Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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

109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once[edit]

On October 13 a bot put 109 BLP articles into category "Climate Change Deniers" due to a CFD discussion. Number of editors participating: 10. Number of notices on the BLP talk pages: zero. Number of reliable sources cited to support the changes: zero. I claim that WP:BLPN is the appropriate discussion venue for such a large set of BLP changes, and that labelling people "deniers" is not appropriate without a strong consensus of subject-specific sources plus a strong consensus of editors who have actually seen the BLPs and are aware of previous discussions on the BLPs' talk pages and are aware of WP:AE. The articles are: Khabibullo Abdussamatov Stuart Agnew Syun-Ichi Akasofu Claude Allègre J. Scott Armstrong Michele Bachmann Sallie Baliunas Timothy Ball Robert Balling Joseph Bast Joe Bastardi Godfrey Bloom Joe Barton David Bellamy Maxime Bernier Marsha Blackburn Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Christopher Booker Barry Brill Paul Broun Douglas Carswell Robert M. Carter John Christy Petr Chylek Ian Clark (geologist) John Coleman (news weathercaster) Piers Corbyn Ann Coulter Vincent Courtillot Ken Cuccinelli Judith Curry Edward E. David Jr. James Delingpole Martin Durkin (television director) Myron Ebell Nigel Farage Chris de Freitas David Deming David Douglass Don Easterbrook David Evans (mathematician and engineer) Ivar Giaever Steven Goddard Vincent R. Gray William M. Gray William Happer John Hawkins (columnist) Rodney Hide Ole Humlum David Icke Craig D. Idso Keith E. Idso Sherwood B. Idso Jim Inhofe Wibjörn Karlén Michael Kelly (physicist) Steve King William Kininmonth (meteorologist) Václav Klaus Steven E. Koonin Lyndon LaRouche David Legates Lucia Liljegren Rush Limbaugh Richard Lindzen Scott Lively Craig Loehle Anthony Lupo Bob Lutz (businessman) Steve McIntyre Ross McKitrick Patrick Michaels Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Andrew Montford Patrick Moore (environmentalist) Marc Morano Nils-Axel Mörner Tad Murty Joanne Nova Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) Vladimir Paar Sarah Palin Garth Paltridge Tim Patterson Melanie Phillips Ian Plimer Denis Rancourt Arthur B. Robinson Marco Rubio Burt Rutan Pat Sajak Murry Salby Nicola Scafetta Harrison Schmitt Tom Segalstad Nir Shaviv Fred Singer Willie Soon Roy Spencer (scientist) Bret Stephens Peter Stilbs Philip Stott Henrik Svensmark George H. Taylor Hendrik Tennekes Anastasios Tsonis Fritz Vahrenholt Jan Veizer Anthony Watts (blogger). I will place appropriate notices on the talk pages. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCAT, I think it is a really bad idea to have a category called "Climate change deniers" into which we put living people. Many of the listed people have been described as climate change deniers, often by reliable sources, so there may be some justice to applying the term—but in that case, the justification and sourcing for the term needs to be described with appropriate attribution and nuance in the body of the relevant articles. Categories, by their nature, are devoid of nuance, and so I don't think this is an appropriate use of categorization. MastCell Talk 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree that a category based on a labeled term ("denier") for BLP is very very iffy. If we even should keep the category, it should be at something like "Climate change theory opponents" but that's even if we should keep the category. A list where we would be able to include inline sourcing where the individuals have self-stated opposition to climate change would be at least reasonable to avoid a question of unsourced contentious claims. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This is analogous to religious views. If someone claims to be a climate change denier, he or she will be offended if this isn’t included provided a RS supports it. I edit Godfrey Bloom whose views are unequivocal. JRPG (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the concerns about this. Categories are blunt tools and the term "denier", while found in sources, is clearly pejorative and judgmental, regardless of the science and even if many both here and in the real world might think it fair. N-HH talk/edits 18:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
[EC] Fully agree with N-HH. Many extremely pejorative terms are found in sources that oppose those views. This phrase should only be used for BLPs of people who self-identify as "climate change denier". It is also imprecise, lumping together a blogger who thinks that the climate isn't changing and that all the scientists are liars with a respected climate scientist who agrees with the majority scientific view regarding climate change, including the most controversial part (the claim that all or nearly all climate change is the result of human activity) but doubts that proposed solutions that only involve a few countries and exclude China, India, etc. will solve the problem. Those are two completely different categories of people and should no be lumped together. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
As RevelationDirect said, maybe we could use a more neutral name like Category:People rejecting anthropogenic climate change. Prhartcom (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The parent category is named Category:Climate change skepticism and denial which is a little wordy but seems inclusive. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Masem that this probably shouldn't be a category (under any name). --JBL (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell's argument here; while I think they're clearly outside the scientific mainstream, the category name is needlessly pejorative. Prhartcom's suggestion strikes me as sensible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Please also have the courtesy to alert each editor involved in the October discussion. — TPX 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I hope it's redundant since notifications have been made on all the talk pages now, but I hereby alert Youknowwhatimsayin 烏Γ Marcocapelle RevelationDirect Prhartcom Jerod Lycett Peterkingiron Nederlandse Leeuw Ssscienccce Cirt and the closing administrator Good Ol’factory. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This notification, at least for me, was in no way redundant; I had no way of knowing this discussion existed. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles were already in the category Climate change skeptics, which was renamed to deniers. Frankly, I think that the inclusion of most of those people in the original category was not controversial. What is controversial is the new category name, which sounds pejorative. I don't see this is a BLP issue. I didn't participate (or even know about) the original discussion. But to the extent that the new category name is pejorative, I'd certainly vote to revert to the skeptic category name. M.boli (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Skeptics" is just as bad as "deniers", even when knowing how the term is normally used in that field. Out of context, it implies "their opinion is wrong", and unless they self-identify as that, that's a label that runs afoul of BLP even if if the claim is made by a reliable source. And that's where we need the strength of inline sourcing to justify when such a label can be used. Hence why any type of category to group these people seems wrong and it is much better to use a list here which can be sourced and better maintained to avoid BLP problems. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We represent how the reliable sources represent. And basically all the reliable sources that discuss the people who oppose the science that mankind is changing climate are "deniers" . That positions they hold and espouse may reflect badly upon them is not a BLP issue.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
It has already been skeptics and before that it was deniers. We have been going back and forth between those two with many discussions along the way. If we're going to change it, change it to anything but either of those two. See other suggested names above. Prhartcom (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It's worth pointing out that there's a difference between skeptic and denier. Skeptic accurately relates that someone doesn't believe it. Denier implies that climate change theories are proven and that they won't accept it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • People who deny climate change probably do not see the term "denier" as pejorative. See, e.g., Category:Holocaust deniers. The category definition may be incomplete if they only deny human-induced climate change. A new CFD can be started if needed to adjust either "denier" or the scope. But there is no BLP crisis requiring immediate response.--Milowenthasspoken 18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of climate category might be okay, but it's very difficult. If someone denies that the US can unilaterally take action to stop climate change, does that make them a "denier"? If they deny that climate change would be a totally bad thing, without any silver lining, does that make them a denier? If they acknowledge climate change but attribute 51% of it to non-human causes, are they a "denier"? Maybe a better category would be "people with a position on climate change".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Milowent -deniers are proud of their claims though wp:FLAT applies to those believing that CO2 doesn't cause it. JRPG (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Note that the current list includes Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change, and Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Categorising those two as "climate change deniers" is madness. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I favor either of the paths suggested by MastCell and Anythingyouwant: delete the category per WP:BLPCAT, or expand the category to Category:People with public views on climate change or similar. alanyst 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    • having a public view on climate change is not notable or distinguishing. Denying the overwhelming scientific consensus about human induced climate change is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
      • What consensus exactly? Th UN report on climate change? Some kind of academic work? Something else? And to what extent does one have to 'deny' the 'overwhelming scientific consensus' to be included? What if one thinks the UN report on climate change is too optimistic? Are they a 'denier' too? Bonewah (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Mr. Doom, sure it's distinguishing. It distinguishes people who have a public position from those who don't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
      • TRPoD, notability of a person's public views on climate change is up to the sources, and should not depend on our notion of how valid those views are. Whether a person has expressed public views on the subject is a rather objective question, much more suited to the binary nature of WP categorization than the nuances of the nature of those views. alanyst 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, categorizing people, living or dead, is the first step in creating a stereotype, which has been used for centuries as a divisive technique, from the Christians who were accused of burning Rome to the modern war on drugs, in essence to find support for a cause by finding someone to rally the masses against. Categories of things like athletic achievements, professions, or Nobel Prize winners are fine, but I personally am opposed to any categorization of things like race, religion or personal beliefs, because Wikipedia should not be participating in the stereotyping of individuals. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Although I disagree strongly with this category name, if someone is known largely as a critic/skeptic/doubter/denier/revisionist/debunker of climate change, I see nothing wrong with categorizing them as such. It makes it easier for readers to find other, similar articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure McCarthy didn't see anything wrong with his actions either, and that was the real problem with McCarthyism. This is no different. The real problem is not seeing how our actions affect others until it is too late. If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, would you be in favor of a category of "Communist sympathizers?" The world is simply not as "black and white" as categorizations, which is exactly what makes them useful tools. It's much easier to rally people against a "perceived evil" than it is a spectrum of individuals. The Romans did it, as did the Nazis, the Americans, the English, and everyone else since the beginning of recorded history. George Bush Jr. had it handed in his lap, but like an idiot chose to take the fight to an enemy that the people were not even considering. As an encyclopedia, we're expected to do better than the politically-controlled news outlets we use as sources. Zaereth (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Godwin's law @Zaereth: If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, the term would probably be "Fellow Travelers" rather than "Communist Sympathizers" but, under either name, it should be deleted per WP:OCASSOC. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I share the concern expressed above that the current name for the category is potentially misleading. Many public officials who are currently included in the category have indicated that they believe in climate change, but doubt the significance of human activity as a factor. I think it's misleading to say that they are "climate change deniers".CFredkin (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • And what are they "denying"? That change is occurring or that it's a man made problem and not a natural cycle? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've never been a fan of the word "denier" as a label; I prefer describing instead of labeling: "...advocates for climate change denial", "...who denies climate change", "...rejects the scientific consensus on...", etc. However, that's just a personal preference. Our sources are extremely clear on these articles that the subject denies climate change. Our sources are also very clear that the term "skeptic" is incorrect, and intentionally misleading. I'm frustrated that Pete is forum shopping; this discussion has been had many times, twice now at CfD, so Pete is trying somewhere new to get a different result. Nearly everything he's said in his first post here is untrue to some degree. If anyone wants the cat renamed, we can have that conversation (that's why WP:CfD exists), but please look into the sourcing and the BLPs first. Try Anthony Watts (blogger) for an example, and investigate the talk page and sources. As our sources there indicate clearly, "skeptic" is absolutely not the right word.   — Jess· Δ 19:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • CFD Notification Procedure "Number of notices on the BLP talk pages: zero." The current procedure for notifying other editors of category nominations is to tag the nomination category page which does two things: 1) it brings the page to the notice of anyone who is "watching" that page and 2) it places an alert on any WikiProject that is on the talk page. There are limitations to both: many long-term editors are watching so many pages they may miss the tag (that's why I always tag the category creator with a notice as an extra courtesy) and categories are much more likely to not have WikiProjects on the talk page.
When this category was nominated, the Skepticism and Environmental WikiProjects had tagged the corresponding talk page so they were automatically notified here and here. If the WikiProject Biography had tagged the category talk page, the alert would have shown up here.
As much as I disagree with the outcome of this particular nomination, as someone who routinely nominates other catgories, I don't think it's fair to claim the nomination was out of order when the process was followed. Rather I think it's worth emphasizing the importance of tagging category talk pages and watching the alerts pages. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree with Jess that this is forum shopping. There was consensus for the new name; two days later, another CfD was opened and is largely being opposed. My participation in this collective discussion has been unintentionally contentious, and while I would prefer a more neutral name if possible, we can't ignore the sources. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if it's intentional forum shopping (the concerns here were BLP focused) but it is the wrong forum. (And, as an opponent of "denier" my viewpoint would benefit from moving it to this forum.)RevelationDirect (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Skip the whole category. "Denier" is obviously a BLP violation; as it implies that there is something wrong with scientists who hold a minority view; as opposed to seeing them as a natural part of a scientific discourse. That's basically an anti-science view as dissenting views and open debate are important in all science. But "climate change sceptics" is also misleading; since in most cases the issue for debate is human impact on climate change more than the existence of the change that are up for debate (they may also doubt the prognosis for further cliamate change and/or the negative effects of such changes). All in all, this is too complicated to get correct in a short category; the list category is called "Scientists opposed to the mainstream view on climate change" or something similar. Iselilja (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There are more than two options: doubters, critics, or "skeptics and deniers" would all be a middle ground. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Forum I strongly agree with the sensitivity shown in this conversation toward categorizing people as "deniers" when they would likely reject that label and think we should find a middle ground between skeptics and deniers. At the same time, the frequent viewpoint in the CFD nominations that this group of people is objectively wrong (they are) so we should apply this unwanted label seemed inappropriate to me. Nonetheless, this is the wrong forum.
Category nominations need to occur in the CFD pages where they are centrally located. As much trouble as interested editors here had finding the official category discussion, it would be even more unlikely for editors to find an unofficial category discussion on this page. There is an open nomination to reverse the name back to to skeptics here and that is the correct forum for input (pro/con or other). RevelationDirect (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reconsider change Many of the "deniers" do not deny the existence of climate change, but only challenge the cause. The previous label, "skeptic", captured this, while calling this group "deniers" does not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
That was my reason for supporting the name change: edit: I had a similar but different reason: Helps more clearly distinguish between skeptics and those who think change is beneficial. People in the latter group should not be in the category of course Ssscienccce (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC) edit: 20:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wrong forum here. CFD is the right forum for these discussions, see link offered by RevelationDirect below. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Those who hold a position here because of what they "know to be the truth" are precisely analogous to those who favour or oppose any "truth" in the first place. Rather, we should divorce this from what we "know" or "believe" or "believe we know" and stick strictly to the precept that people should not be categorized for their beliefs except on the basis of categories they place themselves in by stating their own self-categorization.

Else we are as bad as any who have labeled folks on the basis of beliefs as "heretics" or "witches" or any other category susceptible of "guilt by association" tactics. I, for one, have always opposed "guilt by association" arguments on Wikipedia and in real life, and if I be the only one left in the world holding that personal belief, if I be the only one in the world in my self-identification in the category of "do not classify people because they differ from you in religion or any other belief at all" then I proudly assert my position in that category. Collect (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete category Since this is a BLP issue and WP:BLPCAT disfavors this sort of "known sinners" category for living people, the category should be deleted immediately pending some consensus on whether any category name change would pass muster.--agr (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note The CfR was not properly noted on the article pages affected at all. The discussion had far fewer participants than the current discussion. Further such comments as
"But climate change deniers are not engaging in scientific skepticism, but rather political rhetoric and ideology"' ,
" I'm saying this for NPOV, even though I personally agree they should be ridiculed.",
"Valid science is not a "Point of view." It isn't controversial among anyone with any scholarship in the subject matter. We don't have to pretend there is a real controversy because there are a small number of fanatics out there who cry "controversy." We don't treat the flat-Earthers that way either"
appear on their face to say that the change was designed to make a statement in Wikipedia's voice about everyone in the category whether or not we can provide reliable sources that the persons affected are 'deniers' . As such, the "rename" was seeking to make a point which could not be properly made about each living person affected, thus should be considered improper from the start.
In fact, the reasons explicitly given for the rename in the discussion before were and remain violative of WP:BLP, violative ofWP:RS, violative of WP:NPOV and of common decency about categorization of living persons. Wikipedia should never be used as a weapon to show how wrong anyone is, how evil they are, or how much they oppose truth - our task is to make an encyclopedia which will pass the "laugh test" in another century. Collect (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Correct Procedure @Collect: I certainly agree that the current category name is inappropriate and was one of the few editors to oppose the original nomination. Proceduraly, the CfR was fine though and the appropriate tag can be seen here. The good news, is that there is an open nomination to reverse the use of "deniers". RevelationDirect (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I would note that there were actually only a few supporters of the use of "deniers" (some of whom sought the name of a category as a means of publically shaming those placed in that category for the express purpose of "ridicule." IMHO, those !votes were a red flag to anyone closing the discussion that there were major problems with use of any category anywhere on Wikipedia for such a purpose. Collect (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
AusLondonder put these additional 26 BLPs in the category "Climate Change Deniers": Cory Bernardi Tracy Byrnes Ben Carson George Christensen (politician) Derek Clark Ted Cruz Bob Day Steve Fielding Bernie Finn Nathan Gill Nick Griffin Roger Helmer Dennis Jensen Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) Alan Keyes Nigel Lawson Jean-Marie Le Pen Peter Lilley Ian Macdonald (Australian politician) John Madigan (Australian politician) Deroy Murdock Paul Nuttall Benny Peiser Peter Phelps (politician) Chris Smith (broadcaster) Roger Wicker Brian Wilshire. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
And your point is, User:Peter Gulutzan? AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I said in my initial post what my claim is. You decided to intervene, and your edits have similarities, so I showed them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I support User:MastCell and others here that per WP:BLPCAT it is a really bad idea to have a category called "Climate change deniers" into which we put living people. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
This is not a deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary. This is the BLP Noticeboard and our WP:BLP policy clearly states "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." A bot insertion of a "sinners" category on over a hundred bios of living persons cannot possibly be verified as properly sourced so this category should be deleted immediately.--agr (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there is a scientific consensus that the quickest and most effective way to stop exacerbating climate change would be to rapidly switch over to nuclear power. Can we have a category for people who deny that? I would support such a category if we wish to have categories like "climate change denier" that are designed to give BLP subjects a poor reputation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mastcell and many others. (If this turns out to be the wrong venue to argue for deletion interpret my position and being in favor of removing every entry from the cat. If some actually belong, add them following a discussion. Maybe there are some, but most in the cat do not belong.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete All. Obvious attempt to demonize people with unpopular viewpoints is obvious. If any are legit, they can be re-added after the mass deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not a deletion discussion. That takes place at WP:CFD. The astounding incompetence of some editors is deeply worrying. The cat corresponds to the article Climate change denial. The cat corresponds to independent, reliable sources. The matter should not have been brought here. The appropriate place is CFD. Could someone address why we can have these cats, if Climate change deniers is not allowed?
  • Category:Holocaust deniers
  • Category:Armenian Genocide deniers
  • Category:Nanking Massacre deniers
  • Category:Rwandan Genocide deniers
  • Category:Japanese war crime deniers

Sadly, Wikipedia is turning its back on scientific source in favour of becoming a poor imitation of Conservapedia. Far-right politicians and their conspiracy theories are being given undue weight, fringe theories being promoted. AusLondonder (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hardly a NPOV approach: I don't see how Patrick Moore (environmentalist) could be considered a far-right anything, for one. Indeed, it seems like the whole point is to obfuscate any distinction among anyone who in any way or on any basis questions the political orthodoxy on this. Going through the scientists subcat I see people who merely question the certainty of the science, people who question the politics driving the scientific research, climatologists and meteorologists who don't agree with the science in their own field, and engineers and the like whose authority for expressing an opinion is at best doubtful. What it really looks like to me is a politically-motivated attempt to label them all as kooks. The comparison to long-settled matters of historical record is inapt. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Request for more admin input I'm asking -- not due to their authority but because I guess they've experienced the rules a bit more -- the four administrators who've been involved in this: MastCell, Masem, S Philbrick, agr. What do you think are the appropriate next steps so that we can come to a speedy resolution? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I thought I had the perfect solution. After watching the intense feelings expressed on this issue, not just here but carried out on the talk pages of articles such as Climate change denial, I did some thinking about the theory of categorization, helped by the article Categorization, and realized we were trying to solve the wrong problem. Roughly speaking, we were trying to debate the best term to be applied to a group of people, with some wanting to call the collection "deniers", others wanting "skeptics", and others suggesting alternatives. However, the problem isn't the identification of the correct word or phrase, the problem is that the collection isn't a proper category.
Categories ought to be "clearly defined, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive". That is generally true of most categories but fails miserably when it comes to this set of people. Note that while one aspect of the discussion is the word choice, and equally important part of the discussion is which people belong in the category even given one of the several word choices. That ought to be a big red flag. Imagine, for a second, that some outside force simply degrees that the category name will be "deniers", or "skeptics", or "deniers and skeptics". With the debate be over? Only the narrow debate about the word and then the debate will be over whether person X belongs in the category.
This debate has carried over to the CfD discussion, but that discussion has a framing problem. It was presented as a discussion of whether Category:Climate change deniers should be renamed to Category:Climate change skeptics. While it is supposed to be a discussion, which allows all options and some have weighed in with a recommendation for removal, most of the participants are focused in on which of those two options is the best.
I thought I'd try cutting the Gordian knot and request that the category be deleted rather than argue over the right terminology. However, when I made this proposal here, it was procedurally closed, on the understandable argument that the discussion was already taking place. While understandable, I think it was flawed, as it missed the framing problem. It currently looks to me like some admin is going to have some god-awful challenge to close a discussion and choose one of the bad options. Once closed, I will try again to make the case that it ought to be deleted, but it should be nice if we could save the effort and delete it now. I think too many participants are entrenched in their own view, and see it as a tool to advance their position in the general global warming debate. Would be better off if we thought about it as a category not as a global warming tool and realize that it's not a proper category.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree on pretty much everything you say here. I've been trying to look at how similar issues have been treated in the past, and superficially there seems to be a lot of overlap with the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories. Is that right or am I missing something? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment (Non-Admin) @Sphilbrick: CfD discussions begin with a specific proposal (in this case rename) but the conversations often end with a different outcomes than the nomination. You'll see a lot of delete votes and alternative rename votes in that discussion. (If you haven't already, please do add your thoughts into that main CfD nomination.) In this case, I think the first third of the discussion was distracted not by the rename proposal but by procedural objections over reopening a recently closed discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Jurisdiction Who ultimately owns enforcement of WP:BLPCAT: the BLP side or the cat side? @Peter Gulutzan: and I were having a side conversation on his talk page about this. There's been accusations of WP:FORUMSHOP here but I really think this is a valid question. For now, I've started putting notices (below) for open category discussion with WP:BLPCAT implications to encourage more participation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
We didn't specifically discuss WP:BLPCAT on my talk page. I don't bother with WP:FORUMSHOP allegations because this isn't the proper forum. I thank Sphilbrick for replying; I realize that the other administrators may lack time. I'm thinking now that requesting a close could work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Climate change theory opponents or similar, per WP:NPOV. Yes, climate change is real, and yes, it's anthropogenic, and yes, it's a crisis and political action is desperately needed. But the current name of this category isn't helping any of that. -- The Anome (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
This is flawed, User:The Anome. Some issues do not require equal weight to all sides. Should Wikipedia take a neutral position on the Holocaust or whether the Earth is flat? AusLondonder (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not take a neutral position on climate change. Our article on Global warming reports what authoritative sources say on the topic without equivocation. In particular it says "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that global warming is being caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activities." However we have strict policy WP:BLP on biographical information that requires any contentious information be well sourced. "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." As the arguments over the name for the disputed category make clear, positions on climate change can be highly nuanced. I looked at a couple of the articles to which the category was originally added by bot and found Andrew Montford who's is quoted as saying "I believe that CO2, other things being equal, will make the planet warmer. The six million dollar question is how much warmer. I'm less of a sceptic than people think. My gut feeling is still sceptical but I don't believe it's beyond the realms of possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be correct. It's more the case that we don't know and I haven't seen anything credible to persuade me there's a problem." Does that make him a denier? Some might think so other might not. But the connection does not rise to the level required by WP:BLP. Categories are particularly problematic because there is no mechanism for adding a source to a category designation within an article. So our policy discourages label categories for living persons. The category was removed from Montford's article a few days ago, but who is going to check all 133 entries in the category and its sub categories on a regular basis?--agr (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I intend to go to WP:ANRFC and ask "Closure by admin requested for WP:BLPN discussion 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once", on Thursday November 12, unless other editors say more time is needed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: My only hope that this would be closed in tandem with the CFD discussion. I don't think two dueling close results would be constructive. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I have placed the request at WP:ANRFC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Cat per WP:BLP ("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.") Labeling people who think climate change is beneficial or who doubt that the US acting alone can reverse climate change while China and India increase CO2 production without limit as "climate change deniers" is a classic example of an unsourced negative claim in a BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Cat There is no agreed upon way to categorize this, and the claim that all the people here have the same views is just plain false. Some of these people disagree with the notion of man-made climate change because they dislike the political goals of those who argue for it, others are convinced the evidence is against it, others are convinced it attributes too much influence to humans and their actions and not enough to other sources of change, others are clearly ambivalent on the issue but unwilling to declare as proven fact based on the current evidence. This is a mass grouping. The fact that the other deniers categories brought up all dealt with past events that some dispute occured as opposed to future events that some dispute will happen, or argue will happen for reasons other than those posited, and that even those who agree that the general principal applies have multiple models of what will happen, just shows this is an unworkable category. It needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep category: if, as has been repeatedly asserted, multiple reliable sources call certain people "climate change deniers", there is nothing in WP:BLP that prevents those claims to be reflected by a category, as long as the references are in the respective bodies (that's how categories are meant to work). LjL (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I can create a list of equally "reliable" sources that call people "anti-life", "anti-choice", "gun grabbers", "gun nuts", "freedom fighters", "terrorists", "traditional marriage defenders", "Homophobes", etc. etc. Just because a bunch of people use a biased term that most members of a group say does not accurately describe them, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should not find a more NPOV category name. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a huge red flag for me about this cat or others like it, when it is being defined by reliable sources that are not the person in question. It basically allows for people to be slandered/libeled by WP by a term that could be taken by some as derogatory because an RS says so. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Cat per BLP. The only place we should be even be thinking of using the term is in articles whose subjects explicitly identify themselves as a "climate change denier", and even then, erecting a category on that basis implies the term has the same meaning in all cases, which it doesn't, given as said repeatedly above one might contest the vality of the data, but not the predictions, the predictions but not the data, the reality of the problem but not the efficacy of the proposed solutions, and so forth. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious and egregious violation of WP:BLPCAT. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep category It is not pejorative, no one is going to be rounding up deniers, or blacklisting them, as per the concerns of people wanting to remove the category. When FEMA starts rounding up deniers and putting them in detention camps after the 2016 election, we can remove the information to protect them. I will personally ensure that they receive the Red Cross packages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete cat - Describing an individual as a "Climate Change Denier" is a pejorative. Very few, if any, of these individuals would actually call themselves "Climate Change Deniers". Meatsgains (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete cat - It is too woolly. Many so-called "Climate Change Deniers" accept that climate change happens but have non-standard views about what causes it. Biscuittin (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Brahm[edit]

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

From a cursory reading of this over-long article it is clearly mostly written by the subject and/or groomed by him to remove any criticism. The article's main named contributor is "LBwikiacct", a user who has only edited this page, and a few other accounts (Shambhalahouse, AfricanConsensus) who also seem likely to be aliases of the subject. Their purpose is only to promote Brahm's image and career. (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Heavily SPS material or as close thereto as possible. About 99.44% pure. 4 NYT mentions total - once as "former lawyer", once as "businessman", once as "entrepreneur" and once as one "who has written several books." In 2006, he was starting a high-end hotel in Tibet for Chinese tourists. Sorry - I rather think his "notability" is gauze. Collect (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
If the list of books is accurate (sources should be easy to find), he is notable as an author. Samsara 17:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well - he specifies that what he calls "economics" "is not about theory" which makes him a strange character, indeed.[1] Many are produced by "NAGA Publishing" in Hong Kong. Almost every work printed by that publisher is by one author - Brahm.[2]. There is a chance than most of his listed works are, alas, simply self-published. "Longman" refers to an imprint ("Longman Group (Far East)" of "Longman Schools" in China (mainly Shanghai). "The China Forex Guide" appears to be simply a compilation of Chinese rules. The "Butterworths" imprint is actually "Butterworths Asia." and so on. The "John Wiley" is actually "Wiley Eastern" in India, and not the parent publisher implied. Its current name is "New Age International (P) Limited" which means it is odd to use a respected name for a publisher which no longer can use that name. In fact, the only scholarly book is the Palgrave one, that I can verify. At least seven on the list are essentially self-published, Several are simply paeans to the current Chinese government. One is a simple compilation of rules. "Reed" is "Reed Academic Publishing Asia" (Singapoer) which seems to have issued seven titles in WorldCat.[3]. Sorry -- the imposing list looks far from imposing once one verifies who published what. Collect (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes his notability is marginal. Have any of his books been reviewed?Martinlc (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I found one review - which basically said Brahm was discordant with everyone else <g>. For reviews in notable locations - such are absent, and I suspect many major publications do not use Chinese imprints with "famous names" as usual books to review seriously. And essentially no mentions in NYT etc. as being an expert on anything specific at all.

Jesse Petrilla[edit]

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

Can editors please look at this article and see if further changes are necessary? On one hand we have an IP editor committing BLP violations and on the other we very likely have COI editing. I've removed the obvious BLP violations but haven't reverted to Martel10732's version as that also has issues. --NeilN talk to me 01:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I made a few edits to the page to improve quality. The remaining content is well sourced and notable. Meatsgains (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I added some more information pertaining to the gun charges, it was missing the fact the charges were dismissed after the probation was completed. Also removed the claim it was gang related since that was a unsourced campaign rumor. If someone can please take a look at the way that section is worded and make sure it appears neutral. Thanks. Martel10732 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Jahquel Goss[edit]

Jahquel "Jah" Goss (born May 6, 1999) is an American basketball player who is currently attending high school at the Eveyln Mack Academy in Charlotte, North Carolina. Jahquel previously attended Mott Haven Campus in Bronx, New York. Goss is a five-star recruit and is generally seen as top 10 best overall recruit in the 2018 Class by most basketball recruiting services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyc Top100 Players (talkcontribs) 02:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the article you wish to discuss? Gamaliel (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't seem to find the article for the individual you are talking about. Meatsgains (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

List of plagiarism incidents[edit]

WP:BLP viewers might like to cast an eye on List of plagiarism incidents. There are signs of political COI there. My view is that only plagiarism established by authoritative (WP:RS) sources should be allowed. Unestablished allegations should not be permitted. Some editors claim that other Wikis are valid sources for a BLP. I disagree. Other editors may like to consider. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC).

We should not permit unsubstantiated allegations against other editors either. Please confine your remarks to article content. Other wikis should not be used as sources, but I don't see where anyone is advocating that. Gamaliel (talk)
Several of the sections in that list were a tad "free" in what they considered pertinent information about the specific living person listed. Collect (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, this article looks like it will be a perpetual nuisance and probably shouldn't exist. Aside from the potential for BLP issues, its scope is just too broad. A search for 'plagiarism' on any news website will return hundreds or thousands of hits, many of which involve individuals who clear the 'notability' threshold on Wikipedia. (And you'll see a steady stream of plagiarism-related retractions and corrections when you watch Retraction Watch.) A 'complete' listing would run to at least hundreds and probably thousands of entries. All you're going to get is what we're seeing now—a random hodgepodge of mostly-politically-motivated additions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: An Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of plagiarism incidents has been opened on this topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC).

Gregory Baum page[edit]

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

I deleted the first paragraph of the page on Canadian theologian, Gregory Baum (Edited March 2014). It was libelous. Baum has never been excommunicated from the Catholic Church. He did not divorce Shirley Flynn (she died as his wife several years ago). Every couple of years this libelous, inaccurate, and insulting material is added to this page either by Monseigneur Foy, or his friends. These allegations need to be substantiated--which they cannot be since they are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstnobletruth (talkcontribs) 17:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've given this page an additional clean up. It appears much of the unsourced contentious material was added within the last week. I have warned the contributing IP editor. What the article would benefit from is more sourced material on his life, as it is a bit light on them presently. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Prashant Kishor[edit]

Wikipedia page of Prashant Kishor shows wrong data. He never worked for WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (WHO). He was born in 1977.

Currently 2 authors are trying to edit the content:

  1. indopug
  2. Paroma Bhat

indopug is a regular editor in wiki and uses newspaper articles as reference for his content; whereas Paroma Bhat works with Prashant Kishor and can provide valid proof for the content.

Number of changes version reversions has increased more than 3 times. Can you please help in providing a solution for this?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasank86 (talkcontribs) 19:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sasank86: Other editors are acting properly when using newspaper articles for references. The rules of Wikipedia state that article content must be sources to reliable sources like newspapers and must be verifiable, meaning they can be confirmed by other editors and readers. Secondhand comments from people who may or may not know the subject of the article cannot be verified and we have no way of knowing if those people actually know Prashant Kishor. Kishor's work with the WHO is cited to this newspaper article, so it seems that fact is appropriately cited and included. There is no citation for the birthdate, so I have removed it from the article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
That seems like the right move. As for the WHO affiliation, I am not sure how User:Paroma Bhat can prove a negative (i.e. that the subject didn't work at the WHO).TheBlueCanoe 20:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ketan Ramanlal Bulsara[edit]

Ketan Ramanlal Bulsara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please take a look at this, including the edit history. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you give us a hint? --Malerooster (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I did a slight copy edit and removed some unsourced material. Not much of a bio now. --Malerooster (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
After I made some minor edits to the page, I realized the subject isn't notable so I PROD'd the page. Meatsgains (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
In regard to whether it appears to be notable, or whether it appears to be unduly promotional? SageRad (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, looking at the edit history, i see the article has been highly contested. How can this be handled? Can we ask editors to declare any COI with the article's subject? SageRad (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The PROD didn't work. I put it up for AFD. I found out today it was previously deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sabrina Erdely[edit]

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

Can someone clean up this article fast, it's filled to the brim with trash. I'd do it myself but I have to go somewhere ASAP. Brustopher (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to correct obvious issues, but may need additional eyes. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Brian Bonner (linebacker)[edit]

Brian Bonner (linebacker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article should fail PROC:BLP, but was created before cutoff date and has a couple awful parenthetical citations. I think the article meets WP:ATHLETE, so I did not consider it for deletion. There are stale cleanup tags from 2012. Anyone interested in improving this article? Delta13C (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Stoya and James Deen[edit]

Today, Stoya accused her former boyfriend, Deen, of raping her on her twitter. Multiple users added the accusation to their respective articles citing only to the tweet which led to reversions and semi-page protections. Another user cited to a post from Buzzfeed [4] which I did not feel was adequate for such a serious allegation. Please keep an eye out on the respective articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Google news now has five hits, including the Daily Mail (which, I gather is contentious, but still more of a news source than a blog or a tweet). It is highly likely that more news sources will follow in reporting this. We ought to be careful to avoid being on the side of dismissing a serious allegation, which could be read as disbelieving the accuser. Pandeist (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Both articles should be deleted. Wikipedia is WP:Notnews and in particular not the National Enquirer. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC).
@Xxanthippe: one of the silliest things I've ever read on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 16:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, thousands of porn actors and actresses have articles in WP, for whatever reasons, so the articles are unlikely to be deleted. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Cwobeel: Why "unfortunately"? Are porn actors/actresses in your view somehow less human? Do you think sex is filthy and those who are compensated for doing it artistically ought to be shunned and swept under some societal rug? Pandeist (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As predicted, coverage continues growing -- and now it is reported in New York Magazine -- which is additionally reporting that The Frisky is ending Deen's sex advice column due to the accusation, a real-world consequence. Is that addition not sourcing enough? Pandeist (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC) And now reported in Cosmopolitan as well. Pandeist (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

use of a mug shot as the primary image in the info box[edit]

Please join the discussion about the appropriateness of utilizing a mug shot as the primary identification image at : Talk:Kent_Hovind#Mug_shot_redux -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Michael Nouri[edit]

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

Article states that Nouri was born in 1945, yet later says he enlisted in the military in 1942. It should be rewritten to clarify what parts are describing his father, and which parts can be attributed to him.

Andrew Wilkinson (Canadian politician)[edit]

Andrew Wilkinson (Canadian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user whose name is User:Penzerandrew, and thus has a possible but not confirmed WP:COI, has been persistently editing Andrew Wilkinson (Canadian politician) in recent weeks to bury any acknowledgement whatsoever of a reported controversy. This has also included the deliberate borking of reference templates to any media coverage of that controversy which remained in the article after the controversy itself was scrubbed — for example, their most recent edit stripped any portion of the "cite news" template from reference #4 that would actually have identified the specific news article being cited (the problem being that the article's title directly makes reference to the controversy), while leaving the remainder in place as an unlinked and untitled reference that was now formatted as a nonexistent "cite ork" template instead. But breaking reference templates is obviously not appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia regardless of the includability or excludability of the controversy itself.

I've placed temporary protection on the article twice now (semi wasn't suitable, as the editor has already surpassed autoconfirmed), but obviously don't want to indef it if I don't absolutely have to — but the user's persistence suggests that the content in question should be reviewed for WP:BLP compliance nonetheless and/or that the user should be blocked for vandalism if necessary. So I wanted to ask if somebody who hasn't already been involved with the matter could review whether it belongs there or not. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

We try to avoid having "Controversies" sections in biographies altogether, particularly for politicians. There's only one source for the issue and given the brevity of the biography, I think it should, at the very least, be trimmed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
In addition, the wording of the section makes claims that aren't supported by the source — there is no "criticism" referenced in the source article, only factual mention of the relationship. I would reword the paragraph to the following, and get rid of the "Controversies" subheading: During Wilkinson's campaign, news media raised questions about his prior work with Sun Wave Forest Products and Chinese businessman Ni Ritao, who was involved in a failed deal to restart a pulp mill in Prince Rupert.' NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. To be honest, my own first inclination was that it seems like a pretty minor and insignificant "controversy", which might not be particularly noteworthy or encyclopedic even with sourcing — but I just wanted a second opinion on it because it's Wikipedia policy, not the subject's own self-interested personal image management wishes, that determine whether it should be there or not. For the moment, however, I've just stripped it out instead of rewording it, and will raise any ongoing discussion about it on the talk page. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree - the proper place to raise these issues is on noticeboards such as this one, rather than creating the obvious COI issues you mention. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Chu attacked[edit]

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

See this discussiom for a series of attack on Arthur Chu. Please retract those negative attacks against him. (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mike Turzai[edit]

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

The Wikipedia article devoted to Mike Terzai seems strongly biased. It has a distinctly glorified and propagandistic tone. There have only been a few editors to this page, and I presume those who would take the time to write it are the same people who take an interest in (and support) this politician, although whether or not they are affiliated with the subject of the article, I cannot say. Nevertheless, there is a strikingly uncommon use of adjectives describing the candidate and his actions. As with any article about a sitting politician, there is bound to be some subjectivity, but this is to be minimized. In this case, there would seem outright bias. At the least, there should be a disclaimer before this article and a suggestion for further editing.

The article is a mess with inline links and over-promotional tone. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Holmes[edit]

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

BLP violations galore, as well as WP:PEACOCK. Additional eyes would be welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nicole Moore[edit]

Two issue with this bio: the first is whether the subject, a victim of a shark attack, is notable for this incident alone--if not, AfD seems like an appropriate process. The second is that the article here appears to have been created by the author of a new book on Ms. Moore, so WP:COI is an obvious concern. Further scrutiny welcome. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Obvious case of WP:BLP1E - AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Moore - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Peyton Manning[edit]

This article needs a major review ASAP because it is on the front page of reddit. In particular the concern is over sexual assualt section. Much of that section relies on a single source called The Inquisitr and that name alone should make one wary. The following text needs scrutinizing: it is alleged that Manning, while being examined by a female trainer, pulled down his shorts and sat on the trainer's face. He proceeded to rub his rectum and testicles on the woman's face until she was able to free herself from him. I'd investigate this claim myself, but I don't have the time. This is a highly viewed article at the moment and it would be terrible for a BLP subject to be smeared because the article might use poor sourcing.Which Hazel? (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Robin Spencer[edit]

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

Limhey and I have been having a dispute about a section in the Robin Spencer article concerning his role as a prosecutor in the Sally Clark case. This is how the section looked before I removed much of it on BLP grounds.[5] I took the view that the section was non-neutral and unduly long, and appeared to be an attempt to made Spencer look bad. Limhey disagreed.

My specific concerns included:

  • It used non-neutral language such as "cruelly", "zealously" and "disingenuous" - and they were being stated in Wikipedia's voice, not just attributed to a particular source.
  • It relied heavily on non-neutral sources that I did not regard as good enough for contentious matters on a BLP, for instance a book by John Batt, a member of Clark's defence team and a campaigner on her behalf.
  • Whether others involved in the case were found to have committed professional misconduct was not relevant to Spencer's article. The only point of that paragraph appeared to be to suggest that, unlike them, Spencer wrongly "got off" from the misconduct charges against him - i.e. to promote a particular POV.
  • Spending a paragraph on the case's effects on Clark and her death was disproportionate, given that the focus in this article should be on Spencer's role in the case.

In response to Limhey's suggestion that I was trying to "sanitise" the article, I noted that some of the material I removed could perhaps be included if rewritten in a neutral and concise manner, but that I did not attempt to do so because I did not have access to the necessary sources. I also stated that I was open to the inclusion of other relevant material, such as details about the particular misconduct charges that were filed against Spencer.

I suggested we take the matter here for some more opinions, and I would be grateful for comments. Neljack (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris Christian[edit]

This is from a COI editing problem reported at WP:COIN#FFBFFB.

Chris Christian seems to have problems. It claims he's won several Grammy awards, yet I can't find them in the official Grammy database.[6]. Citations at both Chris Christian and Home Sweet Home Records are very weak. Google searches are not bringing up reliable third party sources. A Grammy-winning musician should have more press visibility than this. Am I missing something, or is something badly wrong with these articles? Help requested from someone who does music articles. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Marc Randazza[edit]

The article on Marc Randazza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could do with some scrutiny. It seems real-world arbitration is spilling over on Wikipedia. Uninvolved editors would be welcome to make sure we neutrally summarize what reliable sources report. See also Talk:Marc Randazza#BLP Violation and SPA. Huon (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Rodrigo Constantino[edit]

This page goes in-depth into the views of a political pundit who is a fringe figure at best. Within the body of the article are summarized three editorial pieces Rodrigo Constantino has written. This is not relevant or notable. This page is being used to flaunt the political views of some contributors. No other political pundit has large excerpts of his own writing on controversial topics and nothing else. I request this page be reduced to a stub and his views be summarized in one paragraph at most.