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:


B. Alan Wallace[edit]

B. Alan Wallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article uses a blog post as a secondary source for Wallace's views and claims (which is at least discouraged by WP:BLPSPS as I understand it). I asked for a primary source for the statement "in support of this view Wallace cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception", as it seems dubious (I give my justification for that here). The other editor involved didn't provide it and reintroduced the claim, despite no one else expressing assent to it after a long discussion on the talk page. Chilton (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Chilton believes, indeed insists, that a primary source is required to back up a secondary source. This is wrong. As I have attempted to explain on the article talk page, secondary sources are vital in Wikipedia (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:FRIND, etc.).
  • The source in question is Steven Novella, a neurologist and professor. It is narrowly focused upon critiquing Wallace's ideas about consciousness, and it is only used for that purpose. Per WP:NPOV, specifically WP:PSCI, we are required to place views considered pseudoscientific in the context of mainstream reception. That is, it is against the NPOV policy to present Wallace's fringe views uncritically; Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of fringe views. This is the reason WP:PARITY exists, and the source is suitable per WP:PARITY.
  • The text in the article accurately reflects the source, as Chilton himself has conceded. He just believes Novella is "wrong". I have asked (several times) for a better source, but none has been forthcoming.
  • I proposed removing from the article the mention Wallace's views on consciousness, as this would cleanly resolve the dispute. (No policy says that we must discuss a particular view that a subject has.) Chilton has refused to say yes or no to this proposal.
Manul ~ talk 22:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Chilton believes, indeed insists, that a primary source is required to back up a secondary source." - I asked for a primary source only for this particular claim, explaining why I think it is probably untrue. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for a primary source for the person's own statements (especially if they are sourced solely by someone's blog post). Please don't ascribe your misunderstandings to me. Chilton (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is narrowly focused upon critiquing Wallace's ideas about consciousness, and it is only used for that purpose" - no, it is also used as the sole source for Wallace's own views and claims. I never implied that I want to present them uncritically. Chilton (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "I have asked (several times) for a better source" - as far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't require providing a source as a justification for every deletion. Besides that, it would be next to impossible to find a source which contradicted Novella's claim (as I explained on the talk page) - unless the totality of Wallace's own books and interviews counts. Chilton (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You tagged the article with the {{dubious}} template, giving the reason as "No primary source for this claim could be provided."[1] There is no policy-based justification for this, and it's a bit more than "asking" -- it is demanding.
  • Correct, we use independent secondary sources to describe fringe views.
  • If you can find a better source, I'm happy to throw out Novella. The Salon interview is in line with what Novella says, but I'm open to a better (necessarily secondary, necessarily independent) source.
Manul ~ talk 23:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The full reason is obviously on the talk page, as you very well know. Please don't try to manipulate the situation in this way.
  • "Correct" - I'm pleased that you are able to admit that you were wrong on some point.
  • Here we go again. You didn't address my argument for why I think the statement is dubious, nor my doubts about the possiblity of ever finding a source to contradict Novella (even in principle). I also didn't claim that we have to throw him out. I hope someone else steps in an settles this, as this is getting extremely tiresome. Chilton (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The basic problem here is really not secondary versus primary source. No, we don't need a primary source if we have a reliable secondary source... but this secondary source being used does not meet our standards for reliability. It's a WP:BLPSPS, and is thus not sufficient for data on a living person. The material will need to be sourced properly if it is to be included. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. A blog is definitely WP:BLPSPS Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I concur with NatGertler - Self-published work by third parties is not acceptable for comment on a living person as per WP:BLPSPS. However, as the publisher appears to be an accredited expert in a relevant field, their opinion on the substance of Wallace's ideas may be included. Their opinion on Wallace himself (or speculation about what he actually believes) may not. Its a fine distinction that rarely comes up, because there are usually plenty of primary sources that confirm what the secondary sources ascribe to them (the subject). Compare:
  • "The idea that evidence of "substrate consciousness" may be obtained through meditative states...." sourced to Novella
  • "Wallace believes that evidence of "substrate consciousness" may be obtained through meditative states..." Sourced to Novella
In the first example, Novellas self-published source is being used to critique the idea Wallace has put forward (that this is testable) - this would usually be fine. In the second example we attribute a belief to Wallace from a third party - this would not be okay without either a non-blog reliable secondary source stating Wallace holds that belief, or a primary source (Wallace) stating he holds that belief. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but if we put "Wallace believes in substrate consciousness"(SOURCE: Something Reliable)" up against "Novello says that science finds that substrate consciousness is cherry-flavored hogwash" (SOURCE: Bloggity blog), then we're engaging in WP:SYNTH. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Synth is A+B=C where no source connects A+B to conclusion C. An example of synth would be - "Wallace states substrate conciousness can be tested" (Source: Something Reliable) + "Substrate conciousness cannot be tested because science!" (Source: Bloggity Blog by scientist) = "Wallace believes in substrate conciousness" - Synth. The first two statements would be allowed per sourcing (depending on the author of the blog's credentials) the conclusion would be Synth and BLP violating - which I believe is currently what the wording in the article states now. I think the BLP *could* be reworded to include Novella's comments on the testability of substrate conciousness, but ideally this would be in an article on the subject itself. The other problem of course, is for truely fringe/pseudo science topics you sometimes just do not get the ReliableSource(TM) commenting on it because no sane scientist is going to put out a paper for peer-review on something obviously bunk. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but putting those two statements together is used to create an implied C ("Scientists believe that Wallace's belief are cherry-flavored hogwash"), and the only place that has that A+B=C is a place that we specifically cannot use for that statement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
These hypotheticals don't seem helpful because they don't match up with the case at hand. The Novella source connects the fringe theory to Wallace, so there is no SYNTH in making that connection. Novella also discusses the evidence cited by Wallace, so there is no SYNTH in tying the claimed evidence to the theory or to Wallace. The evidence is part of the fringe theory being critiqued; it is not something separate from it.
I do think the comments above raise a valid concern about the wording, which should make clear that the evidence is part of the theory and that the theory is being criticized. This is quite different from SYNTH-sounding "Wallace believes ... but science ..." sort of sentences. Manul ~ talk 02:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
That's an article about Wallace, not an article about consciousness. We have a whole single article from salon where he states his views. At best we can say he has a view, and that it is fundamentally incompatible with main stream science. But anything pulled from the blog post is a BLP violation, and any more detail would probably be an WP: Undue weight problem for an article on a person. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not a platform the promotion of fringe theories. As such, we do not simply pull from primary sources. Rather, we use independent sources to describe fringe theories (WP:FRIND): "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." As noted above, there is a distinction between using a source to place a fringe theory in context as required by WP:NPOV, specifically WP:PSCI, and using a source for BLP information. The source is suitable per WP:PARITY. Manul ~ talk 20:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The sentence after the colon certainly doesn't say the thing you said before the colon. What WP:FRIND states is that the best (not "the only admissible") sources for describing such theories are independent reliable sources. I don't know if Novella's blog post qualifies as a truly reliable source per WP:BLPSPS. I'm also not sure if statements of the form "X cites Y and Z in support of his theory" (without ever explaining what the supposed connection is) are exactly what is meant by describing a theory. Chilton (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Novella is a violation of BLP. It's a self-published blog, and WP: BLPSPS is explicit that self published sources are never to be used as material on living people, unless published by the person themselves. What's more WP: BLPFRINGE requires us to meet BLP while dealing with people who have fringe views. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I proposed removing the relevant text (subsection below), so I think we are on the same page regarding WP:UNDUE. However the argument about Novella being a BLP violation is mistaken. You're saying that when a fringe theory is attributed to an identified person (usually the case), WP:PARITY cannot be applied because critiquing the fringe theory is the same thing as critiquing the person. Effectively the argument is: an idea is a person, therefore BLP applies to the idea. No, the purpose of BLP is to protect people, not ideas. The Novella source is fine as long as its use is constrained to critique the fringe theory and not Wallace himself; Novella is an expert and WP:PARITY applies. Otherwise WP:NPOV (specifically WP:PSCI) would have to be thrown out and Wikipedia would become a platform for the promotion of fringe theories. Manul ~ talk 19:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal (Wallace)[edit]

Simply remove Wallace's views of consciousness from the article. This will fully resolve the dispute. If we don't discuss them then we are not bound by WP:PSCI to find an independent source like Novella to provide context. Novella is permissible per WP:PARITY, but any situation invoking PARITY is not ideal.

  • Support as the proposer. Manul ~ talk 20:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Against. In my humble opinion, Novella is fine as long as we don't have a better source and use him mainly to provide context, not as an infallible authority on what are Wallace's own statements. Chilton (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - this does not prevent addition of the material once a proper source if found. WP:BLPSPS does not have an "unless we can find a better source" exception. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support As far as I'm concerned the section is WP: UNDUE. It's an article about a person, we shouldn't be putting too much emphasis on his personal theory. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Second proposal (Wallace)[edit]

Remove the absurd-sounding line about quantum mechanics, ESP and clairvoyance being evidence for substrate consciousness according to Wallace (which is sourced only by the Novella blog post). Replace it with something that is supported by primary sources, like "in his critique of scientific materialism and reductive accounts of consciousness, Wallace references modern physics along with paranormal phenomena" (which I already proposed in this version, but it was reverted). Leave Novella solely as a source of critique until something better is found. Chilton (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Micky Murphy[edit]

Micky Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article "Micky Murphy" about guitarist Mick Murphy is full of inaccuracies, both major and minor, from basic information such as his full name, date and place of birth, through to members of bands he has been in and worked with as well as many, many other details. I and others have attempted to edit the article on numerous occasions, only to have the changes rolled back or reported as vandalism. In its current form the article is very misleading and - I believe - should be removed. It seems to me that it is in clear breach of Wikipedia's living persons policies.Burlington Bert (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That article has had less than 30 edits in total, and none of them are by you, unless you were editing from a different account. There have been a couple of instances of vandalism which appear to have been reverted. One was by an IP and the other account has been blocked. There is also no discussion of any such problems at Talk:Micky Murphy, which is where such matters should be discussed. You should identify the specific errors and provide reliable sources verifying the accuracy of your version. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Cullen328. I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I understand that I wasn't actually logged in when making my edit to the Micky Murphy article - whereby I updated the info box to make it accurate - and hence the changes I made have been logged as an IP rather than my user name. Despite the accuracy of my edits, I note that they were reported as vandalism and reverted back to the original inaccurate info box. Whilst respecting Wikipedia, its policies and aims, it is hugely frustrating to keep being referred to different sections of the site to report inaccuracies and try and ensure they are amended or deleted. The errors in the article are so numerous that it would take a new article to list them all. Do you know of another route by which I can quickly resolve this? I have no other aim than to ensure an accurate article. With thanks in advance. Burlington Bert (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
As I suggested above, Burlington Bert, list the inaccuracies on the article's talk page (linked above) and provide reliable sources for the accurate information. Do so while logged in. Inform me when you have done so and I will take a look. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Cullen328. I'll inform you when done.Burlington Bert (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Cullen328. I have now listed out the inaccuracies in the article at Talk:Micky Murphy. With thanks.Burlington Bert (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for providing excellent documentation on the talk page, Burlington Bert. I have moved the article to the proper title Mick Murphy (guitarist), and corrected the most glaring errors. Please continue correcting errors and please also copy and paste the references you have provided to the article. Let me know if anyone adds falsehoods again, or post here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance in resolving the most obvious errors Cullen328. I will continue to edit the article to improve accuracy and overall sense.Burlington Bert (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Christian Maldini[edit]

Can I create this page? I write again because after that nobody answered. --John95 (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Why? Do you dislike this individual sufficiently that you're willing to create a magnet for vandalism and wide exposure of anything negative about him? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Please don't WP:BITE the newbies, Boris. John95, in order to recreate the page you would need to ask Mailer diablo if they would be OK with this. However there are a few things to consider here:
  1. You will need to show where Maldini has received coverage enough to where he would pass notability guidelines per WP:NFOOTY or WP:NBIO. Being the child of a notable athlete would not be enough to assert notability.
  2. You may want to work on an article at the Articles for Creation process. This would greatly benefit you since you would be able to present Mailer diablo with a working copy of the article, which can help show notability more efficiently sometimes than conversations on a talk page.
  3. Be aware that as Boris stated, Wikipedia pages can sometimes become vandalism magnets. Wikipedia also tends to be protective of minors, even those in their later teens. If Maldini is still a minor then it will likely be more difficult to assert notability for him because Wikipedia generally figures that an article for a minor could be harmful if the kid does something foolish that would warrant inclusion in the article. However I get the impression he's about 19 years old, so the "protection of a minor" part might not be valid anymore.
Hopefully this helps you some! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, not meaning to bite, just wanting John95 to recognize the problems that having a Wikipedia biography can cause -- especially for someone of marginal notability whose article may not be closely watched. My language was a bit strong but sometimes that can help people sit up and take notice. My apologies to John95 for any offense. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Diamondprox Possible COPYVIO[edit]

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

This article popped up while doing NPP. It has a lot of obvious and some suspected issues. The language is clearly promotional. It reads like a fan page. But I am more concerned with the serious lack of sourcing and what smells like a copy and paste job in the text. One of the items that has potential COPYVIO flashing on my radar is that much of the text has brackets with numbers in them like what you would expect for footnotes. But they are just unexplained part of text. I did a couple of quick text searches using Google but turned up nothing. Even so I remain suspicious. Does anyone have a better way of doing a text search than Google? If anyone has some time and wants to take a look, I'd appreciate the second opinion. I am holding off on tagging for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I see large chunks of the history text here, with a different person's name. That material is released under a CC-BY-SA license, but with a copy and paste stripping the attribution, we're probably not meeting terms of the license and thus WP:COPYVIO is indeed a concern, but someone here might be better at navigating that question than I. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It says in the reference section - As of this edit, this article uses content from "Diamondprox", which is licensed in a way that permits reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, but not under the GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed. - which is apparently where this content came from - esportspedia June 2013, our article was created in June 2016.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I have added tags for ref improve and copy & paste. At this point I am unsure if we can leave it alone or this is something that needs to be redacted or maybe it rises to the level of just deleting the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I had missed that (I was too busy looking at edit summaries.) The template, added in this edit, is improperly formed, but when corrected it should probably cover the requisite needed attribution. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Christos Tsiolkas[edit]

There is a separate related article in wiki for the ABC TV miniseries based on Christos' novel of the same name. There is no hyperlink from one article to the other.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracuda_(TV_series)> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.47.8 (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn vos Savant[edit]

Marilyn vos Savant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could people have a look at this? The very extensive list of (apparently) every error she ever made in her column seems excessive, and it used to come before "famous columns" Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Bethlehem Shoals[edit]

Bethlehem Shoals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Image should be removed and page deleted because it has been subject to repeated vandalism and image has been used in threatening messages.

VerminTax (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)VerminTax— Preceding unsigned comment added by VerminTax (talkcontribs) 14:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @VerminTax: Are you talking about the image being used in off Wikipedia harassment? If that's the case then there's not much that we on Wikipedia can do about that, although you can contact the WMF at info-en@wikimedia.org about this. I need to warn you that the page might not be deleted unless it can be shown that Shoals would fail notability guidelines or that he himself wants the page gone and that its removal would not adversely effect Wikipedia overly much. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @TokyoGirl79: I have spoken to subject and asked him to email Wikipedia directly. There is also very little reason to consider him "notable"—he is not a full-time writer and only occasionally publishes—and at this point is "notable" mainly because of the controversy mentioned on the page. It's unclear to him (and me) what purpose it serves to have a page for a minor figure when it will serve as little more than a target for harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerminTax (talkcontribs) 15:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Lorraine Mooney[edit]

The article about Lorraine Mooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) appears completely unacceptable: one unreliable source (powerbase.info), one mention in a gossip-y column in 2002, and a mention in a Salon article in 2008. Should it be blanked and proposed for deletion (I can't find any evidence of notability or better sources)? Thanks in advance for any advice. shellac (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the worst unsourced material and tagged the rest. It should probably be proposed for deletion if it doesn't improve soon. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. shellac (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Kim Dae-Eun[edit]

Kim Dae-eun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user notified a discussion board that he changed the article for Olympic Gymnast Kim Dae-Eun by including a few sentences talking about how the user felt the gymnast was robbed of a gold medal in 2004. No source was given to why he felt this way, only the term "knowledgeable gymnastics fans will know". This has no place in the Wikipedia article and I've removed those sentences a few times, and the other user continues to add them back in. The editing for this page needs to be closed so this doesn't continue to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin888 (talkcontribs) 17:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Penguin888: Thank you for your vigilance Penguin888, it's because of editors like yourself that we can provide accurate encyclopedic on BLP subjects. I can see that you've had to revert additions of this information twice, is that correct? If so, it may not yet be at a level to warrant the use of article protection, however if it continues you may wish to make a request at Requests for Page Protection or notify us here -- samtar talk or stalk 17:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: Yes it was twice! I've gotten in trouble in the past for continuing to reverse changes to articles without bringing it up anywhere before so I just wanted to bring it up as soon as I could here! I'll keep an eye on the article and if it keeps happening I'll do what you say to do! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin888 (talkcontribs)
@Penguin888: bear in mind that although you may be reverting unreferenced additions this is not a reason to edit war or break the three revert rule. On second thoughts you may be better taking the editor to the edit warring noticeboard now -- samtar talk or stalk 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: The user has edited the page for the third time, I tried completing the form at the Edit Warring Noticeboard like you have said but am unsure if I did it correctly. Penguin888 (talk
@Penguin888: I saw the report, and although you didn't get it quite right the editor has been blocked. Leaving you a message on your talk page -- samtar talk or stalk 08:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. It might also be useful to keep an eye on the IP user Special:Contributions/184.144.40.116 who seems to be the same editor editing when logged out (very similar patterns of behaviour). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Jonathan A Jones: Thanks for that, I've watchlisted the article but hopefully it'll die down soon enough -- samtar talk or stalk 11:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Art Rascon[edit]

Art Rascon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cited sources have been challenged regarding the inclusion of national awards won by former CBS news correspondent Art Rascon whose work has appeared nationally on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather as well as 48 Hours. Ca2james reverted my edits saying the cited sources are not independent sources per this diff. I'm of the opinion the cited sources are compliant with WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. Following are the sources: CBS News dating back to 1998, an alumni bio by College of Fine Arts and Communications BYU, a bio by KTRK-ABC, and the Emmy nomination announcement published by The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. WP:BLP states "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." The sources cited do indeed meet V requirements and are inline with BLP policy but I think Ca2james may be confusing GNG independent sources requirement with V considering there is an AfD in progress for this BLP as well. I would appreciate further validation of the sources cited as being in compliance with [[WP:V]. Thx Atsme📞📧 18:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually I reverted most mentions of him winning national awards because there's no independent confirmation that he won those awards (which is not the same thing as an independent source). The only place those awards is mentioned is in bios that, since they all read the same with the same syntax and language, have all been written by him, so they're primary sources (which are also not the same thing as independent sources). I reverted another mention because the source didn't indicate it was a national award. It's better to err on the side of caution for blps, I thought. Ca2james (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The sources that mention the awards are RS. You are being disruptive by reverting properly sourced material. Your comment about erring on the side of caution further proves you are not familiar with the PAGs. I highly recommend that you read BLPN, RS and V before you revert another edit from that article. Atsme📞📧 04:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Even if they were primary that would not be a problem for the info cited. You wouldnt use non-independant sources to demonstrate/satisfy notability (so in an AFD they would hold little weight) but you can within the constraints of V, BLP, RS etc use them in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I see: even if a statement might be inaccurate, if there's no other source contradicting the statement, inaccuracy is not a reason to remove the statement. Please note that of the three removal edits, one was to change "he won national and local awards" to "he won awards".[2] The other two were to remove similar modifiers that were added by editors and are not in the sources. For example, the sources say that he's won emmy's (unspecified) and a Murrow award, but none of the sources (listed above) specify whether these were national/regional/local level awards, and there are these different levels for both. So I removed those modifiers too [3][4]. What I'm saying is that I understand that my edit summaries were unjustified but that removal of the text wasn't necessarily unjustified. Ca2james (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, they were cited to sources - in the CBS source the reference to the "national ERM Award" for Hurricane Opal was near the bottom of the article - you may have simply overlooked it. I've added more. Keep in mind that it's not our job to prove the secondary sources are telling the truth - our job is verifiability of what we include in the article, and if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged, we include inline citations; if it's controversial or derogatory material about a BLP we have to cite high quality sources in an inline citation. Either way, we are not obligated to go searching for primary sources in order to validate material cited in secondary or third party sources. Unfortunately, with some of the early national award sites dating back to the 90s, including the earlier version of the Edward R. Murrow site, they have been replaced with updated sites on different servers, so their award recipient lists have been archived or buried in the cloud somewhere. We have a few on WP. The same applies to articles that were written about those awards and recipients. All we have to go on at this point are the few secondary sources we can find. When notability is as obvious as it is with Art Rascon, we can apply common sense and IAR when making notability determinations.Atsme📞📧 01:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Nick Knowles[edit]

The subject, Nick Knowles, has complained, on Twitter (his account is verified there), of multiple inaccuracies but refuses to say what they are (apart from one, where he says the cited source is wrong about who is the mother of one of his children; but he will not contact the source for a correction), and has dismissed my offer to help. He also invited people to vandalise the article, which is now semi-protected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Bill Battle Athletic Director of Alabama[edit]

could you look at Bill Battle page it looks messy. There are too many pipes as a symbol which makes it hard to read, and when you type in bill battle his name comes up as a coach. He has not coached since the 70's at Tennessee. Could you change it to athletic director at Alabama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AF2D:5109:5588:FDAD:4B51:9850 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is not an infobox for athletic directors. Since he has previously coached, the coach infobox is the most appropriate. I've restored the coach infobox. Also, the intro says he's the athletic director at Alabama. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz[edit]

Perhaps unsurprisingly the Debbie Wasserman Schultz article is being turned into a political hit piece [5], [6], [7] a couple of agenda driven WP:SPAs. The info being added violates DUE WEIGHT, is poorly sourced and neither editor has bothered to get any kind of consensus for conclusion. One of them, D.Creish, has made BLP violations on related articles as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The second edit fits your description, but the first sounds like fairly factual reporting. It is sourced to the NYT. One hardly needs to get a consensus to report that someone has resigned their position.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The first one is actually not that big of a deal, except for the way it's phrased ("emails that proved") and yes, of course it should be mentioned that she resigned. The other two are the big problem here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that "proved" is probably too strong.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Koko Jones[edit]

Koko Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP made two edits today (diff) that made certain changes regarding gender identification of the subject. The IP did not add any new sources, so I reverted. However, out of concern that the IP might be right, I'm bringing it here to get more eyes on the situation and see if more sources can be found on Jones. (If there's a WikiProject better equipped to handle these types of issues, let me know so I can direct the situation there.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein[edit]

There's been a fair amount of (now archived) discussion of Dianne Feinstein's religion on her talk page. The following things seem to me to be true:

1) Many non-Wikipedia websites claim Feinstein is Jewish. 2) Clear statements on this from Feinstein herself seem somewhat hard to come by. I've seen a couple different people claim (without sources) that she has said different things at different times in her life, and I can't establish what things she's said most recently. 3) It seems likely the apparently-reliable sources mentioned in (1) are simply assuming she identifies as Jewish because her father was Jewish.

Absent better sources, I think there's a strong case for removing any references to Sen. Feinstein's religion (as opposed to that of farious family members) from Wikipedia immediately, pending someone finding a better source. This seems to be what WP:BLP demands in this case ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.") But I'd like input from more experienced editors. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. WP:EGRS, which is for categories, says to only list a religion when it's self-proclaimed, so personally, I follow that as far as inserting religion into the body of a BLP. I think it's better to remove it as contentious and poorly sourced per WP:BLP in any case like you said. PermStrump(talk) 05:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Using web archive as a source[edit]

On Tyrel Jackson Williams in Personal Life, there is a source for the sole sentence in the section. However, the source redirects to web archives of a previous version of the page from DisneyXD. Is this permitted? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 03:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision of picture on Harshvardhan Kapoor's wikipedia page[edit]

Hello,


I'm a representative of Harshvardhan Kapoor, the actor who's biography is available at: Harshvardhan Kapoor

The actor requests that the current picture be replaced by a more recent one, which I'd be happy to provide to the administrators of the page.

The picture currently used on his page is dated and not very representative of the actor's current look & personality.

Please advise on how to replace the same.


Thanks,

Priti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.225.223 (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

I believe the article on Charles Perrow reports what is available on its web page on the Yale University's website. Although I don't appropriate relying on a single source, I believe the university's page is an authoritative source. Therefore, I request the banners complaining about the poor quality of the stub to be removed and the page to be unmarked for deletion. This in one of the most important researchers in the fields of Sociology and Business. I believe he deserves having a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.188.161.160 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

IP, thank you for reporting this - I agree with what you're saying, and will 'meet you half way'. I've removed one of the tags as I believe that there are enough sources listed at the article. I do however agree with the editor who placed the {{primary sources}} tag. Wikipedia has a page you may wish to read about primary sources. Lastly, the page is not listed for deletion. Is there anything else we can help you with? -- samtar talk or stalk 14:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe they are talking about the old deletion nom on the talkpage. It is not current IP, it is there for historical purposes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Bridgette Kerkove[edit]

A bit of especially derogatory information has been included, reverted for BLP reasons and then re-inserted into this bio, without an effort to achieve consensus for the re-insertion on the talk page. I re-reverted and asked the editor to go to the talk page to try to establish a consensus before attempting to re-insert again. Please see this diff, the prior edits to that one, and the discussion on the talk page. Additional input (on either side of the issue) would be welcome. David in DC (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so the argument presented for removal of the text is founded on the fact that the person in question was not convicted of the allegation, although the main purpose of its insertion was not to discredit the individual in question but rather to provide background to the reasons of their divorce, this and in addition to the fact that the case in question was highly publicized. The information was properly referenced using a reliable source and I have heard no contention regarding the choice of source. However, my confusion stems from the fact that "dropped allegations" seem to be acceptable to a wide array of celebrities, such as Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, Jonathan King, Cliff Richard etc. There is no doubt that these celebrities were accused of "derogatory" accusations, so why would we hold a double-standard and disallow it in cases such as this? The policy of dealing with cases such as this should be universal and not subject to wanton subjectivity or WP:CRYBLP or WP:BLPZEALOT (I am not referring to the editor above in this case, but to a different editor on that page who applies BLP in this manner for self-serving purposes). Holanthony (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The Triggering and "Trigglypuff"[edit]

The Triggering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone give me a second opinion on this article. Its ostensibly about a campus event called the "Triggering" but spends a lot of time focusing on a mostly non notable activist who the internet has nicknamed "Trigglypuff" as an insult. The sources all also seem to be borderline at the very least, mostly coming from student press and obscure libertarian publications (also lots of Breitbart). Should this article mention the activist, should the article exist at all? I've not really edited Wikipedia in a while so I feel a bit rusty on this stuff. Brustopher (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

(Copying my comments over from Talk:The Triggering) Stating what happened is not "to insult and mock other people involved". This event became known in large part because of #Trigglypuff going viral. juju (hajime! | waza) 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it" This does not apply. Neither does "individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic"—she was directly involved and is a big part of the reason the event itself is notable. juju (hajime! | waza) 23:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The student press sources were supplementary and don't form the backbone of the article, and Breitbart is RS—POV, but RS if WP is careful about not taking on the source's bias. Which publications are obscure, exactly? (Honest question, so I can address the concern.) juju (hajime! | waza) 23:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
And by all means, if anyone comes across any sources that are more neutral or even progressive, please add them (but of course don't use that as a justification to remove the existing ones). juju (hajime! | waza)
Breitbart is not WP:RS. Just search the archives of WP:RSN and you can see it's been discussed many times and never been deemed reliable for more then it's readers own opinion. Even if it were reliable, it's not an independent source in this context as the controversy involves a Breitbart editor. — Strongjam (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
When it comes to living people, Breitbart should be avoided and considered unreliable. Especially so when the topic contains politics or polemics. Would argue Breitbart is not RS here. Article seems ripe for AFD imho. GNG is tenuous at best. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)