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:

Elisa Jordana[edit]

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

Article contains misinformation and whenever it is corrected the changes are undone. Correct birth year (1982) and reference to a Playboy pictorial are called disrespectful by the fan who then deletes them. Wikipedia is not a press release and the self-aggrandizing elements that I removed should remain out or the article should be marked for removal.

Jesse Taylor[edit]

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

The first entry on this page refers to Season 25 of The Ultimate Fighter and lists the two fighters who will fight in the finale of the show. Season 25 doesn't premiere until April 19, 2017, so the information listed on Taylor's page is either inaccurate or is revealing the results of a season that has not aired yet.

link to site — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:10, April 10, 2017‎

As of today (in TV time), it's both. Right match, wrong slot. Still possible with shenanigans, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, June 27, 2017 (UTC)

Bob Iger[edit]

Someone changed the his official name to include "EPCOT died under my reign" as his middle name. This should be corrected.


Lyndon Martin W. Beharry[edit]

Lyndon Martin W. Beharry A self-aggrandizing article of no merit, featuring an unknown person, at

Tina Fernandes Botts[edit]

Tina Fernandes Botts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have nothing against her. Botts is a fine assistant professor of philosophy at California State University, Fresno. I have seen her give talks and she is good at her job. However she is an assistant professor of philosophy, and she has not done any major contribution to any other field, nor is she an important public figure. We can't have wikipedia pages for every assistant professor in every field... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2017

Dana Rohrabacher[edit]

We're seeing a problem with WP:UNDUE in the article Dana Rohrabacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After I pared back an unencyclopedic WP:UNDUE statement in which an exchange of views over one question Rorabacher recently asked during a session of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology was presented verbatim and given undue weight over the rest of Rorabacher's activity on that House Committee, User:Tomwsulcer reverted the change for this reason: - his edit summary read "Rv as per WP:MOS the lede section is supposed to summarize subjects main points which should not be buried below.". The change wasn't in a lede paragraph. User:Tomwsulcer is referring to another discussion on that article's talk page which also has relevance to this issue: In that section, he told another editor "this one supposedly little fact may be what causes this guy to resign, and it should not be buried" which seems to show he wanted the change to create WP:PROPAGANDA.

I have no problem with Rorabacher's embarrassing stands being mentioned in the article with due weight with other information about him, but an encyclopedic article ought to summarize this information with inline citations to allow the reader to find the source material in greater detail. It should not reproduce information word-for-word with accompanying white space from the source document, in a way we don't see in encyclopedic articles. I'd like other editors to examine the specific change I mentioned at the top of this report and the entire Dana Rohrabacher article in general to see whether or not my impression that the article presents information damaging to the subject with undue weight, creating WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP concerns, is valid. Thanks. loupgarous (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

My concern was not with Vfrikey's change (which will be restored) but with a previous POV editor, who removed swaths of referenced content. We're trying to keep the article balanced.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I am a bit concerned that the article makes a point of highlighting what appears to be a simple slip of the tongue -- saying "thousands" instead of "billions" See the "Space" section. Here is what was said:
The congressman continued: "Is it possible that there was a civilization on Mars thousands of years ago?"
"So, the evidence is that Mars was different billions of years ago. Not thousands of years ago," Farley said.
"Billions, well. Yes," Rohrabacher said.
The fact that he asked about ancient civilization on Mars is significant. The thousands/millions error was the verbal equivalent of a typo that was quickly corrected. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This edit is really all I need to see. Tolkienwarrior is WP:NOTHERE. (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Tomwsulcer and Guy Macon, for addressing the problematic "Space & Question on ancient civilization on Mars" heading and resolving that potential [[WP:BLP] and WP:UNDUE issue with reproducing source text, white space etc by another editor. And for the discussion, which resolved the proximate issue with WP:UNDUE presentation of content. I'm striking through my comments regarding WP:PROPAGANDA as not WP:AGF. Apologies for the misunderstanding. loupgarous (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ewen Southby-Tailyour[edit]

Ewen Southby-Tailyour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone is posting incorrect statements about one of my clients - named above. They have been removed four times but keep on re-appearing. The simple fact is that the articles imply that my client was involved in a fraudulent company. When my client was involved both artists and the investors were happy as a number of joint exhibitions showed. When the company was eventually 'hijacked' by a criminal team my client was no longer involved as he had already been sacked to save his reputation. Any suggestion otherwise is libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:24FD:6100:698F:579E:81B2:674F (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, 2A00:23C4:24FD:6100:698F:579E:81B2:674F and welcome to WP. I presume that you are referring to this contribution at said article: [1]? First of all, it's important to note that your editing at this article is a conflict of interest due to your ties with the subject. See: WP: COI. However, you do have a right to bring these concerns to the article's Talk Page here: Talk Page and start a discussion about a possible BLP violation. I do see that the sources used (Telegraph) in backing the claims for this content are not reliable WP:RS and can / should be challenged. Furthermore, the content itself mentions other guilty parties: "The previous directors Christopher Sabin and Tobias Alexander Ridpath both now facing lengthy prison sentences for their involvement with Imperial Escrow Limited". This has nothing to do with the subject and leaves a bad association. The quote "Tailyour stated that he was only a Chairman in face and not involved in the running of the business although it is his position and the use of his face in marketing and events that many saw as a sign of a safe investment" is vague and someone misleading by speculation without proper reference quoting. If you have sources to back your claim, please open a discussion and present them on the Talk Page. In addition, there are other BLP issues that might need addressing: mentioning of non-notable children by name, occupation and location in the section Personal life. These need to go. Good luck. Maineartists (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, I noticed in the edit history that you have now used 3 separate IP accounts. This can be seen to be what is referred to as "Sockpuppetry" WP:SP. However, it is most likely "good faith" WP:AGF on your part. It might be best if you set up an actual account and log in with Wikipedia so that you will be taken seriously at noticeboards and on Talk Pages; since this issue will most likely become a discussion with a debate due to contested challenges for content. Just a suggestion. Maineartists (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Editor assistance requested at Ewen Southby-Tailyour. Not only contentious material of a BLP but numerous IP accounts: [2]. Attempted to start a discussion on Talk Page, which no editor has wished to partake. Latest removal of COI tag by suspicious SP [3]. Extra set of eyes would be appreciated. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

To attempt to summarize the edit history (most recent at the top):

[4] [5] claims that he wasn't involved in this fraud, but has no references.
[6] claims he was involved in the fraud. Until it is discussed on the talk page, it would be a BLP violation to restore this controversial claim. Of the 4 references, the only one that mentions Ewen is [7], and it doesn't claim he was involved in the fraud.
[8] disputes claims regarding Ewen's actions during the Falklands War.

The page is being mostly edited by IP users and single-purpose editors; I'm requesting page protection. That may be sufficient to solve the issues. The IP editor acting on behalf of Ewen Southby-Tailyour should Contact OTRS if they see further problems. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I've semi-protected for one week but the sourcing is dire and that needs sorting out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There is still a need for editors to take a look at this article given the paucity of sources, which are imo insufficient to support a BLP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Charlottesville attack[edit]

2017 Charlottesville attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe this article name is in clear violation if WP:BLPCRIME. The accused has not been convicted of the alleged crime. Calling it an "attack" defames them. It is potentially libelous to the car driver.

I cited two sources calling the event the more neutral Charlottesville car crash:

Clear violations like this should be fixed regardless of how many chime in that calling it "attack" is just dandy. Wikipedia has higher standards of verifiability than many tabloids and their lack of NPOV should not be grounds for us to mimic it.

Given that many sources are neutrally calling it "crash" and not "attack" I think it is imperative to follow that example instead of the inflammatory examples. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Quite aside from the fact that other similar articles use "attack" in the title before anyone was convicted (2017 Melbourne car attack; 2017 Stockholm attack; 2017 Finsbury Park attack), this article is subject to a proposed merge, which is heading for a snow merge. Any renaming of the article would therefore be moot. WWGB (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Page has been merged with 2017 Unite the Right rally, for the record--Sir Zyr (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington[edit]

More opinions requested at the move discussion at Talk:Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington where the discussion is about a requested move on behalf of the subject and does that conflict with common name. Nthep (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC labeling in lede[edit]

Please comment at Talk:Jared_Taylor#RfC_labeling_in_lede Atsme📞📧 12:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Elmer Jamias[edit]

Elmer Jamias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm self-reporting because I'm not sure whether these allegations against the article subject should be included: (diff) The material is sourced but was removed by a COI editor. I've since been made aware of a source confirming that the latter allegation was eventually dismissed; I would naturally add that info and source if the allegations should stay. Thanks, GrammarFascist contribstalk 06:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Rich DiSilvio[edit]

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

Can we get some more people watching Rich DiSilvio? There's a bit of back and forth going on between two editors, including one who is an WP:SPA who keeps trying to re-add unsourced promotional content to the article. Regardless, the multiple reverting should be stopped since its starting to get disruptive, so maybe more feedback from others can help find a happy medium without ending up at WP:AN3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, dubious material like unsourced/unreferenced promotional claims " whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Once DVed objected to the PROD, I was willing let the stub stand and allow him an opportunity to provide a satisfactory text -- but instead he's been adding material that reads like it's cut and pasted from the subject's own PR biography, either without any references or sourced to promo and retailer pages. Those are textbook examples of material that's subject to summary removal under WP:BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've taken the article to AfD - I can't see how he's notable enough. Neiltonks (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Unite the Right rally[edit]

Input from editors with experience in BLP, especially BLPCRIME, is sought at this discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping and possible WP:CANVASS occuring here - wrong policy and discussion is already occuring at the talk page. Twitbookspacetube 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You know, I was going to suggest that someone bring the issue here. I don't see any forum shopping or canvassing in bringing it here. I certainly would like the opinion of editors uninvolved with the article. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't agree with GoldenRing's interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME, but there's nothing wrong with getting outside opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
All potential BLP-violating edits are relevant for discussion here. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot over-ride the BLP policy. The alleged perpetrator would fail WP:PERP for being a non-notable unknown person allegedly involved in a crime where the victim is also a non-notable person. Neither the motivation or the execution are notable (people being deliberately run over is neither unusual or uncommon) nor (this close to the event) is there any indication this is some sort of historic event. News items about current events are WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY also applies. The alleged perp would also fall foul of WP:BLP1E. The only real defense to WP:BLPCRIME is that the alleged perp is a public figure of some sort. Being an alleged perp does not de-facto make them a public figure. Local consensus cannot over-ride core BLP policy. So unless consensus is formed *here* that the alleged perp is a public figure, BLPCRIME applies. I support anyone removing it until such time as either they are notable (eg, an article can be written about them) or they are convicted. BLP removals are exempt from 3rr. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:PERP is about having a standalone article about the person: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article." (emphasis mine) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. And if someone fails PERP, they are incredibly unlikely to be classed as either a well-known or public figure. There is a reason why BLPCRIME directly links to PERP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you lost me. Nobody is suggesting that we create a separate article for this person, so WP:PERP doesn't apply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, I am suggesting exactly this, please see my post below. Gaeanautes (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Read BLPCRIME. What policy pages does it link to? That someone is ineligible for their own article is a clear indicator they are a low-profile non-notable person, and so BLPCRIME applies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
BLPCRIME says, "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured.". He's not a relatively unknown person anymore. His name and face have been plastered over hundreds (thousands) of websites across the world.[9] One of the points of BLP is to preserve someone's privacy, but the cat's out of the bag. In fact, he's probably America's most infamous person right now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Blatant misinterpretation of policy aside, there is no reason to remove information repeated by multiple reliable sources. Twitbookspacetube 13:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually the BLP policy says in a number of places that information may be removed regardless of it being covered by reliable sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's worth people with an interest in BLP, as opposed to an interest in the event, commenting. For my money, we've always been particularly careful with reporting on allegations against individuals who are not notable. I don't think it's appropriate to include a name in these circumstances unless and until conviction. In this respect, we apply a far higher bar than the RS we usually follow. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Dylann_Roof is a counter-example. So, for that matter, is George_Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvonn Martin. Indeed, as Zimmerman was not convicted, we are even today violating this policy. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
As Dylann was convicted, BLPCRIME would not apply regardless of if he has his own article or is named elsewhere. BLPCRIME would apply to Zimmerman except his own article has been justified (by others) so editors can claim the 'well known' exemption. (Personally I think Zimmerman's bio should be nuked/merged under BLP1E). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused, and I am sorry to weigh in here, but one of the hogboglins of my small mind is inching towards the notion that courts somehow define reality. While I will say that the Zimmerman article (which to me is unfortunately notable) violates the letter of WP:BLPCRIME I think it exposes a real problem with the policy, to wit: Zimmerman admitted the killing of Trayvon Martin. His defense was that it was legally justified (by self defense). I don't think it's any kind of a BLP issue to report what someone advanced in open court--indeed, an admission that was core to the court's ultimate verdict. To say Mr. Zimmerman murdered Mr. Martin would indeed be wrong, but to say that Mr. Zimmerman shot and killed Mr. Martin is nothing more than restating part of the subject's defense in court. So my confusion is as to whether BLPCRIME applies, and if so, whether it should. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Quite aside from the plethora of articles in the US, James Fields is the subject of articles in Great Britain, Australia, Qatar, New Zealand, Israel, India etc. The guy clearly passes WP:GNG. Yet some editors still claim he is "relatively unknown"? WWGB (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Can we try to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. If other articles deserve deletion, that's great, but it doesn't help with this discussion, which should be on the merits of this case, this individual, this scenario and not others. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the situation - that the suspected person was known by authorities to be at the wheel of the car when it slammed forward - and how prevalent the name is in the media, I don't think at this point BLPCRIME applies. He is going to be named as part of the situation whether he is found guilty of second-degree murder, or is charged with a lesser crime, since he was driving the car at the time of the incident, captured by a handful of videos. It is not like we're talking a suspect of a murder that had no witnesses or the like, where there is doubt the person may have even been involved and hence why we shouldn't include that name in that case. I do think a separate article is wholly unnecessary at this time. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • BLPCrime does not seem applicable to a person who is appearing in international news sources for an alleged act of domestic terrorism, his "relative unknown" status is moot. However, the reversion also removed some material that probably should be left out, such as his HS attendance and testimony of a former teacher. Restore the name, omit the history, save that for a biography if he warrants one later on. I see no fault in the OP erring on the side of caution, for the record. ValarianB (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I did not come to edit the article. I wanted to read the article. I have to read the past reversions to read the article. The alleged murderer is internationally known. Therefore, WP:BLPCRIME is not applicable to excluding relevant information. QuackGuru (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem, ValarianB, QuackGuru. We are dealing with an event and a person so widely known that there is no reason to exclude the information from the article. (And of course there is no reason to give him an article...) Drmies (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As stated by others, BLPCrime does not apply here. Fields belongs in the article. Enigmamsg 16:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)As I said at the article talk, I don't see the mere mention of the driver's name (even if it is frequent) in RSes as sufficient. This is not a WP:NOTABLE individual, and thus BLPCRIME seems to apply. However, given the amount of media coverage this has been getting, it's very possible that this will change. Within the next few days, I will bet good money that at least one outlet will do a bio on this person. If more RSes pick that up and run similar stories, then it would become feasible to add them. But right now, adding the name strikes me as undue, as the identity of the driver really doesn't add anything of value to the article. "Somebody drove a vehicle into a crowd" and "John Doe drove a vehicle into a crowd" are functionally the same thing, when John Doe is unknown to the public at large. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • He didn't just "drive a vehicle into a crowd" (allegedly)--he is charged with second-degree murder, and might get all kinds of other charges, state and federal, thrown at him. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: I'm not trying to downplay what happened. I'm sure you've seen me happily label myself an unapologetic liberal and Trump-hater before (if not, there ya go). Consider "Somebody violently crashed a vehicle into a crowd, killing one woman and injuring several more" vs "John Doe violently crashed etc etc..." and my point stands. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Fields was the registered owner of the vehicle, was present at the rally, and was later arrested and charged with second-degree murder. I'm pretty sure these are incontrovertible facts with ample sourcing. There is nothing more that needs to be satisfied according to BLP. At the heart of the matter isn't a BLP problem, it's a problem that occurs time and time again: Wikipedia editors are squeamish about calling white terrorists, well, terrorists, but rush over each other to label non-white terrorists as such, even with enough sourcing to bring down a proverbial elephant. Sceptre (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Most of the comments here and on the article's talk page (where the discussion began) are in favour of inclusion. Enigmamsg 18:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:BLPCRIME links to WP: NPF(for relatively unknown) which has a see also that links to WP: LPI. (Which is not policy, but policy links to it so I say it has weight) LPI, defines low-profile, and non-public figure to be the same. Further, they define Low-profile to be "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.". This person has been extensively covered by reliable sources, but have they sought such attention? So far, I haven't seen comments that they have. So it appears to me, that they are a relatively unknown person for purposes of BLPCRIME. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Read the part about Behavior pattern and activity level. It says that a person is high profile if they engaged in a high-profile activity. Saturday's attack is clearly high profile. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • One could make the point that someone who drives a vehicle into a group of pedestrians, like the recent attacks in Europe, clearly is seeking out media attention - or certainly would know that would be the result. We name the perpetrator(s) in 2017 Finsbury Park attack (in the other two ISIS-related London ones the perpetrators are dead, though may still come under BLP), so I don't see how this is any different. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Behavior pattern relies on the other four characteristics, of which he falls in the low profile portion for all of them. Further, we cannot call this a major event (yet this may change). @BlackKite, I think we would need reliable sources to ascribe such a motive. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind - we have no idea yet if this was intentional or not (the possibility is there that maybe he panicked, maybe his car got out of control, etc.) The courts will determine that fact, and we do need to presume some degree of innocence without a conviction yet in place. We can't assign that same "attention getting" as the events in Europe have been. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I almost always disagree with Masem (all due respect), but here I think he's quite right (though "courts will determine the fact" makes me squirm). We are early on and things are moving fast. While I think it's fine to report what allegedly occurred, we should steer well clear of mens rea and conclusory statements. Let us never forget the lessons of l'affaire Richard Jewell. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't feel bad about almost almost always disagreeing with Masem. I almost almost always agree with Masem, so we cancel each other out. (big smile). Great point about Richard Jewell. Anyone who thinks that a particular BLP should be an exception to BLPCRIME on account of widespread media coverage should study that case and how Wikipedia handled it in the early stages. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No bail for Charlottesville car attack suspect ***** ******. The specific details can be found in the news articles. The article is falling far behind what is being reported. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion - There doesn't appear to be any justification for removing the name of an alleged high-profile murderer from the article in question. By dint of voluntarily appearing as part of a mass rally of white supremacists, the person in question surrendered all claim to being a "low-profile individual." They they proceeded to allegedly run down dozens of people and flee the scene, and have been formally charged with several felony crimes. Their identity, background and apparent history of Nazi sympathies (as per sources) are all highly relevant to the article. I agree with Masem and the above editors that we must be careful not to presume guilt and that a separate biographical article is unwarranted at this time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Question Does your definition for low-profile individual apply to people at all protests or Rally's, or just ones from white supremacists? --Kyohyi (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
No other person has been accused of an act of terrorism thus far. People on both sides who have been arrested for assault and the like will probably not warrant a by-name listing in the article. TheValeyard (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't even begin to answer the question posed. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
If a white supremacist voluntarily attends a white supremacist rally and then (allegedly) murders and maims several counter-protestors using his vehicle as a deadly instrument of terror, he or she has renounced any claim they have to being "low-profile." No one thrust this person involuntarily into the media spotlight. Their choice is quite clear.
I would note that a similar example exists in 2016 Sacramento riot — an otherwise non-notable person is mentioned by name because she has been arrested and charged with a crime in connection with events that took place at the riot. If that is not a BLP violation, clearly this cannot be a BLP violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
So if people you don't like, then voluntarily goes out in public and says things you don't like, then they are no longer low-profile. Gotcha. Hopefully people can see how POV that argument is. With regards to the Sacramento Riot, Yvette Felarca is no longer a low profile individual. She has voluntarily been on interviews with Tucker Carlson, and KTVU TV about BAMN. What's more, she has been providing quotes to the Daily Californian, (yes I know it's a college newspaper, but this shows a pattern) with respect to BAMN activities all the way back to 2012. She is not a low-profile individual so there is no comparison. If you're talking about someone else I apologize for this section, but please be a little more specific about who you're comparing this to. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. We should present the facts as reported widely in reliable sources, according to the prominence of those sources, according to the neutral point of view policy. As the individual under discussion is undoubtedly the focal point of vast amounts of media attention, this merits his identification in order to comply with the neutral point of view. We should take no stance ourselves on his guilt, but should also defer to reliable sources as per usual Wikipedia policies and present the facts. I think it is only a wildly overbroad reading of BLPCRIME that would argue against inclusion. Also, I strongly object to the recent closing of the discussion at [10]. Given the obvious outcome of that discussion, from a wide array of experienced editors already, this appears to be forum-shopping. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Include since the person has made headlines around the globe. People who are alleged to have committed acts of terrorism, mass murder and the like lose their presumed "unknown"-ness by default. TheValeyard (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As I stated earlier, which was cut off for some reason: I support inclusion "[o]n grounds of precedent... notability... widespread coverage in the media... the discussion above; etc. WP:CRIM allows for this, given the notability and documentation surrounding the rally itself. However, we indeed must be cognizant of WP:BLPCRIME: no article should be created bearing his name, and the presumption of innocence must stand at all times, until and unless he is convicted in a court of law. Furthermore, once the indictment is drawn up, a link to it (either through a source or an external link) would be greatly appreciated." Additionally, I now join with Sławomir Biały in registering my strong objection to the discussion being closed, given the status of the ongoing discussion. Thank you. --Javert2113 (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I closed the talk page discussion because it had forked. The entire discussion should be in one place, not on two separate pages. Dlthewave (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
My error in comprehension, then: I took "[d]iscussion has been moved" to refer to it being moved here, instead of it having forked. I apologize. —Javert2113 (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion PLUS an independent article on the alleged perpetrator. The WP:BLPCRIME guideline does not apply in the present case, since the alleged perpetrator is not relatively unknown anymore (as the guideline requires). The present case is much better covered by the guideline on WP:PERP, saying that "...the criminal ... in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: ... [T]he execution of the crime is unusual — or has otherwise been considered noteworthy — such that it is a well-documented historic event." Now, that is the reason why we should have an independent article on the alleged perpetrator ASAP, regardless of the fact that he has not yet been convicted. (It is most unfortunate that the guideline says "criminal" and not "alleged perpetrator" at this point, but that must be the subject of another discussion elsewhere.) Gaeanautes (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion -- not a "low profile individual" any longer, with international coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Question (Restating here): How does this interpretation of BLPCRIME jive with the common practice of naming accused terrorists on related pages (e.g., 2017 Portland train attack)? We have a practice of naming the alleged attackers in other places. If this interpretation of BLPCRIME is sustained here, we'd need to scrub dozens of articles of alleged attackers. This seems like something that might be good for WP:VPP to consider as we do not follow the letter of BLPCRIME when it comes to major crimes like murder. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I think we might need to seriously consider taking this to VPP to make an exemption for murder/homicide. Perhaps the main criteria be that the person is arraigned if alive, or confirmed by authorities if dead. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome, we need clearer guidelines on how to describe events like this as they unfold. Talk:Greg Gianforte devolved into a similar discussion a few months ago over an assault/alleged assault/assault charge. At the very least WPCRIME should address whether or not it's appropriate to mention that someone has been charged with a crime but not yet convicted. Dlthewave (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Common practice does indeed contradict the letter of WP:BLPCRIME, and I think that's a major problem with the common practice. We get it wrong sometimes – the most recent example I've been involved with was back in April when we named a suspect of the 2017 Stockholm attack in error (i.e. a person unrelated to the investigation was briefly called a suspect before the name was removed from the article). That is clearly unacceptable, and I don't think we should turn a blind eye to this. I favour a strict interpretation and enforcement of WP:BLPCRIME. TompaDompa (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
We have a bad track record for WP: BLPCRIME enforcement. I highly doubt that in situations where WP: BLPCRIME is not discussed we are doing the minimum requirement of seriously considering not including information suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one. The position that because it's in "reliable sources" we should or even must include certain information is a very strong position on Wikipedia. Though that isn't what policies like WP: V say. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I did a quick check of the edit history again. When can these two[11][12] be restored? QuackGuru (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion His name and picture has been plastered across dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable source.[13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral there's no good reason to include the name now, yet I don't see how it's a BLP violation to include it. Regardless, in a weeks time I suspect there will be more than enough to meet WP:PERP for a stand-alone article on him. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support for inclusion. The alleged offender has been the subject of feature articles around the world [14]. He clearly passes WP:GNG, is therefore notable, and it is therefore entirely appropriate to name him as being arrested WITHOUT breaching WP:BLPCRIME. As an aside, this discussion has been handled appallingly by Wikipedia administration. The initial discussion at Talk:2017 Unite the Right rally#Identification of the driver showed overwhelming support for name inclusion, but was then summarily forked to a more obscure page (this one) and then closed. It seems that some will go to great lengths to stall a majority opinion against their judgment. WWGB (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Except that the opener of this discussion, while an administrator, was clearly not trying to fork it as is clear from the opening comment "Input from editors with experience in BLP, especially BLPCRIME, is sought at this discussion", and as they also mentioned on that original discussion. The editors who closed the original discussion was not an admin [15], nor was the editor who tried to archive it [16] so faulting admins for those actions is just plain silly.

Since this deals with BLP issues, asking here for feedback was clearly appropriate, as already said by others.

You could try and fault those who discussed here rather than the article talk page but these matters tend to be complicated. Often what happens is someone makes a minor comment which they felt doesn't add much to the existing discussion so just leave it here, then someone responds and it sort of spirals from there. Looking at the history, this seems to be at least in part what happened here.

And funnily enough it looks to me a lot like it may have begun due to complaints about the completely appropriate request here for people to comment in the original discussion. Also I'm also fairly sure if you look at the participants, quite a few of them will not be administrators.

And even more funnily enough, you were one of the earliest participants [17] who actually started discussing the issue here as most of the comments before yours seemed to be concentrating on more general issues surrounding the application of BLP crime which were less relevant to the discussion on the article talk page and so weren't really such a big deal if they were held here rather than the article talk page. So if you did want to blame someone for forking the discussion, pot, kettle, .....

Once the discussion had been forked into two, this clearly needed to be resolved somehow, and choosing to keep the more active discussion open would be appropriate. But in any case as I already said, it was not administrators who did this.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support inclusion Obviously. This isn't some barely notable crime. It was an attempted mass murder and the perp's name and image has been plastered across every Western news outlet there is. There's politicians local and nationally that want to bring terrorism charges. Also, the shutting down of the discussion on the talk page and forking it here because concensus was clearly against a couple people's opinions was wildly inappropriate. Capeo (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion I was hesitant at first, but as time went and more publicity was given to his name have changed my mind. However, I still don't think we need to go into detail about his mother, a teacher, etc and I'm not convinced that this[18] edit should be restored. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • support inclusion' due mostly to the fact that there appears to be little ambiguity that he was driving the car (ref) and this has been discussed in high quality sources. The content should be as careful as the NYT was there. This is not a case where there is a lot of dot-connecting detective work. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tom Solomon (neurologist)[edit]

Article Tom Solomon (neurologist) article contains a conflict of interest, as a living person has edited their own Wikipedia article.

User Tsolomon (, who is likely Tom Solomon, has been editing his own article based on the page history. Further to this, the page was created by member titled "Encephalitis Society". This user is named after a UK-based society which Tom Solomon is a key figure within. Regardless of whether this was Tom Solomon himself or a colleague, this further poses another conflict of interest based on the Wikipedia conflict of interest criteria outlined here:

It would seem that the bulk of this page was created by Tom Solomon himself, or by a close colleague. It therefore seems appropriate that it is reviewed or removed.

I would further recommend you perform IP checks on those who have edited the article, as it is possible alt accounts have been used to further edit the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway6212 (talkcontribs) 14:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Throwaway6212. This is a very strange request. The article was created and reviewed using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. User Tsolomon66 has edited only once. Conflict of interest is not a reason to remove an article if the subject is notable. If the subject is a key figure in the Encephalitis Society that is probably more reason to keep the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi StarryGrandma. The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page explicitly states that the page's subject, and employers or clients of said person cannot write or edit their own page. If I created a small foundation or society myself, would that entitle me or one of my underlings to create my Wikipedia page? No. The entire point of Wikipedia is to provide an unbiased and objective account of someone or something -- this page does not embody that. I did say review or remove the article, certainly the former is more sensible. However, the entire backbone of the page was likely created by the page's subject or an associate. I lack the experience with how to deal with this, but I am simply stating that it does pose a genuine conflict of interest. --Throwaway6212 (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a likely conflict of interest here. Two accounts have declared themselves to be the subject of the article, RunningMadProf and Tsolomon66. And the user EncephalitisSociety has a username connection as well. I have marked the article and talk page with relevant COI notices. The conflict of interest policy discourages people from editing articles about themselves, but currently there there is no policy that says someone "cannot write or edit their own page". There does appear to be a bit of puffery in the article, but that can be cleaned up with appropriate editing. Personally, I don't think deletion is warranted, but you can take it to WP:AFD if you wish. Deli nk (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
(ec)Tom Solomon meets the criteria for an article given in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Conflict of interest can be troubling on Wikipedia and can involve editors who have a negative relationship with the subject as well as those who have a positive relationship. There have been cases of companies removing negative material from their own articles while adding such material to those of their competitors. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if Throwaway6212 also has an undisclosed COI, or otherwise has a problematic editing history. That is a very curious username. Where else have you edited? LadyofShalott 18:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
LadyofShalott: the user called Throwaway6212 has never edited anywhere except here! Neiltonks (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Neiltonks, that is true with that username. My suspicion though is that there are other (sockpuppet) accounts for the same person. LadyofShalott 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Cole White[edit]

Cole White - the former baseball player - does not appear to be the same Cole White as got fired from a hot dog restaurant ( in Berkeley for being a white nationalist. The Cole White in your article seems to be this guy instead:

I tried making an edit and it got rejected and the news about him being a white nationalist got put back in.

I think the wrong guy with the same name is getting maligned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

What article is this? Doug Weller talk 15:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This one Cole White. I've semi-protected for a couple of days and removed some text as a BLP violation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Doh, I skimmed that too fast. I've rev/del'd the BLP material you reverted. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oops, missed those. Thanks for that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Very much hypothetical here: do we need a hatnote to the Charlottesville page? I can see people coming from the news to come here, and think the baseball player was the same person since we don't have a hatnode. But the issue I see (unlike the section above about the guy that has been arrested as part of the car ramming) is that the fired person was only named due to citizen investigation, hasn't been charged with any crime, etc. BLPCRIME definitely applies to this fired person, so it is almost like we can't name him and provide the hatnote without violating our own policy (And our article does not yet name, appropriately). Do we need a hatnote anyway to make sure the baseball player White is not mistaken? --MASEM (t) 15:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Raul Labrador[edit]

A political POV pusher keeps removing (also here) Labrador's No one dies from not having health care comment -- a comment which thrust Labrador into the national spotlight (ie what Labrador is notable for) and which is well referenced.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That's laughable. The man is a member of the house. He was notable before making an ill-advised comment on healthcare. Its certainly WP:UNDUE to have half the lead of his biography being concerned with one comment made in May 2017 - news sources being primary sources at this point and certainly no indication of any lasting notability of the comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes he was notable for simply being one of the 435 members of the house; but after he said No one dies from not having health care he's known around the world as the insensitive heartless unintelligent guy who said that. It's who he is, and it summarizes a general perception of the GOP.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope, he was notable for his political positions and held offices before that point. That comment shouldn't be removed but it shouldn't be in the lede, that's a tonal bias affecting the article that, as OID points out, doesn't seem to have had a lasting impact here. It can be in the body in regards to criticism of his policies. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I feel you are over-estimating how much the rest of the world cares about US house of reps. Suffice to say, this close to an event all news sources are primary and are not an adequate means of assessing the lasting notability of an event. There is nothing preventing it being listed in the body as a BLP issue (its sourced correctly), but the lead of an article is a summary of the body of the article. Unless the body of the article was substantially about this one event, I wouldn't expect it to be in the lead, let alone nearly 50% of it. Hence UNDUE rather than a BLP issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Google "Raul Labrador" with quotes and his Nobody dies... comment keeps coming up again and again; it's what he's known for, and it belongs in the lede section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
"this close to an event all news sources are primary and are not an adequate means of assessing the lasting notability of an event." Its like you didnt actually read anything I wrote. The lead is a summary of the body. Unless the body is nearly 50% about that one event, it is undue to have 50% of the lead concentrating on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course I read what you wrote, but my sense is that most of the article is advertise-y like promotional garbage. If the article were to be written impartially, from an unbiased viewpoint, it would be much much shorter, and yes the Nobody dies comment would loom large, and yes it would be mentioned in the lede section. When people think 'Raul Labrador' they think 'nobody dies...', and when they don't see that in the lede, they'll roll their eyes, and think the whole article is garbage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
See WP:RECENTISM. That's what he may be most known for now because it happened in the last few months on the eve of the attempt to pass health care reform. But what about a year from now? Five years? Well after he has died? Given how little further reaction the comment has received, it's definitely not appropriate for the lede. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
'Nobody dies...' will be on his tombstone. The Democratic party is planning to use the 'nobody dies' heavily in advertising for the next election cycle to illustrate unintelligent callousness of the GOP. And look at the rest of the 'lede' section: politician of Puerto Rican descent, who has been the U.S. Representative for Idaho's 1st congressional district since 2011. He is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) and a member of the Republican Party. Labrador previously represented District 14B in the Idaho House of Representatives from 2006 to 2010 -- is any of this junk notable? His religion? His previous appointment 2006-2010? his being of Puerto Rican descent? That's not what he's notable for. I suppose we have to say RL is a member of the GOP.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Please review notability is not content. Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Corruption cases involving high end Israeli political figures[edit]

Could someone who is more familiar with the topic area review this for BLP issues: I can across it randomly while doing NPP, and I'm not nearly familiar enough with Israeli politics to be useful, but the title has issues for one, and I'm assuming most of the content should be cleaned up as well if it is notable at all. Thanks to all. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Is 'high end' a descriptor for people? AFAIK its for manufactured goods for sale.... -ninja edit- Well High-end redirects to luxury goods, so unless we are talking about political figures being luxury goods, I will probably move that in a minute. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Help a brother (sister/other) out. "High level". —DIYeditor (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
On a basic level, there are a number of semi-related corruption investigations regarding senior political figures in Israel - its not a bad approach to have them summarized in one article. Haaretz has been covering them, and that ends the extent of my knowledge. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Dr M Mohan Alva[edit]

Dr.M.Mohan Alva is founder and chairman of Alva's Education Foundation.He has received lots of awards and under his institution more than 26000+ students are studying , he is also providing free education to lots of students and as a student of alvas i want to create an article about my chairman so please guide me what and all information i have to take and how to submit and get approved by wiki?[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek Nanda (talkcontribs) 15:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


You can start by creating a draft at your WP:SANDBOX. Meatsgains (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Phil Lord and Christopher Miller[edit]

I would like to start a discussion, regarding the above article, which is focused on the lives of two individual people, both of whom work in a partnership involved in filmography. The trouble is, the article incorporates information about both of their early years, while not containing much on this subject. I am concerned that this may not be the correct standard for an article, in correspondence to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. Apart from a few other minor issues, which are not mainly relevant and are concerned over editing issues, the primary question I have to ask is this:

"Does anyone know of an article, in which the biography of one person, is merged with that of another - in short, does anyone know of an article consisting of the biographies of two people or more?"

GUtt01 (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde and Brothers Grimm come to mind, but there are more. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The difference between these two examples is that Bonnie and Clyde combine two biographies in the same article; while Brothers Grimm also link to two existing biographies already created on WP: Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm. B&C ended their "collaboration" together and can forever be linked in an article. The Grimm Brothers have their own separate articles in addition to an article that focuses on their "creative output." In regards to Lloyd and Miller, they do have notability as a "creative team" presently, but at some point they will either separate or work on individual projects (not to mention gain enough notability to require more personal life and other sections separate from the other). This will be a nightmare to decipher and select if separate articles are not assigned to each subject at some point. IMHO. But to answer your question: this is not uncommon; but will be problematic as their careers grow. Maineartists (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The Wachowskis, The Duffer Brothers, the Coen Brothers. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Straub–Huillet too. /wiae /tlk 18:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Uhuru Kenyatta[edit]

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

Recently elected, temporary page protection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purtier (talkcontribs) 22:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Pending changes protection has been applied. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yolanda "Tongolele" Montes[edit]

Yolanda Montes (vedette) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article sounds like an ad for the subject, making insupportable assertions (such as she is one of the most famous dancers on the American continents), and is written in very bad English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caractecus (talkcontribs) 23:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The page definitely needs some attention. I'll go through and make some improvements and neutralize. Meatsgains (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[edit]

First off, I have no vested interest in the subject nor do I know him personally. I'm responding to a pattern of vandalism that appears racially motivated by a particular editor ScrapIronIV. Multiple edits to this living poet's biography are being altered and reported as Sock Puppetry and COI. I would like to report this to an Administrator.

Shankar's contributions as a reviewer and editor are crucial aspects to his bio. As is his experience with the NYPD. If the criminal accusations (again according to my research he was only ever convicted of two MISDEAMENORS, so alleged crimes should not have a place) are allowed to remain, his experiences with the cops should be especially since he sued the city of New York and won a settlement and statement of wrongdoing. All of this is well-sourced (via Rediff, NPR, Hartford Courant). Additionally other primary source documentation from the New York Times, Best American Poetry, Open Magazine (India) is continuously being removed and called whitewashing for personal reasons.

Additionally my research has indicated that Shankar was never accused of "theft of school funds." This is something that FOX news reported a Politician as saying, which is not the same as fact. Such allegations never took place and cannot be listed as fact according to Wiki policy:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. 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.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

I believe that if ScrapIronIV continues to persistently violate this policy, his editing privileges should be suspended. Additionally research has indicated that this editor is racially motivated and does not possess a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Literarybiographer (talkcontribs) 04:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This apparent sockpuppet has been reported to WP:SPI. The sooner that gets addressed, the sooner an appropriate response can be made here. Being accused of racism is no small issue to me. I would like to see the "research" that indicates that I am "racially motivated", as stated above. ScrpIronIV 16:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about racial bias, but it does seem like legitimate primary source material continues to be removed for no apparent reason and relevant bio data continues to be suppressed by the same Editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerribleTowel (talkcontribs) 10:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sebastian Gorka[edit]

My problems: 1. Gorka's mother. The actual text is just libel: "Susan worked as a translator with David Irving, the discredited historian described by a judge as a "Holocaust denier … anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism". False and what has the judgement of David Irving from 2001 got to do with Susan Gorka of 1981? She was an INTERPRETER in 1981, when David Irving was writing a book about THE REVOLUTION OF HUNGARY IN 1956. She helped him with the translation during interviews with refugees. "On a practical level it would have been impossible to encompass the work and produce this history without the efforts of my interpreters Erika László, Susan Gorka and Carla Venchiarutti, and of Dr. Nicholas Reynolds who conducted some of the preparatory interview" Irving's own book: Now, the current text gives the impression of her as a Holocaust denier.

2. The Order of Vitéz section: The actual version of the text is neither in chronological, nor in logical order. The whole thing is some confusing mess. I tried to clarify things. Both my edit on Susan Gorka and on this thing were revoked[1] - without explanation.

3. The Hungarian Guard section: I tried to put Gorka's support in context by citing Gorka's own words, from the source Volunteer Marek himself used - but he/she deleted the most important parts - the reference[2] to the anarchy in Hungary

Now, we have an article, which focuses more on the criticism of Gorka than him, and he and his mother are completely mixed up with nazis. This is argumentum ad Hitlerum fallacy, guilty by association fallacy, POV pushing, and lack of Neutrality.----Ltbuni (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I have removed the part about his mother, as it doesn't belong in his biography. Its not libel however in relation to David Irving as thanks to his own ill-judged libel case, he has been found in an English court to be 'an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.'. It is a BLP violation to smear Gorka by association like that though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Good removal. That part is reliably sourced (to a Guardian article about Sebastian) but it does seem pretty WP:UNDUE. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank You!--Ltbuni (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

4. My other problem is that the supporters of Gorka are described with negative adjectives, while the opponents seem to be impartial. For example, in the Controversy section:

"Reynolds (he was previously described as professor) described Schöpflin as "an extreme right wing Hungarian Member of the European Parliament who recently advocated putting pigs heads on a fence on the Hungarian border to keep out Muslims." Both Mr. Andrew Reynolds (political scientist) and Mr György Schöpflin have their own wiki-articles - I think, that their ploitical stances should be inserted there. What is more, it is not neutral, if we call Mr. Reynolds a professor, but we omit that Mr. Schöpflin is a professor as well. So, either we refere to both of them as professors, or just link their articles.
The same problem occurs with Tibor Navracsics: the excessive use of adjectives: "member of the Hungarian Fidesz political party and former colleague of Gorka" (Section The Historical Order of Vitéz)
And my favourite: The Buzzfed describes him: "The same article describes him as being viewed in Hungary as a peddler of snake oil and a self-promoter" Last sentence of the Creditentials section.

5. The section "Historical Order of Vitéz". There are discrediting pieces of information there:

" It is claimed that his father was never a member of this order" - this order was disbanded in 1947[3]. Gorka's dad was 15 then. He COULD NOT be a member of this group." My father was 9 when the war started"[4] This original group was listed by the The US. But the Historical Order of Vitéz is NOT. It is not clear in the present form of the text.
It is mentionned at least three times, that Gorka's dad received his medal in 1979 - it is unnecessary.
There is a text, saying: Democratic Senators Ben Cardin, Dick Durbin and Richard Blumenthal sent a letter to the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security requesting that the DHS look into whether Gorka "illegally procured his citizenship" by omitting membership in Historical Vitézi Rend, which could have been grounds for keeping him out of the country. That is OK. Unfortunately, two days later Gorka issuead a statement, in response to this, in which he denied that he has ties to nazi things: This was also removed by Volunteer Marek, see this, in line 96

6. Support for Hungarian Guard. The article now says, that he wanted the Guard becuase the military of country is sick, etc. It is quite blurred and inaccurate. He, himself said in the interview of the Forward, that "If we look at the Swiss or Israeli example, when it is about a country, that is small and doesn't have a massive military, then a system can be based on a territorial defense ... In Amercia, the state supports them, giving old arms ... After the disturbances of Hungary, last Year, a need has risen, ... storming of the TV station (CUT, not understandable sentence)" Even though I refuse the Forward as a reliable source, because the original video was 11 minutes long[5] - and now it is purposefully cut to 2 minutes - so despite all of these, We must NOT neglect, that he refered to the Riots of Hungary in 2006, and he cited Swiss, Israeli, American examples, where there are civil militia " to supplement the official military"[6]. Dropping out the context is pretty important here. In the current version, we basically do not know, what he really ment, only that the Guard was later banned. I tried to insert this, but also was first undone[7], then a cut version was inserted [8]by VolunteerMArek

--Ltbuni (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


JohnBob Carlos[edit]

This user 2601:58C:4201:D9C0:59F0:FB0D:5028:467C wrote defamatory information on this page on August 11, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisdip1 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the edit was already undone by you I posted a notification on the IP's talk page. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Google's Ideological Echo Chamber[edit]

Google's Ideological Echo Chamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article requires action to remove a WP:LABEL violation, however due to the editing status of the article (admin-only) I am unable to remove it myself. Specifically, the article uses the an extreme, contentious, and value-laden label when referring to an internet podcaster Stefan Molyneux in passing, referring to him as alt-right, i.e., a type of white nationalist.

There is a discussion raging on the talk page here, and the user who added the value-laden label in the first place (User:Volunteer Marek) is apparently the only user in support of keeping it --- not surprising given that this user's last 500 edits appear to be obsessed with attacking right wing politics. --Nanite (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"Blah blah blah they won't let me push my POV in peace blah blah blah". The information is well sourced and pertinent and most of the objections come from single purpose newly created or sleeper accounts which have descended upon this article like it always happens with anything related to tech and "men's rights" (sic). The actual problem on the article is the overwhelming sock and meat puppetry from these accounts, who, it looks like are trying to find a new venue to re-litigate the whole GamerGate fiasco.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I share Nanite's concerns. Molyneux's article doesn't label him alt-right but attributes it to WaPo and Politico. (There's some edit-warring at that article which I haven't followed closely.) The Google article under discussion instead calls him alt-right in wiki voice. There is also a thread at the NPOV Noticeboard about "alt-right" and similar ambiguous labels. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    • That's an interesting proposal but I don't think it's necessary and maybe doesn't do what the proposer really wants. WP:LABEL already says "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", where I'm adding stress on the "widely". In this case we can look around at stories about Molyneux and see that he's variously referred to as "right wing", "libertarian", "podcaster", etc. but that "alt-right" is certainly not widely used. --Nanite (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the matter, but I have opened an RfC on the talk page. Kingsindian   03:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Another good point. And thanks KI. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Luigi Capozzi and BLPCRIME[edit]

Would other individuals consider looking at this article and the recent removals/reverts in light of WP:BLPCRIME? I have commented on the AfD already in favour of deletion, so I would prefer if someone else could offer a third-opinion between the two editors in dispute. I do personally think that some of the wording is a bit UNDUE, but welcome the thoughts of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBallioni (talkcontribs) 22:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the content as it violates WP:BLPCRIME. There are criminal implications in the scandal, the subject (a priest) is not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN and there is no indication that a conviction has been secured. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Correct. Collect (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
My thoughts as well. Thanks to all for additional eyes. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Jackie Shane[edit]

It would be helpful if experienced editors here could look at recent edits to that article and comment on the article talk page. Essentially, Shane is a former entertainer, long retired and in obscurity. Her (a transgendered person) recordings are about to be reissued, and the record company has interviewed her - the results of which are not yet published. It is claimed that much of the current article, based on generally good sources, is inaccurate, but the allegedly accurate story has not yet been published. Any advice? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ed Seeman[edit]

Ed Seeman

Hi, Sorry if this is the wrong place for this. I have found a possible future BOP policy violation here: here The attached PDF, which is clearly a violation, is being asked to be uploaded to wikipedia.

I think the page in question, Ed Seeman should be placed under creation protection to pre-emptively stop this violation.

TrueAnorak (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

no entiendo esta babasada pero un cabron vik+lado por ustedeses esta ala libre comiendo cofio usrredes no ven nadaç[edit]

aprendan vigilar gente de mucho riesgo y no coman  leña luego diere mas  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC) 
En inglés, por favor. O, si no, en español correcto. Y tambien, sin la palabra "cabron". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Kim Davis[edit]

user:Antinoos69 continues to edit war on the Kim Davis article insisting that he has a consensus to place in the infobox as the lead photo an image of Kim Davis in which she partially obscures her face with her hand and to add insult to injury, the image has a different person more prominent than the subject of the article. While there is no objection to placing the image in the article in the section discussing her refusal to issue marriage licenses to LGBT people, user:Antinoos69 has been continuously edit warring to re-insert the image into the infobox, after being told several times that the photo is not reasonable for inclusion in the infobox (see big long discussion in article talk page. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Commented. Watchlisted. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Barcelona attack[edit]

Input from editors familiar with WP:BLPCRIME issues is needed at Talk:2017 Barcelona attack#Is the Suspects section in violation of WP:BLP? (note: the section in question has since been renamed "Police operations"). TompaDompa (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes[edit]

I am all out of reverts, and could do with someone sensible looking at this mess. To those who are unaware of Amanda Bynes, briefly: she was a promising actress who stopped work due to severe mental health issues. Her breakdown over several years was very public and leapt on by the tabloid press in a most unedifying way. Bynes hasn't acted since 2012, I think. This recent article gives an overview of the saga:

In the Twitter age, her breakdown was the first that occurred almost entirely in the public eye, with updates coming on a minute-to-minute basis. In 2007, when Lindsay Lohan was arrested for DUI, the news took days to reverberate—seven years later, news on Bynes took only seconds to devour. There were more impulse reactions, less perspective, and in the race to provide content on Trending Topics, levity was the default. Bynes was mocked and frequently called “crazy,” as if the word didn’t have any serious implications. The actress’ struggles, in no part helped by the fact that she wasn’t working, were a tiny snowball at the top of a mountain, and with every snicker and decision to funnel uncomfortable concern into a funny list about her “craziest tweets,” it grew bigger and raced down the slope at an unstoppable velocity.

There's also this, "Amanda Bynes and the double standard of mental illness":

Bynes’s life is proof we still gawk and grimace at those who suffer in plain sight.

Sundayclose and RektGoldfish have both repeatedly added the following material to Byne's biography under the heading "Legal issues":

In March 2012, Bynes was stopped and ticketed by police for talking on a cell phone while driving.[1] A month later, she was arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI) after side-swiping a police car in West Hollywood.[2] On September 4, 2012, Bynes was charged for two alleged hit and run incidents, one occurring in April and the other in August.[3] The hit and run charges were dismissed in December 2012 following a financial settlement between Bynes and the victims.[4] On February 24, 2014, the DUI charge was dropped and Bynes was sentenced to three years of probation for reckless driving as part of a plea deal.[5] Bynes' driver's license was suspended some time before September 6, 2012, by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.[3] On September 16, Bynes was cited for driving with a suspended license, and her car was impounded.[6] In May 2013, Bynes pleaded no contest to the charge, and was sentenced to three years' probation.[7] Her license was restored in April 2014.[8]

On May 23, 2013, Bynes was arrested at her home in Manhattan for criminal possession of marijuana, attempted tampering with evidence, and reckless endangerment.[9] According to a prosecutor at Bynes' arraignment, police observed Bynes throwing a bong from the window of her 36th floor apartment. Bynes claimed that the alleged bong was actually a vase.[10] Following her arrest, Bynes underwent a psychiatric evaluation at a hospital before she was processed at the police station.[11] The case against Bynes was dismissed in June 2014.[12] On July 22, 2013, Ventura County sheriff's deputies detained Bynes in front of a stranger's house in Thousand Oaks, California, where she had allegedly started a small fire in the driveway, and had her hospitalized under a 72-hour mental-health evaluation hold.[13][14] Bynes' parents filed for conservatorship of their daughter shortly after her hospitalization began.[15] On August 9, Bynes' mother was granted a temporary conservatorship over Bynes' affairs, including her medical care, as well as control over her finances, after the judge agreed that Bynes had a "lack of capacity to give informed consent to medical care."[16][17] On September 30, Bynes was transferred from UCLA Medical Center to receive "specialized treatment in a private facility outside of Los Angeles."[18]

In December 2013, Bynes was released from treatment to her parents.[19] On September 28, 2014, Bynes was arrested for her second DUI.[8][20] On October 10, 2014, Bynes was hospitalized in Pasadena, California, and placed on a temporary psychiatric hold after she made accusations via Twitter that her father sexually abused her as a child; shortly after she tweeted that her father had not molested her, but she claimed he implanted a microchip in her brain that forced her to make the accusation.[21][22] Her psychiatric hold was later extended. On October 22, Bynes' mother received conservatorship of her daughter once again; on October 30, Bynes left the psychiatric facility early.[23][24]


  1. ^ Grossberg, Josh. "Amanda Bynes arrested for DUI after hitting cop car". NBCNews. Retrieved August 24, 2012. 
  2. ^ "Amanda Bynes Busted for Drunken Driving – E! Online". April 6, 2012. Retrieved April 12, 2012. 
  3. ^ a b "Amanda Bynes' driver's license suspended by DMV". The Los Angeles Times. September 6, 2012. Retrieved September 8, 2012. 
  4. ^ "Amanda Bynes settlement: Hit-and-run charges dismissed". LA Times. Retrieved December 29, 2012. 
  5. ^ "Amanda Bynes gets probation in DUI plea deal". CNN. Retrieved February 24, 2014. 
  6. ^ "Amanda Bynes's Car Impounded". People. Retrieved September 16, 2012. 
  7. ^ "Amanda Bynes sentenced to three years probation". CBS News. May 10, 2013. Retrieved September 4, 2013. 
  8. ^ a b Corriston, Michelle (September 29, 2014). "Amanda Bynes Arrested for DUI". People. Time Inc. Retrieved September 29, 2014. 
  9. ^ "Amanda Bynes' bong arrest could bring more legal woes in L.A.". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 24, 2013. 
  10. ^ "Amanda Bynes released from jail after being arrested for throwing bong out of NYC apartment window, faces possible probation violation". Daily News. New York. Retrieved May 24, 2013. 
  11. ^ "Amanda Bynes Is Arrested in New York". People. Retrieved May 23, 2013. 
  12. ^ "Amanda Bynes' New York bong-tossing case dismissed". CBS News. June 30, 2014. 
  13. ^ Winton, Richard (July 23, 2013). "Amanda Bynes' mental health hold after fire could last two weeks". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 2, 2013. 
  14. ^ "Amanda Bynes hospitalized for mental health evaluation after allegedly starting fire". CBS News. Retrieved July 23, 2013. 
  15. ^ Lee, Ken (July 26, 2013). "Amanda Bynes Case: Judge Delays Decision to Grant Parents Legal Control". People. 
  16. ^ (August 9, 2013). "Amanda Bynes' mother granted conservatorship over her daughter". CBS. 
  17. ^ Rouse, Wade (August 9, 2013). "Amanda Bynes 'Gravely Disabled' – Doctors Granted Emergency Conservatorship". People. 
  18. ^ Eggenberger, Nicole (September 30, 2013). "Amanda Bynes Is "Making Great Strides Towards Recovery," Says Parents". Us Weekly. Retrieved October 2, 2013. 
  19. ^ Ross, Barbara; Corky Siemaszko (October 1, 2014). "Amanda Bynes agrees to weekly counseling sessions to avoid jail in bong-tossing case". Daily News. New York City. Retrieved January 10, 2014. 
  20. ^ Ramisetti, Kirthana (September 29, 2014). "Amanda Bynes arrested for DUI". New York Daily News. Daily News, L.P. Retrieved September 29, 2014. 
  21. ^ Blum, Haley. "Reports: Amanda Bynes hospitalized, placed on psych hold". USA Today. Retrieved 11 October 2014. 
  22. ^ McNiece, Mia (October 10, 2014). "Amanda Bynes Checks into a California Treatment Center". People. Time Inc. Retrieved October 10, 2014. 
  23. ^ Corriston, Michele. "Amanda Bynes's Mom Is Her Conservator Again". People. Retrieved 30 October 2014. 
  24. ^ Winton, Richard (October 31, 2015). "Amanda Bynes leaves psychiatric facility, slams parents on Twitter". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 5 November 2014. 

A blow-by-blow and primary-sourced account of her troubles, with no perspective, no attempt to summarize or weave it into the story of her career. No decent secondary sources. The article as it stands just reflects the callous disregard shown by many media outlets. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Frank Serpico[edit]

The first paragraph contains a personal opinion that should be removed. I do not feel comfortable removing it myself. Here is the offending opinion. "Mr Serpico gave a speech and stood with NYPD police officers on 19 August 2017 in New York on the bank of the Hudson River at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge in support of former NFL player Colin Kaepernick, who was ostracized by the NFL governing body for heroically taking a moral stand against rampant police brutality, and street killings."

There is no factual evidence that he was ostracized by the NFL governing body, nor is there any fact that this was a heroic moral stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumaryu (talkcontribs) 19:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Your right this was very blatant bias, I think I fixed the worst of it with this edit [19]. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Questions of veracity or verifiability of the text (even as amended) aside, it is WP:UNDUE for inclusion in the lead section. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It has since been entirely removed from the lede, and rightly so. Maineartists (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael Capponi[edit]

A few editors have been editing his page and attempting to paint him in a negative light, which I believe violates wikipedia's neutral tone. They changed his Early Life to Early and Personal Life, which I think is another violation. (I edited it back). His Early Life no longer has a neutral tone, when you look at the blue, hyperlinked words. These words only have to do only with drug use. I believe one of these editors is paid, since he seems to edit pages of subjects and companies that have the ability to pay him. I know wikipedia is not supposed to be involved with gossip. This editor has tried linking this person to a very bad person. The editor edited his page in a way that links negative, gossipy sources as the first reference. I'm trying to bring some neutrality back to the page. Any help or second sets of eyes would be useful. This editor tends to have issues editing other pages as well. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settherecord (talkcontribs) prev) 23:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I just read the entier article, I see no major neutrality issues with the article in it's current state, any POV there is in his favor, but overall the article seems decent, (there are some instanced of poor writing/grammar and formatting, but I don't see any major POV issues). Tornado chaser (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Paul Michael Glaser[edit]

The 'References' section has a Korean website listed for Glaser's 'books' and 'poetry'. There's some kind of block, which limits who can edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Japanese, not Korean; but yes, references are no longer there. I'll add deadlink tags and we'll hope for an archived copy. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Birth name of Felix Sater[edit]

The article Felix Sater currently gives Sater's name as "Felix Henry Sater (born Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky; Russian: Феликс Михайлович Шеферовский; March 2, 1966)". As far as I can tell from English language sources, this is not correct. The New York Times gives Sater's birth name as "Haim Felix Sater" but notes that he "Americanized it" to Felix Henry Sater" in the 1990s. That's what our article said up until May when it was changed to the current version by User:Wikimandia, using a Russain language source. I have found other places that use the Haim Sater, but no other reliable sources that use "Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky". Sater's father is Mikhael Sheferovsky AKA Michael Sater, so the Mikhailovich makes sense, but I am unable to confirm it. I am reluctant to change the birth name since I can't read the Russian source. What should I do? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @World's Lamest Critic: It's not possible for his birth name to have been Haim Felix Sater. They do not have middle names in Russia; patronymics are required by law on the birth certificate. Your middle name is your father's first name plus the suffix - ovich/evich/etc for males and -ovna/evna/etc for females. In the 18th century it could have been possible for Jews and other ethnic minorities who spoke other languages such as Yiddish to not follow that custom, but it would not have been possible in the Soviet Union in 1966, when he was born, especially in Moscow. (And it's also extremely unlikely his birth name would have been Chaim (Haim), as discrimination against Jews was immense at this time, and even Christian names such as Kristina etc were not really an option in the Soviet era.) I don't know what the NYT's source was as to that being his actual birth name, but it was probably Felix himself. Given that he is a convicted fraud and was eager to not be associated with a father who was an infamous capo for Semyon Mogilevich, it is not surprising he changed not only last name but also his patronymic, essentially erasing his connection to his father. Any claims in the article that are sourced directly to him should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, his history as an FBI informant against Italian organized crime is no secret, but in interviews with Russian press he claims this is not really true and that the FBI sent him on top secret assignments in Afghanistan where he was posing as an arms dealer while hunting Osama bin Laden, which is completely absurd. МандичкаYO 😜 03:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • PS OK, the Russian-language BBC service did an article on Felix in July and they discussed the changing of the name. The author is Russian journalist Vladimir Kozlovsky who has been covering him for 15+ years or something, and Felix was absolutely not born Sater, because Kozlovsky mentions how many years ago he was confused by his new last name, and asking Felix at the time why he started calling himself "Sater" and his reply was that the family's name used to be "Satarov" once upon a time. He came to the US via Israel so he would have had a new passport issued there that would have allowed him a religious first name such as Chaim. Kozlovsky has been covering the Russian mafia since the early 1990s and is a respected journalist. In the BBC article, he explains that Felix's next name change, from Sater to Satter, was to prevent business cohorts from finding about his criminal past via Google. He talks about his name change a bit more in that he was charged as "John Doe" because he was an informant etc (I believe he is discussing it in the light that legal documents need to be brought forward to confirm what his name and aliases are, like in the court cases against his dad) and he also mentions that his sister was not using the Sheferovsky/Sheferovskaya name either. МандичкаYO 😜 03:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Wikimandia: notwithstanding that the Haim Felix Sater name is "not possible", what does the Russian source actually say about Sater's birth name? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Well, the main point of the article is reminiscing about Trump's cohorts in the Russian/former USSR criminal underworld all the crap that went down in the 1990s with Sater's now dead (supposedly) dad Mikhail Sheferovsky's criminal activities in NY until his arrest in 2000 for extortion (he includes screenshot of court case). So anyway Kozlovsky says he remembers talking to Mikhail Sheferovsky around this time and asking him why he has an alias of Sater. And Mikhail claims the family used to be Saterov, and Kozlovsky says Sheferovsky's daughter is now Regina Sater, and that Felix was named Felix Sater when he emigrated from Israel as a little kid, but that he's also gone by Satter for the Google purpose I mentioned above. Unfortunately the name thing was just a sidenote, and at no point does he say flat out he was born Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky, because it's a Russian article so obvious because Mikhail Sheferovsky is well known and Felix is his son, so patronymic is obvious. But he doesn't actually use the patronymic because you only refer to patronymics in very formal speech when either writing formally or speaking formally to someone/about someone who is your superior/your elder, ie your teacher, your coach, your esteemed shirtless leader Vladimir Vladimirovich. Sorry for rambling. I see a bunch of new articles about Sater since I worked on his article so I will try to find one something resembling a factsheet that actually says what his real name at birth was. (Btw I love your user name. Hah.) МандичкаYO 😜 16:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Britney Spears[edit]

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

Is it acceptable to describe someone having a "public meltdown" in Wikipedia's voice? I would've thought it quite obviously is not, but two seemingly experienced editors (Flyer22 Reborn and FlightTime) disagree. Flyer is willing to discuss on the talkpage at least, but FlightTime is edit-warring to restore the label: [20] --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Softlavender recently reverted you at that article as well, and may also have something to state about this aspect of the revert.
I'll repeat what I wrote on the talk page: "'I don't view stating that Spears had a public meltdown as a WP:BLP violation; it is well-documented as a public meltdown. Furthermore, stating 'was inspired [by] the singer's public meltdown' is specific while 'was inspired by Spears' is vague. But I don't strongly object to this (your) wording. [...] As for using 'public meltdown' in Wikipedia's voice, perhaps you would be interested in this RfC at the WP:NPOV talk page, where a number of editors are clear that we follow the sources with WP:Due weight and often do not need WP:In-text attribution. Furthermore, Spears has commented on the breakdown, or rather 'the breakdown years'; she acknowledges it. She does not disagree that a meltdown/breakdown occurred at some point. So, no, given that and the sources that cover the matter, I can't view it as a WP:BLP violation. Either way, I've already noted that I'm not strongly opposed to your rewording on that bit." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Additional comment: EdJohnston has also stated that he does not consider the matter a WP:BLP violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Well Ed's opinion was more in relation to the edit being exempt from 3RR: "I don't see that calling Spears' behavior 'a very public meltdown' is a violation of BLP, certainly not for the purposes intended by the BLP exception to 3RR. The 3RR BLP exception is intended for things like unsourced defamation where the offending material is so flagrant it needs to be removed immediately without waiting for a discussion. In this case the behavior of Britney Spears is not in dispute and the only question is how to give it the most apt description, which is a matter of WP:UNDUE. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions partly concerns whether or not something is a BLP violation. If "meltdown" was a BLP violation, your reverts on that aspect would have been justified. Liked EdJohnston stated, "In this case the behavior of Britney Spears is not in dispute," which is similar to what I stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we should both disengage here. Perhaps there are experts in mental health issues here who might have information about professional use of "meltdown" as a descriptor. Personally, I haven't seen it in any textbooks. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
You can ask at WP:Med, which is a WikiProject I'm a part of. But in terms of sourcing, I do not think that WP:MEDRS sources, or a review of medical sources for "public meltdown" or "meltdown," are necessary in this case. The issue is here whether or not there is a WP:BLP violation. I am fine with ceasing commentary and letting others weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
That's some good advice Flyer22 Reborn, but in my POV, it is not a simple question of "sticking to the sources"; the term "public meltdown" seems pretty informal, too colloquial, just take a look.."The Sun" or "Daily Mail", some sections of the Spears article seem to be an "E! News report" at times; I think some copyedit (as Hillbillyholiday did) is really good to make the articles more encyclopaedic and less tabloidy. FinalPoint1988 (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
What does tabloid sources using the term meltdown have to do with reliable sources using the term for Spears's case and/or Spears acknowledging that a breakdown/meltdown occurred? That non BLP-compliant sources use the terminology has no bearing on whether or not the there is a WP:BLP violation in this specific case. Non BLP-compliant sources use a lot of terminology that BLP-compliant sources use. So what? Also, E! News is a BLP-compliant source. I understand that you like Hillbillyholiday and think that Hillbillyholiday is doing a lot of good, but my views on Hillbillyholiday's editing does not align with yours. Massive cuts are not copyedits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)