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:

J Roberto Trujillo[edit]

Currently scheduled for copyvio deletion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

This appears to be a copy of this person's CV written by himself, and is not verifiable or written from a neutral point of view. A clear WP:COI.

J Roberto Trujillo

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

Not Sylvia Miles in photo on her page[edit]

Well since no succint response to request for evidence - closing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

The photograph on the page for Sylvia Miles is for Vera Miles, not Sylvia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The source of the photo, the Florida Keys Public Library, identifies her as Sylvia. What's your source that it isn't? —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The photograph in question is apparently File:Sylvia Miles on Duval Street.jpg. But what makes you sure that this is Vera and not Sylvia Miles? The image was published by Monroe County Public Library (Florida Keys) which is supposedly a reliable source. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Despite their shared surname, and being born within a few years of each other, Vera Miles and Sylvia Miles are not related, as far as I can tell. Sylvia Miles is credited with a role in 92 in the Shade, the film shot in Key West when the photo was taken there. I see no evidence that Vera Miles was involved with that film. Therefore, I believe that the photo is of Sylvia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure looks like Sylvia Miles to me and nothing like Vera Miles. -- WV 22:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have no opinion on this particular image. I just wanted to point out that the same situation exists at Bob Armstrong (actually Tommy Seigler) and George Barnes Grigsby (actually James Wickersham). The latter is not a BLP, but I thought I would mention it anyway. This has been repeatedly pointed out and categorically ignored, because of the same lazy, obedient assumption that a clerk at the Library of Congress is going to know more about Grigsby and Wickersham and their contentious, intertwining tenures in Congress than members of the local historical society. Some of those folks have been studying Wickersham for decades, while some others volunteer as docents at the local Wickersham House museum. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello RadioKAOS. I see no discussion at Talk: Bob Armstrong and no opposition at Talk:George Barnes Grigsby. If you have investigated the matter, why don't you go right ahead and remove those photos from those articles? Is anything stopping you? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Based on prior episodes, the problem may be that I'm violating particular interpretations of AGF by saying anything when people just randomly slap together content elements without regard for context or factual accuracy. This compared with this makes it a no-brainer. Accuracy-wise, there's nothing to discuss. However, the very existence of crops like this suggests a deep, abiding hatred of context on the part of some who perhaps push our content a little too far in a hagiographic direction. While we're talking about professional wrestling, here's a good example of that. I doubt that an article such as Heyman's is being read mostly by people who have zero familiarity with professional wrestling. As such, it wouldn't take much to figure out that the arm on the left side of the photo belongs to Brock Lesnar, and that Heyman's shit-eating grin can be attributed to this being their first public appearance following WrestleMania XXX, where Lesnar ended the WM winning streak of The Undertaker, a pretty significant event in wrestling within this decade. I'm just waiting for someone to respond to this with "The article is about Paul Heyman, not about Brock Lesnar. That's why he was cropped out".
A more pressing BLP problem is at Don Young, which I've been watching for years but haven't paid a lot of attention to until a recent news story about one of his election opponents. One active editor with a fondness for constant edit warring and otherwise messing with good-faith contributions to political articles added the signature of John Conyers to the infobox in December 2014. Other active editors with a fondness for constant edit warring and otherwise messing with good-faith contributions to political articles have shown up there since, but evidently didn't find this to be worth their bother. Instead, their edit warring focused on some fleeting political issue, as is always the case with that article. I've had past interactions with this group and have just left them alone, since I don't view my purpose here as being one of providing them with fodder because they're bored and need something to do. In this context, I view SOFIXIT as just covering up for that sort of behavior. Fuck that, let them hang by their own rope. Similarly, Sarah Palin never served in another governor's cabinet, but Click Bishop served in Palin's cabinet. Various editors over the years who have worked on those and related articles appear quite confident in how we don't need to properly reflect those sort of things. If they want to walk around in a Wiki version of "The Emperor's New Clothes", how is my constantly fixing their fuckups going to address the root cause?
I don't want to dwell as much on Grigsby, as it's not a BLP. Nome and Seward Peninsula by Edward Sanford Harrison (1905) is on Google Books, so you can verify this yourself, but the photo of Grigsby in that book shows just enough resemblance to leave just enough doubt. I recall attempting to contact the LOC about this and never receiving a response. Without resolving it at that level, it's a US-PD image, and therefore people will continue to upload it and claim that it's Grigsby even if we figure things out and change it on our end. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Amy Poehler[edit]

Closing, as agr has moved the discussion back to the article talk page here:[1]

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

>Nearly two years ago In September last year, it was widely reported that actress Amy Poehler broke up with her actor boyfriend Nick Kroll. Apparently, Us Weekly first reported on it, then People Magazine followed up with what they had from the Us Weekly article(s). Entertainment Tonight followed suit as did the San Jose Mercury News, Los Angeles Times, and Variety. It should be noted that I don't care about Poehler's personal life or about who she's dating. What I care about is that the article on her be accurate. Which, at this time, it is not. As well, I've always been a stickler for following BLP guidelines and accuracy in all articles. In the past, when a celebrity relationship, death, or "breaking news" story has come to light, editors are rightly skeptical and cautious in adding such content into BLP articles - I'm among them. In this case, when the story of Poehler's relationship split first broke, I was one of those who remained cautious. A year later, when there was nothing that refuted the reporting on the break up, I was less cautious and felt the new information on her relationship status should be put into the article. Now, almost two years later, the content remains out of the article, the article states she and her now ex-boyfriend are still dating, and the result is a BLP that contains inaccurate information. Others beside myself have tried to rectify this situation, always adding reliable sources to support the content addition (LA Times and SJ Merc News among them). We have been met continually with "NOTATABLOID" and "not a reliable source" and almost immediate reversions. Today and the last couple of days is the most recent occurrence of this. Discussion at the talk page in the past - and, it would appear today - has resulted in brick walls being built. I think it's time to solve this issue once and for all in regard to the sources cited for this BLP article. Any help and direction on this from uninvolved and neutral editors would be appreciated.-- WV 22:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been a perennial problem in biographies of TV, film and music stars, and normally most editors will follow WP:BLP and WP:NOTTABLOID. But a couple of editors have made or are trying to make edits at Amy Poehler based on anonymous, unattributed, shadowy "sources" making unconfirmed claims.
Their claim, for example, that her purported breakup with Nick Kroll has been "widely reported" is specious, since virtually every single report is secondary reporting citing Us Weekly and its anonymous "source." That's all the Los Angeles Times and San Jose Mercury News did. A hundred sources could repeat the claim, but it all goes back to the same "source": some anonymous person of uncertain credibility or agenda who gave Us Weekly an unconfirmed claim — which by definition is a rumor. An encyclopedia does not traffic in gossip and rumor.
RE: "a year later, when there was nothing that refuted the reporting on the break up..." Some shadowy person's allegation isn't magically confirmed after a year or even 10 years. And if celebrities had to refute every anonymous claim made about them in celebrity magazines and the tabloid press, they'd have little time for anything else. Many, many celebrities never bother to refute media gossip.
RE: "the article states she and her now ex-boyfriend are still dating...." That is absolutely false. The article says they began dating at some point, with RS citing, and that she mentions Kroll in her book. That's all we confirmably know. Nowhere does the article say, "As of 2016 they remain in a relationship."
The other editor said on the article's talk page that he or she: "tried to use language in the article which reflects that the split was reported rather than saying the split was confirmed by the couple." One of the biggest weasel words we avoid is "reportedly." Anyone can report anything. And simply adding the word "reportedly" to gossip or a rumor doesn't make it OK or encyclopedic.
Finally, there's a larger issue at stake: Stating unconfirmed, unverified, anonymously sourced claims as encyclopedic fact. Sometimes those claims will be correct. Sometimes they will not. There's no objective basis for saying, "This anonymous source is OK, but that one isn't." Where do we draw the line? That's the critical question. I do not believe that an encyclopedia, which as much as humanly possible is supposed the concrete, definitive word on a subject, should be using unconfirmed, tabloidy, who's-dating-who / who's pregnant-type information based on anonymous claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Reportedly, most Wikipedia editors who use a lot of weasel words are actual, literal weasels... --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Our guideline WP:RS says "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Several of the news outlets cited on the breakup have excellent reputations. The LA Times in particular cites "multiple reports" and attempted to contact both parties. WP:RS does not require that we vet the fact checking that our sources actually carry out in each case. Doing so might be appropriate as an extra measure for a highly damaging report about a living person, but the end of a dating relationship does not seem that contentious. I think the sourcing passes muster in this situation.--agr (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:ArnoldReinhold a.k.a. agr might not be the best person from whom to get interpretation of Wikipedia rules: On the same edit as his post above, he actually went in and changed the comment of another editor. I don't know what guideline he read that says it's OK to change another editor's talk-page comments. I've restored the editor's original comments.
Newspapers are famously "the first draft of history". They are not encyclopedias, which have a higher standard. In fact, wait: Here's how WP:BLP puts it: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid."
WP:BLP also says that "contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Anonymous sources by their very nature are poor sources. And it goes completely against BLP to suggest that we can use anonymous, unconfirmed claims by unidentified "sources" — i.e. rumors — to invade someone's private life. Or as the policy puts it: "Biographies of living persons ... must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." --Tenebrae (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
"agr might not be the best person from whom to get interpretation of Wikipedia rules". Please keep this civil and comment only on content not contributors. Back to the real issue: While I don't usually think that administrators, as agr is, always have the right answers, I don't think his comments on and interpretation of WP:RS are off at all. Even if I didn't agree with what side he's coming down on in this discussion, I would still feel what he quoted above and explained is on the money. And, just for the record, I highly doubt agr intentionally changed my comments and what happened was a simple copy and paste that went slightly awry -- it's quite unlikely an administrator intentionally would change another editors comments. The copy and paste snafu has happened to me before and I think it's a very plausible explanation for what happened above. -- WV 04:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
It was indeed a paste instead of copy error on my part. Thanks for understanding that.--agr (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Every source traces back to US weekly. Which is *not* useable as a RS for contentious info on Wikipedia. The LA Times probably would be, but we also dont put in speculation 'We have contacted them and been unable to verify this information' should be a warning sign for most people that the info is probably not sound. Until someone actually comes up with a reliable source that confirms the info, it should stay out as it is clearly unconfirmed rumours. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Us Weekly isn't a RS? That is news to me. As far as confirmation, ET, also a RS, stated n their article that they confirmed the story. Regardless, the LAT and SJMN, both unquestionably RSs, reported the story. Doesn't matter from where they got the story this time just it doesn't matter in other instances. Are you saying both reputable publications must now be scrutinized as to their journalistic integrity and we must question what they publish based on where they got their info? I don't think it works that way, just as Agr pointed out above according to the RS policy. -- WV 09:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
In short, RS requires we judge all sources individually for the information they are providing. An otherwise RS may be unreliable for specific claims. We dont include information in a BLP and leave it at 'well source X printed it, so it must be true'. When it comes to BLPs half-measures do not cut it. Yes it *does* matter where the information comes from, and if you continue to use gossip sources to report unverified celebrity gossip, expect the same response you have already been provided with. The other option of course, is as the nature of her relationship is unclear (and it is not just linked to her, I did a fairly comprehensive search on the other party last night and the info available is equally badly sourced and out of date) the most BLP compliant option would be just to remove all mention of said relationship from both their biographies. Since said relationship (if over) was not significant, it doesnt belong as an UNDUE issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what you're saying may be true in theory, but in practice, it just isn't the way things are done in Wikipedia. Time and again I've seen the exact opposite occur. I will retain my position on this: the SJMN and the LAT are unquestionably reliable sources. They published it, therefore, it is verified. Remember: verifiability over truth. Further, the relationship was significant enough for Poehler to include in her book (and that is also included in the article), therefore, the break up needs to be included in the article as well. Otherwise, you have a completely open-ended relationship status that should have closure in the article but still states, incorrectly, that it still exists. -- WV 14:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Well in practice it *does* work that way, since numerous editors apply it that way every day. That you do not is your problem. Since its a BLP and the info about the relationship ending is contentious and in multiple editor's opinion is unreliable, it stays out until you can demonstrate a clear consensus to include it. So unless you have some entirely new argument that is more compelling than the one you have just made, I suggest you leave it a day or so for others to comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Please abandon the hostile tone ("that you do not is your problem") as its not necessary and is starting to take things south here. My observation is simply that, an observation. I didn't say I don't apply it every day and I didn't say I don't still see that as the gold standard. That said, in this case, I believe this gold standard is a bit over the top on something so minute that has been verified and published by reliable sources. There's nothing overtly contentious with this other than the two-year long contention from one editor at the article who reverts this content on sight, no discussion has resulted in anything but what he deems correct. Two years is a long time for something verified by reliable sources enough to their satisfaction that they published it to stay out of an encyclopedia article and incorrect content to remain. I see that as a much bigger problem for the article than the argument about all the reliable sources' content verification going back to Us Weekly, a reliable source in and of itself. There's something else applied by numerous editors every day here, WP:COMMONSENSE. I think it's time to use some where this content, for this article, is concerned. -- WV 14:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Since its a BLP and the info about the relationship ending is contentious and in multiple editor's opinion is unreliable, it stays out until you can demonstrate a clear consensus to include it per WP:BLP. Length of time on a 'fact' not being reported on further can equally mean no one reported on it further because it was unverified celebrity gossip. Unless you have some entirely new argument that is more compelling than the one you have just made, I suggest you leave it a day or so for others to comment. If it sounds like I am repeating myself, it is because I am as you appeared not to have heard the first time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
"Length of time on a 'fact' not being reported on further can equally mean no one reported on it further because it was unverified celebrity gossip." They haven't been seen together for two years following the stories published by reliable sources that their relationship ended but it's unverified gossip that they are no longer together? I'm not following your line of reasoning. I still believe BLP guidelines will not be compromised with inclusion of the content supported by the aforementioned reliable sources, that WP:RS as quoted above by agr is the right way to approach this, and WP:COMMONSENSE needs to be applied. And with that, I will bow out commenting further unless someone asks a specific question of me. -- WV 15:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I strongly disagree with anyone insisting on putting celebrity gossip into Wikipedia. It's a tortured argument to say that because the LA Times repeats a rumor from Us Weekly that the rumor must be true. Magazines often report gossip and many newspapers have gossip sections — en encyclopedia does not and should not. That is WP:COMMONSENSE.

And incidentally WP:BLP is more stringent than simple WP:RS, and rightfully so.-- Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone seen this interview in The Guardian?

She is so smart and eloquent on the topic that I find myself breezing through all the usual interview questions about where she grew up (Newton, Massachusetts with a younger brother, Greg), what her parents did (high-school teachers) and her past relationships (she’s recently split from fellow comedian Nick Kroll and is divorced from actor Will Arnett, with whom she has two sons, aged seven and five) simply because I want to hear more of what she thinks. – Elizabeth Day, The Guardian, 2015-12-13

That's basically everything this source has to say about the (alleged) breakup – unless you squint, a lot. Anyway, what's unique to this (reliable) source is that it does not link to Us Weekly. Politrukki (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you even have to squint a lot to see what's being said. It doesn't seem to be any kind of WP:SYNTH situation, either. It certainly supports what the LAT and SJMN already said three months prior to this article. agr, do you know if The Guardian is considered a reliable source? -- WV 20:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
After some investigation, it would appear The Guardian is a reliable source, legitimate newspaper with editorial oversight, and I see no reason why this cannot be yet another RS to support content that mentions the end of Poehler and Kroll's romantic relationship. As has already been established, the relationship is significant in Poehler's life as she talked about it in her book. There seems to be no valid reason at this point to keep content on the break up out of the article. -- WV 23:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Politrukki I had not seen that quote but it does come from another reliable source. I'll be brief here since I have already discussed at length on the talk page. First to clarify a few things, the reports come from September 2015, so it was almost 10 months ago, not two years. Also to clarify, US Weekly is the source that was picked up by most other outlets, however did report having its own source for the news, so that makes two reports with their own sources. Now we can add the Guardian article above, which makes three articles that have their own reporting. I have yet to see any reliable sources indicating that Poehler and Kroll are not broken up. Even if the Los Angeles Times did not do in depth reporting on its own here, a writer at the Los Angeles times read the US Weekly reporting and determined it was reliable enough to report on. Dozens of other writers at reputable websites and newspapers made similar judgments. Two people ending a relationship is not libelous and should not be controversial where it is so widely reported. No one has proposed assigning blame or attaching any value judgment.
I had wrote "reportedly" in the article as a way to respond to a previous complaint that the article said Poehler and Kroll had confirmed which did not reflect the article cited (which at that time was the Daily Mail). I am open to coming up with a way to phrase the sentence which might be more agreeable to other editors and address some of the concerns. Knope7 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
This fan-site-like desire to start injecting unconfirmed relationship gossip into a WP:BLP is simply remarkable. If Poehler had confirmed the claim to The Guardian, that'd be definitive. But she clearly did not and the writer was forced to make an assumption — because if Poehler did not confirm it, and the paper did not speak with Kroll, then where did the information come from? From exactly the kind of rumormongering that magazines and newspapers do but an encyclopedia should not.
RE: "Dozens of other writers at reputable websites and newspapers made similar judgments" — I'm rather frustrated at Knope7 playing "I don't hear you." So let me say it again and I hope that this editor doesn't try and pretend again that he or she does not hear: Those "dozens" of outlets were all simply repeating gossip that an anonymous, shadowy, unattributed source of uncertain agenda told Us Weekly. Repeating a rumor does not make it true. As for People, it also used an anonymous source.
An encyclopedia can't rely on anonymous claims made to gossip sites and tabloids. WP:BLP is rightfully more stringent than WP:RS. I'll repeat what it says, since some editors seem to be willfully ignoring it: "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. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons ... must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. [emphasis mine] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tenebrae I have read all of your comments and I do not agree with you. I will not go through the reasons why again. We can disagree and still be civil. I was putting my comments here so that other editors who may not have read the talk page could see them. I would like to ask you to please stop making snide comments directed at me. I do not appreciate it and I would like it to stop. We are here to try and reach consensus on the Amy Poehler article. Knope7 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay - wow, my error on how long it's been. Thanks for pointing that out, Knope7. My suggestion for the wording is:
Poehler began dating actor and comedian Nick Kroll in 2013; he was mentioned several times in Poehler's 2014 memoir, Yes Please. From September to December 2015, it was reported in several online publications that Kroll and Poehler had ended their two-year dating relationship. The break-up was confirmed on September 23, 2015 by the news-magazine, Entertainment Tonight. In December 2015, the break-up was further confirmed by the British newspaper, The Guardian, where writer Elizabeth Day's interview with Poehler stated she had discussed Poehler's past relationship with Kroll.
Suggesting something like the above, anyway. The content acknowledges the significance of the relationship (which was questioned by an editor above) with the mention of Poehler's book, it notes that there were reports of the break up starting in September 2015, it was confirmed by Entertainment Tonight that same month, and then discussed by Poehler with the Guardian writer during an interview in December 2015. Reliable sources will be added to support all this, of course. -- WV 02:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
There are so many reasons why that suggestion is completely unworkable. First, the amount of space given to a purported breakup is undue weight. Second, "it was reported in several online publications" practically screams "unreliable gossip and rumor" — are you unfamiliar with the reputation of online publications? And those "several online publications" are all re-reporting the same Us Weekly rumor.
And your claim about Entertainment Tonight seems deliberately misleading. Here's what it says: "...have officially broken up, ET confirms. Us Weekly was the first to break the news." So ET is also basing its report on Us Weekly, and as for its confirmation .... there is no confirmation! Who confirmed it? Poehler? Kroll? Their representatives? No. And for goodness sakes, that tabloid TV show betrays its sloppy reporting when it says the two "officially" broke up. Really ... where do you register to make it official?
Since this editor also seems guilty of "I can't hear you", I'll repeat about The Guardian: If Poehler had confirmed the claim to The Guardian, that'd be definitive. But she clearly did not and the writer was forced to make an assumption — because if Poehler did not confirm it, and the paper did not speak with Kroll, then where did the information come from? From exactly the kind of rumormongering that magazines and newspapers do but an encyclopedia should not. Addendum: The writer does not say,"she had discussed Poehler's past relationship with Kroll". Anyone can read for themselves that she says she was "breezing through all the usual interview questions" — whatever "breezing through" means in this context — and the writer mentions Kroll in a parenthetical aside. Not as a quote. Not even as a paraphrase. Her own parenthetical aside.
Are two editors really arguing that it's a good thing for an encyclopedia to start adding unconfirmed celebrity gossip? That just strikes me as a very odd thing to be fighting for. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Generally yes. Its fairly common for celebrity BLP's. Which brings me back to my original suggestion of removing the section under UNDUE grounds. Its irrelevant to her notability and as WV has clearly show above, attempts to expand it fall under UNDUE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Winkelvi, Us Weekly and Entertainment Tonight were both published on September 23 and the US Weekly article online mentioned that they published the story in their magazine as well. To address @talk's undue weight concern, I think one sentence would be sufficient. "In September 2015, US Weekly and People reported Poehler and Kroll had broken up," or something else quick, to the point, and then followed up with citations. I'd be fine with replacing People with Entertainment Tonight since they both say they have a source outside of US Weekly. I would also recommend maybe adding a citation to LA Times/CBS/some other more "reputable" source that reported the information.
An alternative suggestion would be just to combine the relationship and break-up into once sentence. "Poehler dated comedian Nick Kroll from 2013 to 2015," and use whatever source is their currently for them dating as well as any one (or several) of the sources which reported they broke up (US, People, ET, Guardian, LA Times, CBS).
I'm also fine with removing the relationship altogether as suggested by Only in death. One of my complaints about not including the break-up is that it gives the impression that Poehler and Kroll are still dating that is contrary to all reports I've seen. I'd be fine with just removing the relationship if compromise cannot be reached for how to include the break-up articles. Knope7 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Knope7, I would agree with you about removing the relationship altogether if the relationship with Kroll had not been mentioned in her book. Obviously, for her to put it in the book, it was significant. Two years together is significant. We now have a reliable source that does, independent from Us Weekly, and in spite of what some here are saying, confirm Kroll and Poehler ended their relationship as was reported in reliable sources. The Guardian is a reliable source and there's no reason why we should not take what the author of the article says as suspect or unclear. Just because it's written in a prose-like fashion rather than a bullet-point or time-line fashion doesn't make it any less verifiable and real. -- WV 03:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I think saying "Poehler and Kroll dated from 2013 to 2015. Poehler mentioned Kroll in her book." (or some variation of that) would be fine. I think that mentioning the break up is the best way to address the reporting. That said, I would also like to build consensus. The second best option, IMO, is to not mention the relationship at all. I think the relationship is notable enough to mention, but I don't think it is so important that its exclusion would be as bad as option three. Option three--leaving the article as it is now with the relationship mentioned and leaving out the end of the relationship, which has been widely reported by reputable sources, is poor work. It is misleading as it implies the relationship is still going on and makes Wikipedia look unnecessarily out of date given the sources available. My main concerns are accuracy and veracity. I will note that I looked at the edit history and this information has been added to the article by several different editors over the past 10 months and so far I have not seen one source refuting the veracity of the break-up report. Anyway, I am willing to agree to a compromise which is why I suggested removing the relationship altogether. It is not the best option, but it's also not the worst option. Knope7 (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone still doubt that no source is sufficiently reliable for matters of "celebrity gossip"? Collect (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Collect and I'm surprised this is even a discussion. Plus, addressing once again the "I can't hear you" tactics of the only two editors who are advocating for celebrity gossip, the phrase "US Weekly and People reported Poehler and Kroll had broken up" is an unusable construction since it's simply and end-around attempt at inserting the WP:WEASEL "reportedly". --Tenebrae (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
"I'm surprised this is even a discussion". Not following you or why you said <---that. Especially considering that the following thread at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons was started by you four days ago: [2]. Essentially the same kind of thread, asking for help and advice regarding content at the article in question and asking for a check on the understanding BLP guidelines in regard to reliable sources. In fact, according to the time stamp, you started that discussion before I started this one. The day after you started the thread, you received the following response from Seraphimblade: "The question is whether the source is reliable. If sources as diverse as the LA Times and People Magazine are satisfied with the information and willing to publish it, they are, to the best of my knowledge, generally considered reliable sources capable of competent fact-checking, subject to editorial control, and generally accurate. It does not matter if they name their source, they would have verified the information to their satisfaction. I don't believe the use of BLP here to remove the information is appropriate, given that multiple reliable sources have published it. Seraphimblade 03:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)". As we can all see, Seraphimblade agrees with the majority of us who have commented here: the content is valid and should be included if supported by a reliable source, which, in Seraphimblade's estimation (as with the majority of us commenting here), it is. -- WV 01:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has moved back to the article's talk page Talk:Amy Poehler#BLP Noticeboard discussion.--agr (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

B. Alan Wallace[edit]

The article uses a blog post as a secondary source for Wallace's views and claims (which is at least discouraged by WP:BLPSPS as I understand it). I asked for a primary source for the statement "in support of this view Wallace cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception", as it seems dubious (I give my justification for that here). The other editor involved didn't provide it and reintroduced the claim, despite no one else expressing assent to it after a long discussion on the talk page. Chilton (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Chilton believes, indeed insists, that a primary source is required to back up a secondary source. This is wrong. As I have attempted to explain on the article talk page, secondary sources are vital in Wikipedia (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:FRIND, etc.).
  • The source in question is Steven Novella, a neurologist and professor. It is narrowly focused upon critiquing Wallace's ideas about consciousness, and it is only used for that purpose. Per WP:NPOV, specifically WP:PSCI, we are required to place views considered pseudoscientific in the context of mainstream reception. That is, it is against the NPOV policy to present Wallace's fringe views uncritically; Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of fringe views. This is the reason WP:PARITY exists, and the source is suitable per WP:PARITY.
  • The text in the article accurately reflects the source, as Chilton himself has conceded. He just believes Novella is "wrong". I have asked (several times) for a better source, but none has been forthcoming.
  • I proposed removing from the article the mention Wallace's views on consciousness, as this would cleanly resolve the dispute. (No policy says that we must discuss a particular view that a subject has.) Chilton has refused to say yes or no to this proposal.
Manul ~ talk 22:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Chilton believes, indeed insists, that a primary source is required to back up a secondary source." - I asked for a primary source only for this particular claim, explaining why I think it is probably untrue. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for a primary source for the person's own statements (especially if they are sourced solely by someone's blog post). Please don't ascribe your misunderstandings to me. Chilton (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is narrowly focused upon critiquing Wallace's ideas about consciousness, and it is only used for that purpose" - no, it is also used as the sole source for Wallace's own views and claims. I never implied that I want to present them uncritically. Chilton (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "I have asked (several times) for a better source" - as far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't require providing a source as a justification for every deletion. Besides that, it would be next to impossible to find a source which contradicted Novella's claim (as I explained on the talk page) - unless the totality of Wallace's own books and interviews counts. Chilton (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You tagged the article with the {{dubious}} template, giving the reason as "No primary source for this claim could be provided."[3] There is no policy-based justification for this, and it's a bit more than "asking" -- it is demanding.
  • Correct, we use independent secondary sources to describe fringe views.
  • If you can find a better source, I'm happy to throw out Novella. The Salon interview is in line with what Novella says, but I'm open to a better (necessarily secondary, necessarily independent) source.
Manul ~ talk 23:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The full reason is obviously on the talk page, as you very well know. Please don't try to manipulate the situation in this way.
  • "Correct" - I'm pleased that you are able to admit that you were wrong on some point.
  • Here we go again. You didn't address my argument for why I think the statement is dubious, nor my doubts about the possiblity of ever finding a source to contradict Novella (even in principle). I also didn't claim that we have to throw him out. I hope someone else steps in an settles this, as this is getting extremely tiresome. Chilton (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The basic problem here is really not secondary versus primary source. No, we don't need a primary source if we have a reliable secondary source... but this secondary source being used does not meet our standards for reliability. It's a WP:BLPSPS, and is thus not sufficient for data on a living person. The material will need to be sourced properly if it is to be included. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. A blog is definitely WP:BLPSPS Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I concur with NatGertler - Self-published work by third parties is not acceptable for comment on a living person as per WP:BLPSPS. However, as the publisher appears to be an accredited expert in a relevant field, their opinion on the substance of Wallace's ideas may be included. Their opinion on Wallace himself (or speculation about what he actually believes) may not. Its a fine distinction that rarely comes up, because there are usually plenty of primary sources that confirm what the secondary sources ascribe to them (the subject). Compare:
  • "The idea that evidence of "substrate consciousness" may be obtained through meditative states...." sourced to Novella
  • "Wallace believes that evidence of "substrate consciousness" may be obtained through meditative states..." Sourced to Novella
In the first example, Novellas self-published source is being used to critique the idea Wallace has put forward (that this is testable) - this would usually be fine. In the second example we attribute a belief to Wallace from a third party - this would not be okay without either a non-blog reliable secondary source stating Wallace holds that belief, or a primary source (Wallace) stating he holds that belief. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but if we put "Wallace believes in substrate consciousness"(SOURCE: Something Reliable)" up against "Novello says that science finds that substrate consciousness is cherry-flavored hogwash" (SOURCE: Bloggity blog), then we're engaging in WP:SYNTH. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Synth is A+B=C where no source connects A+B to conclusion C. An example of synth would be - "Wallace states substrate conciousness can be tested" (Source: Something Reliable) + "Substrate conciousness cannot be tested because science!" (Source: Bloggity Blog by scientist) = "Wallace believes in substrate conciousness" - Synth. The first two statements would be allowed per sourcing (depending on the author of the blog's credentials) the conclusion would be Synth and BLP violating - which I believe is currently what the wording in the article states now. I think the BLP *could* be reworded to include Novella's comments on the testability of substrate conciousness, but ideally this would be in an article on the subject itself. The other problem of course, is for truely fringe/pseudo science topics you sometimes just do not get the ReliableSource(TM) commenting on it because no sane scientist is going to put out a paper for peer-review on something obviously bunk. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but putting those two statements together is used to create an implied C ("Scientists believe that Wallace's belief are cherry-flavored hogwash"), and the only place that has that A+B=C is a place that we specifically cannot use for that statement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
These hypotheticals don't seem helpful because they don't match up with the case at hand. The Novella source connects the fringe theory to Wallace, so there is no SYNTH in making that connection. Novella also discusses the evidence cited by Wallace, so there is no SYNTH in tying the claimed evidence to the theory or to Wallace. The evidence is part of the fringe theory being critiqued; it is not something separate from it.
I do think the comments above raise a valid concern about the wording, which should make clear that the evidence is part of the theory and that the theory is being criticized. This is quite different from SYNTH-sounding "Wallace believes ... but science ..." sort of sentences. Manul ~ talk 02:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
That's an article about Wallace, not an article about consciousness. We have a whole single article from salon where he states his views. At best we can say he has a view, and that it is fundamentally incompatible with main stream science. But anything pulled from the blog post is a BLP violation, and any more detail would probably be an WP: Undue weight problem for an article on a person. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not a platform the promotion of fringe theories. As such, we do not simply pull from primary sources. Rather, we use independent sources to describe fringe theories (WP:FRIND): "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." As noted above, there is a distinction between using a source to place a fringe theory in context as required by WP:NPOV, specifically WP:PSCI, and using a source for BLP information. The source is suitable per WP:PARITY. Manul ~ talk 20:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The sentence after the colon certainly doesn't say the thing you said before the colon. What WP:FRIND states is that the best (not "the only admissible") sources for describing such theories are independent reliable sources. I don't know if Novella's blog post qualifies as a truly reliable source per WP:BLPSPS. I'm also not sure if statements of the form "X cites Y and Z in support of his theory" (without ever explaining what the supposed connection is) are exactly what is meant by describing a theory. Chilton (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Novella is a violation of BLP. It's a self-published blog, and WP: BLPSPS is explicit that self published sources are never to be used as material on living people, unless published by the person themselves. What's more WP: BLPFRINGE requires us to meet BLP while dealing with people who have fringe views. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I proposed removing the relevant text (subsection below), so I think we are on the same page regarding WP:UNDUE. However the argument about Novella being a BLP violation is mistaken. You're saying that when a fringe theory is attributed to an identified person (usually the case), WP:PARITY cannot be applied because critiquing the fringe theory is the same thing as critiquing the person. Effectively the argument is: an idea is a person, therefore BLP applies to the idea. No, the purpose of BLP is to protect people, not ideas. The Novella source is fine as long as its use is constrained to critique the fringe theory and not Wallace himself; Novella is an expert and WP:PARITY applies. Otherwise WP:NPOV (specifically WP:PSCI) would have to be thrown out and Wikipedia would become a platform for the promotion of fringe theories. Manul ~ talk 19:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal (Wallace)[edit]

Simply remove Wallace's views of consciousness from the article. This will fully resolve the dispute. If we don't discuss them then we are not bound by WP:PSCI to find an independent source like Novella to provide context. Novella is permissible per WP:PARITY, but any situation invoking PARITY is not ideal.

  • Support as the proposer. Manul ~ talk 20:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Against. In my humble opinion, Novella is fine as long as we don't have a better source and use him mainly to provide context, not as an infallible authority on what are Wallace's own statements. Chilton (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - this does not prevent addition of the material once a proper source if found. WP:BLPSPS does not have an "unless we can find a better source" exception. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support As far as I'm concerned the section is WP: UNDUE. It's an article about a person, we shouldn't be putting too much emphasis on his personal theory. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Second proposal (Wallace)[edit]

Remove the absurd-sounding line about quantum mechanics, ESP and clairvoyance being evidence for substrate consciousness according to Wallace (which is sourced only by the Novella blog post). Replace it with something that is supported by primary sources, like "in his critique of scientific materialism and reductive accounts of consciousness, Wallace references modern physics along with paranormal phenomena" (which I already proposed in this version, but it was reverted). Leave Novella solely as a source of critique until something better is found. Chilton (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Micky Murphy[edit]

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

The article "Micky Murphy" about guitarist Mick Murphy is full of inaccuracies, both major and minor, from basic information such as his full name, date and place of birth, through to members of bands he has been in and worked with as well as many, many other details. I and others have attempted to edit the article on numerous occasions, only to have the changes rolled back or reported as vandalism. In its current form the article is very misleading and - I believe - should be removed. It seems to me that it is in clear breach of Wikipedia's living persons policies.Burlington Bert (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That article has had less than 30 edits in total, and none of them are by you, unless you were editing from a different account. There have been a couple of instances of vandalism which appear to have been reverted. One was by an IP and the other account has been blocked. There is also no discussion of any such problems at Talk:Micky Murphy, which is where such matters should be discussed. You should identify the specific errors and provide reliable sources verifying the accuracy of your version. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Cullen328. I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I understand that I wasn't actually logged in when making my edit to the Micky Murphy article - whereby I updated the info box to make it accurate - and hence the changes I made have been logged as an IP rather than my user name. Despite the accuracy of my edits, I note that they were reported as vandalism and reverted back to the original inaccurate info box. Whilst respecting Wikipedia, its policies and aims, it is hugely frustrating to keep being referred to different sections of the site to report inaccuracies and try and ensure they are amended or deleted. The errors in the article are so numerous that it would take a new article to list them all. Do you know of another route by which I can quickly resolve this? I have no other aim than to ensure an accurate article. With thanks in advance. Burlington Bert (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
As I suggested above, Burlington Bert, list the inaccuracies on the article's talk page (linked above) and provide reliable sources for the accurate information. Do so while logged in. Inform me when you have done so and I will take a look. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Cullen328. I'll inform you when done.Burlington Bert (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Cullen328. I have now listed out the inaccuracies in the article at Talk:Micky Murphy. With thanks.Burlington Bert (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for providing excellent documentation on the talk page, Burlington Bert. I have moved the article to the proper title Mick Murphy (guitarist), and corrected the most glaring errors. Please continue correcting errors and please also copy and paste the references you have provided to the article. Let me know if anyone adds falsehoods again, or post here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance in resolving the most obvious errors Cullen328. I will continue to edit the article to improve accuracy and overall sense.Burlington Bert (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Randy Spears[edit]

This porn actor gave an interview in which he alleged that a former romantic partner (also a notable porn actress) once accused him falsely of rape. I don't think the allegation of a false rape claim belongs in either ones BLP. I've deleted it from both articles. However, another editor argues that it's appropriate on one, if not both, pages. I initiated a thread here and the other editor has responded. Additional opinions (either way) would be helpful. David in DC (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I share your concern and have commented at that talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Given events since your comment, I imagine the page will require sustained attention from BLP-savvy editors. David in DC (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

john cain carter[edit]

FALSE INFORMATION: now owns an 8,100 hectare (20,000 acre) ranch''''Bold text' = this statement is false, and should be edited to depict the truth. The land mentioned belongs to me and my sisters. Ana Francisca is married to Mr. Carter, and he was invited by my parents to work on the land in 1996, when they moved to Brasil. In 2012 his wife (my sister) sold her share of the land and they moved back to Nashville. The remaining land still belongs to me and my sisters. Divinacid (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)camila cid

John Cain Carter From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia John Cain Carter (born 1966 in San Antonio, Texas) is a cattle rancher and environmentalist who started the Brazilian rainforest conservation organization, Aliança da Terra.[1][2][3] Carter moved to Brazil from Texas in 1996, and now owns an 8,100 hectare (20,000 acre) ranch near the Xingu and Amazon rivers in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso.[4] Shocked by the rapid deforestation occurring in the Amazon Rainforest, Carter started Aliança da Terra to provide economic incentives for farmers and ranchers to preserve the forest land.[2]

Hello, Divinacid. That claim is cited to a 2005 article in The Economist, a very reliable source, so the word "now" would inartfully describe the situation in 2005. Can you provide another reliable source that can be used to update the article? We can't simply take your word on the matter, because otherwise, we have no way to verify that what you say is true. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Christian Maldini[edit]

Can I create this page? I write again because after that nobody answered. --John95 (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Why? Do you dislike this individual sufficiently that you're willing to create a magnet for vandalism and wide exposure of anything negative about him? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Please don't WP:BITE the newbies, Boris. John95, in order to recreate the page you would need to ask Mailer diablo if they would be OK with this. However there are a few things to consider here:
  1. You will need to show where Maldini has received coverage enough to where he would pass notability guidelines per WP:NFOOTY or WP:NBIO. Being the child of a notable athlete would not be enough to assert notability.
  2. You may want to work on an article at the Articles for Creation process. This would greatly benefit you since you would be able to present Mailer diablo with a working copy of the article, which can help show notability more efficiently sometimes than conversations on a talk page.
  3. Be aware that as Boris stated, Wikipedia pages can sometimes become vandalism magnets. Wikipedia also tends to be protective of minors, even those in their later teens. If Maldini is still a minor then it will likely be more difficult to assert notability for him because Wikipedia generally figures that an article for a minor could be harmful if the kid does something foolish that would warrant inclusion in the article. However I get the impression he's about 19 years old, so the "protection of a minor" part might not be valid anymore.
Hopefully this helps you some! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, not meaning to bite, just wanting John95 to recognize the problems that having a Wikipedia biography can cause -- especially for someone of marginal notability whose article may not be closely watched. My language was a bit strong but sometimes that can help people sit up and take notice. My apologies to John95 for any offense. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Diamondprox Possible COPYVIO[edit]

This article popped up while doing NPP. It has a lot of obvious and some suspected issues. The language is clearly promotional. It reads like a fan page. But I am more concerned with the serious lack of sourcing and what smells like a copy and paste job in the text. One of the items that has potential COPYVIO flashing on my radar is that much of the text has brackets with numbers in them like what you would expect for footnotes. But they are just unexplained part of text. I did a couple of quick text searches using Google but turned up nothing. Even so I remain suspicious. Does anyone have a better way of doing a text search than Google? If anyone has some time and wants to take a look, I'd appreciate the second opinion. I am holding off on tagging for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I see large chunks of the history text here, with a different person's name. That material is released under a CC-BY-SA license, but with a copy and paste stripping the attribution, we're probably not meeting terms of the license and thus WP:COPYVIO is indeed a concern, but someone here might be better at navigating that question than I. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It says in the reference section - As of this edit, this article uses content from "Diamondprox", which is licensed in a way that permits reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, but not under the GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed. - which is apparently where this content came from - esportspedia June 2013, our article was created in June 2016.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I have added tags for ref improve and copy & paste. At this point I am unsure if we can leave it alone or this is something that needs to be redacted or maybe it rises to the level of just deleting the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I had missed that (I was too busy looking at edit summaries.) The template, added in this edit, is improperly formed, but when corrected it should probably cover the requisite needed attribution. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Christos Tsiolkas[edit]

There is a separate related article in wiki for the ABC TV miniseries based on Christos' novel of the same name. There is no hyperlink from one article to the other.<> — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn vos Savant[edit]

Could people have a look at this? The very extensive list of (apparently) every error she ever made in her column seems excessive, and it used to come before "famous columns" Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Bethlehem Shoals[edit]

Bethlehem Shoals

Image should be removed and page deleted because it has been subject to repeated vandalism and image has been used in threatening messages.

VerminTax (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)VerminTax— Preceding unsigned comment added by VerminTax (talkcontribs) 14:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @VerminTax: Are you talking about the image being used in off Wikipedia harassment? If that's the case then there's not much that we on Wikipedia can do about that, although you can contact the WMF at about this. I need to warn you that the page might not be deleted unless it can be shown that Shoals would fail notability guidelines or that he himself wants the page gone and that its removal would not adversely effect Wikipedia overly much. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @TokyoGirl79: I have spoken to subject and asked him to email Wikipedia directly. There is also very little reason to consider him "notable"—he is not a full-time writer and only occasionally publishes—and at this point is "notable" mainly because of the controversy mentioned on the page. It's unclear to him (and me) what purpose it serves to have a page for a minor figure when it will serve as little more than a target for harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerminTax (talkcontribs) 15:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Lorraine Mooney[edit]

The article about Lorraine Mooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) appears completely unacceptable: one unreliable source (, one mention in a gossip-y column in 2002, and a mention in a Salon article in 2008. Should it be blanked and proposed for deletion (I can't find any evidence of notability or better sources)? Thanks in advance for any advice. shellac (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the worst unsourced material and tagged the rest. It should probably be proposed for deletion if it doesn't improve soon. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. shellac (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Kim Dae-Eun[edit]

A user notified a discussion board that he changed the article for Olympic Gymnast Kim Dae-Eun by including a few sentences talking about how the user felt the gymnast was robbed of a gold medal in 2004. No source was given to why he felt this way, only the term "knowledgeable gymnastics fans will know". This has no place in the Wikipedia article and I've removed those sentences a few times, and the other user continues to add them back in. The editing for this page needs to be closed so this doesn't continue to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin888 (talkcontribs) 17:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Penguin888: Thank you for your vigilance Penguin888, it's because of editors like yourself that we can provide accurate encyclopedic on BLP subjects. I can see that you've had to revert additions of this information twice, is that correct? If so, it may not yet be at a level to warrant the use of article protection, however if it continues you may wish to make a request at Requests for Page Protection or notify us here -- samtar talk or stalk 17:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: Yes it was twice! I've gotten in trouble in the past for continuing to reverse changes to articles without bringing it up anywhere before so I just wanted to bring it up as soon as I could here! I'll keep an eye on the article and if it keeps happening I'll do what you say to do! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin888 (talkcontribs)
@Penguin888: bear in mind that although you may be reverting unreferenced additions this is not a reason to edit war or break the three revert rule. On second thoughts you may be better taking the editor to the edit warring noticeboard now -- samtar talk or stalk 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: The user has edited the page for the third time, I tried completing the form at the Edit Warring Noticeboard like you have said but am unsure if I did it correctly. Penguin888 (talk

Art Rascon[edit]

Cited sources have been challenged regarding the inclusion of national awards won by former CBS news correspondent Art Rascon whose work has appeared nationally on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather as well as 48 Hours. Ca2james reverted my edits saying the cited sources are not independent sources per this diff. I'm of the opinion the cited sources are compliant with WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. Following are the sources: CBS News dating back to 1998, an alumni bio by College of Fine Arts and Communications BYU, a bio by KTRK-ABC, and the Emmy nomination announcement published by The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. WP:BLP states "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." The sources cited do indeed meet V requirements and are inline with BLP policy but I think Ca2james may be confusing GNG independent sources requirement with V considering there is an AfD in progress for this BLP as well. I would appreciate further validation of the sources cited as being in compliance with [[WP:V]. Thx Atsme📞📧 18:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually I reverted most mentions of him winning national awards because there's no independent confirmation that he won those awards (which is not the same thing as an independent source). The only place those awards is mentioned is in bios that, since they all read the same with the same syntax and language, have all been written by him, so they're primary sources (which are also not the same thing as independent sources). I reverted another mention because the source didn't indicate it was a national award. It's better to err on the side of caution for blps, I thought. Ca2james (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The sources that mention the awards are RS. You are being disruptive by reverting properly sourced material. Your comment about erring on the side of caution further proves you are not familiar with the PAGs. I highly recommend that you read BLPN, RS and V before you revert another edit from that article. Atsme📞📧 04:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Nick Knowles[edit]

The subject has complained, on Twitter (his account is verified there), of multiple inaccuracies but refuses to say what they are (apart from one, where he says the cited source is wrong about who is the mother of one of his children; but he will not contact the source for a correction), and has dismissed my offer to help. He also invited people to vandalise the article, which is now semi-protected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Bill Battle Athletic Director of Alabama[edit]

could you look at Bill Battle page it looks messy. There are too many pipes as a symbol which makes it hard to read, and when you type in bill battle his name comes up as a coach. He has not coached since the 70's at Tennessee. Could you change it to athletic director at Alabama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AF2D:5109:5588:FDAD:4B51:9850 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is not an infobox for athletic directors. Since he has previously coached, the coach infobox is the most appropriate. I've restored the coach infobox. Also, the intro says he's the athletic director at Alabama. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz[edit]

Perhaps unsurprisingly the article is being turned into a political hit piece [4], [5], [6] a couple of agenda driven WP:SPAs. The info being added violates DUE WEIGHT, is poorly sourced and neither editor has bothered to get any kind of consensus for conclusion. One of them, D.Creish, has made BLP violations on related articles as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The second edit fits your description, but the first sounds like fairly factual reporting. It is sourced to the NYT. One hardly needs to get a consensus to report that someone has resigned their position.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The first one is actually not that big of a deal, except for the way it's phrased ("emails that proved") and yes, of course it should be mentioned that she resigned. The other two are the big problem here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Koko Jones[edit]

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

An IP made two edits today (diff) that made certain changes regarding gender identification of the subject. The IP did not add any new sources, so I reverted. However, out of concern that the IP might be right, I'm bringing it here to get more eyes on the situation and see if more sources can be found on Jones. (If there's a WikiProject better equipped to handle these types of issues, let me know so I can direct the situation there.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein[edit]

There's been a fair amount of (now archived) discussion of Dianne Feinstein's religion on her talk page. The following things seem to me to be true:

1) Many non-Wikipedia websites claim Feinstein is Jewish. 2) Clear statements on this from Feinstein herself seem somewhat hard to come by. I've seen a couple different people claim (without sources) that she has said different things at different times in her life, and I can't establish what things she's said most recently. 3) It seems likely the apparently-reliable sources mentioned in (1) are simply assuming she identifies as Jewish because her father was Jewish.

Absent better sources, I think there's a strong case for removing any references to Sen. Feinstein's religion (as opposed to that of farious family members) from Wikipedia immediately, pending someone finding a better source. This seems to be what WP:BLP demands in this case ("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.") But I'd like input from more experienced editors. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. WP:EGRS, which is for categories, says to only list a religion when it's self-proclaimed, so personally, I follow that as far as inserting religion into the body of a BLP. I think it's better to remove it as contentious and poorly sourced per WP:BLP in any case like you said. PermStrump(talk) 05:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Using web archive as a source[edit]

On Tyrel Jackson Williams in Personal Life, there is a source for the sole sentence in the section. However, the source redirects to web archives of a previous version of the page from DisneyXD. Is this permitted? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 03:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision of picture on Harshvardhan Kapoor's wikipedia page[edit]


I'm a representative of Harshvardhan Kapoor, the actor who's biography is available at:

The actor requests that the current picture be replaced by a more recent one, which I'd be happy to provide to the administrators of the page.

The picture currently used on his page is dated and not very representative of the actor's current look & personality.

Please advise on how to replace the same.


Priti — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)