Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
Sections older than 5 days archived by ClueBot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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



Roosh V[edit]

There has been a disagreement regarding a BLP and a self published sources on the Roosh V article. I've removed the content in this diff [[1]]. There has been some discussion on the talk page, but since this is a relatively obscure BLP, I am bringing it here for wider input. Pinging @EvergreenFir:, @PeterTheFourth:, and @Cla68: since they were involved on the talk page.

To sum up the argument, The Anti-defamation league made a claim about Roosh V on their own blog. I removed the statement because it is only sourced to the ADL's blog, and per BLPSPS we should not use self published sources on BLP's. However, it has been restored on the basis that the ADL is a highly notable organization and is reliable for it's own opinion. My apologies in advance if I didn't sum up the arguments well. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Update pinging @Futrell: as well so they know of this discussion. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Kyohyi Thanks for posting this here. To sum up my comment, BLPSPS would apply if we said "Roosh is antisemitic" and used the ADL as a source. But the sentence in question says In 2015 the Anti-Defamation League accused Roosh of anti-Semitism. We're attributing the statement to the ADL and using their blog as the source with is permissible as WP:ABOUTSELF. And I agree with the assertion that ADL's opinion is notable. Just as we note which groups the SPLC calls "hate groups" (and attribute that assertion directly to the SPLC), it would make sense to do so here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Where is the reliable secondary source that indicates the ADL's anti-semitic accusation of Roosh is notable enough for inclusion in a BLP? I dont subscribe to the idea that 'because the ADL said it, it can go in'. The ADL are a notable organisation - yes. That does not mean everything they say should go into an article. Using the ADL's blog as a self-pub source for an article on the ADL would be perfectly fine. Using their blog as a source for their opinion that someone is an anti-semite is not. Especially since they have been found to be (legally) wrong about it in the past. Even should reliable sources be found to indicate their accusation of Roosh is a notable event, the place to put it would be in the body, not in the lead.Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to note, it was originally in the body [[2]]. After I removed it the first time, it was placed in the lead. [[3]]--Kyohyi (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
After refreshing my memory of WP:BLPSELFPUB I am pretty sure point 2 (third parties) is applicable here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Kyohyi, you've removed it enough... it's getting to the point of edit warring. It's not a blatant BLP violation so it doesn't fall under WP:3RRNO. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I consider it an obvious violation of selfpub as per above. Absent secondary sources I would/will remove it on sight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If other established editors disagree, you'd be well advised to engage in discussion rather than edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Are there secondary reliable sources which note the ADL's opinion on this matter? If not, I tend to agree with Only in death that it would be undue weight to include their opinion based only upon their self-published source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't find much other that Roosh's responses to them and stuff on Reddit. Though I wonder if we need secondary coverage or if their statement is notable by itself. To parallel SPLC again, we don't require secondary coverage when discussing their Hate Watch listings. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Howdy. My own opinion is that the ADL is a reliable source for their own opinion, their opinion about whether an individual is antisemitic is highly notable, and that if that person is already notable enough for an article it's to be encouraged to include this notable opinion in that article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. The SPLC parallel is a good one, in my view. I've also read into the details a bit, and I don't think there's any unfairness here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Opinions on inclusion appear so far to be evenly split, although it appears that the regulars here, heretofore uninvolved with that article are leaning against inclusion. Until consensus is reached, I'm going to remove that text from the article. Please do not edit war to re-add it until we have consensus to do so. Cla68 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Then I am sure you will be able to find reliable secondary sources that demonstrate its notability. I have also yet to see a reason why this passes point 2 of selfpub. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
When WP:BLPSELFPUB says "Such material may be used as a source only if ...", there is a distinction between using it as a source for its own truth, versus using it merely as a source for the fact that someone said something. It only makes sense for first type of use to be restricted by this policy, and the policy wording should make that clear.
Likewise, when WP:BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject", it means as sources of fact. There's no problem with using self-published sources as sources for the opinion of the publisher. Assuming there's no reasonable doubt as to the self-publisher's identity, it's ridiculous to say that such an opinion cannot be cited directly, but magically becomes citable once it's been indirectly reported by a news organization. – Smyth\talk 01:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The question here is relevance. There are lots of third-party opinions of various living people, and obviously we don't publish all of them. Is the opinion itself inherently notable enough to be included in a person's biography without having been first commented upon by an independent reliable source? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
That's something you'd have to decide on a case-by-case basis. – Smyth\talk 01:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the answer is a clear "yes" in this particular case. ADL is a well-known, high profile group, and their opinions about different groups and individuals is included in lots of different articles - both on wikipedia and in reliable sources more generally. Here on wikipedia, articles like Alex Linder and Jeff Rense and Glenn Spencer all put the ADL's opinion of the individual in the lede. So does New Black Panther Party. This is not an unusual practice and I see no problem with it as long as it's attributed to ADL. Clearly their opinion is judged notable across a wide swath of wiki articles (the one's I listed are just a random sample). Fyddlestix (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the answer is a clear No in this, and apparently we have a multitude of other pages where BLP is being violated. While the ADL has notability, not everything it says or does is notable in and of itself. What's more, BLP's require a higher level of notability, this can be gleaned from WP: BLPGOSSIP, for inclusion of material. BLP is pretty clear and consistent that we need secondary sources when we're talking about claims on BLP's, the only exception to this shown on BLP policy is with regards to news organizations, and even then it has requirements. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Per elaboration on the meaning of WP:BLPSPS (cannot be used as source for statements of fact, but can be used for opinion), and my belief that the answer to the question of "Is the opinion itself inherently notable enough to be included in a person's biography without having been first commented upon by an independent reliable source?" is yes with consensus seeming to support that, I'm going to place the summary of the ADL's opinion back in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Asked to self-revert, have done so. I'm not sure what more can be discussed, but I was probably being premature. I still believe that the two points established in my above comment are fairly reasonable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
We do not label people anti-semites even in someone else's voice unless there are reliable secondary sources demonstrating that the accusation/label is notable. ADL merely being a notable organisation does not make every pronoucement they make inherantly notable, especially since even a cursory google search shows they have been sued successfully because of it. 'The ADL said it so it must be notable' is not a valid rationale for labelling someone a racist in the lead and having them show up as 'anti-semite' when anyone googles them. This smells to high heaven of turning a BLP into a hit-job. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If by "notable" you mean "important for the person's biography", then it is. Reliable secondary sources only ever discuss Valizedeth to criticize his claims about women, foreigners and other groups. You're acting like there's tons of RS about him and editors are doing him a grave injustice by adding two sentences describing his remarks about Jews. In reality, there's only few RS that bother mentioning him at all and only because they take exception to his comments. His sole claim to notability is that he generates controversy by offending people. Did he praise the views of Kevin B. MacDonald and quote from MacDonald's book The Culture of Critique? Yes, he did. And it's certainly not the first time that he's lamented the "damaging effects of Jewish intellectualism", an opinion met with glee by Neo-Nazi websites like The Daily Stormer. There's no BLP violation here if we write that the ADL took notice and commented. --SonicY (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Killing of Cecil the lion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus appears to be to include the name in the article (which it currently is). (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to hear whether other editors think the name of the man who killed the lion as described in the article Killing of Cecil the lion should be named in the article. Currently he is not. However, he has been named in reliable sources such as CNN [4] and the New York Times [5]. There is also little doubt that he did it as both of the sources I just linked to state that he admitted to killing the lion. Everymorning talk 19:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME and WP:1E makes me think it should be excluded, at least for the time being. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
He's actually now said he's sorry he did it? Although his whereabouts are unknown, he's made no attempt to conceal his identity, employing a PR company to act for him? WP:BLPCRIME might be relevant, but even this seems very marginal. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm in favor of including his name. He's admitted to the killing and written an apology, making him a notable person himself. Pkeets (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It's very doubtful that he committed a crime. No, admitting to killing a lion does not make someone a notable person. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's doubtful at all, given that two people have already appeared in court over it. I think his name should be included simply because I can't see a reason not to include it. He is named all over the place already. It's patently a notable event and he is an integral part of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, he hasn't appeared in court or been charged with a crime. As to the notability of the event, it looks like the AfD is fairly evenly split on this at the moment. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's even a small stretch to suggest that if he'd still been in Zimbabwe, he'd have joined his friends in court. He might be wishing he'd done that, in fact. The idea that the other two would have been charged and he not is at best, fanciful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest that editors do not knee-jerk into naming the hunter. Given the current AfD, this could possibly result in deletion of the article. The article, I believe, will get through AfD as it stands, but if it names the person, it will open up a huge can of worms - it is tortuous on WP dealing with naming living persons. There is no hurry to name the person. Let's get through the AfD by which time there will likely be RS we can use regarding naming the person - if we feel that is necessary for the article.DrChrissy (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't have a problem with a single mention of the American hunter's name in the "Killing of Cecil" article, as long as the names of the two Zimbabwean guides are also included, there is a well-sourced and factual account of what allegedly happened, and we deal with this as an "alleged crime," not as if the parties have already been convicted. I will adamantly oppose a stand-alone article for the American hunter at this time, because I believe he is non-notable and this clearly falls under the WP:BIO1E exception at this time: the hunter is a dentist from Minnesota, and you don't get much more non-notable than that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Include the name. This "hunter", according to the BBC, NBC. CBS and the New York Times, is already a convicted felon for illegal hunting in the US and lying to cover it up. He's also essentially pled nolo contendere and paid a large settlement in a sexual harassment case. There's no reason to go out of our way to "protect" a guy who's already achieved deserved international infamy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include the name. He made a statement to the national media admitting he "took" (his word) the lion. And of course mention the guides who were arrested — their names have appeared on international news broadcasts and the most staid newspapers in the world. While I do have to say that "the hunter is a dentist from Minnesota, and you don't get much more non-notable than that" is a really funny line — sincerely; kudos — Palmer in addition to his statement is one of the most notorious figures on the planet. That makes him notable. He had no expectation of privacy long before now. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The killer is some pathetic loser with a rifle. Let's not give him any more publicity than he has bought already. Maybe that is what he is looking for. The newspapers and the courts can go after him. We should focus on the event and outcome. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note AfD was closed as speedy keep. Wikipedia is not censored. I don't particularly want to give this sad excuse of an individual notability, but that is NOT a valid reason for excluding relevant information. And lets face it, the bottom line is that this individual did the deed and should be named in the article. Of course, he should NOT have a separate article for himself, but should be named in the main Cecil article. Safiel (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, he should be referred to as a poacher, not hunter. Safiel (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Sources don't use that term. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Walter James Palmer killed Cecil the lion. To name him in "Killing of Cecil the lion" seems about as prudent as naming the lion. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
    • The notable name here is Cecil. If Dr. Palmer had killed a random lion with proper permits, there wouldn't be a story. (I don't personally believe Palmer's version of events, but this wouldn't be a story if it was just a random poaching.) --Onorem (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And if Cecil just continued walking about, doing lion stuff, he'd be as notable as Ronald Goldman walking about, doing waiter stuff. Just like in any article about humans killing humans, the perpetrator is the one who makes the thing happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
What if his story is true? I don't believe it, but why should we rush to crucify him. You don't like hunting and that's fine, but it happens and they issue permits for lions in that country. Why rush? --Onorem (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to crucify anyone. I thought his story was that he killed/"took" Cecil. Even if I liked hunting, I'd still like Wikipedia to relay the facts on time. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
If it was a legal hunt, nobody (on a newsworthy scale) would care that he killed/"took" a random lion. This lion was supposedly already well known. Comparing him to Goldman is just silly. --Onorem (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Social media outrage (which drives TV outrage these days) doesn't give a shit about legalities. When a cop legally kills a black in America, we write the article and name him, because the news does. Some of the sources are already hyping a #CatLivesMatter hashtag. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
How many lions are poached every year? How many do we have articles about? You're going into cop killings now...I'm definitely done. Enjoy your evening. I have no interest trying to have a rational discussion with you. --Onorem (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not about whether a lion is poached. It's about whether the story is covered significantly by secondary sources. 99% of the time, they aren't. This time, it was. So this one gets the article. Articles should be informative.
The parallel between this and cop killings works on that level, too. I didn't start the hashtag or choose this particular lion as the sympathetic babyface. Just reflecting the media. Touchy subject, but that doesn't make me a loon (the Goldman connection might). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
His story is that he hired a guide for the hunt and thought everything was legal. --Onorem (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There are absolutely no journalistic grounds to exclude the shooter's name — especially if attributed. "…identified by multiple news agencies, including the New York Times and AP as …" He is obviously notable, and he has issued a statement about the incident. The references on the page are filled with his name. This is silly discussion at would end in a professional newsroom in about six seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.253.219 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Reminder - Please set your personal feelings about the individual aside when considering Wikipedia's BLP policy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thousands of people kill for fun every day. They all suck. Doesn't matter. This guy is notable because his thrill kill received massive public attention. Without him, the article wouldn't exist, and Cecil wouldn't be famous, either. Just Zimbabwe famous. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
  • The lion's out of the bag on this one. Even Jimmy Kimmel is naming him. The reaction to the shooter and his background is a big part of the story, and the shooter himself released a statement. Gamaliel (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not a random dentist who is the BLP1E victim of internet outrage. This is a man who has spent many years working to achieve a public reputation as a championship, world class bow hunter. The New York Times published an lengthy profile of him six years ago, after he killed an unusually large Tule Elk about 20 miles from where I live. That article noted his previous conviction for falsifying the details of killing a bear in 2008. Though we should not "pile on", of course his name should be mentioned. He sought publicity, and now he has it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should include the name. It is has high encyclopedic value to the article and most importantly it is verifiable. Because this is already published widely we are not doing damage. Chillum 04:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • calls for righteous revenge do not override WP:BLP . No one has been convicted of a crime. Wikipedia does not need to participate in the propagation of internet hate campaigns. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't say he committed a crime, or that we hate him or any of that. Just that he killed the lion featured in the article about a killed lion. Pretty basic info. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
  • Include Not even close. Published in multiple high-end reliable sources (NY Times, BBC, etc.), and the individual has specifically acknowledged the act in question so there is no issue of a possibly false allegation. As noted by Cullen328 the individual is well-known as a game hunter and appears to have actively sought publicity in that regard, so there is no question of invasion of privacy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include A quick run through Google news shows literally thousands of articles describing Cecil's killer by his name. The most famous dentist in Mineesota has admitted as much. Jimmy Kimmel just spent 4 minutes of his momologue describing what happened, and included the dentist's name, as well as three or four pictures of "the dentist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.58.150.217 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include per Cullen. He's publically recognized in the subject area prior to this incident, he's been covered by the press before, and he's made no attempt to make this part of his private life. I cringe to think of all the asinine stuff coming his way but this is clear cut for me. GraniteSand (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include. Palmer has self-identified and is named in hundreds of reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include - no BLP issues here. GiantSnowman 10:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include – as the good doctor has already admitted he shot the lion and written an apology, so there aren't any BLP issues, plus he's in reliable sources too. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove - WP:BLPCRIME applies here. He's relatively unknown to the outside world other than this incident. And seeing that Zimbabwe is saying what happened is a crime, we should not be including his name at this time. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course I read it, and the relevant sentence is "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured". Right now this killing is being considered an illegal poaching in Zimbabwe, that's in our article. He's relatively unknown so we shouldn't be including his name. The same goes for guides. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
"Relatively unknown" is not a phrase that should be applied to someone previously profiled in a national newspaper like The New York Times. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Being profiled once? Do we have enough to make an article out of him outside this incident? Compared to the celebrities who are gossiping about this he's not known. What's more the profile is from six years ago. And nothing since. Yeah, still relatively unknown. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include If we have an article on the incident, it makes no sense not to include his name. WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. --NeilN talk to me 15:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include True, Wally Palmer hasn’t been convicted; but he has admitted “taking” Cecil. What should perhaps be excluded, however, is the interesting factoid that, reversing the roles of traditional dentist-patient dialogue, Cecil’s last words when the shot went in were “just a little prick.” Writegeist (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include per Cullen328 and others. We look like navel-gazing idiots when we try to suppress such content.(That's not directed at anyone in particular and certainly not the OP who raised the concern in good faith.)- MrX 17:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include It is impossible to not read on the killing of Cecil and not find the name. It is not like we're talking TMZ levels of investigation to dig it out if the man personally has kept it quiet, and add that the man has made statements to explain his side of the situation without masking his identity. However, keeping the article named as such ("Killing of Cecil the Lion", or perhaps "Cecil the Lion" is the correct course of action and the man's name should be a redirect to that. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm very much on the fence here; I think our BLP policy gives us reason enough to exclude it. But there's some really not good arguments here. An IP editor says "it's bad journalism not to include"--that's totally wrong. It may be bad American journalism not to, but this is not America. NeilN, I do not agree at all that BLPCRIME does not apply because we have an article on the lion; again, that strikes me as very US-centric. On the other hand, Cullen328 makes a lot of sense, as he usually does, and of course we're being passed on the right by the internetz. That latter point really ought to be meaningless but it helps create the atmosphere in which everything is notable--YouTubers, the word "Cuckservative", lion-killing dentists, White House party-crashing socialites, socialites who are friends with socialites, and anyone related to any Kardashian. If it were up to me, I'd exclude the name, knowing full well that I'd look like a troglodyte dragging his/her knuckles through the dusty remains of...books. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I favor including the name, as he has admitted to doing the deed and it has received widespread attention, including an article today in the New York Times on the aftermath, giving his name as the "killer of Cecil"[6]. Given that his name has been mentioned in reliable sources as associated with this event and he has issued a statement concerning it, I see no BLP issue here at all. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is a quote from the Times story today: "In the hours since Dr. Walter J. Palmer apologized for killing the lion, he has gone from a dentist and longtime hunting enthusiast to a villain at the center of a firestorm over the ethics of big-game trophy hunting." Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that chihuahua certainly looks like it means business. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not include. We should not be piling on. The protests are stupid enough. He is basically an unknown person. Hysteria has erupted over the death of an animal. Just an animal. Not even a human being. And the animal seems to have been killed in some kind of a mix-up that was not orchestrated by this individual. And he has apologized for any part he inadvertently played in that error. Wikipedia should be principled on this question. We have policy against disclosing names of low profile individuals. Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include. Mentioning his name is not "piling on". It is good that we exercise caution in cases like this, but as his name has been widely disseminated, it won't really matter if we censor it. Here in Minnesota there have been people gathering outside of his offices yesterday and today. gobonobo + c 22:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
My comment was removed. Fair enough. We still have policies that should be respected: WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:1E. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Just an animal? Lions are endangered, but it seems that American dentists were not, at least until quite recently. A notable turnaround perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I care about animals but the distinction is hardly negligible between other creatures and human creatures. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I quite agree. Humans tend to be disproportionately destructive, don't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It is hilarious. Individually and in groups, humans commit a wide ranging assortment of atrocities—often with little consequence. This guy kills one lion and the global community is ready to penalize him seemingly without limit. I think they would hang him from a lamppost if they could. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Irene Zisblatt[edit]

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

Reporting the page of Irene Zisblatt because of frequent libelous attacks by Holocaust deniers. Assaulting the integrity of Holocaust survivors will not be tolerated. I have put warning notices on the IP addresses who have attacked Ms. Zisblatt's page, and now I am reporting this to Wikipedia. Please stop Holocaust deniers from tampering with honest people's lives.Hello43r (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have raised this issue on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Irene Zisblatt. - Location (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears as though it has received pending-change protection for three months. - Location (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Spiegel[edit]

Dear Wikimedia Personnel,

I know you folks strive for accuracy and unbiased information in Wikipedia. However, some of your volunteer editors are insisting on promoting their factually incorrect information on my Wikipedia page and on pages relating to a song which I co-wrote and which was briefly nominated for an Academy Award.

I have supplied numerous references which contain the facts but they insist on repeatedly inserting their own bias which is unsubstantiated. Their incorrect statement casts aspersions on one of the most respected individuals to ever work in film music, my collaborator, Bruce Broughton. Some of your volunteers have continually reinstated the statement....

 the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences found that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had improperly contacted other branch members for support.[9]

This is completely false. I have provided documentation that shows them the facts but they insist on perpetuating their unsupported bias. Broughton never asked anyone for their vote or their support. This is a critical distinction. He was never accused of doing anything illegal because he never did anything illegal. That's just fact.

Here is the transcript and video from the nationally broadcast CBS This Morning. If you scroll down on the transcript you can see Bruce Broughton's entire e-mail to his friends. It concludes with "This is merely a request 'For Your Consideration'."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/academy-award-rescinds-nomination-for-songwriter-bruce-broughton/

These words make a difference. Broughton merely asks that people find the song and consider it. Bruce was more familiar with every Academy rule than most folks. He is also one of the most ethical people in the entertainment industry and has done more for aspiring composers than practically anyone else.

Here is the Academy's stated reason for their action..

“No matter how well-intentioned the communication, using one’s position as a former governor and current executive committee member to personally promote one’s own Oscar submission creates the appearance of an unfair advantage,” said Cheryl Boone Isaacs, president of the Academy.

Here is a link to the coverage by National Public Radio (NPR) in an interview with Scott Feinberg of The Hollywood Reporter. in it Feinberg addresses the issue of whether any rules were broken.

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/01/269925008/a-major-oscar-dust-up-over-a-song-from-a-minor-movie

Here is also a link to a piece written by Scott Feinberg in The Hollywood Reporter. It addresses the entire matter in detail.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/was-academys-disqualification-song-contender-675582

And finally here is a piece from Entertainment Weekly which lays out what was done by The Academy.

http://www.ew.com/article/2014/01/29/oscars-kill-original-song-nomination-for-alone-yet-not-alone-breaking

I don't want to inundate you with material but simply to establish the facts. The erroneous statement which your volunteer editors repeatedly attach to my Wikipedia page and to the pages about the song and movie "Alone Yet Not Alone" is contrary to the facts. I would appreciate the simple and accurate rephrasing of the statement to read...

 the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences said that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had contacted other branch members with a request "For Your Consideration." The Board of Governors said  that that "creates the appearance of an unfair advantage".  [9]   Not everyone agreed with the Academy's actions. [3] [4] [5]

I appreciate your efforts to ensure unbiased material in the "people's encyclopedia". Words matter.

Respectfully, Dennis Spiegel Lyricist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:C42B:CDEC:D9C1:8E16 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Er, I don't see the problem here. The Academy says that requests of the type that Broughton made "to personally promote [his] own Oscar submission create[d] the appearance of an unfair advantage" and were therefore improper. The current wording says no more than this; it does not say that rules were broken, or that he did anything illegal. The wording you supplied dilutes the facts concerning the Academy's statement to the point of being non-neutral (bordering on misrepresentation). General Ization Talk 22:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, if you are claiming that a composer sending an email under the heading "For Your Consideration" that points out that the composer's song has been nominated for an Academy Award is not a request for the readers' support, you are being disingenuous. Of course it is, however politely it may have been put. When he said "consideration," he wasn't looking for compliments or invitations to dinner parties, I'm sure. General Ization Talk 22:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


Broughton’s request “For Your Consideration” is the accepted language used by every contender. Many artists who serve as volunteers for their branch in the Academy, as well as every studio, put forth their work “For Consideration”. That is the accepted language and it means please consider this work. It does not mean “vote for this work” or “support this work”. If the responder finds this distinction hard to reconcile then his issue is with the Academy.

The responder is correct on one point. Mr. Broughton is not asking for a dinner invitation or compliments.

Here’s a detailed posting which may help with an appraisal of this matter. While I do not offer it as a reference for inclusion on Wikipedia, it is perhaps the most in depth look at the issue to date. I think it is well worth reading for people who wish to understand all sides.

http://badalanews.blogspot.com/2015/02/taking-bruce-broughton-side-in-yet-not.html

Respectfully, Dennis Spiegel Lyricist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:1587:7F3A:BF69:C848 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Though I'm hoping I'm not the only one here with an opinion about this: The only issue before us is whether the current language in the article accurately and neutrally describes the Academy's response to Mr. Broughton's email. Having read everything you've posted here, I still contend that it does, and that it does so more than the alternate language you proposed. This has nothing to do with whether Mr. Broughton's email was improper, or whether the Academy's response to the email was appropriate or fair, and these are not matters for us to judge in drafting a Wikipedia article. We are to remain neutral and accurately reflect our sources. I maintain that we have done so. General Ization Talk 04:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Rick Perry[edit]

Take it to DRN or open an RFC. Not a BLP issue. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

With the presidential silly season now gearing up to full throttle, it seems important to ask that our policies and guidelines be respected to a minimal degree. I don't think that's happening at this BLP, and so some opinions from experienced editors would be appreciated. User:MrX thinks it would be a good idea to delete all reference to his presidential candidacy (i.e. the primary source of his current notabilty) from the lead paragraph.[7] That's contrary to how it's done at many other BLPs now (e.g. see Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Lindsey Graham,John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker all of which put their presidential candidacies in the lead paragraph) and also contrary to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph which says:

Typical format is to provide an overview in the lead paragraph, and then some more details in the rest of the lead. Thus, the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders BLPs mention their presidential candidacy in the lead paragraph, and then provide a bit more detail at the end of the lead. Entirely removing a presidential candidacy from a lead paragraph seems very odd and improper.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not really a BLP policy issue and I really wish you wouldn't misrepresent my position. I am fine with mentioning the subject's candidacy in the first paragraph, provided that we don't repeat the same information in the second, third or fourth paragraph of the lead. We are not writing newspaper articles after all. I refer you to these examples: John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Rudy Giuliani, and many, many more like it. Also consider this: if what you suggest were a project-wide convention, how do you explain the absence of this redundant content in Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee, both 2008 US Presidential candidates?- MrX 02:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Conformity with biography guidelines at BLPs certainly is a BLP issue, and I have not misrepresented anything. You removed this information from the lead paragraph of the Perry BLP, not me, and I never remotely suggested that removal from the lead paragraph would be satisfactory. None of the people you mention (John Edwards, etc.) is currently running for president; if you would like to investigate the leads during the 2008 or earlier presidential campaigns, feel free to investigate the page histories. As for the Rick Perry BLP, it is about a current candidate for president, and details about the date and location of his announcement are unsuitable for the lead paragraph, but have been in a later paragraph for weeks (as in the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders BLPs). Having those details in a later paragraph is not the least but redundant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This is now the lead of Mike Huckabee, courtesy of Anythingyouwant:

Michael Dale "Mike" Huckabee (born August 24, 1955) is an American author and politician who served as the 44th Governor of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007. He was a candidate in the 2008 United States Republican presidential primaries. He won the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses and finished second in delegate count and third in both popular vote and number of states won, behind nominee John McCain and Mitt Romney. Huckabee has announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential election, his second run for the U.S. presidency. ¶ Beginning in 2008, Huckabee hosted the Fox News Channel talk show Huckabee, ending the show in January 2015 in order to explore a potential bid for the Presidency. From April 2012 through December 2013, he hosted a daily radio program, The Mike Huckabee Show, on weekday afternoons for Cumulus Media Networks. Huckabee is the author of several best-selling books, an ordained Southern Baptist minister noted for his evangelical views, a musician, and a public speaker. He is also a political commentator on The Huckabee Report. The date of Huckabee's announcement of his presidential candidacy was May 5, 2015. It is his second run for the U.S. presidency.

- MrX 02:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I object to saying in the lead paragraph that it's his "second run for the U.S. presidency". And I have removed it. It's already evident from the preceding language, and it's also at the end of the lead. I did not put that language into the lead paragraph, but rather MrX did.[8] If people want to see what I think is an acceptable Huckabee lead, see here.
I would also like to clarify why I came here. WP:BLP specifically requires neutrality, and nothing could be less neutral than dispensing with our biography guidelines for some living persons but not for others. MrX is incorrect that this is the wrong venue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The acrimony shown here between two editors about a routine content disagreement reflects poorly on both of them, in my opinion. I sincerely encourage both editors to "dial it back" in the spirit of collaboration and compromise. Whether Perry's 2016 run should be mentioned in the first or the fourth paragraph is a matter of editorial judgment, not a BLP issue. There is no need to treat all 17 announced 2016 GOP presidential candidates identically. Some are taken more or less seriously by reliable sources. Their current candidacies are more or less important in their specific life stories, depending on how reliable sources have covered them over time. We do not edit with a cookie cutter at hand. I see no real BLP issue here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
And if the presidential candidacies of Democrats are put into the lead paragraphs, but not for Republicans, then there's just no issue of BLP neutrality suitable for this notice board?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stephanie Seneff[edit]

Not sure about some of the recent edits to this page. Is Age of Autism a reliable source in this context? What about Agriculturesociety.com? Is it fair to say that open access journals are not part of the mainstream academic press? Everymorning talk 19:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

And I've removed them. Gross BLP violations and distortion if not outright falsification of at least one source. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this be up at AfD? Randykitty, what do you think? It seems to me that this person is only notable for writing something that was widely blasted. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
As the article creator, I am doubtless biased on this matter, but I suspect that an h-index of 48 on Google Scholar probably indicates notability per WP:PROF. [9] I know this varies from field to field so I'm not sure whether it's good enough here. There is also some popular media coverage of her research here. Everymorning talk 02:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Asaram appears to need a serious re-write[edit]

The page appears to be in need of a serious re-write- if anyone has a lot of time on their hands and a willingness to step into a fight between two sides who both have a righteous agenda to push. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

HolaSoyGermán[edit]

Users keep changing his birthplace from Santiago to Copiapó. References in the article support the former. A new user is now adding this as a reference - Servicio de Registro Civil e Identificación. Birth certificate, Circunscription of Copiapó, N° 824, 1990. Germán Alejandro Garmendia Aranis.. They say they can email me his birth certificate. Of course that's not how things work. I decided to bring it to the attention of this noticeboard so it can be discussed and resolved, rather than engage in an edit war over it. Thank you. --Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 01:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest in engaging in an edit war. It came to my attention when people became fussing about this annoying YouTuber's birth place. Chilean DNIs were made publicly available in 2013 by the Electoral Service, so I searched for Garmendia, found it, requested a free certificate on the Civil Registry website, and put up the actual birthplace, date, and parents. It isn't morally acceptable, however, for me to publish the birth certificate, so that's why I urge anyone interested on seeing it, to email me. (BTW, thanks for calling me a "new user"... although I've been around since 2006) --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
We require published sources, especially for biographies of living people. Also, searching through vital records runs afoul of our policy against original research. Your simply can't use the birth certificate to make a change in the article, especially if it contradicts already present sources.- MrX 01:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
MrX, I am conscious of Wikipedia's original research policy. However, it is not good that we publish misleading information published in sources with incorrect statements, when we can use a totally reliable source. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not good to publish inaccurate (not misleading) information, but the arbiters of what is accurate are our sources that we have (hopefully) selected because of their reputation for fact checking. You say that the birth certificate that you found is a totally reliable souce, but it isn't according to our policies. We have no idea who you are, what your reputation for fact checking is, or if your research is subject to editorial oversight. That's why we can't use your original research.- MrX 02:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, so if you don't trust my reputation for fact checking, even when I have several GAs and two FLs, I'll give it easy for you: [10] 2, I guess this one should be enough to prove the Civil Registry ain't no liar And here you have yet another reference for his birthplace, birth date, and more Furthermore, Garmendia himself confirms that information --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what your point is here. My response only concerned the reliability of a birth certificate researched by an editor. If there are other reliable sources to support your edit, you should use them.- MrX 17:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Cecil lion[edit]

At this time, this article mentions the name of the hunter, the name of his practice (name of his business), his state, and his profession. The hunter has admitted to the killing, so of course his name is properly cited. But his personal business?

All this, for a person who has been convicted of no crime, and who is merely accused on the say-so of some third world NGO which has already benefited to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and of some government officials of the same country.

Zimbabwe, really, look up its Wikipedia page: its president has been the same since 1980, and, according to the Wikipedia lede, Zimbabwe has a "problematic human rights record and substantial economic decline."

Is this how Wikipedia treats BLP of an accused person convicted of no crime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talkcontribs) 08:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A vast range of sources name his business. This is the basis for our doing so as well. As for "convicted of no crime", you might want to read a bit more closely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The article is about Cecil the lion, not about bears. Is there no presumption of innocence in Wikipedia any more with regard to BLP of persons merely accused, but not convicted? Someone with some sense has deleted the name of the hunter's business, but a picture of it remains, disturbingly specifying the exact type of business. Profession and state remains, even though the accusations are irrelevant to such identifying items. XavierItzm (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no justification for including this living person's business address, irrespective of whether or not other sources have included it. Minor4th 01:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The justification is precisely that many sources have included it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not a justification for inclusion. It's random trivia of a non-encyclopedic nature. The exact street addresses associated with famous people throughout their lives are often published in numerous RS's. But it's very rare to find any articles that include such information. Choor monster (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The question posed in this section related to the name of his practice, not the street address. I agree with not including the address, but the name of the practice merits inclusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, someone above got this off-track. Meanwhile, my point remains. That many RS mention a point of trivia is not grounds by itself for inclusion. If there were some obvious connection between his business and the killing (say he ran a tourist agency, rifle range, taxidermy shop) I could see the relevance. As is, it remains pointless trivia. Name, occupation, vaguely pinpointed residence location, seem the usual encyclopedic bits of information. More than that, I don't see how it adds to the article. Choor monster (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Given that his business has been named, the type of business it is, and that he is losing business and that there is strong social criticism that is part of driving his clients away - all which are readily cited without to do almost any work in looking for reputable sources - means it's reasonable to include. Address of the business, absolutely not, just like a home address. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No where do I see his business address given or the name of the business mentioned. Just the state, and Minnesota is quite large. This has been discussed heavily on Talk:Cecil (lion). Palmer's occupation was removed from the lead and relegated to the article itself. I don't see a problem with the article's current state. I would object to any inclusion of an address or name of business though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The name of the business has since been removed even though user Nomoskedasticity wrote above on 16:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC) that he was OK with including it. Nonetheless, a picture of said business remains, indicating the type of business and the state. Sad. XavierItzm (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

AVDUCK defaming an entire public services union[edit]

Spill over dispute about an essay that has already been discussed at numerous venues (ANI, COI/N, SPI, RFAR). Not a matter for this noticeboard.- MrX 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:AVDUCK

Please note that a photoshopped image in this essay which attacks a group of people referred to as "advocacy ducks" includes a flock of waterfowl carrying signs that clearly show the logo of the Public and Commercial Services Union. It looks to me like this image is (whether intentionally or not) associating this union with untoward activity on Wikipedia.

I started a discussion on the talkpage: Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks#Public and Commercial Services Union. It seems the main author of the essay is none too pleased with the removal of the image and doesn't see the problem, claiming "No defamation there - images are CC licensed which clears them." I don't think that this is a correct reading of how CC licensing works in terms of issues like this on Wikipedia.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have suggested on talk page that the image be photoshopped. It would seem a simple matter to replace the small and barely visible logo with a solid blue oval. Atsme and jps, would this be an acceptable compromise to resolve this dispute?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it just as easy to get rid of the logo entirely? Just white out the whole thing? jps (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
sure, that works too.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This essay is already the subject of a long and ongoing discussion at ANI. It does seem inappropriate for one of the images in an essay of this type to target a specific group like that. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fyddlestix. The design of the signs and slogan also appear to be unique to the union, so it should be whited-out entirely if used. - Location (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
While I have doubts that a union falls under BLP, as it isnt a person. I have uploaded a edited image while this discussion is ongoing. AlbinoFerret 17:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure it matters - an essay should not target a specific group like that, even if it's not a blp violation. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I dont think its targeting the union. A plain reading of the essay and the caption of the image shows it isnt, the logo isnt recognisable at the size in the essay. Also it appears I was correct WP:BLPGROUP. AlbinoFerret 17:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me - it's a CC 2.0 share alike image which means we can modify the image, sell it, use parts of the image in a composite, etc. as long as we credit the source which we did. Before you go casting aspersions and making unwarranted allegations, please familiarize yourself with CC licensing. In the interim, I have modified the image even further to appease those who don't understand CC licensing. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 17:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This isn't a BLP issues and you folks need to quit dragging this petty dispute to multiple forums. It's becoming disruptive.- MrX 17:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, MrX. It is far more than disruptive - it's nonsensical retaliation. I apologize for my involuntary part as the target of their childish games. Wishing you a good day. Atsme📞📧 19:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Until such time as Wikipedia has a "concerns over possible defamation noticeboard", this noticeboard is the closest thing we have to a venue for discussing such matters. jps (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, or more specifically a wikimedia image dispute. This should have been discussed and resolved on the talk page.Martinlc (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Everything discussed on this board is a content dispute. jps (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nathan Gill- violations need whitewashing[edit]

An anonymous editor has just placed unfounded and uncited serious personal allegations into this biography, which have no media or evidential substance. Can an admin please wipe the revisions? It's of a highly legal nature Thanks TF92 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Beall[edit]

Jeffrey Beall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This edit does not seem BLP compliant, so I am posting here to determine what other editors think. Everymorning talk 02:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a pretty obvious policy violation that seems to depend on WP:SYNTH, especially the last sentence of the lead. In fact, the article as a whole seems to have some serious NPOV issues.- MrX 03:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • MrX, in a quick glance I can't see the problem, though that linkfarm was a bit overdone. Can you tell me what specifically is bothering you? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It's been cleaned up a bit since then - this is the version that had more obvious problems. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, a couple of editors already took care of it.- MrX 02:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard Schweiker[edit]

Richard Schweiker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: "Richard Schweiker" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR})

Richard Schweiker has been edited to state that he died within the past few days[11], however, this has not been reported. - Location (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I also could find no source reporting this, so I've reverted this per WP:BLP; if and when a reliable source reports it, it can be easily restored. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Philly.com is now reporting. - Location (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for following up on this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie Styles and Jacob Kemp[edit]

Related bios, of young Broadway actors, being edited by WP:SPA users. I've tried to de-fluff both of these, but suspect they'll require some vigilance, so any assistance will be appreciated. A lot more unsourced content can be cut from both. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Will copy edit these for language tomorrow. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Arafat Nagi[edit]

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

An editor, BuffaloBob, has created a new article about this individual who was arrested by federal authorities last week in Lackawanna, New York on suspicion of "attempting to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization." As I stated in my PROD of the article, "First, a presumption of innocence exists; the subject has been charged but not convicted. Second, WP:BLP1E applies. The subject is not notable for any reason other than the charges brought against him. We should not create an article for everyone the authorities arrest on suspicion of terrorism (or any other charge)." Please advise if you disagree, or if there is some other guidance that contradicts either of these points when it comes to suspected terrorists who have been charged but not convicted. General Ization Talk 23:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The editor also recited the events and assertions set forth in the federal complaint as if they were proven fact, that is without clearly attributing the statements to the complaint. I have edited the article to at least make clear that the only source for the assertions at this time is the complaint. General Ization Talk 00:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

David B. Allison[edit]

This article was a puff piece; right now, it's just another poor article. But a quick look through the history reveals that a now-blocked editor did a bit of cleanup, including in this edit--note the deceptive edit summary. In short, what we need is a rewrite of the article which takes into account the two highly reliable references removed in that edit (this and this--it's really quite juicy). Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexey Pajitnov[edit]

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

Just noticed this article was edited today and something seems off about it.

A lot of random strings of letters, and claiming that he died with no source, all from an anonymous IP in Serbia with +100 already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.29.192.185 (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism pure and simple, now reverted. Thanks. General Ization Talk 03:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Arrest of Nicole Naugler[edit]

Arrest of Nicole Naugler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could use some help figuring out what to do with this article, and keeping an eye on it. I've already done some cleanup (Before, After, Diff) since the article was in a pretty sad state when I found it (citations to facebook and infowars, wholly un-referenced allegations of sexual abuse, etc). I've basically stubbed it, but now I'm wondering if there should be an article on this at all - there is coverage that suggests notability ([12][13][14][15]), however the focus of that coverage seems to be the seizure of the family's children and their child-rearing philosophy rather than Nicole Naugler's arrest specifically, and most of it smacks of WP:SENSATION. I'm really not sure what airing this family's dirty laundry is supposed to provide in terms of encyclopedic value, but I'm hesitant to bring it to AFD because there's actually been quite a lot of news coverage.

Any input/advice is appreciated, and having some people watching the article would be good. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP1E. The fact that the subject received "quite a lot" of news coverage for that one event (seizure of the children), which is now resolved, does not make them notable in the long term. It certainly has no long-term significance. At AfD, I would support deletion. General Ization Talk 05:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)