Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 7 days archived by ClueBot III.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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

Harmeet Dhillon[edit]

Harmeet Dhillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A biased editor is removing crucial information from Harmeet Dhillon's Wikipedia page even though there is nothing controversial about the edits. Specifically:

|language=en}}</ref> A prominent conservative blog named Powerline Blog called Dhillon "dangerous" and argued that her appointment to the U.S. Department of Justice would be "a shocking betrayal of conservative values." [1] Dhillon has a history of suing individuals to suppress their freedom of speech: for example, she has filed a frivolous lawsuit against an anonymous blogger simply because he used her photo in a blog post. Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief against Dhillon, and the lawsuit was dismissed. Dhillon was criticized for her self-serving and meritless lawsuit: "the plaintiff in this case should have known better than to waste the court’s time on such an outrageous claim."[2] The federal judge found Dhillon's claims to be "speculative and conclusory" and dismissed Dhillon's lawsuit without even granting oral argument. [3]

A. The editor is not allowing the introduction of basic information about the ruling of a federal judge. B. The editor is arguing that "Powerline Blog" is a primary source, even though it isn't. C. Electronic Freedom Foundation is a bipartisan, widely respected organization.


  1. ^ "A Dangerous Candidate for the Top DOJ Civil Rights Job". Powerline Blog. Retrieved 2018-07-16.
  2. ^ "Fair Use Triumphs in the Munger Games". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2018-07-16.
  3. ^ "Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Retrieved 2018-12-31.
  • Probably because 1) we don't use blogs as sources for contentious material about living persons, 2) a brief filed by the EFF is a primary source, which we also don't use for contentious material about living persons, and 3) the entire passage is written like a Facebook rant from your aunt. GMGtalk 20:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this "impartial" and condescending input. Wikipedia cites blogs all the time: technically, even some news agencies are basically blogs (for example, Gizmodo's publications). Also, are you arguing that a federal judge's opinion is not worth the citation? Opisthocoelicaudia66 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with all of GMG's points. BLPs require better sources. O3000 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I too agree with GMG. As a Californian who pays close attention to politics, I am quite familiar with her and disagree with her about almost everything. But this biography must comply with BLP policy, and this content in its current form does not comply. The notion that Powerline is an acceptable source for citing contentious material in a BLP is ludicrous. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It's nice to see political bias infecting this discussion. Jezebel isn't a blog, but PowerLine is? Powerline is not an acceptable source, but Jezebel is? Removing a federal ruling from the page because it doesn't suit the discussion? OK then. Opisthocoelicaudia66 (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't comment on Jezebel or Powerline, since I don't know much about either of them. But there's a Wikipedia policy that warns against the use of primary sources, and explicitly forbids the use of court records to make claims about living persons. From WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. You relied on a court record and documents from a group that filed a brief opposing her for most of the text you attempted to add. Those are not acceptable sources for content making controversial claims about a living person. If the issue was so minor that no reliable independent sources reported on it, then it shouldn't be in her biography. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Marc restellini[edit]

Is not a biography is an hagiographic tribute full of blind love,

All the related information needs to be updated and changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC) it Love..or money? Created by a SPA who has not edited since, and added to by a series of IPs. Removed some of the worst promotional peacockery, and updated some of the information. Not sure how genuinely notable he actually is though; too much information about his purported unique techniques are credited only to his own website, and a few of the news articles appear based on interviews. Hard to tell as I do not speak French, and google translate has its limits. Curdle (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, after a bit of a search, there is enough out there that he is probably notable, (found several better articles in French, and in English as well) which makes deciding what to do about this article kind of awkward, as there are also quite a few problems with it. A large chunk looks to be direct copypaste from the subjects website, which has been in the article since it was first created.
There also seem to be competing interests at work; the subject has been working on what is said to be a definitive catalogue of the artist Modigliani's paintings. Some Ips are promoting the work, others appear to be trying to cast doubts on it. Apparently there was a big scandal a couple of years ago regarding fakes and faked catalogues of Modigliani's work, and various collectors are now afraid for the value of their investments. There also possible financial skulduggery linked to the collapse of museums etc.(unsure how much of this is genuine, coatracking or written by people attempting to discredit the subjects reliability). I dont really know enough about the art world to feel confident wading through it all, and unsure how much is even salvagable due to the massive copyvio. Curdle (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ro Khanna[edit]

More eyes are needed at Ro Khanna, where Asaturn is editing to portray this member of Congress as a hypocrite because he accepts entirely legal campaign contributions from Silicon Valley executives. Pay special attention to the edit summaries, the talk page remarks where they speculate that I am a Khanna employee, and comments on my talk page, all of which make it obvious that this editor has an axe to grind. The editor is ignoring my concerns so it would be great if other folks can get involved. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This editor posted a Google Docs screed on the talk page that calls Khanna a "neoliberal warmongering fracking pro-TPP pawn". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Asaturn, it's really quite simple. If reliable sources say "he takes money only from individuals", then that's what we report. If you want to take issue with those facts, you need to file your complaint with the newspapers/outlets that reported it. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not the one taking issue with facts. Cullen added unnecessary editorials to my additions in an attempt to downplay the facts of where Ro Khanna's individual (and 100% legal) contributions come from. The article for Ro Khanna reads like a puff piece. Read the talk page - I'm not the first person to say so. The article paints him as anti-PAC when (1) he takes PAC money and runs his own PAC in violation of campaign finance law, and (2) his regular contributions, while totally legal, are 94% from millionaires outside of his own district. If pointing this out violates the rules of Wikipedia, then the puff piece content painting him as anti-PAC and a reformer for campaign finance regulations need to be removed, as you are allowing readers to see one side of Ro Khanna without seeing the other, more hypocritical side. Asaturn (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources that say Khanna "takes PAC money and runs his own PAC in violation of campaign finance law"? If not, you can't say it on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Is the FEC a reliable source enough for you?[1] Note the person who filed the paperwork to start the PAC is named Ash Chopra. This person is listed as a former Goldman Sach's employee and Ro Khanna's 2014 campaign finance chair / host committee chair.[2]
You're quite simply wrong on the facts. That FEC document clearly shows the formation of a candidate committee, not a Political Action Committee. See where the box is checked under "Type of Committee"? That's right, the section entitled "Candidate Committee." Where you claim the committee treasurer formerly worked is both unsourced and entirely irrelevant unless commented upon by a reliable secondary source. You clearly have an ax to grind here, you're either misinformed or willfully ignorant of the facts, and worse, you're weaponizing that ignorance in an effort to falsely depict a living person in blatant violation of several policies. I suggest that you step back and disengage yourself from this article before you're topic-banned or worse. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Wrong on "the facts," or your understanding of how the world works? This is nuts. The FEC document shows the formation of a candidate committee... which is a type of PAC. Wikipedia is a bad place for discussion when people are living in an alternate universe, as seen here. I'll step away and grab some popcorn while... 5? people randomly decide to block the public's attempt at showing Ro Khanna still accepts PAC money. Ash Chopra's LinkedIn lists him as a former Goldman Sachs employee (2000-2004) and the link I provided to that "invite" is Ro Khanna's own campaign website (hosted by NGPVan, a company anyone outside of Wikipedia would know as one of the top two providers for campaign websites in the USA). BUT I WAS NEVER CLAIMING THIS IN THE ARTICLE SO WHO CARES? Are you going to now claim LinkedIn doesn't fit into Rule #5382989537 of Wikipedia nerds? Asaturn (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You simply have no understanding of either campaign law or of Wikipedia policy. A candidate committee is not a "type of PAC." It is certainly a political fundraising committee, but it is emphatically not a "PAC." Please read our handy article on political action committees to be better informed about the law. And you are correct to guess that LinkedIn is *not* a reliable secondary source. Do you know how many LinkedIn pages are total bullshit? Calling other editors "Wikipedia nerds" for suggesting that you need to follow policies is not likely to result in a happy ending for you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
As for the Google Docs link, I didn't write it. It cites the FCC, OpenSecrets, Daily Kos, and numerous other reputable publications. I never said Ro Khanna was any of those things. Once again, Cullen is editorializing in an attempt to paint the facts I shared as biased or somehow "attacking" Ro Khanna. Asaturn (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You may not have written it, Asaturn but you and only you posted that screed calling this person a "neoliberal warmongering fracking pro-TPP pawn", and by claiming that this garbage is a reliable source, you committed a BLP violation which you have not yet rescinded. You clearly do not understand either BLP policy or reliable source guidelines. You cannot edit articles like this unless and until you are scrupulous in complying with the applicable policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Wrong again. Your words, not mine. Please stop trying to characterize me as some sort of Ro Khanna hater. The document itself is full of links to government campaign data and reputable sites like OpenSecrets. The comments in the document itself are not my words. This game you're playing is getting old, and I have no idea why you're so obsessed. Asaturn (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, for whatever it's worth, the edits in question have nothing to do with the google doc you keep bringing up. I only brought that up when challenged for additional sources in side conversations. I have never used that document as a citation itself. The question at hand is whether I added correctly cited facts. I did: I linked to OpenSecrets' analysis of the FEC data for Ro Khanna's campaign. I simply shared the fact that the majority of his campaign funds came from outside of his district - an important distinction to make. Other editors have added the fact that Ro Khanna receives the majority of his funding from CEOs in tech and other industries. Is sharing this biased or pushing a POV? The issue here is that editors of this page are attempting to push the agenda of the Ro Khanna campaign and paint him as a reformer. It is the duty of this encyclopedia to contain relevant and important information. The facts of where Ro Khanna gets his campaign funding are not only important, but very relevant when you consider the fact that he is sold as a campaign finance reformer. As I said elsewhere, if this needs to be moved to a new section on his article, I'm happy to do that. But do not misrepresent my edits in an attempt to push your own agenda here. Asaturn (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I invite and welcome any uninvolved editors and adminstrators to scrutinize this situation to independently decide who is pushing an agenda here. I welcome their conclusions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I invite and welcome anyone who has spent fewer than 24 hours in the last 2 days on Wikipedia to independently look at what Cullen is claiming I said vs. what was actually edited on the Ro Khanna article. I'm not the one pushing an agenda here. Asaturn (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I have given Asaturn the DS alert for BLPs. Stating (as was done above) that a named politician has violated campaign finance laws without RS support is clearly a BLP issue. EdChem (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "PAC Formation for "Californians for Innovation"" (PDF). FEC.
  2. ^ "South Asian Leaders Event Invite". Ro Khanna for Congress. Retrieved 13 January 2019.
I have never said that in the article. That was Cullen's words, not mine, based on his interpretation of a list of sources I had previously shared. Nowhere in the article did I claim laws were violated. This is ridiculous and people are not understanding the situation. Asaturn (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

David Olshanetsky[edit]

David Olshanetsky incorrect information unreliable sources too obscure — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you specify what is incorrect, so it can be fixed?--Auric talk 17:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Most of the information is exaggerated and the tumblr popularity claims have no sources, it should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Rachel Riley[edit]

Rachel Riley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page has seen an influx of new editors with rather strong views. The subject has recently spoke out against antisemitism, and subsequently George Galloway criticized her and Riley responded. It seems that Galloway (and others in the same circle) are actively addressing the Wikipedia page of Riley in social media - Galloway himself retweeting posts on Riley's Wikipedia entry, and a search on twitter for Riley+Wikipedia coming up with some alarming results. The page has seen edits such as this to her nationality (and occupation) and this smear, as well as strong POV assertions, Jew (and half-Jew) labelling, etc. Additional eyes appreciated. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You want page protection not blp. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Darren Sproles[edit]

Darren Sproles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bio has been messed with, clearly false into input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple vandalism; no action needed here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


Person is the target of targeted online/offline harassment (news). Article Priyanandanan has received abusive edits from multiple IPs. See Special:Diff/878015054/878333717. I have protected the article on mlwiki, requesting the same here. -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Judith P. Hallett[edit]

The re-addition of the “Controversies” section to the entry on Judith P. Hallett seems to me to violate some of the BLP policies- specifically, it is poorly sourced, it seems to be an attempt at continuing ongoing disputes, and it’s not terribly relevant to the reasons for her notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DidymusHirsch (talkcontribs) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and it does violate BLP policies; this matter was settled on the BLP noticeboard at this time last year when the material was first added, and after the BLP noticeboard discussion, the material was removed. The archived discussion is here:
The re-addition is of the same material, at exactly the same time of year, added by an anonymous editor, suggests it is the same editor using a different IP address. It's unrealistic to consider this good faith editing and should be considered page vandalism. Its removal is clearly the correct response. If it reappears is there something more that we can do? Claire 75 (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
that link shows a previous consensus to remove the content, just remove it on sight, keep your eye on it, ten months has passed since it was last added so it's not at a level really requiring page protection yet imo. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there some way of putting this on an automated watchlist that will e.g., flag anonymous changes? Frankly I don't have time to continually watch the page for vandalism; it's a very poor use of any editor's time? Claire 75 (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You could ask at page protection. wp:rfpp Govindaharihari (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Pending changes might be suitable here. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Charles Glasser[edit]

Charles Glasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi everyone, it's Charles! I'm looking for help with my page. Some rando set it up, there was some discussion out there about it being "paid for" (NOT!) but the point is the page is really incomplete and doesn't give a full picture. Of course, I know it's not a sales brochure, but we have the same interest: accurate and complete information for the public. Is there a Wiki editor who is willing to help? I can provide solid, verifiable info and sources for what's missing. Charles Glasser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:C301:179:D0B0:93DA:3BD7:EAF5 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Glasser, and welcome. Just a brief note of caution that it can be tough to be in close contact with your Wikipedia page, as we follow policies that might not always lead to your preferred page. That being said, I swung through quickly and it looks like much of it is cited to reliable sources, which is good! While we appreciate your input, and can cite to you for some small, noncontroversial matters, any major information should come from reliable third parties. Best of luck to you. Dumuzid (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your kind response, Dumuzid. I wouldn't ask you to cite to myself, that just doesn't seem clean. I have litigated some important free speech cases that are missing and can provide court papers (about as reliable third party as it gets!) There are also some television clips which speak for themselves, too. I can provide links for those. There are several photos of me in the public domain: what's the best way to get them included? I want to do everything by the book, of course. Can I send you a file of the changes and links? Thanks so much for your help. Charles Glasser

2601:8C:C301:179:D0B0:93DA:3BD7:EAF5 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Juan Guaidó[edit]

Juan Guaidó (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Juan Guaidó never took part in the 2018 presidential elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngmarJGauger (talkcontribs) 20:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Intent of BLPPRIMARY[edit]

Hi, simple question. So, there's a dispute over this edit. The edit claims that a local government Ethics Board investigation was suspended due to a law enforcement investigation. This claim is directly supported by the source. The source is a public statement made by a government official (Niquelle Allen, Director of the Office of Open Government), as found in a public record of an Ethics Board meeting. This is a relevant, uncontentious factual update to information already discussed in the article. However, it is being blocked on the basis of BLPPRIMARY, which says: "Do not use ... public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I find it hard to believe that this kind of uncontentious edit cannot be made simply because it was found in a public record, but that is what the text seems to suggest. What is the actual intent of this clause, and does it really apply in this situation?  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  22:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • This is similar to the verdicts question we discussed on the BLP talk page a few weeks ago. It is a question of WP:UNDUE: if there is not coverage in reliable secondary sources, there is a very valid question as to whether or not we should be covering it at all. If there is coverage in these sources and they appear to err (which can be common in reporting on this type of thing) quoting the primary source to supplement the secondary source should be fine. The intent is not to have people digging around in court records to find dirt on people and also to enforce NPOV/UNDUE in BLPs by requiring secondary coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Steven Gundry[edit]

The text of the reception section of this article currently reads:

T. Colin Campbell, a biochemist and advocate for plant-based diets, noted that Gundry's 2017 book The Plant Paradox contained numerous poorly supported scientific claims and that it did not make a "convincing argument that lectins as a class are hazardous." Robert H. Eckel, an endocrinologist and past president of the American Heart Association, stated that Gundry's diet advice was "against every dietary recommendation represented by the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Associationand so on" and that it was not possible to draw any conclusions from Gundry's own research on the effects of lectin-free diets due to the absence of any control patients. Writing in New Scientist, the food writer and chef Anthony Warner noted that Gundry's theories "are not supported by mainstream nutritional science" and that evidence of the benefits of high-lectin containing diets "is so overwhelming as to render Gundry’s arguments laughable". Gundry sells supplements, including some costing $80 per month, that claim to protect people from the supposedly damaging effect of lectins.] Today's Dietician noted that "Although the research on lectin ... is still emerging, preliminary studies have revealed potential health benefits of lectin consumption and minute evidence of harm."

I believe having a "reception" section in the article of a person is dubious from a BLP perspective to begin with (would be better reserved for his book than the article about him) but the context in when the sentence "Gundry sells supplements, including some costing $80 per month, that claim to protect people from the supposedly damaging effect of lectins" appears I find particularly egregious as it seems to heavily imply that Gundry is inventing panic to sell supplements. relevant discussion on talk page . - Scarpy (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Steven_Gundry#Profiteering_accusations for prior discussion between myself and Scarpy, where there are citations supporting the information about supplements. There are 5 reliable sources who thought it worthy of mentioning, 4 of which mention the cost. Including that information does not "heavily imply that Gundry is inventing panic to sell supplements" and it would be inappropriate if it did, despite the fact that the sources do actually imply it. The section would be better in the author section as it is only applicable to his writing and not his time as a heart surgeon, it used to be like that but IIRC it was moved in an attempt to make the article more neutral. SmartSE (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Smartse: What you're saying here is completely irrelevant. I'm not questioning that this is cited. the question is in the context of a BLP article, (1) does it make sense that the largest section is titled "reception" and (2) if you're going to have a "reception" section in a BLP article does it make sense that it's thinly veiled character assassination, rather than say an encyclopedic summary of of criticism of his book (perhaps even with a section titled as such). The only place where this would belong is in a article about his book (and even there it's questionable). If he's not notable enough outside of his book, the his article should be deleted rather than being a surrogate battleground for a debate about lectins and supplements. - Scarpy (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Chip St. Clair[edit]

Chip St. Clair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This entire article reads like a BLP nightmare - many contentious claims all based on primary sources with no specific claims supported by inline citations. The article was created by a single-purpose account that has been used solely to promote St. Clair and his book over several years. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree. And even trying a search on his name brings up nothing in the news and no immediate usable RSes in the first several pages of a regular Google search. Sending it off to AFD. (And fully agree that the creator, @Chants75:, likely has COI with the subject, if not the subject themselves. --Masem (t) 00:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Also tagged the book article The Butterfly Garden for the same reasons. --Masem (t) 00:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Howard Fishman[edit]

Howard Fishman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Friends,

This page is about me and my career, and was flagged for "multiple issues" a few years ago. Since then, I have tried to address these with careful edits using wiki suggested standards, but the "multiple issues" box has remained at the top of the page. I sense that it has not been reviewed since these issues were first cited, and would appreciate any help in getting the updated content approved. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisteriatree (talkcontribs) 14:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Reviewed, it has been improved imo, so I have removed the headers as - 'three years ancient' any editor please feel free to reassess and replace or update, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Howard Graham Buffett[edit]

My edit was removed for being a 'promotional paragraph', however the cited article in question is an important story regarding the use of personal wealth in the middle of the contemporary border debate. The source that is under question, The Phoenix New Times, is a widely circulated free weekly publication in the greater Phoenix area and has a long record of breaking important local and regional news. The Phoenix New Times saw fit to publish this article in two parts on the cover for two weeks in a row. The article in question can be found here:

The diff can be found below:

Switters765 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If you don't see how Part two of this incredible story is due out later this week! is promotional, I can't help you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That one sentence was removed. No need to get snippy. I'm new to this. I have no connection to the periodical or author, just think it's an important story.Switters765 (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That sentence is why the paragraph was removed; it looks like you've restored the rest of the content. I'm not sure what other concerns you have that require this noticeboard's attention. You should discuss any editorial concerns (such as if someone objects to including this material at all) on Talk:Howard Graham Buffett. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry - I initially posted this in a new section.
Some initially promotional content was added to the Media section of Howard Graham Buffett including the phrase 'Part two of this incredible story is due out later this week!'. I reverted completely and my reversion has been reverted but that offending phrase removed. [version of BLP prior to my revert, linking to Media section]
Rather than revert again - I don't want to get into an edit war - I have modified the language to reflect the uncertainty express by the letter of the report, although it strongly implied impropriety. I suspect this is still not suitable under WP:BLP and I'm tempted to be WP:BOLD, but would rather an independent editor assessed this rather than have me engage in an apparent edit war with a relatively inexperienced editor. I'm not particularly happy with my modified description that the report implied rather than firmly alleged certain behaviors of Buffett, but I don't think it's worth the time to pore over its wording if the source isn't WP:RS anyway.
From the Phoenix New Times article, it appears to be a weekly tabloid, but this may reflect only the paper format used in the presses, not necessarily implying 'tabloid journalism' which WP:BLP rules summarised in the banner above the Edit box warn about. I didn't find a discussion of Phoenix New Times (other than its blogs section) in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, otherwise I'd have removed it again citing that decision.
I would welcome an independent editor's input on this, or a suggestion that I take this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard Dynamicimanyd (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Jesse Brown (journalist)[edit]

Midlandino (talk · contribs) has recently added unusually large criticism sections to our article on Jesse Brown and the associated podcast Canadaland, accusing Brown of falsifying stories and many other associated problems. The sourcing used is fairly low-quality, and includes several allegations sourced to Twitter or other self-published sources. I've trimmed some of the worst BLP offenses from Brown's article, but more persist in the Canadaland article and both need to be examined to ensure the welter of op-ed criticisms present are weighted appropriately and presented in accordance with WP:BLPSTYLE. Any help appreciated. —0xf8e8 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. A single purpose account whose only purpose appears to be to add any and all negative content about this living person, a journalist. I would delete the content and block the account, you can do whatever you feel is correct within WP:Policies and guidelines Govindaharihari (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
As an update, I have reverted Canadaland to what I investigated was an historic stable version Govindaharihari (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Red Shirts (United States)[edit]

Red Shirts (United States), an article about a 19th century neo-confederate organization, was edited to state it was "revived" (and other changes) [1] and then edited again to add a wikilink to a BLP as the leader. [2] No sources provided in these edits. I have reverted, but out of an abundance of caution would appreciate a more experienced editor reviewing as I'm not sure if this is a "BLP issue" or not. Thank you. Levivich? ! 06:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to soften the presentation of an historic racist organization and I don't see a BLP dimension. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is a BLP issue. If you name a BLP (in this one born in 1951) as the present day leader of an organization (any organization, let along one like this) - you need a proper source.Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The living person was inserted erroneously into the article by the IP. The removal of the living person was appropriate but means that the article no longer has a BLP dimension. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we include any mention Tulsi Gabbard's connections to Chris Butler in her entry?[edit]

...and, if we mention Butler, how much discussion is appropriate? I proposed a one sentence mention in this edit. But editors have disputed that any mention of Butler is WP:DUE.

Background: Butler's group is an offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement. Gabbard's parents are both high profile followers, and Gabbard herself has described him as an important spiritual leader who shaped her Hindu beliefs. Butler's group has been accused of cult-like activities and there has been speculation that his views and political influence shaped her early career.

Coverage: Gabbard's only been a national figure for a short time, but the Hawaiian press has covered this throughout her career. A story was picked up by the Huffington Post in 2015, and the Butler relationship was the central focus in a 2017 profile for the New Yorker. It has not been the major focus of coverage since she announced her campaign, but it has been mentioned on, Washington Monthly, and the Honolulu Civil Beat in the last few days. Nblund talk 16:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Tulsi Gabbard but this looks undue to me. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
To clarify: do you mean any mention of Butler at all is undue? I'm not proposing that we have a whole section calling her a cultist - but the article already details far less noteworthy aspects of her religious views. Nblund talk 17:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sort of on the fence here--my gut is to side with Simonm223, and say it's just undue. But there is some pickup in some major RSes and so maybe a single sentence within the discussion of her religion would make sense. Sorry I am not much help today! Dumuzid (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It's weasel-wording. "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." The implication is as you say that Butler's views and political shaped Gabbard's early career. I think it is best to wait and see if the cable networks and quality newspapers run with the story when we will be able to fairly present it. I don't think the role of the article is to bring to public attention information that most people would not find out about through these sources. TFD (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nblund: As it stands I'd say talking about her religious background is undue except wherein there is something notable about it that is reported in reliable sources and shown to have lasting significance. Her having a vague connection to a religious leader who in turn has ties to a sect of Hinduism with a history of being aggressively missionary and was subsequently labelled a cult in North America is... not... independently notable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
How are we assessing notability here, exactly if not by looking at the reliable sources have covered it in depth? The article already discusses her religious views in some detail: we know that she's a Hindu who follows Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but she's a westerner who has never been to India. That's extremely atypical outside of the Hare Krishna movement. I think the implicit concern is that it is inherently scandalous to say she was involved with a new age religious movement, but I don't think that's actually the case. Lots of elected politicians have somewhat unusual religious backgrounds. It's also not really a policy-based reason to refrain from mentioning a useful piece of biographical context. Nblund talk 18:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
We assess notability using Balancing aspects, i.e., by assigning "a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." In this case the material about Gabbard is what is published in network cable news and quality newspapers. And we generally ignore "isolated events, criticisms, or news reports." So a story that other publications fail to pick up or just give passing mention to lacks notability. I notice that Aseem Shukla of the Hindu American Foundation rebuts the claims made in the New Yorker article. (See "When The New Yorker Otherized Tulsi Gabbard’s Faith." One of the keywords is Hinduphobia.) That could explain why mainstream media and Democratic opponents have ignored the criticism. TFD (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
First, the admiration in the New Yorker article did not seem to be uni-directional, so I would say Nblund's proposal, while factual, was oriented. If I've understood what I've read on the TP, Butler has watched her grow up. We'll see if wider theological issues or the innuendi surrounding top-sekret nefarious influence will have legs outside of certain echo-chambers. SashiRolls t · c 21:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
There's also an article in Honolulu about the New Yorker article by senior editor, Don Wallace, "Did Tulsi Gabbard’s National Ambitions Just Suffer a Political Hit? A “NEW YORKER” MAGAZINE PROFILE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT A CIRCUMSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CONTROVERSIAL SPIRITUAL MENTOR CHRIS BUTLER—BUT ALSO SPURS CHARGES OF RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE. It is interesting that he says that Mr. Gabbard's was a follower before Butler set up the Science of Identity Foundation. I guess that's one reason Balancing aspects is a policy. It saves us from extensive research to evaluate claims. TFD (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow, are you saying that contradicts some other aspect of the reporting? They were followers both before and after Butler split from ISKCON. Nblund talk 15:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
They were never adherents of Butler's organization, according to the sources to the senior editor at Honolulu. The article in the New Yorker is factually flawed and bigoted according to sources that have commented on it and the underlying story has received no attention from Gabbard's opponents or mainstream media. There is no policy based reason to use it. TFD (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Where are you reading that they were never adherents? It says they've been linked to Butler for years and that they "signed on" all the way back in the 60s. Honolulu magazine's own coverage says that Mike and Carol Gabbard were listed as "teachers" at the Science of Identity Foundation in the 90s - so are you saying that they've retracted their past reporting? Nblund talk 20:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the source. It said that there was evidence that Tulsi Gabbard's fiance or top advisers were ever adherents to Butler's teachings. But you need to provide a policy based reason for including this material. Articles about prominent political figures are not intended to bring to public attention matters that mainstream cable and broadsheet news ignore. Incidentally you never commented on the accusations of bigotry in the New Yorker article. TFD (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The assertion that broadsheet/cable news coverage is required is not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia's guidelines. I think you would be hard-pressed to find that level of coverage for Gabbard's vegetarianism or the statement that she follows Gaudiya Vaishnavism - both of which are mentioned in the same section. "Local news doesn't count" would make it nearly impossible to write BLPs on the vast majority of congress members.
I'm sensitive to the concerns about "othering" her, which why I simply noted that she praised his spiritual guidance in the context of a paragraph discussing her religious views. It's worth noting that you called Butler's group a cult and insisted that this was negative information. There's a whiff of bigotry in the assumption that it is inherently scandalous to say that Gabbard praised a new age guru. Nblund talk 21:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Her vegetarianism is an other "other stuff" argument. I asked you for a policy based argument. Incidentally, it is a plersonal attqck to accuse another editor of bigotry. The fact that your source has come under attack for bigotry is no excuse to throw around your own accusations. TFD (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── You asked for my opinion: I basically agree with that editorial that the blithe assertion that Butler's group is a cult actually is kind of bigoted. I am opposed to saying that in the entry, and I don't think we should try to edit under that assumption. Instead, we should treat this as a noteworthy but non-scandalous fact about her religious beliefs - which are already a significant part of her bio.

WP:DUE questions inevitably involve some degree of comparison. You are claiming we can only cite coverage in "mainstream cable and broadsheet news" for Gabbard's entry. I'm pointing out that that standard seems kind of made up and impractical: it's clear that most articles aren't written that way, and applying it would require us to delete large amounts of unambiguously encyclopedic information from this entry. Gabbard's religious views are clearly an important part of her bio, and they are already discussed in some detail in the article - which mitigates concerns that a single sentence will be undue in proportion to other aspects of her bio. Nblund talk 00:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(It'a not WP:DUE but WP:BALASP which applies. One covers opinion while the other covers facts, although they are both part of WP:NPOV. However, the principles are the same.) If you think that current policies are inadequate for writing articles the way you think they should be, then you need to change the policy. This isn't the page to do that. TFD (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Cool. It's kind of a moot point, though, because neither policy subsection says anything about only covering stuff that shows up in cable news or broadsheets. I'd be amazed if any article adheres to this standard, but I look forward to seeing you consistently apply it in future content disputes. Nblund talk 01:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Jayme Closs[edit]

Could we have some more outside eyes here and on the talk page re: WP:BLPCRIME and some other issues surrounding linking to living murderers who did not commit the crimes in question in see also sections. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, can we please get some more eyes on this discussion (Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs#Joseph E. Duncan III)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Also on Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jayme_Closs#Presumption_of_innocence_vs_facts, which is actually what motivated me to post here more. The see also thing needs more eyes, but discussion on the applicability of BLPCRIME is the more significant dispute from a policy perspective, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not see a similar crime as tangentially related, and so it should not appear in See Also. I am somewhat aware of meta-lists of, for example, mass-murderers, or living American criminals. Presumably the link would be proper on one such list. Similar does not mean tangentially related to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talkcontribs) 01:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Steve King's remarks on white nationalism[edit]

The lede of Steve King's article mentions his remarks questioning why the terms "white nationalist" and "white supremacy" are offensive (these remarks have led to widespread condemnations by other Republicans, calls for resignation and a serious primary challenge for 2020). King claims that his remarks, which are from an interview with the NY Times, were misinterpreted or misunderstood, and suggests that the NY Times inaccurately transcribed the interview.[3] Does King's response belong in the lede along with the comments themselves? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

My concern is that it violates NPOV to include a serious accusation against the subject in the lead, but then to relegate his own denial/interpretation to a much less visible section in the body of the article. Note that his interpretation does not necessarily require that the NYTs inaccurately transcribed his literal words, but simply that they may have misinterpreted his intended meaning (and then used punctuation which reflected their misinterpretation / misparsing). There is ongoing discussion on the talk page (Talk). King's official interpretation/response can be found here [[4]] (but has also been reported by NYTs, etc). Also, it is worth noting that King not only denies that he questioned the offensiveness of white supremacy (which the lead treats as fact), he actually claims to consider it "evil" (see previous link), so I think the current lead creates a serious risk of misleading the readers about nature of his expressed views. LoveIsGrue (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, it doesn't. King has form here, so it's entirely appropriate that his views on white nationalism etc. are mentioned in the lead; a claim of inaccurate transcription doesn't carry the same weight. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The claim is not "inaccurate transcription", which would be a matter of *fact*, but rather *interpretation* of an ambiguous statement (i.e. did he intend the comment about offensiveness to apply to all of the preceding items, including white nationalism, or just the last one, i.e. western civilization).LoveIsGrue (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, I don't object to mentioning accusations of white nationalism in the lead, but we should give both sides (together), including his own interpretation of we he meant by his statements.LoveIsGrue (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe split the sentence in the lede . "Several politicians and journalist considered statements made by King about white nationalism and supremacy in a January 2019 to be racist and offensive, though King denied this was the intent of his quotes. Regardless, the RDC removed King from all congressional committees on the basis of his remarks." I think you should try to briefly include it but save the long-winded quoting for the body. --Masem (t) 16:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this would definitely be an improvement, and it could be a reasonable compromise. Though I do worry that this wording may create the implication that the dispute is about whether the claims were "racist" and "offensive", whereas the substance of his denial is that the claims are simply being misinterpreted or mis-parsed. So I wonder if something like the following would more fairly capture these concerns: "In a January 2019 interview, King was quoted as questioning the offensiveness of white nationalism and supremacy, but King denied this interpretation of his statements. Several politicians and journalist considered his comments to be racist and offensive, and the RDC removed King from all congressional committees soon afterwards." LoveIsGrue (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the version as it exists right now[5] is fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Note that the current version still includes the accusation in the lead, but relegates his denial/interpretation to the body of the article.LoveIsGrue (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and that's appropriate because his denial is not a significant point. It's not noteworthy, unusually, surprising, or believable.- MrX 🖋 18:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it is the editor's role to assess whether his claims are "believable" (see WP:NOR), but for what it's worth the original interpretation (that he disputes) is somewhat "surprising" to me given his general emphasis on culture rather than race and his claims that white nationalism and supremacy are "evil" (for example). Also, his denials of serious allegations are certainly "noteworthy" in his own biographical page, especially given that the accusations are in the lead.LoveIsGrue (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with this. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I would argue that that version is improperly speaking a POV in WP's voice. Ideally, we should present the quote as printed and not pass judgetment and instead point to those that found it offensive (I read the quote, and see at least three different ways to take its meaning, including the offensive route, but also a rhetorical question as well). But this the lede, and key for the lede is that the impression his statements made has caused him to lose committee seats and other factors. Exactly what was said is outside the scope of the lede, just only how they were taken by politics. --Masem (t) 18:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I think your version is a reasonable compromise, and I would support it. That said, I don't fully understand your concerns with the alternate wording that I suggested above, since it does seem to stick to facts (i.e. the NYTs interviewer did interpret/quote him as stated, and he denied that interpretation). But these are subtleties, and I would support either your version or my suggested alternative, whichever has the better chance of achieving consensus (given that both are much improved over the status quo in terms of NPOV).LoveIsGrue (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we should follow reliable sources, and their emphasis, in our coverage. (I recognize that this has become a minority viewpoint on Wikipedia, and on these noticeboards). The current text does a good job of this, and includes, in the article body, King's claim that his statements legitimizing white supremacy were taken out of context. Since his explanation has been treated skeptically, not only by reliable sources but by his own party and former allies, I think it is appropriate to mention them in the body but not to emphasize them in the lead. The existing text is fully policy-compliant. While of course it can always be improved, there is no BLP issue there. MastCell Talk 01:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLP states that when public figures face negative allegations, their denials should be reported in the article; now perhaps you can meet the "letter" of this rule by including the accusations prominently in the lead and then burying his denials in the body of article, but this is almost certainly going to mislead readers who only see the lead and does not respect WP:NPOV. His official statements are reliable sources for his own page and are of particular relevance in this case given that the dispute is about the intended meaning of his own statements; not to mention that his denials have been widely reported in reliable sources.
A related issue is that the current lead treats it as an undisputed *fact* (not just a widely held opinion) that King questioned the offensiveness of white supremacy in the interview, which will undoubtably mislead readers into thinking that this is his *official* view; now you emphasize that his party and allies have treated his claims skeptically, but politicians are not wikipedia reliable sources for claims of fact (as this accusation is currently treated in the lead). The reality is that the current lead gives overwhelming emphasis and weight to criticisms of King (including this one), so it beggars belief to suggest that it would provide undo weight to include a brief and reliably sourced parenthetical indicating that he has denied this interpretation of his claim (as per Masem's suggestion above); on the other hand, doing so would certainly improve the balance and neutrality of the lead and avoid unnecessarily misleading readers.LoveIsGrue (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The current introduction is inadequate. He denies having intended the meaning. Perhaps the best one can hope for is the reader's conclusion that someone's a liar. That still doesn't give us the right to pick and choose which serious accusations we present without the subject's response, if any. I have a counter in my head of the number of words after the accusation it takes before the denial. In this case: Far, far too many words. Denials aren't some small print, footnote, pro forma, government-mandated requirement, but are a central component of all serious accusations in a BLP. For brevity, a fragment can suffice. "Said x, though he says he was misunderstood." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talkcontribs) 17:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Not buying whatsoever the claims and position of User:MrX. There is no consensus here that we sneak in the claim and bury the specific response. Not buying this claim User:MrX whatsoever. Has anyone tallied a vote? This lead violates clear BLP rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talkcontribs) 01:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • The BLPs for James Traficant, Al Franken, John Conyers, and Mark Foley all have major scandals listed in their lead paragraphs. None of those articles contain any mention of their responses to those scandals. Trent Lott is probably the clearest analogue for King in recent political history, and his bio also follows the same pattern of mentioning the gaffe but leaving the response for the article body. I could see a case for Masem's proposed wording, but the important information is that he had a scandal and that scandal caused him to lose his committee assignments. His denial is part of that story, but it's not the most important part. Nblund talk 02:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Then I will set out to fix those 4 pages. If you want to bury the rebuttal, than bury the substance of the claim with it. Sounds like what Masem's proposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talkcontribs) 02:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You would need to do a lot more than just those 5, I think. Even if we only look at good articles: Bill Clinton, Narendra Modi, Newt Gingrich, Rob Ford, and Charles Rangel all follow the same pattern of mentioning a major scandal in the lead without discussing the rebuttal from the BLP. There are cases, like Jesse Jackson Jr., where we mention how someone pleads in court, but I don't see a whole lot beyond that. The formulation in the lead at Steve King also closely parallels the lead paragraphs in most of the press coverage (New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, and CNN all do the same. Nblund talk 03:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The key is to make sure that the lede wording is to establish that the point of issue (in this case, the meaning of King's statements) was the subject of debate, which implicitly suggests that the person at the center was counter to how it was taken by others. Whether that that person's specific response is needed to be spelled out in the lede depends strongly on the situation and how it is written. For example, I take the lded in Ford's article above as reasonable to suggest that the actions Ford was claimed to have done that led to the controversy was disputed by King, without it having to be specifically said, because the tone taken is not immediately accusational. Now, the problem with King here is that directly because of how his words were taken that key changes happened (loss of committee seats), so it seems more important to establish King's denial. It's a situation to be determined case by case, but what's clear is that if there had been debate on what exactly happened, WP should not write in a tone that ignores that debate. --Masem (t) 03:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
A pattern of doing it wrong is not an argument for doing it wrong here. We do not approach this matter as the NPOV press does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talkcontribs) 04:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Masem: Al Franken's case also involves a contested question of public perceptions, so does Trent Lott's. The lead needs to hit major career turning points. King's comments about white supremacy had a real consequence. His denial, by contrast, hasn't made a difference. I'm struggling to even find editorials agreeing that he was misconstrued, so what can we say beyond "he denied it"? Mumia Abu-Jamal is a useful comparison here: the debate around Mumia's innocence is probably more important to his bio than the conviction. Even in that case, we don't cite Mumia's own denials in the lead - we point to the public debate around his case instead. Can we point to a notable debate here? Nblund talk 05:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Franken's case has "Franken resigned on January 2, 2018, after several allegations of groping were made against him." which implicitly points to questions whether the allegations were true or not, so it doesn't likely need anything from Franken to counter it. Lott's has "On December 20, 2002, after significant controversy following comments regarding Strom Thurmond's presidential candidacy, Lott resigned as Senate Minority Leader." which doesn't go into any of the specific content of the statements, so again, avoids the issue. The past and current lede on King do not give that benefit doubt, which is where the problem is. --Masem (t) 06:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
These examples were helpful to look at, but I think Masem's counter-points are correct. A key problem with the current lede is that it states the contested accusations as a *fact*, whereas other wikipedia articles typically do not, e.g. they explicitly frame them as mere "allegations" (per Franken or Foley), or use abstract language that doesn't take sides (per Lott), etc. --LoveIsGrue (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the Trent Lott entry notes that he stepped down after praising Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid - so the details are there. I don't really have a problem with saying that King "appeared to question...", but it seems tough to justify that change since most reliable sources use the same matter-of-fact phrasing used in the current lead. King was very recently caught lying about his own comments to the Weekly Standard, which may be part of the reason why reliable sources are not extending the benefit of a doubt here - I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that we shouldn't lend credence to King's dissembling. Nblund talk 17:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Lott's last lede paragraph still does not assert anything about the nature of his statements (and certainly not about praising Thurmond) only that they were controversial, which gives implicit recognition that there was a dispute involved in what he said. The sentence doesn't state whom was right or wrong, in a matter-of-fact-ly voice, just that because that controversy expected, a major career change impacted him. --Masem (t) 17:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The Lott approach is really the only way to keep the controversy explicitly in the lede without including his response. While I feel including subject responses can be a struggle, they often aren't. Put them anywhere, but keep them as close to the offensive claim as possible. Call it your duty to an encyclopedia if you prefer. I do it for mass-murderers and corrupt politicians every day. There's no "lede loophole" some have sought. Furthermore, I think there's obvious value to coupling statements with re-statements, especially when done consistently. I have struggled with the short sentences of Mark Lindquist. It's even a duty to give enough substance to the denial. Not that "he denies", what about "called the views 'evil'". This interaction arguably ended his political career, which is noteworthy enough. A BLP is eternally deferential to alternative explanations by the subject. I came into some headlines myself to learn this Wikipedia maxim. If you embrace it, you will write better encyclopedia copy. A persistent liar could merit a careful study in a whole section of statements and re-statements. But none of that boils down to special rules in ledes for liars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talkcontribs) 20:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Jeni Barnett[edit]

The section about vaccines has unsourced, blog sourced, and dead link sourced negative BLP content, I don't have time to do any more looking for sources, so I am posting this here in hopes the someone else can look into this ASAP. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the unsourced material, undue material, and excessive blog-related material. I've left some of the blog links in references in case there's any value in them somehow. MPS1992 (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

First African Methodist Episcopal Church of Los Angeles[edit]

I need someone to have a look at this. Please check whether the sourcing is up to snuff, whether names are mentioned properly, etc.--if not, we can revdelete. I can't do that study right now, but I couldn't let the content stand. Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Troye Sivan[edit]

Troye Sivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has now twice removed an established reliable source at Troye Sivan stating Sivan is in a relationship. Their justification is that this isn't a "recent" source (the source is approximately one year old).

Could someone please confirm we would never remove a reliable source verifying someone being in a relationship, or the statement that they are, simply because the source is X days/weeks/years old, without (of course) new sources that provided updated information? (for interest's sake, it is simple to find more recent sources that confirm the relationship although their use should not be necessary because relationships do not automatically "expire" as this particular editor seems convinced they do). —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"has been romantically linked to" is true to what we know: at one time it was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talkcontribs) 03:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, editor who forgot to sign your post, if you can provide a recent/current source for the claimed relationship, why don't you just put it into the article rather than wikilawering about WP:V and BLP requirements? When we're dealing with "internet celebrities" and other folks at the low end of the notability scale, reliable press coverage of their "relationships" is happenstance at best, and there's no reason to believe that something said more than a year ago remains true today. Hell, I know Personally a notable performer with decades of credits and a longstanding Wikipedia article, whose divorce more than a year ago has gone unreported, though their marriage has been widely reported. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • From a more policy-related standpoint, we are not a celebrity gossip site. Since people can fall into and out of relationships at the drop of a hat, in comparison to engagements or marriages, we really should not be covering these unless they are significant factors in their life. And because these relationships are very fleeting, I would agree that documenting a relationship from a year-old source is not reliable for that purpose. --Masem (t) 04:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Agreed with the above statements. Wondering if the source was something like Daily Mail? If it was, there is no reason for wikilawyering, plain and simple.--Biografer (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
      • It appeared to be from Paper (magazine) Not that that is not an RS, but even if it was the NYTimes reporting on the relationship, if it was still from a year ago and nothing new came of it, I would still omit it, simply because of how fleeting relationships can be. --Masem (t) 04:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
        • What if we use the word was instead of is? It might solve a headache. Besides, since when did recentism was OK?--Biografer (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • My apologies for not signing. I've fixed that. I haven't put in more recent sources because that's not the point; the point is we don't remove sourced information from an article simply because the source is X days/weeks/years old unless we have new sources to back up that removal. That's not wikilawyering: that's a foundational principle of the project. The onus to justify a removal of sourced info is on the editor making the change, by referring to more recent or more reliable sources which consensus agrees supersede the existing statement(s). Also, "low notability" and "Internet celebrity" is not an accurate representation of Sivan's current pop music prominence so that attempt at hand-waving is a red herring. Finally, we aren't debating whether the material warranted inclusion in the first place: we are debating whether the removal of existing sourced information is justified because its sources are "old", where "old" is arbitrarily defined by a single editor and not based on any kind of guidelines I've ever encountered. The statement was not removed because the relationship described was "only" dating and not an engagement/marriage, it was removed (at least according to the edit summary given) because the source of the information was deemed to be stale, which again is not any kind of policy I'm aware of. I've certainly never seen other editors engage in behaviour that would lead me to believe this was a thing; if it was a widespread, supported approach, it would mean thousands of edits a day to remove statements whose sources had become "too old". —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The foundation starts with what is appropriate information to include in WP, and a celebrity's relationship status (outside of marriage) is not something we normally include. That's the first question to be asked. --Masem (t) 15:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)