted that the page should be deleted. I insisted on that, as the page was about me and somebody published it years ago and I merely chuckled when I first came across it. The page was not deleted because that TheRedPenOfDoom wiki alias suggested it. I MYSELF asked for it. Also, you nor your colleagues would even be able to determine what is what, in terms of claims of significance, because I published my articles in another language, not in English. Any other authentic source than the ones already presented, would just be confusing to you and your kind. Eraser of Stalker Edits 01:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTurk (talkcontribs)
The article is gone but one can still see some weird reference being made, as if I lack importance or even significance, because a Wiki page did not utterly describe me. FYI I already proved myself years ago and like other journalists with a similar cultural background, it was mentioned. I happen to have a solid track record and folks know my endeavours and my successes. But I was never a journalist in your English speaking countries and I also wrote my articles in another language other than English. So you are in no position to decide upon whatever relevance I have, since you would not even be able to understand anything I was involved in. You better stick with the Biebers of the world, and I stick to my own significance. Eraser of Stalker Edits 02:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTurk (talkcontribs)
This C.Fred person @C.Fred: I saw his edit, the following line that is 00:17, 6 October 2015 C.Fred (talk | contribs) deleted page Signa Vianen (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
I understand what the article is about but it does not apply to me as I proved myself years ago, in South America where I used to live. I therefore urge Wikipedia to delete the reference stating that ´´The Article was about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject etc.
Wiki editors who don´t even know my language, are covering up their editing mistakes and now implying that I lack importance or even significance, because a Wiki page did not utterly describe me. I did not publish the page about myself, and when I saw it years ago, I left it at that. I only checked if the facts were OK and over the years somebody sometimes helped me to make a few changes. But I never bothered about it so much as to expand it by adding all kinds of sources. no need.
My relevance is not to be measured by how many articles I published in your country, because I was never a journalist in your country. In fact, you wouldn´t even be able to understand anything I wrote because I am not even English speaking. You are clearly going by double standards here. When a Wiki editor uses words like crap whenever editing pages about living people, credible people with a solid track record, that in itself is UNACCEPTABLE. And I was not the only one complaining about ´´him´´.
Also, please be aware of the FACT that there are a number of pages, people with my similar background, cultural background that is, who have even less data. And there is nothing wrong with that, because among ourselves we know our importance. Nobody from out of nowhere will come in and refer to it as CRAP. I was attacked by a stalker yesterday and I called it to Wiki´s attention because it was one crazy addition to the page. The stalker even changed my nationality, changing me into a Caribbean national which I am most definitely not. I guess that kind of gibberish will prompt the creeps to come out and complete the feast. I have come to the conclusion btw that wiki editors are not necessarily the most credible folks, since they always hide themselves behind a fake ID. Eraser of Stalker Edits 01:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTurk (talkcontribs)
Well, the article about you is gone now, so you should be well now. Have a pleasant day. --Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 01:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The article is gone but one can still see some weird reference being made, as if I lack importance or even significance, because a Wiki page did not utterly describe me. FYI I already proved myself years ago and like other journalists with a similar cultural background, it was mentioned. I happen to have a solid track record and folks know my endeavours and my successes. But I was never a journalist in your English speaking countries and I also wrote my articles in another language other than English. So you are in no position to decide upon whatever relevance I have, since you would not even be able to understand anything I was involved in. You better stick with the Biebers of the world, and I stick to my own significance. Eraser of Stalker Edits 02:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonTurk (talkcontribs) 11:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC+9)
  • There is no way to delete a page without it leaving some sort of record. C.Fred chose to delete it as A7 and even if he restored and closed it as something different, the A7 would still show up in the page history. There's no removing that and there's not anything more that any of us can do for you. Rather than get upset about what shows up in the log history and continue to make some fairly mean spirited comments towards other people, just let it go. You asked for the page's deletion and it was deleted. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow. Your behavior on your talk page is frankly unacceptable. I'm going to make this process easier for you and just give you a block for making ad hominem attacks against other editors. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Noam Federman[edit]

The article was recently expanded with a lot of negative material about the guy. No question he is a troublemaker but does the article in its current state violate BLP? Thanks, Settleman (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No -- it looks pretty good to me. Rather tame, even. Thankfully not as tame as "troublemaker". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I think some of the individual statements are less than reliably sourced (ref 1 for example but I am not an expert in the I/P area), however their removal would neither affect the tone of the article or its description of the subject - given the large amount of other sources available which speak in equal or more negative terms of the subject. It could use a re-write in places, it does not read very well in some sections. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)