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:

Centralized discussion

Alan Grayson[edit]

The page for Alan Grayson has had a slow-moving WP:BLP revert war going over the last six months stemming from allegations of domestic abuse involving retiring congressman Alan Grayson of Florida. A section detailing the allegations has been introduced several times, in different forms in recent months, reverted every (or at least nearly every) time by Xenophrenic, citing WP:BLP concerns that including the allegations at all violates the policy. There has been very little discussion in Talk, unfortunately, discussing the pros and cons of this issue.

So rather than re-write the section for which there's an active WP:BLP dispute (some of the reverted sections could have been written slightly more neutrally and with less reliance on single sources), I figure I'd seek consensus here first on whether including the domestic abuse allegations concerning Rep. Grayson is a violation of WP:BLP in and of themselves (I'm in the 'not a violation' camp myself, obviously).

WP:WELLKNOWN clearly outlines the standards for allegations for a public figure, which Rep. Grayson certainly is, which explicitly state that for public figures, "if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article." In this case, we have many robust sources for the allegations and their newsworthiness.

First, reporting on the news itself and additional stories stemming from the allegations (including allegations of Rep. Grayson shoving and threatening a reporter asking him about the allegations)

Orlando Sentinel: U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson accused of domestic abuse Washington Post: The Fix Alan Grayson said he never hit his wife. Then he got physical with a reporter Politico: Grayson's ex-wife claimed domestic abuse over two decades Tampa Bay Times: Alan Grayson pushes back on domestic abuse allegations Tampa Bay Times: Murphy refuses to debate Grayson Think Progress: Alan Grayson’s Response To His Wife’s Accusations Of Domestic Abuse Follows A Familiar Playbook Washington Times: Four staffers quit Alan Grayson’s Senate campaign amid domestic abuse allegations

This is just a small cross-section of sourcing for the allegations involving Grayson, from different sources, from different parts of the political spectrum. And this cross-section covers the gamut of angles on it, from the reporting of the allegations to related newsworthy consequences stemming from the allegations, to, in the case of the Think Progress piece, framing the Grayson allegations in the context of the larger societal issue of domestic abuse. (Note that I'm not suggesting the TP piece be included as it's more editorial, but I'm just using it as a demonstration of the newsworthiness of these allegations concerning a public figure under WP:WELLKNOWN.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a mistake to believe that including material of this sort is a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It's also a mistake to believe that Xenophrenic believes that including encyclopedic content on the matter is a BLP violation. The reverts mentioned above, however, were of BLP violations. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
And yet you've made no effort here to explain your view. So the mere assertions aren't going to do much. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
My view on what, exactly? You likely know that I am not one to shy away from explanation - at length - regarding any matter, but I have no idea what you are asking here. Could you be more specific, Nomoskedasticity? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Let me try to clarify. Why is this a BLP violation? Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
"This"? Could you possibly be less specific? I doubt it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's see. Can you wax eloquent about the dimension of the edits you've reverted (here and here) that you feel is a BLP violation? Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
"Waxing eloquent" isn't really one of my strong points (well, not the "eloquent" part, anyway). I think the edit summaries, and the explanation given on the Talk page when those edits were made, say everything necessary about those problematic edits I reverted. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A few observations and corrections about CoffeeCrumbs' original post: There's been no "revert war going over the last six months". There was an attempt to re-add part of the allegation stuff at the end of July and again in October, during election season - and I removed them both times. If Grayson runs for office again in another 2 or 4 years, I'm sure part of those allegations will reappear yet again. Contrary to being a "six month" old issue, this dates back to at least early March 2014. Contrary to the problematic content being removed every time by Xenophrenic, it has also been removed by GeneralIzation, Solarra, Discospinster, FormerIP, AzureCitizen, et al. Contrary to Xenophrenic asserting that "including the allegations at all violates the policy", as CoffeeCrumbs claims, Xenophrenic actually said we can "consider adding an encyclopedic and NPOV entry in this article - and certainly not just one side of the allegation-fest, as was already recently attempted." (See article Talk page.) I've never argued that Alan Grayson is not a WP:WELLKNOWN public figure, but Lolita Grayson and their children, however, certainly are not. If this sensationalistic material is added at all to this BLP, it will be in a complete (instead of one-sided) manner, and that means it will be almost entirely about his ex-wife and their kids, her sorded history of allegations against them, etc. This kind of content strikes me as more suitable for the National Enquirer instead of Wikipedia. If CoffeeCrumbs decides to pursue the addition of content of this nature, my first question will be: What encyclopedic content are you hoping to convey to our readers about these living people? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the content in question: "Lolita Grayson claims that Congressman Grayson physically abused her extending over twenty years, a claim he forcefully disputes." Why do you want that omitted from the article? Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect. That is not the content in question. See Talk page. Thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean in Archives? Because there is only one section (Talk:Alan Grayson#Abuse allegations) on the Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
We follow the reliable sources. That there were abuse allegations made, sourced to a very wide variety of sources, and these allegations both publicly affected the Senate campaign, also widely sourced, making this a significant part of Rep. Grayson's autobiography. The idea that we're scrubbing a major news story to "protect Lolita Grayson" is a complete red herring, given that she told Politico in her email comments on the story that "“I want the people to know my story so they know what kind of man Alan Grayson really is." This was not some obscure tabloid story, but a major straight-news story covered in multiple stories by the most major of newspapers, discussing a candidate for major political office. This appears to me as a strong case of WP:JDL the breadth and depth of coverage so strong that it would be the equivalent of a Gary Hart entry that removed any mention of Donna Rice or the related affair that bombed Hart's 1988 campaign. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, CC. We follow Wikipedia policy. I'm sorry that you don't like that we might give deference to living people over a "story", but if you feel Lolita Carson and her children don't deserve the consideration and protections of our WP:BLP policy, then this is the proper board in which to make your case. Your comparison to the Gary Hart & publicly notable Donna Rice episode is far off the mark; Hart actually suspended his campaign, and it actually was a major news story, unlike this one. While it most certainly was designed and timed to affect Grayson's Senate run, I'm not seeing in the reliable sources that it had any noticeable effect on his run. The President, Vice President, the Democrat Minority Leader, Schumer, and the largest Democrat super-PAC all threw their support and endorsements behind his opponent, and asked him to drop out, long before she launched her last-month-before-election attack. A couple progressive groups withdrew, but that appears in the sources to be inconsequential. But it sounds like you want to use Wikipedia to help Lolita Carson get "her story" out to "the people"? Do I understand that correctly? If so, I think it would be very helpful to see your proposed text along with the reliable sources you intend to cite. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
How about some cites to policy then, rather than your constant generic call to WP:BLP? That's the reason I brought it to this noticeboard, to get a consensus from a wider group of people as it has not been discussed in the article's talk itself. Did you actually read any of the sources? It absolutely was a major news story, covered extensively by multiple national sources, with multiple angles, from the initial allegations to his opponent pulling out of debates to staffers quitting to the head of his party in Senate calling him to drop out to the allegations that he threatened a national reporter with arrest, all easily sourced from many high-qualitys sources. And yes, your pretense of protecting Lolita Grayson is WP:CRYBLP at it's finest - we have reliable sources saying she *wants* this news to be public. That's absolutely not the reason I want to include this information, I'm only using her desire in the context of responding to your claim that you're wiping a major aspect of FL 2016 Senate campaign clean to "protect" someone - it appears that the person you mainly wish to protect is Rep. Grayson. I've extensively quoted WP:BLP text covering allegations of public figures, if you have text that supports the notion that these allegations not be included, that would be more constructive than using BLP as a magic word. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey CoffeeCrumbs, would you mind throttling back just a little on the unnecessary (and completely inapplicable) abrasive essay-attacks? WP:JDL? WP:CRYBLP? Stop, please.
How about some cites to policy then, rather than your constant generic call to WP:BLP? --CoffeeCrumbs
WP:BLP is policy, and there is nothing "generic" about the protection Wikipedia affords to living people. It applies to all living people we write about, not just the named subject of a given article. Are you asking me to quote to you the specific parts of that policy which apply? (As for whether other policies will also be violated, I can't say until you propose actual content and sources.)
...I brought it to this noticeboard, to get a consensus from a wider group of people... --CoffeeCrumbs
Or did you bring it here to get a different consensus? You are already aware that the problematic "spousal abuse" content has previously been removed for valid reasons by me, GeneralIzation, Solarra, Discospinster, FormerIP, AzureCitizen, et al.
It absolutely was a major news story, covered extensively by multiple national sources... --CoffeeCrumbs
I disagree, but I'm anxious to look at your proof if you'll produce it. I think you are confusing "covered extensively" with "echoed repeatedly", which routinely happens with salacious allegations. And there's nothing more salacious (and common) than both spouses alleging physical abuse during a messy divorce/annulment. Wikipedia shouldn't be made part of the news cycle echo chamber. But whether it is a "major story", or just a footnote, is not at issue here, and not why I have objected to adding it to our article.
Did you actually read any of the sources? ... his opponent pulling out of debates to staffers quitting to the head of his party in Senate calling him to drop out to the allegations that he threatened a national reporter with arrest... --CoffeeCrumbs
Yes, of course I did, and I'm quite familiar with the sources. Perhaps you are reading different ones, because while you portray those events as repercussions of a "major story", the sources don't. Rather than pull out of the debate for some moral reason, Grayson's controversy gave Murphy a convenient reason to back out of debating. With Murphy being the front-runner and the favored candidate by the Democratic establishment, a televised debate could potentially hurt his chances. Or when you say the head of his party called on him to drop out because of this story, the sources I've read say Reid had long backed Murphy, long hated Grayson, and had been pushing Grayson to withdraw for months before the story. Maybe it's a matter of perspective or mindset?
... your pretense of protecting Lolita Grayson ... it appears that the person you mainly wish to protect is Rep. Grayson
I'll keep repeating this until it sinks in: BLP Policy protection applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article. And which part of my edit summaries is so difficult for you to understand? (rvt "claims" about living person (ex-wife) pending sourced resolution)) Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, CoffeeCrumbs, please do propose some text. It's obvious to me that we can and should include something. Don't worry about Xenophrenic's insinuations -- we've been sidetracked here long enough. Let's focus on content. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's obvious to you, Nomoskedasticity, then perhaps you would be the better person to propose the encyclopedic content you want to convey to our readers? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Working on it, but there's no deadline and I wanted to get a consensus first on the nature of the allegations, given that WP:BLP has already been brought up repeatedly. Would prefer to build consensus on their inclusion at WP:BPLN first rather than end up at WP:ANI later. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The allegations themselves seem significant as the "origin" source for the story appears to be from Politico, and Grayson subsequently got into verbal debate with allowing them to further cover his campaign, judging by the news sources. I think it's necessary to note Politico (if this is the case) in the allegations line here. Note that I would see also if the Fox News sources can be replaced with other sources, only because we are talking a Democrat candidate vs the right-leaning news outlet, and that might lead one to see a potential BLP issue, but I think both can be readily replaced. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
--MASEM, when you say "The allegations themselves seem significant", do you mean just the allegations against Grayson, or did you mean all of the allegations in the Politico report, most of which were against Lolita and their 5 children? Your clarification (in the section below) would be helpful. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Waived their right to privacy and BLP protection?[edit]

  • QUESTION: Does our Wikipedia BLP policy protect the privacy and reputation of non-notable, private citizens? Specifically in this case, the 5 children (some of whom are minors) of Alan Grayson, and their mother, Lolita Carson. Can we add allegations of crimes committed by these 6 individuals to the Alan Grayson biography article? Sources show that these people were alleged to have committed criminal acts, including Fraud, Perjury, Bigamy, Assault, Child abuse, Battery, Aggravated battery, Vehicle arson, Witness Tampering, although there have been no convictions. The wording of our policy appears to allow it, as it only warns us to "seriously consider not including" the material; it doesn't actually "forbid" it. What does the community say? Applicable BLP policy wording:
WP:BLPCRIME: For subjects who are not public figures, 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. Generally, a conviction is secured through judicial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN.

WP:NPF: Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

WP:AVOIDVICTIM: This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article

Background: As discussed in the section immediately above, the whole family of Alan Grayson became the subject of significant allegations of crimes. It started when Lolita Carson emailed Politico News and alleged that Alan Grayson had abused her four times in the past 20 years, and she provided Politico with some police and medical reports. These are just allegations, and there were never any arrests or convictions, but Alan Grayson is a WP:WELLKNOWN politician, so some Wikipedians argue the allegations against him should be in his biography. However, Politico also dug up court records and additional reports which showed that, in Alan Grayson's defense, Lolita had actually allegedly assaulted Alan Grayson (caught on film), Lolita set fire to their car, bitten their son, had their daughter arrested, slashed a vehicle's upholstery, lied to law enforcement, perjured herself in court. Her children have given statements to police (and later to Politico) that Lolita's account of a physical assault was untrue, that Lolita struggles with emotional issues, has physically assaulted and lashed out at the children and Alan, and said their father had done nothing wrong throughout the marriage.

Here's the problem: We can add the alleged 4 instances of abuse by Grayson over 20 years, because he's a public figure - so it doesn't matter if the allegations are true or not. But we would also have to add Grayson's denial and the exculpatory evidence disproving those allegations, which means heavily involving a lot of personal and embarrassing stuff about the 5 children and Lolita. They are not public figures. One Wikipedian in the discussion above says, "we have reliable sources saying [Lolita] *wants* this news to be public", referring to Lolita's email to Politico. But that isn't exactly true; she wanted her allegation of 4 incidents of abuse to be publicized, just weeks before Grayson's Senate election, but she likely didn't sign up to have Politico also dredge up her bigamy, marriage annulment, her physical assaults on her kids and Alan, her perjury and lying, etc. Where does WP:BLP policy stand on this? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You're attempting to construct a barrier to inclusion of content that does not exist in the WP:BLP policy. We don't "have to add ... exculpatory evidence" -- certainly not in a way that violates the privacy of his children (and by the way, no-one is proposing to mention them). It's apparent you want this issue to be very complicated -- possibly so that for other editors it's TLDR -- but it doesn't have to be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, your comments here are uncharacteristically obnoxious and unproductive. I've been ignoring your running commentary about a fellow editor (i.e.; "It's apparent you want this issue to be very complicated"; "Don't worry about Xenophrenic's insinuations -- we've been sidetracked"; "you've made no effort here to explain your view"; "You're attempting to construct a barrier to inclusion of content") until now, hoping you were just having an off day. I've known your edits and comments in the past to be overwhelmingly reasonable, but here you have shown yourself to be absolutely clueless about my "intentions". There is a standing request (above) that you propose encyclopedic, BLP-compliant content to help resolve this matter, but you've chosen instead to continue your trollish sniping while not advancing the discussion in any meaningful way. And now you've asserted that we "don't" have to add exculpatory evidence which disproves the criminal allegations against a living person?(!) That's a very revealing comment, Nomoskedasticity, and it explains a lot. You are wrong, of course, and after a remark like that, it would be advisable if you avoid editing Grayson-related material, and BLP issues in general. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I honestly don't believe this whole divorce deserves more than a sentence or two, and in my opinion the removed text would be acceptable after a copy edit. The "extending over 20 years" line should go because it makes it sound as if she was regularly abused for a long time. But she claims "he hit her in the past four or five times". That's different. Also, I'd prefer to have the Politico report as a source for that instead of Fox. The section about Schumer's statement needs a similar cut. The "saying that Grayson has “shown himself not to be worthy of being a U.S. senator" part can go, leaving the rest. Cheers, Yintan  09:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Yintan, thank you for the comment. To be accurate, there never was a "divorce", there was an annulment, and there already exists "a sentence or two" about it in the article. The link you've provided is to an edit about the Politico hit piece, and is a non-starter for several reasons. First, it was entered under the "Personal life" section when it should be added under the "Elections" header instead. It also fails to accurately convey what reliable sources say, instead conveying the response by the accused as hardly more than "Nuh-uh". And as you've correctly noted, "extending over twenty years" is inaccurate and should instead read something like "four times during their 25-year marriage"; and the FOX News echo-media sources should be replaced with sources which have actually done some journalistic reporting. The political hyperbole from Schumer (which predates the Politico piece, and was merely repeated after it) is unnecessary. I agree with your opinion that an addition should be brief. I'll try to outline what I think it should look like below. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I would approach the situation from a media standpoint, and not so much the divorced couple standpoint. That is, it is the fact that Politico published Lolita's account right in the middle of the election run, and Grayson fired back to deny the allegations and tell Politico to stop covering him. The claims Lolita made should remain claims cited to her via Politico. If their children (of adult age) are sourced to defend Grayson, that can be included in a counterargument statement too, eg "Grayson fervently denied her claims, and his position was supported by his children from that marriage." We don't need to attempt to describe anything in any more detail particularly these allegations of what Lolita did against Grayson if they are allegations as well. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Your approach has similarities to mine, Masem, in that it isn't a "divorce" or "abuse" thing, but rather a politics and media thing. The Politico hit piece (yup, I'm calling it that) was published in late July, and was carefully timed to coincide with the first day of the Democratic National Convention, in the final weeks of Grayson's campaign for Senate. Remember this was years after the couple split and Grayson remarried - and Lolita telegraphed her intent: she emailed the publication that specializes in "politics", admitting she wanted the public to know her narrative version of "what kind of man Alan Grayson really is". However, her claims and "evidence" have actually been refuted by law enforcement authorities, witnesses and her own children. The media, according to the sources, republished Lolita's allegations without bothering to verify the validity of the claims. All of that is from just a few sources which bothered to do any reporting: Politico hit piece (July), Miami Herald interview about allegations (August), Orlando Weekly on the aftermath (September). I agree with you that we don't need to cover the allegations of what Lolita did, UNLESS they directly relate to her allegations against Grayson. And some do. For example, in Lolita's most recent (2014) claim of abuse, where she appeared at a hospital with bruises she claimed were from Grayson the previous day, it turns out it was she who assaulted him. And that is according to an uninvolved witness, and Lolita's daughter, and a video, and even Lolita's 911 call in which she actually admitted, after being asked if Grayson hurt her, "no" and said she pushed him instead. She told police she grabbed Grayson by the face and kneed him in the midsection, causing him to buckle over. If the allegations against Grayson are to be mentioned in his biography, then the exculpatory allegations against, and statements by, the non-well-known parties (ex-wife & kids & staffers) must also appear. And that where we come up against BLP policy as outlined in the box above. I'm not necessarily saying we should mention the allegations that Lolita had her daughter arrested for battery over an argument about smoking in the car, or that she bit her youngest kid on the arm and called police on him, but there is no way to leave the private citizens and minors completely out of the biography. One editor has suggested that we don't need to convey Grayson's evidence in defense against the allegations, but I don't see that as a policy-compliant solution. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
And you're broadly demonstrating why the consensus has been against your position. You've drawn your own conclusions as to why the piece went on a certain date and made up your own policy about "reliable source timing." That is not Masem's position, as far as I can tell. Again, this is a story that was covered *widely* in high-quality reliable sources. If you can find a high-quality source covering Politico's alleged desire to publish a hit piece coinciding with the opening of the convention, we could at least have an argument on that basis, but you've provided no such evidence that would undermine Politico and the follow-up reliable sources as being unreliable sources in this context. Not even original research since as far as I can tell, you haven't even done research to support this point, all we have is your simple assertion that it is so from the simple relationship between the date of the story and the date of an opening of a national convention for the same political party that Rep. Grayson is a member of. Under your reasoning, we would remove reliably sourced sexual abuse allegations against Donald Trump for nothing more than the reason that they "conveniently" became public in the final weeks of the presidential campaign. That's an unjustifiable position - there's no WP:CONVENIENT or WP:ULTERIORMOTIVE.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, my point is that the more relevant facts is that Grayson lashed out at Politico for publishing Lolito's charges in the middle of his campaign. Given that any domestic crime aspects accused by Lolita seemed to be refuted by both Grayson and his children, the story here is around the interaction between Grayson and Politico. This doesn't mean the charges shouldn't be mentioned, but they should be framed as part of that media story. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a perfectly reasonable position, I feel. Obviously, the utmost care should be taken and we're not talking some giant section that dominates Rep. Grayson's page. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@CoffeeCrumbs: Please exercise more care and reading comprehension when it comes to what sources have said, and what I have said. Summarizing (yet again), just for you, "my position" is and always has been: If abuse allegations regarding Grayson are to be added to his Wikipedia biography, they must be accompanied by the exonerating evidence refuting those allegations (from the same reliable sources). This will result in violations of BLP policy, as some nasty shit and allegations involving Lolita & the 5 kids will be part of that evidence, but they are private, non-well-known people. And there's been no "consensus against my position" unless it was developed in a venue of which I am unaware. Moving on to your weird claim that I have "drawn my own conclusions as to why" the Politico hit piece was published, and the significance of the timing. Say what? And then you double-down on the crazy by claiming, "you haven't even done research to support this point". What part of the following sentence, cut & pasted from above, did you fail to comprehend: All of that is from just a few sources which bothered to do any reporting: Politico hit piece (July), Miami Herald interview about allegations (August), Orlando Weekly on the aftermath (September).? From just one of those sources (and I've seen several which convey the same observations):

Charges of domestic abuse from the second of his three wives exploded during at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in late July, where 15,000 reporters had gathered, [...] The attack on Alan Grayson at the Philadelphia convention bore all the hallmarks of a classic political hit, engineered by seasoned opposition researchers. [...] It began with an email to Politico from Grayson’s former wife, Lolita Carson-Grayson, charging four incidents of abuse, in Virginia and Orlando, over a 20-year period, and including police and hospital reports. Hungry for news on the first day of the convention, members of the media scrum were not inclined to examine each of the incidents. With four allegations, the predictable feeding frenzy consensus was that “where there’s smoke there’s fire.” The same Democratic oppo researchers who launched the attack may also have reminded the Politico reporter of an incident in Grayson’s 2012 comeback congressional campaign. [...] The timing of the domestic abuse story, and another several days later in which Lolita Grayson charged that her former husband had been unfaithful during their marriage, is worth a closer look. With the marriage dissolution long settled, what motive – apart from the usual in such breakups, vindictiveness and revenge – would Lolita Grayson have for contacting Politico at the convention? [...]

Some say we're in a post-truth era now, but your attempt to usher that in to Wikipedia is offensive. Anyway, all of the Politico hit piece timing and motivation content is out of the scope of this discussion, and would be better handled at the article Talk page. The BLP/N issue here is how to handle the BLP-violating content about the non-wellknowns, Lolita and the 5 children. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: I don't disagree with you regarding the framing, but I still do not see a way to avoid the embarrassing content regarding Lolita and the kids. Also, may I ask your opinion as to which reliable source you feel best conveys what happened between Grayson and the Politico reporter? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I have assumed good faith throughout. Your criticisms of including this information are chameleon-like - sometimes it's because you've decided that it's a "hit piece" that was published at a date that you personally felt was too convenient, sometimes you've announced that it's simply tabloid material, sometimes to protect supposed three parties even though it's a simple task to write around children's names and the like. In response, you direct insults at me about "post-truth" and "double-down on the crazy." Not that it's absolutely shocking, mind you, given your extensive disciplinary history on political topics. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
CoffeeCrumbs, I dislike having to keep calling bullshit on your assertions, but you aren't leaving me much choice. Your pretense of having "assumed good faith throughout" crumbled long ago, with just your second post here in fact, when you began accusing your fellow contributors of disagreeing with you because they "just don't like it", instead of over valid policy concerns. You followed that by accusing your fellow contributors of gaming BLP policy to "protect" just Alan Grayson (see your WP:CRYBLP nonsense), rather than attempting to understand the actual concerns. You aren't going to convince anyone that you are assuming good faith. Let's look at more of your post-truth assertions: you've decided that it's a "hit piece" that was published at a date that you personally felt was too convenient - *I* have decided? You've tried floating that whopper already, and failed, remember? The description of the political hit piece, and its timing, are subjects covered in reliable sources. I've even quoted one of many reliable sources of that information just above, yet you still try to paint it as something I "personally felt"? I must say, you are good at this Post-truth stuff, especially the detachment from reality part. Next: sometimes you've announced that it's simply tabloid material - Actually, I never have, as it has never been simply tabloid material. It is tabloid material, of course, and I've frequently called it what it is, but my objection to inclusion has always been (and as I've always noted) the allegation content in a BLP. That has never changed. The proposed content always been a "he said, she said" situation, which runs afoul of BLP policy (even when some editors have tried to add it as a policy-violating "she said, so there" portrayal). Next: given your extensive disciplinary history on political topics - (Xenophrenic leans into the mic and interjects:) Wrong. There isn't an extensive disciplinary history on political topics, but given your recent track record of failing to comprehend what reliable sources say; failing to comprehend an editor's concerns with problematic content; and failure to read simple text (above) with a reasonable level of comprehension, that assertion from you is not shocking at all.
Back to the issue at hand. You claim "... it's a simple task to write around children's names and the like. I would be very interested in seeing your proposed text which includes the necessary information concerning the ex-wife, children, staffer, etc., while complying with BLP policy. (Specifically, with the parts of the policy outlined in the box at the top of this section.) That would go a long way toward putting this matter to rest. I don't see "naming" them as the actual issue, as most are named in the article already. The problem is with their association with negative allegations. And just to reiterate, I do not disagree with your two assertions: (1) that per WP:WELLKNOWN, Alan Grayson is not immunized against mere allegations in his Wikipedia biography, and (2) that the abuse allegations received enough reliably sourced coverage to warrant them being a part of his Wikipedia biography. I do, however, disagree with the assertions that (1) Lolita forfeited her protection under our BLP policy as a non-public, private person once she contacted Politico, or (2) that we don't need to include the exculpatory evidence which refute allegations made by Lolita (as suggested by another editor). Xenophrenic (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Reuven Bar-On[edit]

Reuven Bar-On is not a notable researcher in this field. In particular, a detailed reading of his papers reveals that his research is complete quackery. Bar-On clearly created this Wikipedia biography about himself for the purposes of self-promotion. Indeed he links to his own website in the External Links section.

The wikpedia page should certainly be deleted, since Reuven Bar-On is not a famous or important person.

Therefore please delete "Reuven_Bar-On" in its entirety.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talkcontribs)

Rjensen and BLP[edit]

Rjensen (talk · contribs) is using BLP to justify removing other editors posts from talkpages. Now, if he had used NPA, I might have accepted it (Ok, I wouldn't, because it is still absurd to remove posts you don't like), but using BLP to remove other editors posts really requires that somebody lets him know what BLP is about - especially given the fact that he has a habit of editing his own BLP.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The BLP rule Contentious material about living persons ...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 is clear and Maunus is deliberately violating it with a false unsourced statement. Rjensen (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen: The post you keep deleting is far from contentious and the BLP rules don't apply there. All I see is edit warring over short remark that is barely unfriendly. Cheers, Yintan  15:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
It's a false statement (= contentious) and it is unsourced. it violated BLP. I think it's sarcastic to boot but that is not the main issue.) The rule is emphatic: This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. Rjensen (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
And then again: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, (...) you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (WP:TPO). Maunus' post was not a personal attack, merely a sarcastic remark. That's allowed. Uncivility is even allowed and "posts that may be considered disruptive (...) are usually best left as-is or archived." Shall we stop wiki-lawyering now? Cheers, Yintan  15:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If it is false then it is odd that it is one of the few critical things you haven't removed from your biography - but maybe it is because it is in fact your main claim to notability as a biographical subject. Also someone who cannot understand that the biographic subject cannot ever be the arbitrator of what is or isn't a false statement about them should probably not be allowed to edit wikipedia at all -otherwise we would only allow hagiographies and autobiographies. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Maunus refuses to provide his required RS and instead misquotes Wikipedia. 1) his false statement = Jensen's claim there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US. 2) He cites the Wikipedia article on me that states Jensen argues that "No Irish Need Apply" signs were mostly a myth and that there was "no significant discrimination against the Irish" in the job market. 3) Actually what I did write was As for the question of anti-Irish prejudice: it existed but it was basically anti-Catholic or anti-anti-republican. There have been no documented instances of job discrimination against Irish men.(FN13) Was there any systematic job discrimination against the Catholic Irish in the US: possibly, but direct evidence is very hard to come by. [Journal of Social History 2002 p 407] Maunus is in deliberate defiance of the BLP rule about verifiability. Rjensen (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
And if he would have put that in the Wikipedia article about you, you'd be completely right to object. But he didn't, it was on the Talk page of something completely different. Seriously, this little feud shouldn't even be on this board. May I politely suggest you both give it a rest? Yintan  18:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If Yinta wants to help he needs to read the BLP rules more closely (for example 3-R does not apply and talk pages certainly are included) Instead he makes poor excuses for someone else. It was Maunus who brought this complaint here and yet it was he who refuses to follow the rules or erase his violation. Rjensen (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The fact that you wrote a biography about yourself does not mean that you get to determine everything everyone else writes about you by claiming BLP. You have no right to EVER remove a comment from someone else with whom you are in a discussion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
False. every editor has the right to remove another editor's posts if they fail the BLP rules. Maunus is in deliberate defiance of these BLP rules: 1) " any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source" 2) "Dealing with articles about yourself...Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself." 3) "Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable." 4) "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." 5) "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" 6) "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Rjensen (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen:@Maunus:Since this could, and probably will, go on forever, I strongly suggest you two take this to WP:ANI and have an administrator look at it. Yintan  10:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I will. I think o course that Jensen is in "egregious violation" of both WP:TPO and WP:COI, so it does make sense to find out who of us in fact are egregiously violating policy here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wendy Long[edit]

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

As page creator, I keep this on my watchlist, but rarely edit anymore. While I was on Wikibreak in early November an ip editor added this material: "including her son who is also named Arthur and who was expelled from private school[21]." The citation is the Wall Street Journal and behind a paywall but assuming good faith, the statement was at least sourced. Two minutes later, this was reverted with an edit summary "WP:BLP". Since that time there's been a slow motion edit war, with several editors removing the material and several ip editors reinserting it. This edit with informative edit summary (adding a New York Times source which does check out) caught my eye, auto-tagged as possible BLP vio on my watchlist and (failing to read the recent edit history) I reverted it as coatracking. After seeing my change reverted, I engaged the ip editor on user talk. I was surprised at the response. Could I get uninvolved editors to help assess this disagreement? Thanks. BusterD (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This material does not belong in the article, and I have removed it. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Another ip editor has reinserted the material. I have started a discussion on talk to measure consensus. BusterD (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
An administrator has since changed protection level to auto-confirmed only then hidden or rev deleted all BLP vios in livespace, edit summary or page history. Thanks for the kind attention. BusterD (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Badr Jafar[edit]

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

  • The article was discussed at BLPN October 2016.
  • I put a summary of the situation at Talk:Badr Jafar#Jafar Jafar under Per the above I have removed the "uncle" claim.
  • The point relevant to this report is "OTRS ticket 2016050310022619 states that Jafar Jafar is not the uncle of the subject of this article".
  • Mawlidman has just reverted my edit (diff) with an inflamatory edit summary: "restored from clear censorship and lies".
  • Mawlidman was reported at AN3 October 2016 regarding another claim at the same article.

The contested text is:

His uncle, Jafar Jafar, is a nuclear physicist who lead Iraq's nuclear programme under Saddam Hussein.

Per the talk page, the first reference ( does not mention the subject of the article, and the second ( does not mention "uncle". The text asserts a family relationship that is poorly sourced and is contested by an OTRS statement. No publication has commented on the alleged relationship other than Wikipedia. Does the text satisfy WP:BLP and WP:DUE? Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging editors from the previous BLPN: Drmies + Fyddlestix + Mawlidman + Nomoskedasticity + Only in death does duty end + OoBJ. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The source ( doesn't use the word "uncle", but it does tell us that Jafar Jafar is the brother of Hamid Jafar who is Badr Jafar's father. "Uncle" is a perfectly reasonable paraphrase for what the source tell us here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolute whitewash by those who seek to delete the statement. The National article clearly says the following:

  • These days, Mr Jafar, 63, keeps a low public profile, preferring to leave the day-to-day running of his family's regional business empire to the next generation. His sons Majid, 34, and Badr, 31, are the public faces of Crescent Petroleum. and
  • The general manager of the Dubai-based Uruk Group is Jafar Jafar, a nuclear physicist and Hamid Jafar's younger brother, who headed Iraq's nuclear programme under Saddam Hussein.

There is no inference involved, as the other editors like to claim. It is clear from point one that the Badr that is mentioned in the news source is the same Badr in the wiki article and the son of the subject of the news source i.e. Hamid Jafar. It is then clear from the second point that Jafar Jafar is the brother of Hamid and is the same person of the wiki article Jafar Dhia Jafar. Jafar Dhia Jafar is not some distant relative, as some blatant liars are claiming. Let me summarize The National's relevance to this discussion: News source is about Hamid --> Says Hamid is the father of Badr (of the wiki article Badr Jafar) --> Says Hamid is the brother of Jafar Jafar (of the wiki article Jafar Dhia Jafar) --> If Jafar Jafar is Hamid's brother then he is absolutely and indisputably Badr's uncle.
There is no inference because there is zero conjecture or doubt involved in this statement that Badr's uncle is Jafar Jafar. I'm not sure what the agenda of OoBJ is in going to such lengths to suppress such clear info or why Johnuniq is his willing advocate but i know that this smacks of nothing other than censorship and i would like to report the actions of all those involved in supporting this egregious removal and abuse of authority. Mawlidman (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Well this is fun. We have a source saying one thing, and an OTRS ticket saying another. The National is state-owned, if our article is correct, but that is in itself not yet a reason to doubt this information; on the other hand, I can't see (nor could Mdann, I imagine) what the credibility of the ticket is. Given that source, I am inclined to lean toward inclusion. Of course, if Mawlidman wasn't so eager to press the point in article space, this might have been handled earlier already. Johnuniq, what make you of this source now, after Nomodekasticity's comments? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I noted what the sources say on the article talk page.
  • The source concerns Jafar Jafar and does not mention Badr Jafar or his father.
  • The source does not comment on the relationship between Jafar Jafar and Badr Jafar.
  • The only publication that has commented on that relationship is Wikipedia—that raises WP:DUE concerns.
  • The claimed relationship has been denied by an OTRS ticket.
The source can be expected to have checked claims like who is a general manager of what as that is what the article is about. However, there is no reason to believe such a source would carefully check family relationship details, so the OTRS denial is plausible. The text has been edited a lot, yet it still contains the typo "lead"—how much thought has gone into it? Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The National article didn't just state that Jafar Jafar is Hamid's brother, it specifically said that Jafar Jafar is Hamid Jafar's younger brother. Could it be so specific yet wrong? Why should we doubt it has its facts right? Wikipedia doesn't operate upon conjecture, especially when such sources clearly state otherwise. Mawlidman (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
We are talking about a business journalist writing in the business section about business. It's not as if it's a genealogy report where family relationships are the point of the article. I'm not saying it's likely the source is incorrect, but under the circumstances that is a reasonable conclusion. Given the OTRS claim, it is not satisfactory that Wikipedia should be the only publication that has commented on the relationship between Badr Jafar and Jafar Jafar—the source did not think that relationship was worth a comment. What is the reader supposed to learn from the article text? That Badr Jafar has an uncle who would be regarded negatively by many in the West? Or that he has a very clever uncle? What does that say about Badr Jafar? Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why your heart is so firmly attached to this when you are not the OTRS submitter. What is the reader supposed to learn from the article text? It learns that Badr has a notable uncle just as it learns that he had a notable grandfather. Why do you differentiate between these two? That Badr Jafar has an uncle who would be regarded negatively by many in the West? Or that he has a very clever uncle? What does that say about Badr Jafar? Whether his uncle reflects posivitely or negatively upon Badr is beyond the point: a reliable source indisputably mentioning a notable close relation has every right to be included and not censored because someone claiming to be close to the subject deems the inclusion would be bad publicity for the subject. That proposition is galling and doesn't belong in wikipedia. Mawlidman (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Some of us understand the spirit of WP:SYNTH and WP:DUE, and I regard the OTRS claims as plausible. My heart is not involved, and I have not been blocked for edit warring at the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
We clearly see this very differently. I strongly believe i have not broken either WP, and i question the motive of the OTRS claim. Mawlidman (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


AfD on a doctor who specializes in Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy and seems to have enjoyed media coverage based on promotional activity associated with the release of her books, rather than coverage of her as a person. Further input required. Delta13C (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Kory Tarpenning[edit]

Citation 8 is false, there is no link. There was never any such published clearance given to this person. The following needs to be deleted, "despite an appeals board hearing that he was administered a prohibited substance by a physician's assistant during treatment for a hamstring injury, where the medicine prescribed was a type of cortisone. However, under regulations in place at the time of the incident, the result was a suspension; Under current regulations, this would not incur a suspension"

Not only is the above untrue, and obviously placed repeatedly in the listing by Mr. Tarpenning himself for YEARS, but as a matter of fact today he would have probably been banned for his use of antlers as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Kevin O'Neill (basketball) (section)[edit]

The name Jeff Berkaw is referenced in the article: Kevin O'Neill (basketball) (section). I am not aware of anyone else by this name other than me (Jeff Berkaw) and have good reason to believe this is vandalism. My name is not "linked" and it is not cited. I consider this libelous. Please remove my name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

None of the sources cited for that section include names; I have therefore removed them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The name was added by an unregistered user over two years ago; I don't see where any administrative action can (or needs to) be taken. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Rex Lee[edit]

Excessive quoting from judicial opinions--our Oliver Wendell Holmes entry doesn't trace the subject's thoughts to this level, which makes me think this is tended by a clerk or other associate of the subject. Are his numerous opinions, interpretations and cases as an attorney all worth mention here? I'm hesitant to start cutting, but welcome the thoughts of someone who's well versed in legal biographies. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Robert Lanza[edit]

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

This article appears to me to be way overly promotional, but I think the subject may be notable. Also issues with WP:FRINGEBLP and a related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocentric universe (2nd nomination) discussion with the idea of merging some of the content of his fringe proposal back into his article.

Help cleaning up with an eye towards WP:BLP would be appreciated as we want to get this article close to WP:NPOV.

jps (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The subject seems certainly notable by way of reliable and noteworthy sources, not to mention the "awards" section. However, after having read the "career" and sub-sections, it reads more like a medical journal than a BLP article on WP; and is drastically sagging in undue weight versus "early life and education". I agree that clean up is needed. Maineartists (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC about cartoon of Supreme Court Justice Thomas[edit]

Just using this page to provide wider notice of an RfC, Talk:Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International#RfC_Keep_or_remove_cartoon.3F, and the associated image deletion discussion here. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Comet Ping Pong attack[edit]

As per WP:BLPCRIME I think the name of the alleged attacker should be removed from Comet Ping Pong until he is convicted of the crimes he's accused of committing. Please discuss. Everymorning (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be no dispute that the accused is the person who entered the premises and committed the shooting. Indeed, he admitted it to the police. In this circumstance, I don't see any reason to omit the name. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Further, his actions appear to be enough to make him a limited purpose public figure. Given that his name is widely reported, I don't think we're doing any harm by listing his name. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The attacker isn't "alleged" - he was confirmed. Include his name in article. Meatsgains (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). See also thread below on this page Sagecandor (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Marina Abramović[edit]

Hello, This is regarding Marina Abramović. As described in her "controversy" section, she has gone through a wide range controversies (cited using reputed journals). Therefore, keeping Wikipedia neutrality, since a living or dead personality can be described as "popular", a criminal can be described as a criminal in the introduction; similarly, citing her numerous controversies and nature of art performance, it seems neutral and logical to describe her in the following way- which simply is a neutral and cited reflection of the fact that she has been surrounded by wide range of controversies-

Marina Abramović (Serbian Cyrillic: Марина Абрамовић, Serbo-Croatian pronunciation: [maˌrǐːna abˈrǎːmoʋit͡ɕ]; born November 30, 1946) is a Yugoslavia-born controversial[1][2] performance artist based in New York.[3] Her work explores the relationship between performer and audience, the limits of the body, and the possibilities of the mind. Active for over three decades, Abramović describes herself[4] as the "grandmother of performance art." She pioneered a new notion of identity by bringing in the participation of observers, focusing on "confronting pain, blood, and physical limits of the body."[5]

However, there have been repeated attempts to keep only her popularity and suppress the not-so popular facts about her. Therefore, I want to know how to resolve this issue. In any way, these citations/texts do not give a declaration or judgement but just provide information on her controversial past and their citations from highly reputed journals. It does not include non-cited and extreme words which violate this-"Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." It is rare for a reputed journal/newspaper to explicitly write an article to label someone as disgusting, but yet helps us know that there do exist people who find it is controversial- "<quoted text from article->Such visceral, unsettling art used to generate disgust, outrage and the occasional police visit."

Kindly also have a look at the controversy section of her article. Thanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Pppooojjjaaa—is your question whether or not she should be described in the lead as "controversial"? Is that your question? Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey Bus stop, thanks for the patience to read the entire thing - it was just to support my proposal. Whether using the word "controversial" as above is ok (why) or not (why not) is indeed my question. :) Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't think Marina Abramović should be described as "controversial" in the lead of her article. I've responded briefly on the article Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's not so much the word "controversial" as almost all the rest of the article that really needs attention. It is written in an unencyclopaedic tone and often (apparently) in Abramović's voice, perhaps due to the excessive number of quotations and the acreage of pseudo-intellectual artspeak.
But to answer the question: being controversial is such a routine part of what artists do that it hardly merits a mention in the lead. There shouldn't be a Controversy section either, there should be a balanced discussion of reactions to her work, based on what is written in independent reliable sources. I suggest "Reception" as a title. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
"being controversial is such a routine part of what artists do" - artists like singers, dancers, actors, painters etc are not necesaarily controversial. "There shouldn't be a Controversy section either, there should be a balanced discussion of reactions to her work"- calling aboriginals dinosaurs, not crediting artists for inspiring her work, being accused of inviting politicians to spiritual cooking- these are "reactions to her work??"" Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Only one of the things you list are not "reactions to her work" (comparing aboriginals to dinosaurs, although it could be a reaction to her memoir). FallingGravity 09:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


Ignoring the opinion that writing on walls with pig blood (and inviting diplomats to it) and racist opinions, stealing ideas of other artists and not crediting them are attributes solely related to professionalism and work, I want to write an update here that a consensus has been reached on the talk page to remove the word "controversial" from the lead. Thanks everyone. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
By the way, Pppooojjjaaa, I think the "Controversy"section of the article is fine. I am only objecting to describing her as "controversial" in the lead of the article. (It could be called a "Criticism" section, but that is a minor point.) Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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

This article is about a resident of Australia however it appears that the editors believe that a reliable source is required to prove that she doesn't have Australian citizenship. From what I understand about the BLP policy this is the opposite as to what should occur. A quote from the talk page "From the average reader's perspective, it is correct to call her Australian because Australia is the country with which she is associated. If someone can come up with a reliable source that says otherwise, then we can certainly change it then, but these continual scrubbings of "Australian" from the article by one editor need to stop until that happens.". SportsMedGuy (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As was pointed out at the aforementioned talk page (where I've noted no participation in the discussion by @SportsMedGuy:) Wikipedia's manual of style MOS:BLPLEAD clearly states that for identifying the person's context in the lead paragraph, quote: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Following that, Loretta Marron is clearly "Australian" for our purposes. Again, if you can come up with a source that indicates otherwise, please do add it to the article and correct it. But just saying "BLP violation!" is not a magic incantation that lets you remove whatever you want. --Krelnik (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, the issue under discussion concerns which categories are appropriate. The article content is not in question: it states that her residence is in Australia, which is well sourced, and it makes no statement about citizenship. The question is whether the categories should be "Australian women scientists" or just "Women scientists", etc.
For the most part categories are for navigation. As there is no 'Women scientists resident in Australia', the Australian women scientist category is the applicable one if you wanted to find an Australian woman scientist. She has lived in Australia since a young age, has done the majority of her work and where her notability has been established, so I cant see a reasonable argument for not including her in Australian women scientists. -edit- I see she has an Order of Australia medal. That means she is an Australian citizen. Non-citizen's are only eligible for honorary medals. The honours people dont mess about with those sort of things. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Except that you don't need to be a citizen to receive this order. From our own wiki "The Order of Australia is an order of chivalry established on 14 February 1975 by Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, to recognise Australian citizens and other persons for achievement or meritorious service.". BLP still should apply to categories. What is troubling is the opposite to the BLP policy being applied here. The onus is to prove a fact, not disprove it. SportsMedGuy (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
If you read further down than the lead you can see where it explicitly notes the distinction between normal (for citizens) and honorary awards (non citizens). The lead is a *summary* of the article content. If you want to confirm for yourself her award was not an honorary one, that only Australian citizens can receive a (non-honorary) award, you can check the Order of Australia website yourself where the details of her award (and the criteria for receiving such) are listed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) moved to article Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)[edit]

Draft page only recently had a closed deletion discussion due to WP:BLP concerns.

Fresh off that, violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV by (talk · contribs) at the page. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Edits directly frame topic to appear more legitimate.

This comes after the shooting in Washington, D.C. [5]

Wikipedia must make it clear this is debunked, fraud, conspiracy theory bullshit.

Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe pending changes would be a good idea? I don't know if that's done on draft pages, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, the deletion discussion closed as "Keep", so what normally happens next? Does it get turned into its own page? Redirect merge to Comet Ping Pong ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep would mean it becomes an article once it's as suitable as it's going to be (which, sadly, it is). Merge is its own result. WP:PC1 does say "administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption" - not just articles, but any page. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson:Or anyone else watching: Now at Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Large influx of users making same exact change as IP above. The protection level did not seem to work. Users coming to page with agenda to minimize wording that it is debunked fake conspiracy theory bullshit. Trying to add wording to the intro section that says it is not debunked. This already has led to violence and a man shooting up a restaurant with an assault rifle that thank goodness did not result in injuries or death. Need more eyes on this article please. Sagecandor (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
As above - if this was a brand new article it'd be deleted as an Attack Page. At the very most, this should be a sub-section of List of conspiracy theories although even that page would end up needing a higher level of protection than the Pizzagate page currently has. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
At minimum I would think this page falls under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 and should be noted on its talk page, though that's not going to stop IPs with an intent. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Exemplo347:Also a good idea. But right now the current issue is lots of activity at Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) primarily incoming users trying to change the intro to imply the fiction it is factual. Sagecandor (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Bitsnake420 (talk · contribs) is still not getting it, at [6]. Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You understand that in order to provide a source, the source must have genuine proof of whatever it is that you're claiming. You have yet to display genuine evidence that supports your claim that the theory is debuunked. This isnt because of any other reason other than that Wikipedia users must be shown the proof, with no bias. I'm waiting. --Bitsnake420 (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, I would point to, say, this New York Times Article [7], but I think you're slightly mistaken on Wikipedia's role. We don't fisk the evidence used by reliable sources. We can certainly argue reliability, but after that, we take them at their word. Fact-checking is their job, not ours. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Bitsnake420 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. Sagecandor (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Brendan Schaub[edit]

WP:BLP violations by incoming IP address users related to pushing Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Sagecandor (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Page was semi-protected, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump[edit]

Ivanka is listed as a child of Donald Trump. While she is younger than a couple of his kids, she should be listed under his list of spouses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randallhsmith (talkcontribs) 19:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump is his daughter, Ivana Trump was his spouse. That is the way they are listed in the infobox on his page. I assume that is what you were talking about. - GB fan 19:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)