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 7 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:

Hannah Holborn Gray[edit]

Hanna Holborn Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the body of the article about Hannah you mention that she was at Northwestern University, Evanston campus, however in the chronological listing you don't mention Northwestern Unversity!!!!!She was also Dean of Woman at NU. Please contact her office or Northwestern University and correct this omission. Much appreciated.......Quecumquae sunt veritas!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b02b:848e:f936:e48c:c029:4e95 (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017‎

'cosmo jarvis' wiki page[edit]


The information presented here on Cosmo Jarvis is not up to date and ignores many developments in recent years. Especially in '2010 to present' section - here there are many informations which are lacking or which, if included while others are not, creates an article which requires more detail and overall context to shed light on his recent works (especially as an actor in theatre, TV and FILM)

(see here)

His involvement with 'Hawke the movie' while correct information should not be featured at the expense of other, more notable, widely distributed and arguable more significant works.

I am suggesting the need for a revision/update on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

What updates do you suggest? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

J Roberto Trujillo[edit]

J. Roberto Trujillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Self published inaccurate sources and information (verification?). No citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, December 24, 2017‎

Donald Trump racial views[edit]

What do editors think about this newly created article? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs work of it's to be kept but I'm not sure it should be. Its basically a "list of racist things DT has said/done." I'm torn because there is quite a lot of RS coverage about his racial views right now, but it's hard to treat a topic like this in its own article without it feeling a bit undue/attack page-y. At some point we're going to have to ask just how many DT spinoff articles is too many... Fyddlestix (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Same feeling, I feel some of this stuff is just at the edge of "who cares" and other covered in more detail at things like Trumps social media usage. It's very much bordering on synthesis even though its justified to state many believe he has racist views; trying to list them all seems inappropriate. --Masem (t) 01:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
"without it feeling a bit undue/attack page-y" <-- the problem is the nature of the subject, not how the article is written. Actual news organizations and publishing houses struggled with the same issue - how to write about Trump - because he was such an ... unpresidented, phenomenon. Same thing here. It would actually be POV and a disservice to the encyclopedia and our readers if we purposefully avoided difficult subject because... they "feel" attack-page-y. Trump is who he is. Sources are what they are. An article like this is long long long overdue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The article is not intended to be a listing of his apparent racist comments and actions. It's meant to be an analysis of the history as a whole and its impact on current US politics and society. There are some very good, in-depth sources that tie it all together. I added three of them to the lead sentence in the past hour or so.- MrX 01:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure that's not what's intended, but it does read a bit like that as of right now. Like I said I'm on the fence, will take a look at the sources and see what else I can find. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This would be the type of article that really needs a good RS or three that has attempted to document all of Trump's racist views, to avoid the synthesis of WP assemblying it ourselves. Certainly accumulating all his views pre- and post-election is problematic. If we do have a few sources that do this, and only a few recent cases are omitted, then it's probably okay. --Masem (t) 02:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you may have missed where I mentioned this above. There are several such sources[1][2][3] cited in the article now, and more available. - MrX 02:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
That satisfy my immediate concern, but I feel there's still something off putting about it but nothing I can tie immediately to any policy or the like. Closest would be similar issues with "criticism of X" type articles, but we do allow those too as long as NPOV aspects are kept in mind. --Masem (t) 03:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This is one of the defining themes of his political profile and career. Articles start out with room for improvement, but it's much better to work from this beginning than to discuss the subject in the abstract. @Masem: I don't think that references to this in other articles would suggest we should not have an article on so large and consequential a topic. It's been a topic of RS discussion for at least a decade. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
For anyone unaware this goes back to his property dealings way before the present stuff. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the 'Black' listing of applications to rent properties and if I recall there were a few lawsuits about it as well. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I am also kind of uncomfortable about the existence of this page for some hard-to-pin-down reasons. I do think that the page should definitely have a different, less awkward title than it has now, though-perhaps Donald Trump and racism? Everymorning (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I do agree a different title would help, and in fact, going to "Donald Trump and racism" would all for a lede section that broadly talks about his views (without any specific incident) towards race, using the sources above, and then can get down into the more specific cases that have been called out. It would make it less "attacky" to establish that this has been a subject of discussion overall from sources, and not just a random collection of things people consider to be racist that Trump has said (even if that form is backed by sources) --Masem (t) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of what it is named, this article should extend back into Trump's business life during the 1970s and 'Blacklisting' of applicants for rentals in Trump properties, through the multiple legal battle, then the Presidential run. This places current Trump words and actions into a broader context to better understand what is currently happening. IMO C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is completely possible with the sources Mr. X provided above. The media have clearly tracked how he appears to have racist views from his business days to now, and I'd think a lead section to broadly explain that before moving to specifically notable incidents would help to smooth out problems. --Masem (t) 17:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Have you looked at it recently? Its quite close to that now. It is 2016+ heavy, but that's a result of his election push. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it's missing the section I'm talking about. I should correct myself, I didn't mean the lede (top) section, but a leading section after the lede but prior to the history that summarizes the general media opinion that Trump has racist views through his life. Then one can delve into specific incidents. The lede (Top) section has some of this but it should be expanded more and prior to the history. All this to establish that we WP editors are not synthesizing this list out of nowhere. --Masem (t) 17:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Note An AfD is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump racial views. Make sure to share you views there too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ian Swingland[edit]

User:Ianswingland objects to some of the content at Ian Swingland; the edit currently under dispute is [4]. Notice that an earlier, rather broader, edit [5] is no longer being proposed.

There are two apparent issues: that of the trial, and that of the OBE. The outcome of the trial in 2016 appears to be shrouded in mystery and hints of an injunction ([6]); the removal of the OBE appears well sourced. See-also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Swingland William M. Connolley (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I edited this to reinstate the reliably sourced award and withdrawal of the OBE, but without linking that to the trial as we have no source that says why the OBE was withdrawn. I see that the content linking the OBE withdrawal with the trial has been reinstated. Although the content is strictly speaking true (post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy) readers will still infer from this wording that the OBE was withdrawn because of the trial. If the trial is mentioned it shouldn't be in the context of the OBE withdrawal unless we have a source linking them. (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Due to the lack of explanation here I have again removed the link between the OBE withdrawal and other matters. It's a clear violation of WP:BLP to imply that we know why the OBE was withdrawn when we have no reliable source saying why. I have, as I did before, left the fact of the withdrawal of the OBE because we have an impeccable source for that. (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The material on the trial is well-sourced, there's no reason to remove it. How it's presented can be discussed on the talk page. Smartyllama (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
And that material obviously falls foul of WP:BLPCRIME. We have a source saying that Swingland went on trial, but not for the result of that trial. To say one without the other gives readers the impression that he must be guilty, which is unsupported by any sources. (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Nope, we can say there was a trial in which he was involved, I've edited the article to ensure that it says tax avoidance, which is legal, rather than tax dodging which us not, big difference between the two. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Have you actually read WP:BLPCRIME? And the subject went on trial under criminal charges - tax avoidance in itself is not criminal but running a tax avoidance scheme without reporting it to HMRC is. (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I have read it yes, Swingland is not "relatively unknown" unless I'm missing something? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME links to WP:WELLKNOWN which in turn links to public figure. Swingland is undoubtedly notable, but doesn't meet the much higher standard of being a public figure. (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Bratya Basu[edit]

I'd appreciate more eyes on this. I've cut neatly a year's worth of unsourced, promotional content and resume-like listings. Given a WP:SPA's interest, the questionable material is apt to reappear. 2601:188:180:11F0:7D87:6735:32A7:C08C (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Jumping the gun a bit, but at the same time the IP is probably right. Certainly, when it comes to the content, the previous was a clear WP:BLP and WP:PROMOTIONAL violation. Bellezzasolo Discuss 02:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks like most of the promotional content has already been removed but I also made a series of improvements removing additional peacock language and grammatical fixes. Meatsgains (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Roenfeld[edit]

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

This page does not follow the guidelines for living persons biography due to inaccurate and inflated statements. The page states he is a historian, though there is no indication that this individual has an academic degree in history. The claim is made that the individual published 16 books, and yet Worldcat lists only ten and out of those three were self-published. In addition, the page states he has three published articles without any citations to document this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The referencing is abysmal for a WP:BLP - two interviews with him and a report of an initiative which he started, but which isn't about him. Even in these, he's described as a "local historian" which makes me suspect he's not notable. I'll have a look around for better sources but if I can't find any, I'll probably nominate for deletion. Neiltonks (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
.... and I found nothing convincing, so I've taken it to AFD (WP:Articles for deletion/Ryan Roenfeld) to get other views. Neiltonks (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Morgan Beck[edit]

Several IP addresses have updated Morgan Beck with an unsourced statement that a third party has had to file a report against the subject. With e.g [edit]

Although I thought that it was an obvious examption to three reverts. Policy suggests considering reporting here instead.

Icarusgeek (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely unacceptable to add this type of thing without a source. I've watchlisted the article and will ask for page protection if the unsourced additions continue (but feel free to do so yourself, if you wish). It's already gone on long enough. Neiltonks (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Neiltonks. I shall keep it on my watch list. Icarusgeek (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The temporary protection expired yesterday and it has started again, with a new IP editor.Icarusgeek (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Kelly[edit]

Can I request an additional pair of eyes at Matthew Kelly to see if I am being appropriate, also invite other account involved @Charterhouse55:. I have an SPA / INVOLVED account Charterhouse55 making edits to remove the significant, highly reported, arrest and release of Matthew Kelly when subject to accusations back in 2003. [7][8][9][10][11] [12] Their significance was enough to draw a public letter shared by several stars in support of his innocence and character[13] and his innocence, along with other victims of accusations, was made part of a wider discussion by the BBC.[14] He has since conducted an interview with The Times relating to the impact of the accusations and arrest, and the personal trauma it visited upon his mental health, and lasting damage to his career and personal relationships [15], [16], was the subject of a personal and sympathetic Op Ed of the changes to his personality.[17] and the case was subject of a Select Committee discussion relating to his case:[18]

78. In our view, there are obvious limitations with the second option. If, as is often the case, the identity of the accused has been publicised before a charge is brought, then any post-charge reporting restriction would be meaningless. The first option offers only limited protection.[119] For those who are charged, but not convicted, the post-charge publicity may have a devastating and possibly permanent impact. We understand that anonymity for the accused before charge is already recommended in guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers.[120] However, even the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Home Office, Hilary Benn, recognised that suspects' names can still find their way into the media[121]—as happened recently in the case involving Matthew Kelly.[122]

And was also referenced a Standard Note research briefing issued to MP's discussing the "Anonymity in rape cases" [19]

This policy is not always successful, as shown by a then recent case. Actor and television presenter Matthew Kelly had been arrested in January 2003 as he came off stage after a pantomime performance; both the arrest and the subsequent investigation were widely publicised in the national and regional press under headlines such as “Matthew Kelly held over child sex”, “Matthew Kelly accused of sex attacks on boys” and “Matthew Kelly, the camp entertainer with an unconventional marriage; the weird life of Mr Saturday Night TV”. A month later, the police decided to take no further action on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to charge.

From what I can see, it is quite clear that the accusations, case, and his innocence is a very notable incident in his life and not a means by which to cast aspersions. The edit summaries by Charterhouse have made strong claims that I do not think logically follow:

'"publishing contentious and defamatory information which is, in the current climate, particularly damaging. I have no idea why seems to have a vendetta against Mr Kelly"'
'"This information is defamatory. No charges were brought and no evidence was discovered. As such it should not be allowed to define an innocent man's life and therefore goes against the spirit of Wikipedia."'
'"Why does Waggers think it neccessary to keep publicising a very harmful and unwarranted accusation against an innocent man. Do you not realise the pain this causes?"'
'"After the press coverage the subject of false accusations has had recently I can only think that the contributor WAGGERS has no conception of the uneccessary additional pain his edits cause Mr Kelly. Please stop.'"

These seem obvious attempts to silence / delete and subvert otherwise open and freely available, not controversial content relating to the subject. My own investigation suggests that user Charterhouse55 is a representative of of whom Matthew Kelly is a client based upon this edit summary and the users name being constructed from the property they are based at (The Paddock Suite, The Courtyard, 55 Charterhouse St, Clerkenwell, London EC1M 6HA). I suspect the wording of the subject matter might be improved / enhanced, and more of the sources I have supplied above used for additional weight, but wanted to verify that I am not somehow creating an unnecessary burden for other well publicised claims / accusations so long as they are cited by reliable sources and are not of insignificant note or irrelevance. Koncorde (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

All three sources in your latest reversion seem to say that Mr. Kelly was cleared of the charges. And one of the three is the Daily Mail, about which WP:DAILYMAIL. So I'm going to remove the information per WP:BLP ("Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.") until and unless a noticeable consensus to include emerges. --GRuban (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Now I can imagine such a consensus emerging, mind you. The fact that he gave a long interview to The Times about it, implies is a big deal in his life, in which case, I can see it might be an important part of his biography. But writing about it would take great care, not just the two sentences in the removed content, because as The Times article says, it did a great deal of damage to his life, damage that we don't want to carelessly contribute to. If you want to write a balanced and impeccably sourced (The Times: yes, The Daily Mail: no) paragraph or section, we can discuss. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
They are not my sources, I am just a passing editor seeing recurring revert war between an SPA and several editors over several years now, and trying to get assistance.
Daily Mail sourcing (particularly one provided above which was for duplication of the paywalled Times some editors may not be able to access) is the least important matter, I went to the effort of adding another half dozen in this discussion (or that I started this discussion at all) including mentions in Parliament and research for considerations in amendments to statutory law.
I stated I believed it may need a rewrite additional sourcing, however blanking the section is not such a rewrite nor does it explain what aspect of BLP its current wording is in breach of. Koncorde (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Eva Klotz[edit]

There is a problem with this biography, I don't say I'm right on this, I'm no historian or judge and I'm new here but I've found written that Eva Klotz father was a freedom fighter. I thought he was convicted for bombings and killings, and he was a known member of an organization South Tyrolean Liberation Committee "which aimed to achieve the right for self-determination for South Tyrol and the related secession from Italy via bomb attacks" and was later infiltrated by neo-nazis. So I've edited the page, which was later re-edited stating that Georg Klotz was a freedom fighter. I might be wrong of course and if that's the case, I'm sorry for the mess and maybe both the South Tyrolean Liberation Committee and several pages on the need changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I will express no opinion about whether her father was a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist", but the article is (or should be) a biography of her, not her father. Currently, this article gives undue weight to the details of her father's life, while her own life story is undeveloped. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I have removed it. It belongs on either a biography about him, or an article on the crimes themselves. Not her biography. While sourced, undue weight by negative association is a BLP issue, guilt by association as it were. 'Convicted terrorist' is accurate but there is probably some wiggle room. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
ITWP appears to have an article on the father and one of the major events he was part of, which may need vetting if anyone wants to import them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that undue weight in this might be a really tricky subject: it's true that the article is about Ms Klotz and not her father and that in comparison to the lenght of the rest of the life and careeer section it's quite long, but it's still 3 lines (the rest of the section is quite short in fact) and half of them is used to clarify the matter; if the article just say, as it was before, that her father was a terrorist or a freedom fighter, without any page (in english) about him nor any short, lightly detailed, account of him; it might seem quite a matter of opinion who he was and his actions; I'm trying to say that without any explanation (be it in the article, in another linked article or as external references) anyone could write he was a freedom fighter or a terrorist or a martian or whatever as the reader won't find references substantiating such a statement, be it true or not. Aside from the fact that the life and career section itself is short (the italian version is a bit longer and more detailed:, I've noticed that almost every article about a known face, in particular politicians, has a description of the family of the subject of the article, in many cases there is an entire "ancestry" section. In my opinion, and I might be wrong on this, in this specific article might be important to share some details on her father, not just because it's practice in the wiki or there's not a page on Georg Klotz, but because Ms Klotz herself stated that her childhood was influenced by the actions of her father (source: italian wiki page), she wrote a book on him (as stated in the article) and she is/was a member of a political movement (Südtiroler Heimatbund, Bürger Union für Südtirol and Süd-Tiroler Freiheit) with many common goal (indipendence/annextion to Austria of Südtirol) with her father's Befreiungsausschuss Südtirol (luckly with more peaceful means); so I think that, at least some part of, Georg Klotz's story might be relevant to understand Ms Klotz biography, as he is, of course, a part of not only her biography but of the recent history of her country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Just seen the new version, but I still think that stating that a man was terrorist without explanations or references is quite unfair towords him and his family (including Ms. Klotz), just as it is, towords the victims and their families, to say, without explanations or references, that he was a freedom fighter. Maybe the word "terrorist" need a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it does. What I removed here can be added back once a reliable independent source can be used to reference it using an inline citation. MPS1992 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

David Wolfe (entrepreneur)[edit]

This has been raised on the fringe topics noticeboard, but as it concerns a BLP it seems to me that it is more properly raised here.

The situation is that we have a claim about a living person sourced to two references. Both fully support the claim in the article. The first is reliably published in Slate, but only mentions the basics of the claim. The second is a self-published blog, but goes into more detail beyond what we discuss in the article. I would like to remove the self-published source per WP:BLPSPS, but Jytdog would like to retain the source, even though it is self-published, because it has more detail than the first.

In a situation where we have two sources that fully support the claim, can we retain the self-published source in spite of WP:BLPSPS, or should it be removed in favour of only using the reliably published one? Discussion is at Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur)#Scienceblogs. Thank's in advance for any opinions either way. - Bilby (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This misrepresents the dispute, even worse than the last one and like the last one this one too will probably drift off this board.
I shouldn't have to explain to an administrator that a neutral posting looks something like this. Please review WP:CANVASS. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
What is incorrect? - Bilby (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLPSPS is pretty clear - you can use a self-published source, but only if published by the subject of the article. It still then is WP:PRIMARY. However, this isn't the case. There is still WP:IAR, but... Bellezzasolo Discuss 02:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A. Wade Boykin[edit]

This biography is of a living person and contains statements that are not adequately supported by reliable sources. Due to its nature of being authored by anonymous contributors, any Wikipedia article for a biography, especially of a living person, must be based on facts and references that can be clearly identified. This article has many dubious claims such as "made significant contributions to, "an impressive and influential career,"His greatest contributions probably come out of," the whole Contributions section, "well-respected and extremely popular," and so forth. Removing or suspending the article until the content is well documented is recommended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There's sufficient sourcing to support an article, so removing it is not called for. It's been in article space for years, so userfying wouldn't make much sense. Find refs, or delete unrefed content. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Understood. Improving the article makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Terry Hall (singer)[edit]

I think the concluding section indicating that Terry Hall is currently married to Anne De Linda/Lindy Heymann and that he has a son named Orson Hall with her needs confirmation by him. Can the legal date of her marriage to him be documented along with the year of Orson Hall's birth? I understand him to be married currently to someone else. Is she referring tongue in cheek to the 30th Anniversary Tour concert video while talking to the interviewer in Ireland? I would remove the paragraph, but I wouldn't want to do so if I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Turpin case[edit]

It seems we now have an article Turpin case. If you've heard about this at all, you'll probably know there are strong BLP issues raised. Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, I wish people would read BLPNAME before doing this sort of shit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how the article can be written without including the name of the people involved. We should seriously try to avoid the ugliness of tabloid loquaciousness. But we can't both lavish attention on something and remain aloof from it. A preferable title might be "Perris, California alleged child abuse case". Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to all the non-notable third parties (grandparents, various aunts, a previous bankruptcy lawyer etc). Not the subjects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Reply - What would y'all like to see accomplished/changed? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It looks like Only in Death took care of most of it. For further info see WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY, (and maybe WP:AVOIDVICTIM ... heck, just see WP:BLP). An article like this needs to be treated very carefully and adhere to these policies. (Not accusing you of anything, as I don't know the history, just FYI.)Zaereth (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes I think there are enough BLP conscious editors keeping an eye on it now that it should be fine. FWIW, this [20] is how the article looked when I posted. Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

2G spectrum case[edit]

This case was initially referred to as the '2G spectrum scam', and was alleged to be a criminal act of corruption. However in it's verdict in December 2017, the court has acquitted all the accused in the case, stating in its judgement that it has

[21] "Absolutely no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any charge against any of the accused",

[22] "some people created a scam by artfully arranging a few selected facts and exaggerating things beyond recognition to astronomical levels"

and virtually saying that there was no scam.

In light of this, articles of the accused, including Manmohan Singh, A. Raja and Kanimozhi, and also other articles related to this topic, should be reviewed to check that there are no violations of WP:BLP, because there was an inclination in the past to talk of this case as a proven scam. Continuing to use the word 'scam' may be a case of WP:Libel. The media have also mostly stopped referring to it as the '2G scam'. The Discoverer (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Amy E.Smith[edit]

Amy E.Smith new aspiring author.I have 3 books on chidrens books."The lonley Feral Cat.Penelopes cross country adventure& Sparky Survives.They are wholesome childrens books for all children to read.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy E. Smith (talkcontribs) 11:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amy E. Smith: - congratulations, though that does not mean that you necessarily merit an article on Wikipedia. Please see WP:N for our notability requirements. GiantSnowman 11:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark Hyman (doctor)[edit]

Mark Hyman (doctor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a blatant bias in this article insofar as it refers to functional medicine as "pseudoscientific." There is no basis for this statement. The originator of this field is Jeffrey Bland, Ph.D., who is a scientist. The bias likely originates in the fact that functional medicine is not favored by the pharmaceutical industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

See Functional medicine - if you can get that article to state it is not alternative pseudo-medicine, then you might have a point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ursula von der Leyen[edit]

Ursula von der Leyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


the English (and French) version of the article are wrong/outdated with regard to the Standford allegations. It still says that Stanford accuses Ursula von der Leyen of a misusage of the university name in her CV and thus doubting her academic qualifications. However, Stanford has withdrawn all their accusations and cleared Ms von der Leyen completely from any wrongdoing... Should be corrected from a more experienced Wikipedian in my opinion ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:68A:2E00:94DE:A810:32EA:246A (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia is a separate entity, and articles there are not under the jurisdiction of this page.
The situation with regard to Stanford is more complex than you suggest: their most recent statements indicate that, as the positions which von der Leyen claims to have held at Stanford are not official positions, the university does not consider her claims about these positions to be formal misrepresentations. Similarly with regard to the allegations regarding her thesis, this was found to contain substantial plagiarism, but this was not found to reach a level of academic misconduct sufficient to justify withdrawal of her degree. The relevant section of her page should indeed be written slightly more carefully, but the suggestion that "Stanford has withdrawn all their accusations and cleared Ms von der Leyen completely from any wrongdoing" is at least as wrong as the current text. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

List of impostors[edit]

Seems dodgy, at least for the people listed who are still alive. Includes Rachel Dolezal. And there are sections on "women who lived as men", and vice-versa -- trans people are "imposters", according to Wikipedia? There is surely a problem with sources for at least some of them -- I doubt we'd find sources (for some) that use the word "imposter" (at best, it's WP:OR to use that label). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh krikey. man i hate list articles and how people feel free to add stuff without sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I went through and removed a bunch of stuff and added sources for others. nice catch.Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
None of these "women who lived as men" seem to be actual trans people. "Many women in history have presented themselves as men in order to advance in typically male-dominated fields. In most cases their exact relationship to their male presentation was never recorded unambiguously or at all; if or how they would fit into modern Western transgender categories can never be certain."--Auric talk 14:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The issue troubles me in a more general way: if "women who presented as men" are impostors, then perhaps that's what Wikipedia thinks about people who are trans. I know my own concerns in that regard don't have any policy weight, though. But never mind: unless a source describe someone as an impostor, we can't describe someone as an impostor (e.g. by including them in a list of impostors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This list is way too vague to be of any use. First, the definition of "imposter" is a person who pretends to be someone else. Not somewhere else or something else. Not a person using an alias. A transgender male is not an imposter of a female. (That doesn't even make sense.) Now, if a transgender person was pretending to be, say ... Dolly Parton, then that could be an imposter. However, "imposter" has a negative connotation, insinuating this pretense is for malicious purposes. For example, a Dolly Parton impersonator is not an imposter. Someone disguised as Dolly Parton to gain access to her bank account, that would be an imposter.
The problem with categories and lists is they are all one-sided. The title of the list defines everything underneath it, so whatever appears on that list must adhere to the extremely narrow parameters set by the title. (This is exactly the opposite of how an encyclopedia article is written, where the article defines the title.) Therefore, there is no balance or context in such a list; it's "black and white". And since the title of the list is using the words incorrectly, the entire list is just patent nonsense. Zaereth (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I was going to recommend merging notable examples into the Imposter article, but found out that it simply links to the list... Zaereth (talk)

William Whitfield[edit]

Is anyone able to have a quick look at William Whitfield? This and this don't seem quite up to the standards for BLPs. I'd sort it myself, but don't have time right now. Carcharoth (talk)

I have removed the unsourced content now. Carcharoth (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ram Kadam[edit]

The article about Ram Kadam, a living person, has been target for unsourced or poorly sourced with potentially libellous and different accusations, from among other users, User:ExposeCorruption. The article may need extra attention for some time, and even protecton. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Trimmed of useless charges about other people, and "controversy". I am unsure he meets notability standards if anyone puts it up for AfD. Collect (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Daily Express, Brexit Central and BuzzFeed[edit]

Hello, I'm posting a link to this discussion at RSN as it concerns the use of the above sources in BLPs. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There are absolutely zero "celebrity gossip sites" which are worth placing in a birdcage. And most "reliable sources" now rely heavily on press releases, run with minimal editing, and with zero independent fact-checking at all. Collect (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple articles[edit]

I have just discovered {{Undisclosed paid}}:

which appears on 673 articles, many of which (like Ruhama Avraham (where it has been in place for over four months); Bert Hölldobler; Simon Rex (five months); Terry Nelson (political consultant); Vince Ratti) are BLPs; and on none of those I've randomly checked (including all the given example) has a talk page discussion offering any evidence to support its use been opened.

Disclosure: discussion of a related issue with the {{COI}} template is ongoing, in all three current sections of Template talk:COI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You continue to confuse issues with the creation/development of an article, with issues about content in the article about the person. Silly. That said, yes people should add notes to talk pages when they tag. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I assure you I'm not in the least confused. But I'm glad that you're now coming round to the view that "people should add notes to talk pages when they tag". It is to be hoped that such notices will be better than the vague boilerplate one you have just added to the talk pages of some of the examples I gave, in edits such as this, which does nothing to offer any evidence to support the allegation made in the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
If only so that people who are trying to thwart our COI management processes don't have wikilawyering bullshit reasons to waste our time. It takes seconds to figure out why the tags are there. With regard to the diff, if you had a modicum of clue or desire to actually help things, you would have lifted your eyes up that page and seen the tags on the talk page showing the now-banned socks who worked on the article. I will add that a note about that to the existing note, again to head off more of this wikilawyering bullshit. A helpful response here from you would be to add some of these notes yourself. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I am surprised that, on this of all pages, you describe steps to uphold our BLP policy as "wikilawyering bullshit". I did indeed "lift my eyes up that page", and found only two unsubstantiated claims that "[a named editor] has been paid by unknown. Their editing has included contributions to this article." but, as I said, nothing to support the allegation made in the template. Once again, I also ask you to cease your ad hominem attacks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Andy please STOP forum shopping. You already raised this here (which is also not really the correct spot by the way). Your claim that raising content concerns is a BLP issue is silly. Our rules allow paid editing yes, but that does not mean people can buy the exact article they wish without any evidence of their efforts at covert marketing of themselves or their company. Our readers and fellow editors deserve to know when concerns exist. Other types of clean up tags persist for many many years. Not sure what you are getting at that this one has remained on some articles for a few months? It is not really surprising that people are not flocking to write neutral articles on often barely notable businesses and people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Really, James? An editor of your considerable experience should know what WP:FORUMSHOPPING is; and this is far from that. Furthermore, no-one, and certainly not me, has said that "raising content concerns is a BLP issue". Other types of cleanup tags do not insinuate wrong-doing by the article subject (or, in the rare case that they do, they require that the editor who places them leave a justification on the talk page). You need to stop such facile attempts at distraction, and for once address the core issue: unsubstantiated allegations on BLP articles. [I also note with disappointment that as not just an admin, but also a WMF board member, you have yet again failed to comment on an ad hominem attack in a thread which you have joined.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few more BLP's tagged with this template, yet with no relevant discussion on their talk pages: John Mendlein, Liesje Sadonius, Matthew Crosby, DJ Skee, Liesje Sadonius, Pan Shiyi, Isaac Berzin, Zohar Zisapel.

And that's just from the first page of fifty results in "what link here".

And still not one single BLP where such a discussion has been started. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And in each of those cases it is fairly easy to figure out who the paid editors are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
No, James, it is not; and especially so for the ordinary reader rather than an experienced Wikipedia editor. The allegations remain unsubstantiated. And I note you still fail to comment on the ad hominem attack here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been watching this, and have no idea what the logic is behind your reasoning. Are you trying to say that the template amounts to some sort of allegation of malice? Unless I'm missing something, you argument appears to be the equivalent of: the tag says an editor thinks something about this article is fishy, but no one has showed me any fish, and this is an unjust accusation of ... who? (The subject? The editors? Jimbo? Remind me again, who are we trying to protect?) It seems to be something between a modal fallacy and argumentum ad ignorantiam, but I just can't put any logic to it (fallacy or not). If something about an article smell's fishy, our reader's have a need to know.
Also, although it may be justified in many cases, no one is required to comment on attacks, whether real or perceived. (Commenting on the logic of someone's position does not rise to the level of an attack in my opinion.) Zaereth (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The ad hominem attack was not "a comment on the logic of my position". HTH Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The key word in that tag is 'may'. And after a brief look at the history of some of those articles, it could say 'almost certainly' and it would be correct. What is the violation of BLP here? Stating that an article may have been edited by a paid editor? Implying that a living person may have paid for their article? Outside Wikipedia this would be standard practice in PR. So I am not buying any negative association here. Once it has been reviewed any editor can remove it like any other maintenance tag. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
"What is the violation of BLP here... Implying that a living person may have paid for their article? ". No, making such an insinuation without substantiating it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
See article history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug Wardlow[edit]

Doug Wardlow

The first sentence is fact, everything after is libellous and an attempt to discredit the person:

Wardlow currently serves as legal counsel[1] for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal non-profit in Scottsdale, Arizona.[2] Alliance Defending Freedom has supported the recriminalization of homosexuality in the U.S. and criminalization abroad, has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of transgender people abroad, has linked homosexuality to pedophilia and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society.[3] ADF also works to develop religious liberty legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBT people on the basis of religion.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applebit (talkcontribs) 19:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

None of it appears to be libelous, in that none of it appears to be a defamatory falsehood - on the contrary, all of it appears to be true. While it needed to be rewritten, your wholesale removal of it, while in good faith, was unwarranted. I have reinserted an edited statement which discusses Wardlow's controversial involvement in these issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Simon Rex[edit]

So this person is an model/actor/singer who apparently did their first modelling in porn.

The content that a series of SPA account editors have removed is:

In 1993, at age 19, Rex responded to a modeling advertisement in a Los Angeles magazine and agreed to be photographed nude for photographer Brad Posey and his Club 1821 studio. The following year, under the alias Sebastian, he appeared in solo masturbation scenes for three Club 1821 pornographic films: Young, Hard & Solo #2, Young, Hard & Solo #3, and Hot Sessions III. Archive footage was used in the 2000 films Hot Sessions 11 and Hot Sessions 12.[1][2][3]


  1. ^ Ferguson, Michael (2003). Idol Worship: A Shameless Celebration of Male Beauty in the Movies. Sarasota: STARbooks Press. p. 296. ISBN 0-786-40983-5. Retrieved December 10, 2014. 
  2. ^ Lopez, Rich (July 12, 2010). "Concert notice: Gay-porn-star-turned-comedy-music-act Simon Rex, aka Dirt Nasty, comes to the Loft in October". Dallas Voice. Retrieved February 7, 2013. 
  3. ^ Lester, Shallon (October 29, 2008). "Former MTV VJ/porn star Simon Rex is trying his hand at rap music". NY Daily News. Retrieved December 10, 2014. 

Should this be in the article? Jytdog (talk)

Nope. Collect (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Dan Skuta BLP vio?[edit]

On Dan Skuta an IP added details regarding a possible crime committed by Dan, without any sources to back it up. It may also be a copyvio. I'm not sure if it is a BLP vio that needs admin attention, else I would of just used Primefac's script. Thanks, L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's a copyvio of the Daily Mail... and the Daily Mail is barred from being used as a source in BLP matters. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Revdel filed. Thanks, L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

ryan wiik[edit]

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

I have tried to generically update content regarding a person Ryan Wiik and a user Danlig55 continuously and immediately changes the content. He has monopolized the content of this page and stating matters not as they are. They are damaging to Ryan and those who are working with him. This information is extremely misleading and his relentless agenda is apparent with his continuously manipulation of information regarding Ryan Wiik. I am very close to what is going on with Ryan and the information that Danlig55 is posting is inaccurate and damaging to Ryan and those that are working with him. I am requesting that he be blocked from these attempts. He has assumed authority over this content and this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. He refuses to allow anyone to make any adjustments to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmExec (talkcontribs) 09:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

User FilmExec Point 1: I am not refusing anything, but when you delete 37 referenced material and almost 90% of the article I have to protect. I have followed moderator NeilN's advise about having a discussion. Point 2: You are using the same changes as Grassroot76 has done before and he got blocked. Point 3: You are admitting you are close to Wiik, so that in it self says it all. You are to biased to write on this article. Point 4: You opened you user account today and have gone mental on Ryan Wiik's article. Please discuss on TALK page. Don't delete everything. We can discuss point by point. But you have to have some arguments. Danlig55 (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This is absolutely not the case at all. And not at all trying to exclude anything that is validly stated by not just any source. Are you telling me that tabloid information regarding a person can be considered facts in a place like Wikipedia? We can discuss this absolutely point by point and the original updates left all absolute sources in place. But they were continuously reverted. Therefore in an effort to be fair, I removed it down to the basics in hopes that it would appease this person. But it seems that only his version is acceptable? This is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmExec (talkcontribs) 09:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@FilmExec: You have now admitted that you are close to Wiik. I saw your chat with moderator Cahk. While tabloid articles may not necessarily be the best source, the fact that information is reported meant it is in the public domain (it's another question/debate as to whatever extent it is). It's one thing to say there are inaccuracies to the article, but it's a completely different matter when you remove voluminous number of sources to the article.
Danlig55 talk to me 11:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Re. "...close to Wiik": if that is the case, can a {{Connected contributor}} box be placed at Talk:Ryan Wiik, with proper parameter values that elucidate the situation? Tx.
BLP-sensitive information that can *only* be referenced to IMDb and other sources of a less-than-top-notch reliability (IMDb falls under WP:USERGENERATED and would not be usable for BLP-sensitive information) should of course better not be included in a BLP article. "Tabloid" is an ambiguous term: does this refer to Tabloid (newspaper format) or Tabloid journalism? Sources that fall in the latter category should not be used, not under any circumstance, for BLP-sensitive material in Wikipedia, nor would they prove notability of a living person in WP:GNG context. So, please try to get that sorted ASAP: it seems best to remove all BLP material that is referenced to what are called Tabloids from the article until such distinctions between "reliable" and "less than reliable" sources have been properly operated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Below you can see what moderator Cahk answered to FilmExec in his latest reply. User FilmExec is just trying to make English moderators confused by calling everything tabloid since most of his articles are in Norwegian. I read Norwegian and every article is from Norway's largest newspapers. From financial press to VG, Norway's largest newspaper. If you or a moderator take a look at Ryan Wiik's talk page you will see that this behavior from FilmExec aka Grassroot76 and MariaSky has been going on for a while. Perhaps best to remove IMDb as a source as it's user generated?. All other sources are credible news sources.

@FilmExec: I have no vested interest in the article, or the subject himself so your frustration directed at me is misguided. You have now made it clear you are editing on behalf of "your client", which means you have a Conflict of Interest for which you did not declare in accordance to Wikipedia guidance. Further, please refrain from making claims/reference for legal action, as you will most definitely be permanently blocked. --Cahk (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Danlig55 talk to me 12:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I still didn't see a {{Connected contributor}} box with proper parameter values appear at Talk:Ryan Wiik? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I put it in now, but my knowledge to do it correctly I'm not sure. If they can't pinpoint the same IP they have to look at entries. I know several moderators are following the talk page, so if I have not done it right, they would. Danlig55 talk to me 13:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the box has not been placed yet: please see the instructions at Template:Connected contributor for how to place it, and how the parameters should be added (all you did is place a link to the template, like I did here: no box needs to be placed on this noticeboard, so I only linked to it – at the article talk page the actual box, with proper parameter values, needs to be placed). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I've added the template, with the relevant parameters.--Auric talk 14:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, which might mean that page protection is no longer needed (or at least can be modified to semiprotection), provided that FilmExec does not return to editing the Ryan Wiik article, but instead posts improvement suggestions at an appropriate talk page such as Talk:Ryan Wiik. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Oops, while I was writing the previous comment FilmExec was being indeffed for undisclosed paid editing... --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
And plenty of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, as well.--Auric talk 00:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Edward Hallowell (psychiatrist)[edit]

The subject of this biography seems to be a the center of a controversy regarding ADHD. The article has a long history of being the target of highly non-WP:NPOV (and potentially WP:BLP-violating) edits from single-purpose accounts. Another one has showed up recently. Additional eyes on the article would be helpful. Deli nk (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ignatius Aphrem II (Syriac Patriarch of All the East)[edit]

Ignatius Aphrem II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The inserted photo contains gibberish, and is probably meant to say "visited" not "revived". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to "reviewed".--Auric talk 00:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Top 25 Report[edit]

I came across this page today and noticed it is a report of the Top 25 most viewed articles on Wikipedia. Really handy, and also what I was looking for recently. However, the page is an opinion piece of sorts giving descriptions of those 25 articles. This is fine, but some of the material appears to violate BLP, specifically:

Donald Trump: The imbecile-in-chief had a particularly busy week, even by his own frantic and frenzied standards. After insulting approximately half of the world, he proceeded to trigger a cessation of government services by refusing to relent on his desire for a wall. So, because the monument to Mexican sins will not be funded, the US has decided to stop the whole government lark altogether. Not that it matters, because seemingly nothing does, but one has to wonder why anyone would live in that shithole.

As you may know, BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia. I asked the Top 25's primary author on the talk page and they said they didn't feel like this violated BLP in any way. Do you agree or disagree? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Is this a joke? Was this genuinely intended to go out as part of the SIGNPOST? Did someone deliberately commission a tone-deaf 14-year-old to write it in order to cause maximum offense and maximum problems with BLP? Could someone also please check if the numerous bare Youtube external links are copyvios or not. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you really want to be approaching a BLP violation yourself even as you complain about a BLP violation? sheesh. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I apologize, I did not realise they were actually 14, if that is what you are suggesting. MPS1992 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
NPA - also, no one commissioned me to do anything. It is a volunteer role, which anyone can take on. If you think that you can strike a superior tone with your presumed 25 years of experience on this fine earth, put yourself down to write next week's iteration here. Moreover, the report is adapted for the Signpost - I don't write for it, and the authors there can edit it as they please. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This is not the first time the Signpost has played fast and loose with BLP rules. If you want to write a gossip sheet, there is a tabloid waiting out there. The section on Prince Phil is particularly bad, containing allegations of infidelity (spelled badly, unless you were making a pun on martial and he actually invaded NZ while he was down there) and the labeling of his sister as 'Nazi sister'. I'm sure as a woman at that time she had a great deal of control over the political party she joined (which was generally, join or else) - that's not a BLP issue however, just tasteless. Here is a rule of thumb for you, if its not in a living person's biography with a source, and its contentious, don't do it unless you are going to provide an inline citation. Since the signpost is not anything to do with improving articles directly, most of the BLP exceptions for discussing contentious BLP issues on talkpages will not apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Only in death: - With specific reference to Philip - the onus for this one is on me for not adequately framing the description, which I have rectified here. The source of the popularity for Philip is The Crown, where he is portrayed by Matt Smith - hence, I focused upon the events of the show which have caused swells of viewers to his page. None of the content is addressed at Philip directly, but rather at his depiction in the show. The pun was deliberate, but I opted to remove it as in hindsight it made little sense. With reference to the show, his sister is an explicit Nazi, so I refute your claims regarding tastelessness on my behalf. In the show, it is insinuated that he has other dalliances repeatedly also. I have added external links to reviews of the relevant episodes. Thanks for your assistance and advice - it was not my intent to generate gossip and controversy, and I hope the reframing of the entry has resolved these issues for you in some way. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Tom Cable[edit]

In article about Tom Cable, editors are inserting allegations that his wife, Carol Cable, edited his wikipedia biography. (Redacted) SamHolt6 continues to readd the news that she edited his page[23]. This violates a number of policies including WP:OUTING and WP:BLP as well as WP:NOTNEWS. It is no different than stories about other wikipedia editors that get covered by the news. We don't name them in the article especially in a disparaging way. Nowhere on Wikipedia does (Redacted) indicate her real life identity. It's important to note that none of the edits she made are kept. That is our job. It does not extend to disparaging her for making them. --DHeyward (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The disputed content on the Tom Cable article is the following: In January 2018, Cables' wife removed text about the allegations from the Tom Cable Wikipedia-article, but the text was reinstated. This allegation was made by and is sourced with articles from the Wall Street Journal ((Redacted)) and 247 Sports ((Redacted)). Both articles make mention of Cable's wife editing assault allegations out of the Tom Cable article. The 247 piece names an editor, (Redacted), and provides a quote in which Cable's wife allegedly admits to editing the article. (Redacted) has not commented on the situation. As editors, we have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Given that both of the sources cited meet WP:VER, I see no reason to prevent their usage as sources in regards to this event. This also discounts most of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, as the information is from reliable sources. If there is any debate to be had on the subject, it should be about whether the story about the "scrubbing" of the article should be included. This was discussed by myself and several other editors at (Redacted), a discussion which resulted in a minor mention of the incident as part of the existing assault allegations on the Tom Cable article. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I've protected the article fully for 3 days before someone gets themselves blocked. If in doubt, self-referential stuff like that is generally not encyclopedic. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I think reasonable people might question whether this warrants coverage in the article, but Wikipedia has a whole page dedicated to discussing congress people who edited - or who had staffers edit - their own Wikipedia pages. I don't think it runs afoul of outing unless editors are needlessly mentioning a user name in conjunction with a real life person. Nblund talk 00:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, if consensus is that "In January 2018, Cables' wife removed text about the allegations from the Tom Cable Wikipedia-article, but the text was reinstated." is WP:UNDUE that´s fine, but it´s not super-obvious. Wall Street Journal reasonably covers the WP:RS aspect. If there are equally reliable sources that says "no, this didn´t happen", that´s different of course. IMO the WP-text is not "disparaging", it describes a very human reaction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I did however find the the more extensive previous version [24] way out of WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)