Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive238

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Annie Teriba article based almost entirely off of Student newspapers and a Daily Mail article

Hey there lads and lasses of BLPN! Can you settle some issues regarding this article? Basically I removed a whole load of stuff that was only sourced to the Daily Mail, Breitbar or student newspapers.[1][2][3] I was reverted.[4] Was I right in making these changes or am I merely being a fool? Is the answer somewhere in between? Brustopher (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note OP nominated the article for deletion here, made cuts after it was kept, and has never edited the talk page. The article is not mostly based on student newspapers and the Daily Mail, but these are used for supporting background information. The Oxford student newspaper Cherwell is well respected, and has not been cited for any contentious or potentially defamatory claims (which are all referenced to mainstream sources such as The Daily Beast and The Guardian.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to edit an article to nominate it for deletion. The subject would not be notable in my opinion if it wasn't for this alleged sexual misconduct, all of which seems to be rather prurient and non-encyclopaedic. Shritwod (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is not mostly based on student newspapers and the Daily Mail: of the 39 citations made in the article 21 either come from the daily mail, student press or Breitbart, as are 10 of the 20 sources used. The information cited ot these sources is what I'm trying ot remove. Also I'm not sure where you got the idea of the Cherwell (or any student press outfit) as 'well respected' from. Using student press would open up a slippery slope where every so called "student politician" could end up with a wikipedia article, based solely off of student press sources. --Brustopher (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

When your AFD fails, please do not come here for a second chance to delete or gut an article you do not like.You might wish to try deletion review, but there was clearly no consensus to delete the article (quite the opposite, in fact). It is referenced to significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources in the mainstream news media. She was notable for being an activist before she self-reported inappropriate sexual activity, so it is no BLP1E. Edison (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

At this point, there appear to be no improperly sourced claims in that BLP - though there was some infelicitous wording. The Daily Mail articles are quite properly used, and we can not dismiss all of it as "celebrity gossip" looking at those sources. Collect (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Brustopher on this completely. The article was created ONLY AFTER this so-called scandal occured. Before this point she was apparently not notable enough for an entry, like thousands of other people involved in student politics. These activities are simply not notable unless perhaps you are the President of the NUS. The "notability" referred to in the opening section appears to me to be a coat rack to justify an article about the sexual misconduct allegations. Given then I do not believe that notability of the subject has been established, then this does look primarily like a page designed to attack or embarrass the subject. I do not believe that some newspaper articles necessarily infer notability, especially when they are little more than gossip. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this does appear to be a personal attack which may well be a BLP violation. Shritwod (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've not looked deep enough for a final opinion, but I've thrown out the Breitbart source (and claim only supported by it) as unsuitable for a BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

yes, really rubbish biography, a few months of reports and that's it - she is history, short term news only, no long term notability at all - its a shame it was supported at AFD - delete it. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: Sammy1339, the article's creator, has opened a second AfD. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Stone Cold Steve Austin

Steve Austin is not the president of Steven F Austin State university

Last sentence, first paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.49.237 (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That was a fairly fresh edit, and it has been undone (as well as the parallel edit to the University's page.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Eric Trump

A Bing search on name 'Eric Trump' listed by en.wikipedia.org has information which is false and defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.66.136 (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Assuming this was the vandalism from yesterday/previously, this was removed within 5 minutes. However one problem with search engines is they do not necessarily list wikipedia content as it is *now*, only when they indexed it. So its possible for info which has already been removed on Wikipedia to still display on Google/Bing. This is a problem with them, not wikipedia. There is a link somewhere to report that sort of stuff to them, hopefully someone will be along shortly to post it. (As an aside, the info inserted into Eric's biography yesterday, while completely inappropriate, is not necessarily false if we look at current reliable sources.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Travis Lane Stork

There is a paragraph on content in the subject article about his role in the show The Doctors (talk show). I copied some content from that article critical of the show, and with attribution, added it to the end of that paragraph in the Stork article in this dif. The content and sourcing are:

A 2014 study in the British Medical Journal determined that 38% of medical advice offered on The Doctors was not supported by scientific research. The study warned that conflicts of interest were rarely addressed and that viewers should be skeptical of claims made on the show.^[1]

References

^ Koronyk, C.; et al. (December 17, 2014). "Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study". The British Medical Journal. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7346. Retrieved December 17, 2014.

This content is being called a BLP violation. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not to my mind. It merely reports the findings of a study by a respected publication. Eagleash (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not a BLP violation. This is the sort of assertion that gives "BLP" a bad name... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the BLP issue was that the statement and the source made a blanket claim about the advice given on the show without any clarification of the competency or accuracy of the advice being given by the subject of the article. The statement would appear to be more appropriate on the article about the show than an individual who was part of it. Amortias (T)(C) 15:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The claim (38% unsupported advice) refers to a valuation of the collective opinions of multiple persons and is, unfortunately, easily of undue weight in the BLP of a single doctor. If the source made a claim about him specifically it would be fine, but it is a violation of WP:BLP in the single BLP, while it would not be a violation in an article about the show, where it would be clear that it refers to the show as a whole, and not to this one person. In addition, the stress on "38%" is improper where the article abstract has "evidence supported 63%, contradicted 14%, and was not found for 24%." The "not found" is about 2/3 of the questioned advice, but that does not mean it was "wrong" advice. Collect (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Just so folks are aware, Collect just now edited this as follows (changes shown via REDACT)

A 2014 study in the British Medical Journal determined that ~~38% of medical advice offered on The Doctors was not supported by scientific research~~ "evidence supported 63%, contradicted 14%, and was not found for 24%" of recommendations made by the panel of doctors, ~~The study warned that conflicts of interest were rarely addressed and that viewers should be skeptical of claims made on the show.~~ and that "The public should be skeptical about recommendations made on medical talk shows."

I find this change to be meh, but I won't contest it. But this is now the content. Same source as above. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it was an improvement. The previous paraphrasing worked better than direct quotations. For the purpose of evaluating medical advice given on a tv show, the distinction between 'contradicted' and 'not found' isn't especially important; medical claims should be supported, not merely failing to be contradicted (apologies for the awkward construction). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you really saying that where the source makes the specific distinction that you are comfortable not noting that distinction between "contradicted" and "not found"? Sorry - I find that where the source makes a distinction of black and white, that for us to say "but black and white are the same" is Kafkaesque at best, and deliberately misleading to readers for sure. Collect (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What nomoskedasticity is saying, is that only 63% of the advice on the show is really reliable and ~37% (rounding, ack) is not so reliable. It is not rocket science. Like I said, i won't contest your change, but my druthers would be the content originally added. Not worth fussing over tho. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Marcy Blum

No citations and the article reads as a promotional piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.6.62 (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have tagged as a copyvio. Concerning it survived so long. (>8 years!) Everymorning (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Article was reverted to pre-copyvio version. Still reads as promotional; no claim of significance. I have initiated an AfD discussion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Abi Ann

Formatting and relevance both reek of a stage mom trying to get her daughter noticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.232.122 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Just took out a lot of unsourced and POV language from the lede. The article was written like a press release from her agent.-Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Still reads as promotional; no claim of significance; sourced to press releases & non-notable "awards". I have initiated an AfD discussion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Dimitri Payet

The last paragraph of the West Ham United section seems out of place in a biography, both for language and content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Weaver of Dreams (talk • contribs) 00:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; the final two paragraphs of this section are vandalistic nonsense. Removed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

demetrius douglas

The claim on Wikipedia is that he was an all-American. There is no citation proving he earned all-American status and I see no record of that claim. It is probably Mr. Douglas attempting to make his athletic career look more impressive to further his political career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.83.190 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed this reference, since the source provided indicates that he was All-American in high school, not at UGA.CFredkin (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Original Research?

This content has been repeatedly restored at Donald Trump despite the fact that none of the sources provided mention the Donald. Is that still original research, or did I miss a memo?CFredkin (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

While I am not sure that this is covered by WP:NOR (including WP:SYNTH), the addition does appear to be overly long, overly detailed & off-topic for a biographical article; therefore WP:UNDUE. I have removed the addition and initiated a Talk page discussion, in the hope that a consensus can be reached; suggest RfC if no consensus forthcoming. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Stan Kroenke

There has been a large amount of blatant bias, commentary and original research on the Stan Kroenke page, which seems to be written by a disgruntled fan. Original research such as fans at a hockey game shouting Kroenke sucks or Missouri officials wanting to remove hime from their hall of fame (which never happened) only shows the bias. This page should be monitored for bias and vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1523:81:CD21:EF72:4CCA:F0AC (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Watchlisted - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ella Shohat

Please note the following:

Prof. Shohat was not born in Iraq as the abbreviated Wiki suggests. She was born in Petah Tikva, Israel.
Prof. Shohat is an Israeli citizen. For some odd reason this fact is missing from her biography.
Prof. Shohat is notorious among Israelis as a hagiographer. For example, she has disseminated a story about her going to jail due to refusing to enlist to the IDF. In reality, she used the law permitting women who declare themselves to be religiously observant not to serve in the IDF. This is why she studied in Bar Ilan University for her BA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldWivesTales (talk • contribs) 22:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

By "abbreviated Wiki", I assume that you mean the output of Google's Knowledge Graph, which is not under Wikipedia's purview. You can find information on fixing Knowledge Graph errors here. We do not give a location for her birth.

As points 2 and 3, these are not items that we would include in the article without some reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The bibliography is extremely excessive in the article.....Also...there are virtually no citations whatsoever in the article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thant Myint-U

This page has referred to Dr Thant Myint-U as a "Burmese-American". Every attempt to change to his correct nationality - Burmese/Myanmar - has been undone. Dr Thant Myint-U was born in the United States (when his grandfather was serving as UN Secretary-General) but has always held Burmese nationality and a Burmese passport since he was a child. Documentation of his current Myanmar nationality can be provided if necessary. He is currently holding official positions in Myanmar (mentioned in the page) reserved only for Myanmar nationals. Referring to him as "Burmese-American" may be libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.20.96 (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Private communication with Dr. Thant Myint-U confirms that he is a Myanmar citizen. Since the assertion "Burmese-American" cannot be sourced, we'll keep his citizenship as "Burmese" and put citations when available. Thanks for pointing out. SWH^®^talk 17:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Todd Thicke

I am employed by Mr. Thicke and have been trying to add some photos of him to his article at his request. However, they're being repeatedly deleted shortly after having been uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebakersdaughter (talk • contribs) 08:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Thebakersdaughter: It looks like this was deleted at Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation. What you will need to do in this situation is prove that you work with Mr. Thicke and that he has the copyright to these images. You can do this by submitting a ticket via WP:OTRS that gives Wikipedia permission to use the image. There are instructions here that show you how to submit this, mainly that you have to fill out the template letter and send an email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. After they receive the ticket, they should be able to restore the image. If you have any photos that you have taken yourself, you can always upload those as your own work, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2000

First paragraph, lines 3 and 4, lists George W. Bush as "Incumbent Governor of Illinois", and son of former president "George Washington".

Article should be corrected to read, "Incumbent Governor of Texas", and son of former president "George H.W. Bush". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36C9:66B0:DDE5:8337:4602:C1CD (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've rolled back the edits. Thanks.--Auric talk 16:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sue Austin

On the page of Sue Austin it says "Austin studied BSc Hons. Psychology at the University College of Swansea, University of Wales, completing her degree in memeology in 1987". I did some research because "memelogy" was unknown for me so I think somebody added it by mistake, "jokingly". I would appreciate if someone could review this and get it back correctly.

Edit: It now says "Memeology at the Leakforums, University of Leakforums, completing her degree in 1987 at leakforums university for memeology". I think something weird is happening here, please review ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeThaTeaman (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The edits have since been reverted. Eagleash (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Chamtrul Rinpoche

Chamtrul Rinpoche has 3 warnings at the top. #1 - I have added secondary sources. #2 - I will work on citations within the article. #3 - there are no subjective terms or peacock terms in the article. Will you please remove at least the #1 & #3 warnings. They were possibly added by Chinese hate spammers. Thank you for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.253.42 (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It most certainly does still contain subjective, peacock terms. Just looking quickly: "this accomplished master", "the great Katok Monastery", "a highly renowned Buddhist institute", "he gained a vast and profound knowledge"... and that's just in the first four paragraphs. As for secondary sources, this article has no reference sources to support its information, only external links - one of which is his autobiography, another his teaching schedule, the third the home site of a retreat he runs, the fourth is a Wiki that seems unlikely to meet our standards for reliable sources, and the final one his own website. So no, I see nothing there establishing notability under Wikipedia guidelines. The header templates should stay, if the article stays in this shape. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've cut out most of the peacock words and promotional language but the article could still use some work and additional sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've prodded it out of WP:DYNAMITE thinking - there might be something to be said about this guy and/or this title, but a boastful no-reliable-source article that starts with a catalog of who he is the reincarnation of isn't it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I support the PROD. Page was a puff piece on the subject with no reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Walid Phares

Last phrase in this biography is clearly an opinion and is not based in any external source: "Exum and the fall 2011 attackers against Phares were part of a coordinated smear campaign against Phares because of his appointment as advisor to Romney and the fear that his expertise will help the US defeat the Jihadists and the Islamists as argued by a Middle East scholar Dr Robert Rabil in "Walid Phares Under Attack" in the American Thinker". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.76.164.171 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This appears to have been removed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Copp

Joshua Copp is an unsourced biography that began with a large attack section from single-edit Londontalk (talk · contribs); when that material was deleted, it was restored by the similarly-named Londonbusinesstalk (talk · contribs). I would've just speedied it, except the attack material had been deleted before I first got to the page. It should fall to a WP:BLPROD in a few days, but it could perhaps use some eyes until then. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Rampant unsourced pure speculation and a batch of rumour added for sauce. Collect (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sudhir Chaudhary (Zee News)

Sudhir Chaudhary's BLP contains a Controversies section that consumes over half the page. While the controversies are significant and reliably sourced, we may be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. User Aisonajulk and I have discussed the issue on Chaudhry's talk page but would appreciate any feedback from others on whether the section should be condensed. Meatsgains (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Amanda K. Hale

Hi There,

Thanks for MenoBot's message at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amanda_K._Hale

I think MenoBot refers to "Poetry Chapbooks," so I fixed it.

Could you please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_K._Hale. Could you please tell me if the problem has been solved

Thanks so much for your time!

1001Bookworm (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Heidi Cruz

The information about Heidi's religion is wrong and there is an offensive photo which is being used without permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMarkR (talk • contribs) 01:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What about the image do you find offensive and it is used without permission from who? Meatsgains (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree the image is not flattering but I wouldn't deem it offensive. Meatsgains (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

New user who is still not getting how things work here. Unfortunately, because they have insisted on continuing to edit war, I was forced to report them to AN/3. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@LittleMarkR: First of all, "I don't like it" is absolutely not a valid reason to remove the image from the article, especially when no one else agrees with you about it. Second, the information about Heidi's religion is not "wrong." A source has clearly been provided stating that while she was raised a Seventh-day Adventist, she is now part of her husband's denomination, Southern Baptist. You really need to stop edit warring. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jun Albert Morden

Jun Albert Morden is a Filipino Communication Student. Studying at College of Divine Wisdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morden402 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC) --Morden402 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social media site, nor a resume hosting site. I have removed the Facebook link. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Paula Broadwell

Ugh. While the entire article is clearly being polished by a pro-Broadwell faction, most of it is probably within tolerable limits. However, the "Petraeus Affair" section has been reduced to mere pro-Broadwell propaganda, using a "Broadwell is being unfairly persecuted" slant to make Broadwell look better. Biased, opinion-based statements like "This was the first time the Department of Justice pursued such an invasive investigation into the work of a DoD-credentialed journalist." don't belong in a wikipedia bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.179.40 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Grant Nelson

I've been advised to ask the next question here. In my opinion, the next lines are pretty much POV if you ask me...

In 1993, Wishdokta teamed up with DJ Vibes and together they delivered some of happy hardcore's biggest anthems on Vibes' Asylum Music Inc. and other labels including Happy Trax.

In 1997, Nelson started using the alter-ego "Bump & Flex" and began to produce UK 2-step. He delivered some of the scene's biggest records including "Funk on Ah Roll" by James Brown.

Nelson has always remained a house head since his early Nice 'n' Ripe days and continues to do so to the present with his Swing City Records label that consistently delivers top drawer house music.

I don't dare to change anything myself 'cause I don't know the guy, and my English ain't as good as I want it to be.... Anyone? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 13:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The first problem I see is that the entire article is referenced to a single Billboard Op/Ed column, in which Nelson is only briefly mentioned in a single paragraph. None of the information from the source seems to appear in the article, although it's written with the same Op/Ed tone.

The entire article is definitely very amateurish is it's writing style. The biggest problem is that it's written in second-person narrative. In other words, it's written like the narrator is talking directly to the reader, like I'm talking to you right now. The next problem is the use of so many superlatives, such as "biggest," "top-drawer" (which is unclear to many people), "extremely popular," etc... Superlatives should be avoided, but when applicable, then they should be referenced or attributed to someone qualified to make that opinion. There are many weasel words as well, such as "highly regarded" (by whom?), "most sought after" (by whom?), etc... It uses contractions and slang, and I could go on. In short, it is not at all encyclopedic in tone or style.

I know nothing about the subject nor the music industry, but based on the article itself, I have to question the notability of the subject and the reliability of the information. It reads like a self-promotion piece. Zaereth (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

If it comes down to notability of the subject, I've got to say that under the name Wishdokta he is very familiar to me. I like happy hardcore and he is definitely one of the bigger names in the business. Me saying: I don't know the guy only means that I have no background-information about him, but I do know his music. But it's a good thing to see that the discussion got started. That's all I wanted. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 12:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, notability is based on coverage in reliable sources. Having only one source in the article raises a red flag immediately. My first thought was that the article might be copied direct from the source, but it turns out that none of the information in the article came from that source. That leads to the question, "Where did it come from?" That's why I say it reads a lot like a self-promotion article, possibly written by the subject himself or his friends. This also put doubt in my mind that any of the information may be accurate or reliable. The reference seems to have been attached just for looks.

I can't say whether this person is notable or not by Wikipedia standards. I just did a quick google search, and could locate no newspaper, magazine, or reliable web articles, except for another Billboard opinion piece that briefly mentions his name in passing. Therefore, notability is not looking very good. However, there may be much more that I just did not dig deep enough to find, or is not accessible on google. I'm not proficient in the music industry, so it becomes up to those who want this article to provide sources that demonstrate his notability. Zaereth (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

In the Netherlands there was a CD-series called Happy Hardcore, in Germany this series was called Happy Rave. These CD's were a collection of the best known happy hardcore tracks available at that time. These CD's were released through Arcade Records and Wishdokta appeared on a few of them. In this scene he was a pretty well-known name and that's just about all I can say about the artist. Maybe it helps. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 12:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the article should be deleted, just better referenced. I never googled his alias, but it sounds like you have access to information that I don't. What would help is if you could locate some sources to confirm some of what you're telling me.

I'll give an analogy from my field of expertise. It's a common, widely publicized misconception that the iron core of a Japanese katana helps make the sword softer, thus preventing it from breaking. From my own experience, I know this doesn't increase the toughness of the blade anymore than the soft pearlite jacket already does. What it really does is provide a change in material density, which diffuses vibration and dampens recoil. Same principle as a dead-blow hammer. However, my expertise on the subject is of no help if I can't find a reliable source to back that up, because how are you suppose to verify the accuracy of it? Could I expect every suspicious reader to simply go buy a $10,000 sword so they can compare how it cuts versus a cheap sword? This is why I haven't added that info to the Japanese swordsmithing article.

Any article needs sources to show its accuracy and notability. In a BLP this is even more necessary, because we're not talking about inanimate objects but real people, many of which do not like inaccurate info published about them, even if it is all flattering. So what is really needed is someone who has a little knowledge about this field to dig up some real sources that give some info about not only what this person has done, but also who he is. If you could help with that, perhaps I could help with the writing, but I know too little about the guy to give any assistance without sources. Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you want to check if his tracks have been released on the CD's I mentioned earlier, try: Discogs.com, due to my restrictions, that's all I can come up with. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 12:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly what I mean. I have no doubt that he's released CDs. So have a couple of friends of mine, but they are still not notable. (I guarantee nobody outside Alaska has ever heard of them.) I'm not sure what you mean by restrictions either. Sources do not always have to be online, but books and magazines can be used also. Where did you learn about him?

If I were to try to clean up this article, I would have to start by cutting out all the superlatives, because there is no source that supports any of them. If I do that, then the article will not make any sense, because it's entirely built around those superlatives. What I would need are some reviews, so I could say "so-and-so says his work is the most sought after, while this other guy says his works are highly regarded, etc..." Something about his life, where he was born, grew up, and lives now would be a nice addition. What's his education, marital status, etc... These are the things a BLP is made of. I replied because I'm a writer and can try to help improve the writing and style of the article, to comply with Wikipedia standards. But lacking any sources for this info, there is little I could do at this point to fix the writing except to gut the article, which I am not wanting to do. I just don't have any real information to work with. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, someone more familiar with the EL policy might want to check the external links. Looks like advertisement to me, but I'm not really sure. Zaereth (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zaereth: With restrictions I mean, bounded by a very,VERY limited whitelist and the info above is just about all I know of him... OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 19:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I was unaware of whitelists. I usually don't do research for others when it's outside of my own fields of expertise, but I like music and decided to dig a little deeper for you.

Under the name "Wishdokta," his notability is pretty well established. I found a couple of books on google, such as The Music Sound, Energy flash: A Journey through Rave Music and Dance Culture, The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, and others. Google books seems down right now, so I may have to check into them later.

There is a mention of him in a Rolling Stone article. However, at least part of our own article seems to be a direct copy of this article from The Sun magazine, which gives an interview with Nelson. This includes the paragraphs you were asking about, which looks like it may be a copyright violation. If anyone knows copyright policy, please take a look, or maybe I might have to ask Moonriddengirl to look at it. Zaereth (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a foundational copyvio, Zaereth. Cleared that out. Good find. :/ I also cleaned out some of the worst of the unsourced promotional text. Yikes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Or, just summon her name and she appears! Thanks Moonriddengirl. Does that extend the stuff that was copy/pasted here and to the article's talk page? Zaereth (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty strong case for fair use here, but no real reason to keep it at either place, Zaereth . :) I'll cull it from the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

All of this above is the PERFECT example of what I try to achieve here. Because of my limitations, the only thing I can do, is ask the "right" questions. Hoping it will be picked up by the community so they do what I can't. Thanks to all of you, I deeply appreciate the help I got on this subject. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks Moonriddengirl. I was just curious for my own benefit. I went ahead and cleaned up the grammatical problems. Zaereth (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Sizer

Lead contained bald allegation of antisemitism with two citations, one behind a paywall and another to a source of questionable reliability. Body of the article does not warrant such a bald assertion.Keith-264 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The sentence in question had four citations, including three to mainstream UK newspapers, the Times, Independent and Telegraph. "Behind a paywall" has nothing to do with anything. This is a pretty weak complaint, given the obvious quality of the sourcing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The lead contained a serious allegation that can have dire consequences to the individual. There is a discussion in the body of the article but that was not reflected in the lead. The sources are weak, coming from newspapers, those three in particular, unlike the court ruling against David Irving. The body of the article has pros and cons so the lead also failed to reflect NPOV in only having one side of the debate. Please also remember WP:Civil.Keith-264 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Assertions of "anti-Semitism" regarding living persons requite strong RS sourcing.

The Times source says: A vicar is being investigated by the Church of England after posting a link on Facebook suggesting that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks. This source is clearly insufficient as a source for the claims made.

Fathom Journal states as its basic position: Two states for two peoples remains the only way to balance Jewish and Palestinian demands for sovereign independence and national self-determination, but there has been a waning of support for this project, among intellectuals especially. Fathom will be a partisan and artisan of the two-state solution, helping to put some intellectual substance back into the project of mutual recognition and peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. which appears not to be a statement that it presents material in a fully neutral and unbiased manner. The cite used for the claims says: We have a left-wing Church of England vicar, Stephen Sizer, who links to an article saying the Jews did 9/11, and then says, anyway, prove that they didn’t. Which is insufficient for a contentious claim about a living person.

The Telegraph states: A vicar who promoted conspiracy theories that Israel was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks on the internet has been banned from speaking, writing, tweeting or blogging on the Middle East by the Church of England. Again insufficient to aver that Sizer is known for "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Zionism" at all.

Now The Independent states: Reverend Stephen Sizer said he did not condone the (9/11 conspiracy) article's accusations. Which actually contradicts the claim it is supposed to support. The "obvious quality" of the sourcing shows that it was being abused in a BLP, and those who do not accept that a source which specifically contradicts the assertion it is used to support is being abused should reread policy.

The sources given, at best, would support:

Sizer issued a social media link to an article which suggested Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks, but later said specifically that he did not condone such accusations.

Period. Collect (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this for real? Are you really going to be that selective in your reading of those articles? The Times says: "The Rev Stephen Sizer, the vicar of Virginia Water, Surrey, was accused by Jewish leaders of supporting an 'antisemitic hate-fest' in October when he spoke at a conference in Iran where claims were made of “Zionist” involvement in the terror attacks." The Telegraph says: "The Board [of Deputies] said the posting, just after Holocaust Memorial Day, promoted material which was 'unquestionably anti-Semitic'". This is just for starters. I have to wonder why you are unable to see support for an assertion re anti-Semitism in these sources. Perhaps you can alleviate some obvious concerns in that respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If you wish Wikipedia in Wikipedia's voice to call every single person in this world an "anti-Semite" you damn well should start looking for sources to support such claims as statements of fact and I find your aspersions cast on me to be about as reprehensible as anything imaginable on Wikipedia. "Anti-Semite" is a "contentious claim" as far as most humans are concerned, and since one source makes clear that Sizer did not condone the article's accusations it appears clear who is having difficulty in following the strictures of WP:BLP. Are you really intent on saying a person who does not condone an article's accusations is supporting the article, and if anyone calls the article "anti-Semitic" that the person who does not agree with it is mysteriously contaminated and becomes an "anti-Semite" in Wikipedia's voice? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

As usual, you are refusing to engage with evidence that is inconvenient for you. That's unfortunate -- mainly for you. As for NatGertler: the "some group" in this instance is the British Board of Deputies, and it's surprising to see the matter dismissed so lightly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

An article saying that some group accused him of anti-semitism is not saying that he is an anti-semite, merely that he has faced accusations. Richard Jewell faced accusations, that does not make him a bomber. And even if it were phrased as him being known for being accused, we would need a source saying that that is what he is primarily known for, rather than just something that got a little more attention on someone who has otherwise gotten attention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The edit involved did not simply say people accused him of being anti-Semitic -- it was to say in Wikipedia's voice

Sizer is known primarily for his Anti-semitic anti-Zionism and for promoting the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind 9/11.

Note this makes the claim as a simple statement of fact and is not using the word "accusation" but calling him outright "anti-Semitic." Which I find to be an abhorrent misuse of sources, and an egregious, and deliberately egregious, violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and to be, frankly, an indication that some editors do not seem to give a tinker's dam about non-negotiable policy as long as they can attack living persons. NatGertler is spot on here. And the snark that somehow I am the one who does not follow policy when the slew of other editors here appears to hold my same view is verging on Monty Python time utterly. Tea time. Collect (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll meet you in the Penrith Tea Rooms for cake and fine wines but watch out for Cardinal Bigglesworth. Is there an authority we can refer to for a ruling? User:Clivel 0 is threatening to make unilateral edits to the article today, although in fairness he also appears willing to discuss wording first.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy would dictate that User:Keith-264 would have the common decency to advise me that he discussing both myself and the content of the Sizer page both here and simultaneously on Talk:Stephen Sizer.
Contrary to WP:BLP that only material that is "unsourced or poorly sourced" may be removed, he removed material from the Sizer page on the specious grounds that "newspaper articles and other ephemera" are not reliable. By removing this sourced material it would seem that user User:Keith-264 is more interested in promoting a political agenda to whitewash Sizer rather than in publishing the facts.
Stephen Sizer is notable for being censured by the Church for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, something which undoubtedly is antisemitic, and also for his anti-Zionist writings which many notable commentators contend cross the boundary between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. So for the lead (as it currently is) to describe him solely as "author, theologian and evangelist" is completely misleading, because he likely would not even warrant a place in Wikipedia if it was not for the controversy that surrounds him.Clivel 0 (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

With respect I refer you to my edit on the Sizer talk page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for information. Keith-264 (talk) 4:12 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0) and suggest that you are at fault for making baseless claims. During the discussion I made a list of my objections, I tend not to do this merely for a first edit, hardly anyone objects to my Wiki editing so there's no need. So far I have resisted your provocative insults and threats but my patience is wearing thin and I will take my time replying to you, assuming you make a comment worthy of the effort.

Below added from Sizer talk

I draw your attention to Collect's comment that "Per policy requires an actual affirmative consensus for inclusion in any article subject to WP:BLP." and I suggest that you think again, re-read my reasons for removing a potentially-libellous allegation, especially since the sources purporting to support it have been debunked by Collect, who took the trouble to read them. Either you echo the main body of the article or you are threatening to return potentially-libellous material without referring to the denials and rebuttals in the main body, which is soapboxing. Yet again you assume bad faith but I will read your edits carefully, if they reflect the article by being a summary description of the controversy, rather than potentially-libellous smears I will be satisfied. Please note that I will not do your job for you by adding balance to unbalanced edits, you are responsible for your edits, not me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, there is no evidence that User:Collect has debunked anything. The sources you removed - articles from both The Independent and the Telegraph, as well as countless other news articles are explicit in their agreement that Sizer promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. This is a matter of record, nothing to debunk. And in-itself, promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is antisemetic. I will re-add the facts as they are documented in the source material. YOU arbitrarily removed these facts, if you consider the facts unbalanced, then it is not MY job to provide what you consider balance, that is YOUR job - you do it, but DO not delete the factual sourced material just because you do not like it.Clivel 0 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"especially since the sources purporting to support it have been debunked by Collect" WP:VNT, Association fallacy. Clivel 0 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem, WP:VNT Law of holes. Keith-264 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sizer is known primarily for his Anti-semitic anti-Zionism (sic) this is the passage I edited, which as you can see is not consistent with the article which describes inter alia, allegations, refutations and the potential conflicts of interest of some of the sources. How antizionism can be equated with antisemitism is another question altogether. Looking back through the edit history it appears that the wikilink has had several incarnations, antisemitism, antizionism and now antisemitic antizionism, it would seem a bit Monty Python if someone's reputation, livelihood and Wikipedia's good repute weren't in danger. Keith-264 (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to collect accusations and treat them as definitive, you're sliding into guilt by association, unless you give equal weight to denials and counter-accusations. Your insinuation about Collect's motives is reprehensible and fails to assume good faith, I suggest you apologise. Keith-264 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted an attempt to add material to the lead which as before failed to reflect the content of the article and failed to abide by BLP criteria. I suggest that the attempt to reach consensus continues here, where it belongs.Keith-264 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Despite User:Keith-264 having removed the facts from the lead in this article three days ago, he has to date made no attempt to provide an alternate lead, essentially leaving the lead bereft of content. I have fleshed out the lead, complete with references, which User:Keith-264 summarily removed, again without making any attempt to provide alternate factual content. His behaviour would indicate that he is more interested in obscuring the facts than providing a useful reference. Clivel 0 (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I fear that Clivel has tried to edit the lead to return the unwarranted claims about Sizer using a different method, POV pushing. I suggest that we try to agree the wording for the lead here, to avoid unwelcome attention from the admins for incipient edit warring. I see no reason why mention of a controversy should be excluded from the lead but as the detail in the article makes clear, there have been allegations, denials, counter allegations and assertions about the integrity of some of the sources adduced. A brief description of this is all that's necessary.Keith-264 (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The lead I added contains NO unwarranted claims against Sizer. All facts I included cite reliable sources. If user Keith-264 is in disagreement with the lead, then he may add to or modify it, bur his arbitrary deletion of anything he disagrees with, even though it is factual, is non-productive. In three days user Keith-264 has made no attempt to provide an alternative lead. His edits are solely destructive.Clivel 0 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you are using one side of a controversy to excuse POV pushing. A brief description of the controversy in the lead is all that's necessary. Keith-264 (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with Collect's analysis and what Keith says above. Should Clivel persist in this blatant and offensive POV pushing, I would support him being banned from editing this, and all related, articles. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Clivel, pls stop putting threats on my talk page, you have a flagrant conflict of interest. I will request action from the admins unless you desist. Keith-264 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I will not be bullied by Keith-264, Collect and Hillbillyholiday. It is clear that despite hundreds of lines of discussion, that Keith-264 is not even interested in reaching consensus. In three days, he has made absolutely no attempt at providing alternative text for the lead paragraph. His only activity is deleting the efforts of others. I have referred the matter for arbitration. Clivel 0 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to the BLPn, no thanks for the content of your last edit. I have sketched a consensus solution and you have ignored it. Keith-264 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added something that doesn't put the main assertion in Wikipedia's voice. Something along these lines is necessary in the lead; it needs to summarise what follows in the article. The path forward at this point is to edit what's there, not simply to delete it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought that your latest edit was a genuine attempt at summary so qualitatively different to previous edits and thus there is no need to revert it under BLP rules. I amended it to remove superlatives but "which some" should be edited to describe who "some" are.

In 2015 Sizer was censured by the Church and banned from using social media for six months after he linked to a WikiSpooks article which implicated Israel in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which some consider to be an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.[2] Sizer also opposes Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works.[3][4] Keith-264 (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The "Church" was the local Bishop - and not the "Church" per se. The Bishop also clearly exonerated Sizer of being an anti-Semite as such as well (noting the Daily Mail is the source for this material). Collect (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Jorge Horacio Brito

We need some assistance here. The article has a large number of potential BLP violations, but since the sourcing is in Spanish I find it very difficult to judge what to cut and what to keep. From what I can surmise there is a well-publicized scandal, which suggests that some accusations which would otherwise be cut might still have a place, considering this is a very hot topic. Thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Johan Cruyff

Can an admin please lock the Johan Cruyff article? The player has just passed away and traffic/editing is heavy. Thanks.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, traffic is heavy but there's a lot of experienced editors keeping on top of things, including a couple of admins. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Adam Johnson (footballer)

Adam Johnson (footballer) was sentenced to six years in prison today after his conviction of sexual activity with a 15-year-old girl. Eyes on that article would be good. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Jo Harman

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

Edit warring apparently involving COI account. Could require page protection and/or blocks. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Carman Lapointe

The article on Carman Lapointe indicates that Carman Lapointe "was forced to leave her post" as Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight at the United Nations. However, that statement is incorrect. Carman Lapointe retired from the United Nations on September 13th, upon the normal expiry of her mandate, exactly five years after her appointment date of 14 September 2010. The appointment was, and still is, a five-year, non-renewable term. She was not forced to leave. The report of the Panel appointed by the Secretary-General to investigate sexual abuses by French forces not under the control of the United Nations, in the Central African Republic, had not yet been issued at the time of her retirement. It was issued on 17 December 2015.

Furthermore, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal, in its order GVA-2015-139, deemed that the decision by the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight (Carman Lapointe) was a legal decision, made within her authority and with reasonable justification. The link to that decision follows:

^[1]

In addition, as the article references primarily information contained in the Panel Report, the report itself warrants inclusion as a complete reference on the matter. The link to the report follows:

http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/centafricrepub/Independent-Review-Report.pdf

It should also be noted that the full response of the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight to the adverse findings of the Panel, is included in Appendix C to the Panel's report as Annex 8 to that Appendix. It is unfortunate that the table of contents of the report does not list the responses which were required by the Panel's terms of reference. Nevertheless, the responses form part of the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.30.218 (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

^ http://www.un.org/en/oaj/files/undt/orders/gva-2015-139.pdf

Mishal Husain

This needs eyes. I've just reverted 2 different IPs with edits like this and this. Voceditenore (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Michael Cox (Catholic bishop)

A recent addition to Michael Cox (Catholic bishop) by BoBoMisiu is, I believe, a breach of WP:BLPCRIME. Per the sources, in two unrelated trials of youths for "trespass" and "a string of offences", a district court judge alleged that weddings performed by Cox were illegal (the weddings were not at issue at all in the actual trials). The Garda Síochána (Irish police force) are investigating. No evidence has been presented to suggest that Cox has been convicted, tried, or even charged. The added wording is, however, unequivocal. My removal of the BLP addition has been reverted once. Other eyes very welcome. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The judge did not allege but pointed out to the court in the second case, which involved acts committed by Cox, that: "This man is not a bishop and he is not entitled to marry anybody." It seems to me that the judge made a statement of facts about Cox determined by the judge in the process of two cases. It is not a statement of a crime by Cox. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Look at the first sentence of your addition. It is an assertion that is not backed by anything. Cox has not been convicted, tried, or even charged.

2. The judge is a judge of the district court (a minor court), who was speaking in the trials of two youths for trespass and "a string of offences." Cox was not on trial, his standing as a bishop was not on trial, the standing of ceremonies conducted by Cox was not on trial, he was not in court, or represented, and the judge, who is not a canon lawyer, was expressing an opinion, nothing more. He has no jurisdiction over Roman Catholic Church canon law, the canon law of churches not in communion with Rome, the validity or otherwise of holy orders, or, in fact, in civil law concerning marriage. (Other remarks made by the judge, as reported in the sources, would also suggest a lack of familiarity on his part with other aspects of civil (as opposed to criminal) law). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The very term "illegal marriage" based on the source is problematic, because a marriage can be illegal in two different ways - it can be a criminal situation, in some jurisdictions to present yourself as married has been cause for imprisonment; or it can simply be that the marriage is not legally recognized, and you can go about considering yourself and calling yourselves husband and wife (or husband and husband, etc.) so long as you do not use that status in legal situations, such as in applying for spousal benefits. Calling it "illegal" makes it sound as though something criminal occurred, rather than something that is simply not recognized by the state, and the sourcing is not there to support that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Child marriage is against the law. Moreover, according to the judge, Cox "is not entitled to marry anybody." –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Editors are not qualified to opine on civil law here - in many places, "legally deficient ceremonies" are validated if there is no intent to defraud. The "not qualified" opinion (not a legal court decision) is not one of any weight in any BLP here. [5] has no specific rules about a person performing a religious wedding ceremony. Collect (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: citizensinformation.ie explains that the parties must "Have the capacity to marry each other" i.e. "Be over 18 years of age or have a Court Exemption Order if this is not the case." Both cases involving Cox involved minors before a judge in Children's Court. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

In which case the issue has nothing to do with being properly ordained at all. The issue is whether the boy presented himself as legally in possession of a marriage license obtained through the local registrar. The nature of the person performing the ceremony is not an issue reasonably before the court. Collect (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Cox's capacity to legally marry is what the judge is speaking of.

In the 2013 case "'bride' in the case confirmed in sworn evidence that Bishop Cox had charged €100 for the marriage" and the groom was a "17-year-old 'naïve' [...] juvenile -- the legal age for marriage in Ireland is 18." Durcan said: "The boy [...] has been encouraged and facilitated at what he believes is a marriage by a man who calls himself a bishop." When Durcan pointed out that "anyone who masquerades as a clergy man and who takes money from young people and imbues in them a mistaken belief that he has married them, [...]" the context is Cox.

In the 2014 case the author writes "A judge has accused a man who describes himself as a bishop of making a fool of a 17-year-old by pretending that he had married him and taking money from him under false pretences." Durcan said: "This is the second example I have come across in this district of young people being duped into marriage by someone who has no function in that regards. It is very, very serious." Durcan told the grooms mother that "I hate to see your son is being made a fool of by this man who pretends to be a bishop, who pretends he has the right to marry and takes money under false pretences from your son." –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

In the 2013 case, a youth was on trial for "a string of offences." In the 2014 case, a youth was on trial for trespass. In neither case was Cox was on trial. His standing as a bishop was not on trial. The standing of ceremonies conducted by Cox was not on trial. He was not in court, nor was he represented. The judge, who is not a canon lawyer, could therefore do nothing more than express an opinion on anything to do with Cox. He has no jurisdiction whatsoever on anything else. There is (presumably) an ongoing Garda investigation. It will (presumably) result in a referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions (or not), who may or may not decide to prosecute. Any resulting trial, if there is one, will be reported on, and if it is, we can then report on what Cox did or did not do. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: The statements are qualified privilege of a judge to a court. That Cox was not on trial is a red herring. That the minor was on trial for trespassing is poisoning the well. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu:, no, a judge speaks in his/her court with absolute, not qualified, privilege (though things may be different in the U.S.). That point, however, is a red herring. It merely means that he can't be sued for what he says. It does not mean that what he says is correct. The point that you seem to be missing is that the judge was doing nothing more than expressing an opinion and carries no more weight than if , during the trial of youth for trespass, he'd remarked that climate change isn't caused by man. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As per BLPCRIME we almost never include material that suggests someone commits criminal acts unless they are convicted (or at least, brought to a heavily publicised trial). Since none of that has happened, suggesting a Bishop is doing something illegal is a violation of the BLP. There is a giant problem that a priest could take actions that are civilly not recognised in law, but that are for religious purposes valid. So while it is within the Judge's remit to say 'That is not legal', it does not necessarily make the Bishops actions illegal. That sort of nuance is not covered in the BLP and by its nature, it needs to have hard and fast rules to avoid loopholes. So unless the Bishop is charged/convicted of something, the material needs to be removed or heavily edited to conform to policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: thank you for explaining that nuance. How can this information be cited? An editor wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cox (clergyman) (involving a sockpuppet: User:Pastor Theo) that the article was "unsourced since 2006" and I see that less than positive content about the subject has been removed for years. Like previous edits, the sources that I added recently show that there is doubt, and outright contradiction by the judge, about his claim of being a bishop. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

We need to move him back to Michael Cox (bishop) since regardless of how one evaluates claims to legitimacy he's plainly not within the Catholic Church hierarchy and is pretty much a textbook example of an episcopus vagans. As far as these incidents are concerned, I don't know Irish law and how they determine who is "really" a clergyman who can perform weddings, but this isn't the first incident where he has "married" people who weren't old enough, even ignoring whether he is authorized to marry people in general. I doubt that we should reproduce this one judge's assessment that Cox is scamming these people, but the fact that he is doing these invalid marriages isn't challenged by anyone, and one story I found seemed to indicate that he found nothing wrong in doing this. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect without a reliable source that goes into detail on it, there is not a huge amount that can be clarified. As Mangoe says he is pretty much a textbook example of the wandering bishop, however that does not necessarily make him 'not a bishop' or even unable to carry out religious ceremonies. Although it wouldnt surprise me to find Ireland has strict criteria on who can and cannot carry out a religious ceremony given its staunch catholicism. Without a reliable source to back it up, it risks straying into Original Research territory to attempt to explain it. Agree it should be moved back to (Bishop) rather than (Catholic Bishop) though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death:, @Mangoe:, bear in mind, please, that there are many Catholic churches. Roman Catholic != all Catholic churches. Michael Cox (independent Catholic bishop) has also been proposed by @Anglicanus:, which I'd support. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's sufficient to tag him as "bishop" since there is no other bishop of the same name; that has been the general and neutral convention. Mangoe (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: Where do find that "He was not in court, nor was he represented"? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Where do you find that he was? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: You wrote "He was not in court, nor was he represented" Where do find that? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: do you have a WP:BLPCOI? This is the first time I am participating on this noticeboard and have read WP:LIVE again today – especially WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:PERPETRATOR. I asked above, " How can this information be cited?" Is the content that I added in these edits being challenged or are the sources being challenged? In other words, can the sources in that diff be added with a reformulation of the content? I am thinking about adding the phrase "; this is disputed.[6][7][8][9]" to the end of:

Cox says he holds apostolic succession as a bishop from the Palmarian Catholic Church through the episcopal lineage of Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục, the former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Huế in Vietnam.

Likewise, can I mine the previously removed sources to support my proposed phrase? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

1) If Cox had been in court or had been represented then his side of the story would have been reported upon. What you seem unable to grasp is that in the course of trials of youths for minor enough offences, it came to light that they claimed to have been married; questioning about this followed; the judge gave an opinion that Cox was not a (Roman Catholic) bishop (which nobody is disputing). Nonetheless, none of those issues were actually before the court, and the judge was merely offering an opinion on the validity of marriages conducted by Cox, asking the Gardaí to investigate. They are doing so. The judge was not infallibly speaking ex cathedra. Your black-and-white phrasing, now removed from the article, is unsupported.

2) No, I have no conflict of interest. Why do you ask? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: no, I think it is WP:OR to write "the judge gave an opinion that Cox was not a (Roman Catholic) bishop (which nobody is disputing)."

The judge's quotes do not mention Roman Catholic bishop just the term bishop. The judge simply said Cox "is not a bishop" without mrnioning his denomination.

I asked about conflict of interest because you wrote "He was not in court, nor was he represented" and I did not read that. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

/shrug. I don't know how many more ways I can explain that the judge had no jurisdiction in the matter of Cox's consecration or subsequent actions, and his opinion is therefore as unencyclopedic as yours or mine on this matter. Report on it if a crime is ever found to have been committed, as has been confirmed by others here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: it is a red herring to say that "judge had no jurisdiction in the matter of Cox's consecration or subsequent actions". The judge of course has legal jurisdiction in both cases in his court – it was not a matter of who were the defendants but about the facts presented in both cases about the childrens' and he simply said Cox "is not a bishop and he is not entitled to marry anybody."

The sources that you removed discussed two points:

doubt about Cox being a bishop
involvement in child marriages which the judge said Cox "pretends he has the right to marry." I think it is reasonable to expect a judge to have access to information that "whoever is solemnising your marriage must be on the Register of Solemnisers" and whether cox was listed. It does not require more than the judge's inquiry to a list which "is available for inspection at your local registration office."

I asked above "about adding the phrase '; this is disputed.[10][11][12][13]'".

Bastun are you challenging the reliability of those sources to support adding the phrase "this is disputed"?

I hope someone could provide guidance here about reintroducing the sources. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it absolutely isn't. You were using the judge's expressed opinion on a matter not before the court for judgement as the source for your statement that Cox broke the law. Yes, of course, the judge has legal jurisdiction on both cases in his court. Once again, those cases were the trial of a youth on a charge of trespass; and the trial of a youth for "a string of [unspecified] offences." That is all that the judge could rule on - those specific charges. Anything else was mere opinion. In the course of both trials, the youths said that they were married and that the marriages had been conducted by Cox; the judge expressed his opinion that Cox wasn't a bishop and that the youths weren't legally married, and asked the Gardaí to investigate. If you believe the judge actually investigated the legality of any marriage ceremonies conducted, including checking the Registry of Solemnisers, please produce evidence of it. Irish judges aren't investigating magistrates, though, as in France; and if the judge had investigated, why would he also refer the matter to the Gardaí to investigate?! The bottom line is the judge thinks Cox isn't a bishop, but his thoughts on that are as irrelevant and unencyclopedic as his thoughts then on whether red herring is as tasty as a battered cod. I've explained this several times now, I'm not going to do so again. Please move away from the dead horse. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: what about an article from 2008, when Cox married a 16-year-old girl to a 21-year-old man, which states that Cox "is happy to accommodate Travellers as young as 16 getting married as long as their parents consent and are at the ceremony. Although popular, the weddings have no legal standing and court exemption orders are required by the State." Having "no legal standing" or "no function" is different than being a crime.

The judge in 2013 and 2014 said: Cox "encouraged and facilitated at what he [the juvenile] believes is a marriage", "imbues [...] a mistaken belief that he has married them", "marriage by someone who has no function in that regards", "pretends he has the right to marry".

In 2014 the author used the phrase "pretending that he had married him". In 2008 the author used the phrase "weddings have no legal standing".

According to the LA Times wrote in 2000 that "Cox, is part of a small renegade sect in Ireland whose own title is not considered valid by the church, according to [Catholic Press Office spokesman Des Cryan from Dublin, Ireland]". Would that be appropriate to add along with the the reference to The Tablet that I previously cited?

How do you suggest adding content from the AP story via Seattle Times which wrote that "callers in Ireland, Britain, Canada and the United States have been able to say prayers along with Cox's recorded voice, and then confess into the tape," i.e. the penitent pays for Cox's version of confession. Cox said in 1997 that he "might have a better idea when the money starts coming in" to quantify how many people used his pay-per-call sacrament. While Cryan said: "Any serious Catholic would understand that you can't do confessions by phone." Also, according to the article: "For years, Cox has preached [...] his skills as [a] water diviner." (this is not a Catholic practise – "All forms of divination are to be rejected" according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2116, and "divination and magic" are "superstition" according to n. 2138.) "Cox recognizes no superiors and has no priests to command" seems to support an existing reference from a 2006 The Telegraph "Personal View" that Cox is an episcopus vagans. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC); modified 15:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC) and 18:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

(Note) Above comment heavily edited at 18:38, nearly 40 minutes after reply below had been posted. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What about it? The Herald is a tabloid that may not meet WP:RS, as evidenced by the confused and contradictory "the weddings have no legal standing and court exemption orders are required by the State." If they have no legal standing then they're purely religious ceremonies - so why would the State require an "exemption order"? The state issues exemption orders for civil marriages where one or both parties are under 18. Likewise, the (Roman) Catholic Press Office is hardly an unbiased source when talking about Sinéad O'Connor's ordination. The horse is now attracting flies... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I'm sorry - if you're going to majorly re-factor your comments after I've already replied, then we're done here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This comment is inserted out of chronological order – Bastun, this page did not show a WP:EDIT CONFLICT page like on most other pages when I clicked "Save page". I had the edit open and only saw that you replied after I saved and looked at my RSS feed on my laptop later. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: do you want see if the Herald is a WP:RS for this on the WP:RSN noticeboard? It looks to like it would pass as acceptable.

Bastun: no, the sentence is not "confused and contradictory" it is two clauses connected by the conjunction and.

The State has a duty to protect its citizens; legal marriages and "solemnisers" are registered. It is not up to me to guess what is not in the several sources but to describe that Cox "weddings have no legal standing" which is in several sources over a period of several years.

The Catholic Church has a duty to protect its members by pointing out what it decides are invalid sacraments. Its members have the right to receive valid sacraments – the Catholic Church was asked and it replied. In May 1999, "[t]he Holy See has confirmed," according to Martin Clarke the Communications Officer of the Irish Bishops' Conference, in irishtimes.com, that "there is no justification for considering as valid the 'Episcopal ordination' received by" Cox or Buckley.

Bastun, almost every source points out that there is at the very least doubt about the validity of sacraments involving Cox so removing them all will leave an unsourced article. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC); modified 17:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Move requested

I've formally requested a move back to Michael Cox (bishop); see here. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

on second thought, AFD

Based on further discussion I've nominated the article for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

eric lichaj

Eric Lichaj, before he started playing for Chicago Magic, he played for Ajax FC Chicago, in Naperville, IL. If you google his name with Ajax FC Chicago you will fing his connection to our club. His older brother Andrew Lichaj has been coaching with us for many years. You can verify that from our website - coaches.

Please add our club under his bio.

thanks - Ray YorulmazogluRyorulmaz (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Toby Kimball, retired NBA player

Toby Kimball did not attend Belmont, MA, High School, a public school. He attended Belmont Hill School, a private secondary school in Belmont, MA. My brother was his classmate and I was three classes behind him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.182.226.84 (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Karan Singh Grover

The article on Grover is a hotbed of sockpuppetry by a fan who tries to add trivia (his tattoos, his every public appearance, all the brands he advertises for, the most fawning reviews ...) while removing less-than-positive information such as the allegations of unprofessionalism that saw him fired twice. More scrutiny couldn't hurt, also to make sure that while removing the socks' edits I don't err in the opposite direction. Huon (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Stan Kroenke

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

A user has been reverting to a biased view of the Stan Kroenke page that uses original research and citations from sports editorials to attack the Rams move from St. Louis to Los Angeles. Several users including myself have tried to put forth less biased views but one user constantly reverts these edits, many times violating the three revert rule. It would be nice for an administrator to solve this edit war and have an unbiased view of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1523:81:E933:272A:FD2F:BB75 (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Shiwani Saini

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

She doesn't look the notable actor and have not done sufficient work to appear on Wikipedia and does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies and reference sources are also sources not looking supporting and reliable.This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability,Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I should be removed immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verification Team (talk • contribs) 07:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is not a candidate for speedy deletion in its current condition. If there are concerns with the citations—one of which is a Times of INdia news article—they're probably better addressed at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Bob Lambert (undercover police officer):

[14] was a wholesale revert of edits made to this BLP.

It includes specifically labelling an undercover policeman a "British Spy", insinuates strongly that he committed specific crimes for which he was not charged, and which , in some cases, were by anonymous sources.

It includes such "d'oh" innuendoes as the fact that an undercover agent does not usually tell the people he is investigating his real identity and that he has a wife. Including: After that relationship ended he embarked on another with a woman who was politically conscious, but was not herself an activist. which appears not to be salient to a biography of a not especially notable person. The edit changed "while undercover" to "under false pretences" which rather does seem pointed language about a police undercover agent.

Oh - and the revert even said his name was "Bob" in the infobox when the person writes and is known as "Robert" and "Bob" seems rather clearly a nickname. In short. I fear the reverter is ignorant of WP:BLP and including an accusation of felonies (arson, et al) where no prosecution occurred whatsoever is specifically violative of WP:BLPCRIME inter alia. Comments on why a BLP should include side material such as

On 23 October 2014, the Metropolitan Police Service agreed to pay £425,000 to a woman called Jacqui whose child was fathered by Lambert; she did not know at the time of their relationship that he was an undercover police officer. The payment was part of an agreement for her to drop her legal action alleging assault, negligence, deceit and misconduct by senior officers. She was a 22-year-old activist at the time of her relationship with Lambert – who was using the pseudonym Bob Robinson – and she gave birth to their son in 1985. When the boy was two years old his father vanished, and she told BBC News she had received psychiatric care after learning the officer's real identity. The unprecedented payment resulted from a legal battle with women who said they were duped into relationships with officers who were spying on them. Scotland Yard said it "unreservedly apologises for any pain and suffering" but added that "the Metropolitan Police Service has never had a policy that officers can use sexual relations for the purposes of policing". Scotland Yard had previously refused to either confirm or deny whether Bob Lambert was a Special Demonstration Squad operative, despite his own admissions to journalists. However, it was forced to change its position in August 2014 after a legal ruling. Mr Lambert did not respond to BBC requests for comment on the settlement but had previously said that he wanted to apologise to women with whom he had relationships and that he had made some "serious mistakes".

Unless, of course, we think that undercover police officers routinely tell those they are investigating that they are police officers, of course. And I suspect this tiny snippet of the dross which was so blatantly re-added after being removed is actually proper in a BLP. Note, by the way, that my edit retained salient information, but was aimed at removing blatant violations of Wikipedia policy. Any outside comments? Collect (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The idea that he was a spy is specifically supported by sources given, including [15], "An academic and prominent supporter of progressive causes has been unmasked as a former spy." The fact that Collect may dislike the application of "spy" in this context is neither here nor there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We also have [16], which begins as follows: "A former police spymaster who spent years living deep undercover in the protest movement has confessed he tricked an innocent woman into having a long-term relationship with him..." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please then add "SPY" to every single undercover police officer mentioned on Wikipedia. Until then, I fear I find your anxiety to label a person as a British spy to be a teensy bit unsettling at best. And why the (FITB) did you insist on adding the allegations of felonies (arson etc.) about a living person when WP:BLPCRIME is so (FITB) clear and no prosecution of any sort occurred at any level? And what the (FITB) is the use of the allegation about a seven year old boy doing in a BLP? Sorry - this looks like an absolutely (FITB) reading of the policy entirely and utterly. BTW The Guardian is sometimes known for possibly using editorial views in headlines and articles. Really. Collect (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't write that someone is a "spy" unless that's what reliable sources say about that person -- that would be original research. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You sources refer to him as a 'police spy' or otherwise refer to his employer. That's really tabloid speak for what is properly termed an undercover police officer, which the sources also use. In any case this spy thing seems somewhat moot as the Persondata has been removed. Over at Wikidata it uses the real name for the occupation, which is not 'British spy'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Regine Velasquez

Good pm to the admins of this site...we've been trying to access Awards and honors List of awards and accolades received by Regine Velasquez but to our surprised it was deleted and sabotage by somebody. Hope you could retrieve and put that back. Here is the direct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regine_Velasquez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.214.177 (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2016‎

This appear to be a content dispute. Please discuss this on the talk page of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Regine_Velasquez. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ezra Miller

There seems to be some uncited, made-up information under the 'Personal Life' tab on this page Ezra Miller. Namely this part: 'Officer Wally Ouu Pussipolops later commented : " In many of my years i have seen celebrities walk around with an undeserved self entitlement. Ezra Miller is in my opinion a dangerous persson , he doesnt follow the rules of illegal substances because he thinks he is too cool for the law. If i had permission ,i'd gun this pretentious prick down right now"

It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.81.175 (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It appeared to have been removed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ramesh Subasinghe

can anybody help me to authenticate this article please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.242.216 (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you seek help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy Spier

Someone is trying to defame Guy Spier with poorly written, incorrect material with no sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.51.58.25 (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph of unsourced material. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Tim Heywood... notable?

Tim Heywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I question the notability of this subject, and would ask that some experienced BLP editors have a look. This BLP-stub was created back in 2006 with a single edit and has only been edited by bots since. I only came across this article because people keep accidentally linking to it from various pages about yachts designed by a person of the same name. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 21:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I dont think he is. I would vote delete.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The two obituaries are a good start as the bar for getting obituaries in the The Times and The Telegraph is far higher than for an article in Wikipedia but more sourcing would be good. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable but needed defluffing - the fact that a claim can be Wikilinked is not sufficient in itself to add any such claims unless they are useful to readers. Collect (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly notable: the two obituaries are easily enough to meet WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture of [Jessica Lowndes]

I believe the picture used on [Jessica Lowndes] page is Nelly Furtado, not Jessica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.171 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

J.D. Mesnard

This article reads like promotional material, with many unsourced promotional claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.28.119.158 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I went through and removed some of the promotional and unsourced claims but the page still needs additional reliable sources for verification. Meatsgains (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Paul Gregory (Producer)

I'm related to his nephew (son of his sister)...he was not aware that he had died, he was surprised and skeptical when I informed him said this on wikipedia...Gregory's sister is alive, age 101, nursing home in state of MI...he said she was speaking to him by phone regularly as far as he knew...felt certain she'd have been informed if he had died; and that she would certainly have mentioned this to him...but this sister is apparently Gregory's only contact with his family...can't find any obituary...he was going to ask his mom next time he spoke to her...68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

ignore, solved for now..68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Lark Voorhies

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

Some citation needed and then noticed some bare links info, and places that could use some source improvement.

Would appreciate extra eyes on this one to help improve it.

Particularly with regard to cleanup of Personal life section.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

See for example this bit I've since removed, at DIFF. — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Birth year question

I'd encourage BLPN regulars to take a look at Talk:Laura_Branigan#Consensus_discussion and give their views on the use of sources re this person's birth year. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Adam Tanner footballer

I am Adam Tanner and I am increasingly annoyed at the inaccuracies being updated on my Wikipedia page. The fact of the matter is I was not sacked by anybody for failing a drug test which is repeatedly reported on my page. This is in fact libelous and if it is reported again I will seek legal advice. The fact is I did fail a drug test which I freely admit to and am happy for that to be documented but I WAS NOT sacked and in fact received fantastic support from Ipswich Town FC and went on to play numerous games after the drug failure. Please advise me how I can stop any further detrimental and false information being posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipswich78 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ipswich78: The article doesn't say you were sacked because of a drug test - and please refrain from legal threats. You should also not edit your own article. Giant Snowman 07:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman this is a supporter of Adam Tanner, I put it in the first person as I felt it would be dealt with sympathetically. I am only keen to add what I feel are accurate details of Adam and his career. I apologise if any offence was taken but I am new to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipswich78 (talk • contribs)

I have had a bash at improving the article a little. Impersonating a real life person is a real no-no, Ipswich78, in addition to the problematic behaviours pointed out by GiantSnowman. Pinging @The Rambling Man:, one of our resident experts on ITFC, who may be able to help further with the article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I remember watching Tanner play, a lot of potential. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I've had a bash at tidying it up and making sure everything is referenced nicely. I have a book somewhere which may have more that I can add, just need to find it under all the dust and rubble... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yoheved Kaplinksy

I am concerned by the outrageous adjectives used to label positions Kaplinsky held within the Juilliard School. "She is currently Supreme Leader of the Juilliard School (PBUH)... In 2008, she became Grand Führer of the Juilliard School's Pre-College Division."

These labels of positions within the Juilliard School are highly offensive to those who appreciate the educational institution as well as those who value the musicians and artists supported by the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.63.146 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed the vandalism. This individual should get blocked for their username as well as their contribution. KoshVorlon 16:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Christine Cusanelli

. Christine Cusanelli

I am reporting violations of the BLP's policy. I am the individual whom someone has created this page on. The content is erroneous, egregious and libel. I have attempted to modify the content whereby the administrator reverts back to his original page. I have attempted to provide citations and original proof of the additional information. This is to no avail as the administrator prevents me from adding or editing the information.

The administrator repeatedly violates the following policies on BLP's: NPOV- the administrator clearly wishes to illustrate a negative perception by using the content title "expense controversy". This section is simply an avenue to post defamatory news articles that attack the live person and make private family information public. V- There are false allegations, misquotes and false assumptions. I attempted to post new and verifiable information only to have it deleted. NOR- The administrator cannot verify the allegations via a reliable source of research. News articles that are cited cannot attribute the information that is alleged. For example: Cusanelli was asked to repay...is false. The article cannot attribute anyone as having asked or instructed repayment. No subsequent information can substantiate this false information. Wikioncc (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Offhand I can see why Bearcat reverted your actions. Your version of the article had some pretty promotional overtones in it like "fierce advocate" and "visionary leader". This is considered to be WP:SOAPBOXing and WP:PUFFERY, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia - especially as you outright removed the expense controversy section. I'm not necessarily saying that the section doesn't have issues - titling something a controversy does imply various things and the writing in the section does have some grammatical errors, but outright removing the content and replacing it with puff prose isn't the way to go about fixing this. Since it does seem to have gained some coverage I do think that it could merit a mention in the article somewhere, but I don't necessarily think that it warrants an entire section on its own with that level of detail. Offhand the entire article could probably use some editing as a whole since even the original version has some mild puffery with "keen supporter and advocate". I'd recommend opening up a discussion on the talk page about how to improve the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I culled it down to a paragraph (there were huge weight issues given the prominence given to what is actually a relatively common issue for politicians) with the relevant facts and moved it into the body rather than as a dedicated controversy section. Those are pretty much always bad when there is only one event involved. I also removed some unsourced and largely irrelevant info. The info can probably be sourced but it would lean towards puffery unless particularly notable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 Agreed on a lot of your feedback-thank you. I am just starting to manage this site so, it's a whole new language and culture. Hopefully I can eventually see a page that accurately depicts who I am since it's bound to be around...forever! Wikioncc (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Raina Telgemeier

In New York State notices of marital separation are not made publicly available. In order that biographers more accurately describe Raina and Dave Roman's situation and stop confusing literary events booking them, I had been asked to make the changes to Raina's entry by the subject, and save the both of them the need to publicly post on the topic.

So no, I'm not going to have an external citation, and yes, I know this is not how Wikipedia works. But I've known the two of them for over a decade, have a Wikipedia account, and am not either of them so I can make the edits.

I'm just trying to make a complicated situation easier, and let both them keep their privacy as much as is possible when you're public figure.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randimason (talk • contribs) 14:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Info in a BLP like 'She is separated from X' would need to be sourced given all the info out there currently indicates they are married and still together, so I have removed the mention of her current marital status completely. A primary source would generally be acceptable for an uncontentious factoid like that, so if either of them social media it, it could be re-added if necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for support by paper letter

The subject of a Wikipedia article made some requests for changes by paper letter.

They released the copyright of their text, and I uploaded their notes to Commons and posted them on the talk page of the article. Please see it at Talk:Tex_Watson#Edit_requests.

The requests seem routine. They seem to want the deletion of unsourced content and the addition of other sources.

This request is a bit unusual for being on paper and coming from an inmate at a prison. Thanks to anyone who can respond on the talk page of that article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources required?

Do I understand the policy right that sources are required for statements about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? I tried removing some unsourced information about Mark Bloomfeld from American Council for Capital Formation, but it was immediately re-added by another user without any talk page discussion or edit summary. I've tried reaching out to this user on the article talk page to work with them, but no luck yet. The sentence in question is "Bloomfield openly expresses pleasure at the fact that half the members of the House Ways and Means Committee have attended his dinners"--Bloomfeld is a lobbyist, so the odd "openly" in this sentence is clearly intended to imply he's doing something wrong. So far as I can see, no source is given for the sentence at all, but this user has been adding and re-adding it anyway. I've removed it again for now, but I'm sure it'll be back when I sign on again tomorrow.

The article reads like a hit job generally--the entire “history” section is taken from a book by a Democratic politician and activist, even though dozens of nonpartisan sources are available-- but I’m not sure how your Biographies of Living Persons policy applies to groups. Is this editor (LesbianAdvocate) the final authority on this article, or is there someone else I could work with to try to improve it? (To be clear, I completely agree that the Democratic Party's opinions belong in the history--it just doesn't seem fair that they should be the only opinions.)

Thanks for hearing my concerns! I’ll try to focus my energy elsewhere in a bit in hopes that someone else can take a fresh look, and if I'm in the wrong about all this, I will happily cede the article back to LesbianAdvocate. Thanks, Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

EllenMcGill You're correct, sources are required, so you were right to revert LesbianAdvocate. I left her a note on her page alerting her to this discussion as well. KoshVorlon 16:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, thank you for your help! -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Lucy DeCoutere

DeCoutere was one of three accusers in a high profile sexual assault trial in Canada where the defendant was found not guilty. An editor (Tamuren) has repeatedly been tendentiously editing the article to selectively and somewhat misleading include very negative information about DeCoutere, including allegations made by a defense attorney that were never proven to be true (but are presented as true in this article). I've tried reverting a couple times over the last few weeks, along with other editors, but the edits are being repeatedly reverted. The page includes sentences such as "Although she claimed to be traumatized by the alleged events, she initially told a friend that she was “excited for court” because it would be “theatre at its best"." This isn't true; the defense alleged that at trial, DeCoutere denied it, and the judge never ruled whether it was true or not. Hope some other editors can step in. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What's the basis for asserting that it's untrue that DeCoutere said "excited for court ... theatre at its best"? One wouldn't expect that a judge would declare whether a particular statement is true or not. The source presents it as fact that she said this (to a friend). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed that particular sentence as original research. Her claiming to be traumatized was not sourced. — Strongjam (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As Strongjam pointed out, the source didn't say that. Another example: "The court stated DeCoutere "... co-ordinated a covert network of women who have spent the last seven months sharing their assault stories with each other"." This is blatantly false - the court never said this, as you can see here. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already removed that bit. The article it was sourced to was talking about DeCoutere becoming the point person for other women who wanted to share their own stories privately, and it was the words of the writer, not the court. — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. I still am concerned about how other information is presented on the page about the trial. For example, why is the "You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to fuck your brains out tonight" and "love letter" in the article? I don't think either are necessary for a biography about DeCoutere or are presented in a neutral manner - there's no mention of DeCoutere's reaction to those pieces of information during her cross-examination, and nothing is presented from the rest of her testimony (which obviously would make her sound more sympathetic). The article can say Ghomeshi was acquitted without making it sound like this was written by the defence (for the record, I think Ghomeshi was properly acquitted. It's just how this is written is really questionable). Nor do I think it is necessary to quote the judge's reasons for acquitting - simply stating Ghomeshi was acquitted should be sufficient. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. @FuriouslySerene: What the source said was "Another comment that Henein used to discredit DeCoutere was a statement she had made to a friend that she was 'excited for court' because 'it’s theatre at its best.'” Are you saying you know it's untrue that DeCoutere said this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. I was questioning the sentence in the article and how it was used by the editor to question whether DeCoutere was "traumatized," which is not supported by a reliable source. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Galloway Hoard

An IP editor is repeatedly adding unsourced claims of wrongdoing (on the part of the hoard's finders) to Galloway Hoard. I've reverted this several times and left warnings, but the user is persisting. S/he can't realistically be blocked as the IP address is dynamically assigned. Could the article please be semi-protected for a period? I'd suggest a week. Prioryman (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:RFPP for how to request this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Riddle

Debbie_Riddle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle Article states she wished to ban public breastfeeding by women with breasts larger than a c cup. Reference is politicops.com, a non-news/satire source. Information is not verifiable, and potentially libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.65 (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the claim has already been removed. Meatsgains (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Disappearance of Brian Shaffer

Disappearance of Brian Shaffer recently appeared in the Did You Know? section on the Wikipedia Main Page. In the version that appeared, like the current version, in the section "Subsequent developments", five of six paragraphs relate to connections between a named living person and the disappearance, and all of this material, including text like "his client's ongoing refusal to take a lie detector test" is sourced entirely and solely to a student newspaper. (Also including statements about what people told the student newspaper, and about whether particular police detectives returned phone calls made by the student newspaper.) Is this OK? MPS1992 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael Greger

Frivolous report. The OP has been blocked indefinitely for legal threats. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC).

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dr Greger whom is well known as the leading veganism expert in the world is someone that does a lot of good free things for the community but is getting an unjust review made in a blog by skeptic Harriet A. Hall linked in his biography. Hall doesn't have near the expertise in nutrition that Greger has yet she accuses him of dishonesty even though his work under fire is all cited to mainstream peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. I've observed Greger as someone who keeps up with the NutritionFacts.org site and shows concern for accuracy, and seems genuinely appreciative of corrections sent his way. When he's made mistakes, he's owned up to them. He gives thanks and credit to whoever has pointed out errors in his work. The hostility seems unfounded unless there's some other agenda he does draw fire in other places for presenting the evidence against certain kinds of quackery, including homeopathy, dietary supplements, "ionizing" water machines.. When I give good reason for removal along with support from other editors one editor User:Alexbrn accuses me of edit warring, and even false accusations of sock puppetry and blocking my participation with warnings on my talk page. Any help from anyone with expertise in this area would be greatly appreciated.Timpicerilo (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Some inaccuracy there. Nobody has used the word "dishonesty" about Greger, though with BLP in mind you have said several things about Hall - e.g. "wack job"[17] - which are potentially problematic. The point is here that Hall has said in reference to Greger that the evidence for the health benefits of vegan diets, while well-established, "is nowhere near as impressive or definitive as the true believers think" (which we quote), and we are required by WP:PSCI policy to point this out in relation to the "nutritionacts.org" site (where Greger has said, for example, that a single meal high in animal fat can "cripple" human arteries). You, along with a fresh account and a IP, have been repeatedly trying to remove this and it is not just me who disagrees: at last 3 other editors have either reverted you, disagreed with you or advised you to stop reverting yourself. The Science-Based Medicine site is a good source for commentary on lay science. As another editor said of you: "you keep making assertions based on advocacy sources and then dismissing the reality-based commentary of Harriet Hall". You have also made a legal threat which I will take to WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Carl Honoré

The book he wrote in In Praise of Slow, not In Praise of Slowness

Apparently, In Praise of Slow has more than one title, depending on country of publication. This is not uncommon and is not a BLP issue. Raise it at the article talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Trump Trope

A few more eyes are needed at Short-Fingered Vulgarian, an article about Donald Trump's allegedly small hands. I don't have time to fully investigate the article and its many sources, but on the surface, it looks like it might be a whole lot of WP:SYNTH.- Mr X 20:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Perhaps a redirect to Trump's main page, then? This is the Meme of the Year, and any true encyclopedia would be remiss to be without it. I trust you will find the topic more notable than the thousands of pages dedicated to forgotten contestants on The Appprentice who have been deemed worthy of Encyclopedic inclusion. Thousands of years from now, this may well be what people most remember about Donald Trump. As always, The Nazi Hunter is at your service. Ruthless hunting of Nazis to the ends of the earth is my day job; by night I edit encyclopedia articles, doing my small part to further the world's knowledge. The Nazi Hunter (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. MPS1992 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You are quite welcome! As far as SYNTH, I tried to carefully word the article so as not to actually imply that Trump actually has small hands--indeed, most of the sources appear to freely agree that Trump's hands are rather normal, and that is interesting here is merely the vociferousness of his denials. Rather, the article exists merely to document for all posterity that this recurrent joke has become prominent in the cultural conversation surrounding the 2016 campaign, even making its way into a presidential debate. Someone who missed that debate might well need this article and its many sources to fill them in on just what Rubio and Trump were sparring about, and just why Trump said "I assure you, there's no problem there." And even if the consensus is that this is not worthy of its own article, I would again suggest perhaps we consider adding the paragraph as a redirect to one of Trump's other articles. The Nazi Hunter (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Nazi Hunter: The topic may be notable, but the article needs to present it dispassionately. Also, I hope you're not a sock of the sock that was blocked yesterday for trying to promote the comparison of Mr. Trump to Adolf Hitler.- Mr X 20:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm? I do think that that the parallels between the two politicians you mention are uncanny, but I thought this article was not a suitable place to address this point, though I suppose we could add a section here on Hitler's alleged micropenis, if that's what you are suggesting? ^[1]^[2]

References

I recommend not being quite so flippant when discussing living people on Wikipedia. Word to the wise. - Mr X 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You raised the topic, but it is an extremely common view that Trump displays Hitlerian tendencies, and this opinion has been voiced by any number of prominent persons, such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, John Kasich, Noam Chomsky, Elizabeth Warren, Former Head of ADL Abe Foxman, Anne Frank's stepsister Eva Schloss, Bill Maher, Congressman Seth Moulton, Former Mexican President Vincente Fox, Current Mexican President Nieto, Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Glenn Beck, Louis C.K., Sarah Silverman, Conan O’Brien, and even William Godwin of Godwin’s Law who noted that “Hitler comparisons aren’t always wrong.” But I would ask that we stick to the topic at hand, the controversy at the Republican debate instigated by Rubio about Trump's hands, which does not appear to have any connection with the controversy to which you refer.

The Nazi Hunter, you seem untypically at home in the labyrinths of Wikipedia for a new user — redirects, the ECHO function, alphabet soup like SYNTH, and more. Do you have another account? Bishonen | talk 21:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC).

There's something about the juxtaposition of Nazis and Trump that rings a bell. clpo13_(talk) 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

What is echo? Synth was cited above as an objection to my article. Many websites use redirects, I don't believe it is a Wikipedia only invention.

Right here: "it looks like it might be a whole lot of WP:SYNTH.-" I'm also aware of what the word Synthesis means. Anyway, unless you are suggesting that my day job as a Nazi Hunter gives me a conflict of interest in writing about Mr. Trump, I'm not sure what the problem is here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nazi Hunter (talk • contribs)

I'm a duck hunter in my day job. I think I hear one now. Jonathunder (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This is at least the fourth abusive sockpuppet on this theme, checkuser blocked previously. Please revert and report at AIV if they appear again. Acroterion (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That article is remarkably well sourced, to the extent where i will be surprised if it falls in an AfD. I had no idea. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Scotty Bowers

Engleham created this biography simply because he wanted a counterpart of the book, Full Service (book). I tried to convince him that the notability of this person is based on the book without avail. Also, the subject himself isn't remarked; neither is his supposed relations with celebrities. Only the book article explains it already. Perhaps I might be wrong on this... --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(1) Bowers notability existed BEFORE the book – which is why, for example, he is credited in William J. Mann's Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, and other biographical works; appears in Sir Cecil Beaton's published diaries in a lengthy extract, and featured in a popular underground porno film in the 1970s. His notability has also extended beyond the book FOLLOWING its publication, with the upcoming documentary of his life (a section of which was previewed in Cannes last year), and the talks he has given in L.A. about his life.

(2) As the book has become old news, articles and blog items consistently profile Bowers first, no longer the book. Bowers also continues to contribute to other books such as the 2015 title My Buddy: World War II Laid Bare. So he has an identity beyond the book e.g. http://www.queerblog.it/post/198213/hollywood-gay-il-best-seller-sulla-mecca-del-cinema-di-scotty-bowers-sara-presto-un-film; http://guestofaguest.com/los-angeles/you-should-know/you-should-know-scotty-bowers; http://www.advocate.com/photography/2016/3/11/wwii-and-buddy-system

(3) In two Rfcs I pointed this out, and suggested the book article be retitled and reframed as a biographical article. This was opposed. There was a degree of consensus in the second Rfc that, if appropriate, a separate biographical article be written. Given, as detailed above, his notability extends beyond the book, it is indeed appropriate. Wikipedia allows unlimited articles, this hurts no one, and broadens information about Bowers himself, so I wrote the article and added 20 references - now 23 - considerable for such a article. And the vast majority do not reference the book.

(4) You chose to add a 'BLP additional citations needed' tag to the page. Given the more than sufficient number of cited references, this was clearly an edit meant to be deceitfully disruptive. I've removed the tag, and suggest you exercise your energies on more productive behaviour rather than wilful and sly harassment. Engleham (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Curiously enough George Ho has worked on a wide variety of Wikipedia articles. There is thus, in my opinion, a slight chance that his position is actually correct, in which case your pre-occupation with Bowers might, to some, indicate that your own position is less correct under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers Collect (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

A note for others reading this: I don't engage with Ho or Collect as both have a history -- well-documented by myself and several other editors -- of being repeatedly, wilfully obstructionist and harassing in their edits, for the sheer jollies of it. (See Talk:Harold_Holt#RfC for a recent farcical example.) Note in the above how he makes no effort to address the points made - the oblique reply to invite further responses, which results in fruitless circuitous exchanges to wear the other person down, is also a well-worn tactic of Ho's. I have no intention of pandering to their pathologies. Engleham (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh? Attacking an editor who has not even recently opined in a section as "obstructionist" and "harassing" is the mark of a person who absolutely has fingers under an inch in size <g>. Especially when the opiner asserts as fact in a biography that Bowers was a handsome, well-endowed and personable ex-marine who was, from the 1940s to the 1980s, an underground legend in Hollywood as the go-to sexual procurer for many stars, celebrities and ordinary citizens, both gay and straight sourced to the great and wondrous reliable source for facts an LA Weekly arts column by Paul Teetor. And which, unfortunately for Engleham, does not speak of Bowers as "handsome" or "well-endowed" nor of being an "underground legend." A "book review" by an entertainment writer who does "celebrity gossip" columns is not precisely the sort of reliable source envisioned by WP:RS as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Example of Teetor's reportage:[18] Gary Vitti took one glance at Tarik Black’s lipstick-red short-shorts and rendered an instant fashion judgment. and tell us this could be given as "fact" in a Wikipedia article with anything remotely near a straight face. Collect (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Aécio Neves - Drug addiction

The section Aécio Neves#Drug addiction contains some pretty strong accusations against this high-profile Brazilian politician. Could someone take a look at this? Hack (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The tone is scandalous, and some of the sources seem unreliable, but I know almost nothing about Brazilian media to be able to determine what might actually violate WP:BLP.- Mr X 15:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Le'Greg O. Harrison

I discovered Le'Greg O. Harrison through some other COI editing I was checking on, but a look at the page shows that it's incredibly promotional. I'm actually not sure that he is really all that notable outside of The Board Administration, which also seems to have been heavily hit with the promotional stick.

I'm cleaning the puff out of Harrison's article, but most of the sources in the article are dead or otherwise unusable (SPS, etc). So far I'm leaning towards redirecting this to TBA but I want to see if I can get anyone to help find sourcing to justify this guy having his own article. This is pretty much why you don't pay someone to write your own article. (sigh) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it was spam from day one. Google hits aren't encouraging--rather than spend the time de-puffing the biography, I'd concur with redirecting this to TBA, then de-puffing that article, which has a lot of repeated content anyway. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I tried looking for sources and couldn't find anything. I think that's what I'm going to do - there's just zip out there for him. I posted at the basketball WP just in case he passed for his college career, but since we don't really have anything for him as far as that goes, I'm leaning towards him not passing on that criteria either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm actually wondering if this would warrant an article either if I can't find better sources. What is your opinion on merging this into Wale (rapper)? I'm also wondering if the company is dead, since their various sites have either been abandoned or are dead. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The same thing is happening here - the page has basically been boiled down to a few paragraphs due to the puffery and unreliable sources getting removed. If I can't find any good sources I'm going to likely open up a merge/redirect discussion for the move. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

On a hilarious side-note, one of the sources was not only dead but also now redirects to a website that talks about Hepatitis C. Yeah. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Davi Claudino and Dan Claudino

Davi Claudino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dan Claudino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New articles on twin actors, with virtually identical content. I and other editors have nominated these for speedy deletion, and tagged the articles for notability, reliable sources and copyright violations, but two WP:SPA accounts have removed all templates, and are owning the articles. I'm requesting more eyes on these, and if the speedy templates won't stick, perhaps AfD process will apply. Sock or meat puppetry, perhaps to avoid a block, are possible. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I nominated them for deletion at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davi Claudino. Cmeiqnj (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wang Ramirez

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

Puff piece, maintained by a single purpose account. I've removed some of the copyright violations, and much of the remainder is devoted to quoted promotional blurbs, which will also need to be removed. Doing so pretty much eviscerates the whole article. Since the 'owner' is removing maintenance templates, I'd appreciate more attention and assistance. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Cannon

I was wondering if somebody familiar with "politician arrested and resigns" type articles would mind taking a look at this article, particularly it's opening sentence. I tried discussing it at Talk:Patrick Cannon#It is not disrespectful to call a felon a felon., but haven't gotten any response. Any suggestions would be most appreciated. I am also concerned about the infobox image. Using a mug shot photo seems a bit POV and undue. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I'll chip in. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Muboshgu for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Mary P. Koss

Mary P. Koss could use more eyes from this board. Several editors have been pushing to add criticism of the subject based on men's-rights blog sources which I believe violate BLP (and NPOV). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Luke Harding

Has a new user (?) Newuser1138 who appears to think that the "truth" must be placed into that BLP - even where prior discussions found that the material would not be properly placed into the biography. I am estopped from making BLP edits, so suggest that others look into this. Collect (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There was no conclusion drawn from said prior discussions on the talk page and furthermore I updated it with a new section explaining my edits. Both sides of the story need to be presented, and it is not for other editors to decide what the definitive "truth" is. Newuser1138 (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"Both sides" when you add spiked-online.com as a source? Collect (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did. I wasn't aware, is spiked-online.com on the blacklist? Can readers not take this article for what it is worth? Does Julian Assange's op-ed in Newsweek also not count? Would be great to hear your actual thoughts on how the article could be improved instead of just defending the truncated version of it that a single-purpose account removed without any discussion. I realise that my first edit was tagged as possible vandalism but at this point you can let go of your confirmation bias and accept what happened as actual editing for improvement. Newuser1138 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Opinion articles should not be used for "claims of fact" in any BLP. Period. As for accusing me of "confirmation bias" - that is just a flat out ridiculous claim at best, and an attack at worst. Op-eds also are not "sources for facts" - they are sources of opinion, which should always be cited and ascribed as such, and for rumours of criminal acts, they are of basically no use at all. Collect (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur

There's a long-standing dispute at the article Cenk Uygur over the inclusion of material on the subject's past comments about the Armenian Genocide. Uyugr is now a high-profile web news host. Here's a piece about him that was published in The Guardian a couple of days ago. I have no history of editing his article, I just happened to look it up the other day and I was surprised to see that the article's lead included an unsourced remark about him being a denier of the Armenian Genocide. The body of the article itself contained a longer discussion on the subject, referring to his past remarks. The lead claimed that he had made "past statements in support of Armenian Genocide denial, statements that he has never publicly repudiated." Strong claim. I thought this material had serious BLP and OR issues, so I removed it, leaving a note on the talk page. Now, here are the relevant facts: when he was at college, in 1991, Uygur wrote a piece for his student newspaper questioning the genocide,[19] and then later he wrote a letter to the editor of Salon, which was published online in 1999, questioning whether "genocide" was the appropriate term.[20] These are primary sources, of course. The trouble is, these do not appear to have been discussed by a single good independent source. And also, if you look at the article talk page and its archive you'll see several comments claiming that Uygur no longer holds the views that he appeared to hold in the 1990s, although again, no one appears to have provided a good independent source one way or the other. I challenged another editor on the talk page to provide a better source, and the best that has been provided so far is this, from a local paper, in a report about protests by an Armenian group in California at a Democratic Party event, which includes this single sentence, "Uygur is host of the "Young Turks” TV program and made denialist comments about the genocide in the 1990s." I believe that we have a very flimsy evidence base on which to say anything about his views on the Armenian Genocide - past or present. The good quality coverage in reliable sources simply does not exist. And Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Certainly the claim that "he has never publicly repudiated" his remarks from the 1990s is OR. I also think the inclusion of the material gives undue weight to an aspect of the subject which is not at all a defining biographical detail. See also the talk page, where I have set out in more detail my reasons for removing the material: Talk:Cenk Uygur#Genocide denial. Another editor has reverted me twice. The trouble is, I am not the first editor to remove this material. It has been repeatedly added over the past few years by various editors, and repeatedly removed by other editors citing BLP concerns. It would be useful to establish a consensus on 1) whether it is appropriate to mention anything at all about his comments from the 1990s, and 2) if it is, how should this material be presented? I request input from those more expert than I am in BLP matters. Cmeiqnj (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

With respect, OP's summary is inaccurate in several fronts. There are several reliable sources that discuss Uygur's denial of the Armenian genocide, including: The Daily Caller, the Glendale-News Press, Asbarez, and the Armenian National Committee of America. These sources are cited in the version of the article OP keeps reverting. I also disagree with OP's understanding of WP:BLP. The point is to avoid the possibility of inaccurate or defamatory information; here it is plain that Uygur is a denier from the cited sources. TummyTurtle (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick question for OP: Are you disputing the accuracy of the claim that Uygur is a denier? Or do you merely object to inclusion of the claim in the article on notability grounds? TummyTurtle (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe we have grounds for including the disputed material, for all the reasons I have set out: issues with original research, with verifiability, with neutrality of point of view, and BLP concerns. The other sources you mention are unacceptable. The Daily Caller piece is an op-ed by someone moaning about political correctness and "liberals' double standards", and is not about Uygur's views on the Armenian genocide, but about the name of his show (although, granted, he does briefly compare Uygur to a holocaust denier - nice rhetorical flourish). The other sources are from Armenian-American pressure groups (I include the Asbarez piece in that category, for present purposes, for reasons already stated on the talk page), and are therefore, in this context, primary sources. The Glendale News-Press piece is the one I mentioned above; it is the only source you've offered so far that appears to be independent and non-biased and not a primary source, but again that only has one sentence about Uygur's views. It does not provide nearly enough detail to support even a mention in Uygur's article. So I ask again: on what grounds can we include this material? Cmeiqnj (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have also removed essentially the same material from the page Genocide denial, where someone had inserted it. Cmeiqnj (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are you dismissing all the Armenian-oriented newspapers as "pressure-groups?" A magazine can have an ethnic angle while maintaining standards of journalistic integrity. TummyTurtle (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This piece does not read like journalism, it reads like a partisan write-up of a protest. The writer makes no attempt to get a response from Uygur. It is certainly not the quality of source that we should be relying on to make a contentious biographical claim. Cmeiqnj (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The claim isn't contentious, though. We know Uygur denied the Armenian genocide and has failed to publicly repudiated it. (Or do you dispute this?) TummyTurtle (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Knowledgebattle/projects/Christian Republican corruption

Looks to me as though there are BLP violations on this page. The editor (Knowledgebattle (talk · contribs), blocked at the moment) seems to think that since these aren't "official articles" it doesn't matter.[21] There are some other subpages I haven't looked at yet but may be problematic.[22] Doug Weller talk 12:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all pages of whatever kind. Period. Collect (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh I agree. But the editor seems to despise me so I'd like others to look at these pages. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Disappointing that this has been ignored - no pages should call anyone a liar, let alone a state governor (Matt Bevin), without some pretty reliable sources. So, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Knowledgebattle/projects/Christian Republican corruption. Another supbage, User:Knowledgebattle/articles/American Zionist politicians, has only one entry, Joe Kyrillos - I don't see any sources for calling him a Zionist. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if WP:NOTHERE applies. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.Thomson: WP:NOTHERE? My overall editing practices indicate that you're wrong. The subpages are a more recent addition, and only get amended with stuff that wouldn't otherwise be accepted on official articles. I've:

contributed to pages which relate to Jim Crow and persecution in American history (Sam Hose, Hazel Turner, and Mary Turner), as well as creating the substance for the articles for Jim McIlherron and Hazel Turner
creating the page for, and contributing to most of the substance in John David Hoppe
creating the page for, and researching what I could, for an obscure Christian denomination, Knipperdolings, and the relevant Frederick G. Strickland
organizing the article subsection, Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism_and_antisemitism
creating the subsection "Colorado Fuel and Iron" under John D. Rockefeller, and researching and contributing to the relevant Ludlow Massacre
As well as creating and redirecting some pages to their relevant articles.
Now that I've taken the time to learn how to nominate pages for deletion, I've also been doing that, recently, when I come across vandalism or random pages. User:Knowledgebattle#Pages_nominated_for_deletion

In doing research, I happen to come across a lot of inconvenient and unflattering things about people and events – things which their supporters may wish to quell, whitewash, or deny. I don't see the point in that; if something's true, then just admit that it's true. "Reality by the book" as we understand it doesn't make sense, if we take everything at face value. The 2008 market crash? Some people stupidly blame "baby boomers, immigrants, and poor people" for the 2008 recession. That "reality" doesn't fit with the reality that it was due to Wall Street selling fraudulent bonds, fraudulent accounting practices, and shadow banking practices.

An "open" encyclopedia is great, but it allows pretend, self-proclaimed "experts" to go on Fox News and spout false narratives, like "evolution isn't real" and "climate change is a liberal hoax" – and then dimwits get on Wikipedia and post crap like "this expert says climate change is false" – meanwhile, information on the net can show that he's a paid shill for an oil company, or a representative of a Conservative thinktank that was once set up by an oil company, that has since gone on to acknowledge that climate change is real and they're doing something about it, and the thinktank never got the memo.

The same thing occurs with a lot of alleged "BLP violations". All a person who's under fire for something needs to do is say, "I never did that" or "that's a lie" – even when there's proof – and then all of a sudden, instead of being a "fact", it becomes a "controversy" or an "allegation". I understand Wikipedia has "no original research" for good reasons, but it's seriously stupid that "both sides" can receive equal value, when one side's position can't fit into contextual reality against the other side's proof.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 00:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I blanked the Zionist politicians page as a BLP violation as it had no references to support labeling a living person a zionist. I didnt touch the Matt Bevin stuff as it is more nuanced - it includes plenty of references from reliable sources to support the description of him there as a liar etc while in office - however being caught out lying does not necessarily make someone 'corrupt' and absent a reliable source describing him as such, probably doesnt belong on a page titled 'Christian Republican Corruption', its not a reach to describe someone as corrupt who gets caught lying in office though, so some more opinions are probably needed. Sources like this and this well support the description of him as a liar/lying. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Why? Here, I'll revert and add sources, just for you. The American Zionist politician page is hopefully going to be a predominantly good page, as I am in favor of Zionism, in general. While I criticize some actions by the Israeli government, I also criticize some actions by the American government (where I live). That does not mean that I'm anti-America or anti-Israel – I'm pro-America and pro-Israel. American Zionist politicians are, generally, allies. In the Palestinian geographical area, the two opposing powers are Zionism rule versus Shari'a rule. For an atheist, it's a no-brainer which one to support.

As far as the "Christian Republican corruption" page goes, I'll add the sources you provided. However, understand that my subpage articles are not yet complete (I can't just magically research and compile all facts, instantaneously). As I come across more information, there will also be "Christian Democrat corruption", "Atheist Democrat corruption" and more. Just because someone's on my "side" doesn't mean I intend to lie/whitewash for them – the way that some people do. If someone's corrupt, a liar, etc – whether on my "side" or the other "side" – I'll say it like it is. I was supporting Hillary (the female Democrat) early last year, until I found out about all her intentional lies and corruption. As a result, I stopped siding with her, and now support Bernie (the Jewish Socialist). If he does something corrupt, then I'll be honest about it and abandon him, too. I don't play favorites, and while it's possible I could be wrong about something, I don't intentionally lie.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 00:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Lily Cole

Under the 'Advertising' section of Lily Cole's article, the last paragraph is offensive, sexually explicit material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Cole

Fixed. Thanks for the report. CIreland (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael Portillo

User:Litalex seems determined to push to an inappropriate prominence discussion of the sexuality of the article's subject. Although Portillo's sexuality is clearly mentioned in the context of the article as regards his political career, Litalex has twice sought to raise it in the context of Portillo's marriage, although I have twice, (and I believe politely), reverted this and explained carefully my reasons. These include WP:UNDUE and non-conformity with WP:BLP. (see User_talk:Litalex#Portillo and User_talk:Smerus#Portillo). Litalex has subsequently edited the article naming a third party who should not have been named according to WP standards (see Talk:Michael_Portillo#Mr_X), and I have reverted this; I believe this edit compounds the issues of undue/blp. My latest reversion is: this one. Earlier relevant diffs are this and this. I have not warned Litalex as a vandal as I was hoping to resolve this situation by discussion but as Litalex seems intent on escalating the issue without explanation I should be grateful for help or advice. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

To unilaterally declare my edits as inappropriate when their very appropriateness is under discussion is misleading. And to imply that I'm a vandal, after you lectured me about the Wikipedia policy of "Assume good faith" is rather ironic. As to the motivation behind the edits, I have explained them twice as well; just because you disagreed does not mean I haven't explained them. As to the appropriateness of mentioning Portillo's past companion, he was given the label "Mr. X", how was I to know whom you're banning from discussion. Moreover, even if we take away the Mr X source, there are still news articles criticizing Portillo as a hypocrite, for both his stance on the acceptance of LGBTQ people into the military and lowering the age of consent for LGBTQ teenagers. Btw, you're supposed to tell me that you've reported me to the administrator's board, not just this one. --little Alex (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I am grateful for Litalex's contribution above since it clearly illustrates his lack of WP:NPOV - particularly necessary when dealing with BLPs. To deal with his retaliatory accusation of non-notification: I originally referred this issue to the incident notice board and I notified Litalex accordingly. Fifteen minutes later I realized that it would be better dealt with on this page, withdrew the incident notification, and also informed Litalex accordingly. You can see all this clearly in this diff. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think NPOV means ignoring it when a politician's actions or words draw criticism or controversy. If that's the case, Donald Trump's page would be only half as long. As to whether it's undue attention to some details, half a sentence (my first edit) to two or three sentences (my last edit) in a page that's probably over 10,000 words long is pretty much nothing. As to reporting me to the admins, you're the one who's mentioned it first and when the automatic alert system notified me, I took you at your word. Mentioning it here is hardly retaliatory, since this is where you would still respond; actually, accusing me of such is getting awfully close to an ad hominem attack. And lastly, check your assumptions, check them at the door. I'm female, not male.--little Alex (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it okay to create a BLP page purely to make a POINT in a deletion debate ?

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife, user showed up to comment with "Delete"
In order to make a WP:POINT, the user then created a WP:BLP page at User:Number 57/James Baker about a male sports person.
The user then acknowledged the only reason to create the page about the WP:BLP was to influence the deletion debate: DIFF.
The user acknowledged the WP:BLP would never be placed in Wikipedia article space, and was only created to make a WP:POINT in the deletion debate. DIFF.

This seems to be a violation of WP:POINT and WP:BLP.

Biographies of real living people should not be created, whether in userspace or main article space or anywhere else on Wikipedia, for the sole reason of making a WP:POINT.

BLPs should not be created when there is zero intention of making a real article about them.

Thoughts ?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It never left the sandbox and was being used as a specific illustration. Since it didn't say anything really contentious or running afoul of BLP, I don't see where it's really a problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Could not a deceased person have been used instead as an example? Or a fictional individual that is not a real BLP ? — Cirt (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Could he have used a dead person? Yes. A fictional one? Probably not. Again, I see no practical difference between this and a good faith attempt at an article that fails notability aside from the author's plans. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As the editor who did this (for some reason I wasn't alerted to this discussion), writing an article about a fictional person would have been entirely pointless as the whole reason for doing it was to show that it's easy write a well-referenced article on a semi-professional footballer (if it needs to be pointed out, a fictional footballer would not have this coverage). A deceased person would have been more difficult as it's likely that they would have played before the internet age, so it would have taken a lot more research to find the pre-internet coverage; this was a 20 minute bit of work simply to illustrate the level of coverage available.
As Niteshift states, the article wasn't contentious; everything was sourced, so it clearly was not a BLP violation. I also fail to see how creating an article in my userspace is being disruptive. Number 5 7 16:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It harms the project to create a page purely to make a point about a living person to make a point in a deletion debate. We should not be encouraging Wikipedia users to do this process. Imagine if everyone did this in each AFD about living people? — Cirt (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Furthermore, whilst it's disappointing that both the title and introduction of this discussion is throwing around WP:POINT rather than introducing the dispute in a neutral fashion, I am more concerned that the timeline presented above is rather disingenuous. I did indeed !vote to delete the article. However, what prompted the creation of the article in my userspace was this comment by Cirt about the level of coverage on the subject of the AfD. It was only at this point that I created the userspace article to illustrate the coverage argument I made. Number 5 7 16:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the BLP violation being reported here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm coming to the BLP board to ask if we should be encouraging users to create BLPs during deletion debates on living people where we never intend to have an article in main article space. Is that a practice we wish to motivate and reward on Wikipedia? — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes but what is the violation being reported? If there is no BLP violation, why are you wasting people's time with this? Creating drafts of non-notable people in userspace is not a BLP issue unless it contains problematic material. Since said article is now deleted, and there is no suggestion there was any problem material, this serves zero purpose other than to have an extended argument. If you want to accuse editors of pointy editing, take it to AN or ANI which deal with problematic user editing. Otherwise there is nothing to be done here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

We agree to disagree as to if it's a problem whether the material itself is problematic or not. It can lead to a danger of having biographies of living persons sitting in userspace ad infinitum. — Cirt (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Only in death. If you have concerns about AfD protocols or policies surrounding sandbox usage this is not the place to discuss it. Furthermore the sanbox page in questions has been deleted. I'm marking this thread as resolved.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Manish K. Sethi should be deleated

Manish_K._Sethi does not meet any criteria for inclusion in wikipedia with regards to prominence or performance. He is not a public figure of note. Please delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.207.30 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2016‎

I have proposed that the article be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)

IP editor 115.188.178.77, who calls herself/himself “Claudia” and loudly expresses regressive and occasionally racist views of Maori culture and New Zealand colonial history, has for some years waged an online crusade against the highly respected New Zealand historian James Belich. Claudia has accused Belich of bias, shoddy work, ignorance and errors.

Some examples of her tirades are here, here, here, and — more stridently — in the four threads archived at the Belich article talk page, here.

Claudia has launched a new attack on Belich at the talk page of this article on a British army officer who fought the Maori in New Zealand, returning to the theme that Belich is ignorant and usually wrong. Claudia here (as she often does) cites the authors Pugsley and Richards in her derisive comments, though when challenged recently to produce the actual statements of those authors, she could not.[23]

I deleted her last Belich comment on the grounds that it was an attack not relevant to the article; she has restored it and added a further criticism of Belich: see Talk:Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)#No Personal attack on Belich.

This is a problematic editor who was been blocked in 2012 [24], 2013 and 2014, with the latter report including references to Claudia’s history of faking citations. Her recent efforts have also included adding a fictionalised “quote” within an article which was nothing more than a stab in the dark of something she had once read (see this and this thread.) BlackCab (TALK) 04:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

BlackCab: I've reverted the latest outburst, if there's any non-BLP-violating content there you're welcome to reinstate those parts.

everyone else: there's quite a bit of history about this editor (BlackCab has touched on the most relevant parts). Currently BlackCab is the most active in clearing up the messes she makes, many others have helped as well.

Just to clarify slightly: James Belich (historian) is the living person here (Duncan Cameron died in 1888). Belich's own article has not escaped the hand of Claudia (see its history and its talk page); she purposefully conflates Historical revisionism (sober analysis and reflection at a distance) with Historical revisionism (negationism) (denial and deception) in order to blacken his reputation. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor's edits have been a multi-year issue for many of the participants of Wikiproject New Zealand. I think that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#Well-meaning_but_clueless_IP_editor in particular speaks for itself. I think the only thing that appears to have changed since this was last bought to the attention of admins is that James Belich, a historian the IP loves to criticise, has been appointed Beit Professor of Commonwealth History at Oxford University. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to take this back to WP:ANI to have the block renewed if there has been no improvement in Claudia's editing.-gadfium 04:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gadfium, not sure anything will result from this complaint. This editor is an incorrigible pest, but it's hard to get admin action to put a stop to it. BlackCab (TALK) 11:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor was blocked for a year and in that period seems to have learned nothing about contributing to Wikipedia. This needs to be taken back to ANI ASAP as the disruption they are causing is wasting a lot of editors time and is not in the least constructive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want to be accused of forum shopping, but his/her rubbish edits continue, along with goading at a range of talk pages. I'll take it to AN/I today hopefully. BlackCab (TALK) 22:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have now raised this issue at AN/I. Link is here. BlackCab (TALK) 01:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Crabb

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Crabb&diff=714069485&oldid=714065587 restores contentious claims not directly supported by reliable sources (including a nice tabloidy claim sourced to the Daily Mail of course)

Will someone please fix that edit? ("and stayed on welfare for the rest of his 'working' life" is not found in the Daily Telegraph article, and the claims sourced to the Daily Mail include "Tory Minister for Wales: I foiled my dad's knife attack...on my mother" and " New benefits minister's extraordinary reunion with the 'abusive' father he hasn't seen since he fled home as a boy after a series of violent rows " show just how great the reportage used is). Thank you. Collect (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

CV inflation

It is unhelpful to start an article about a contemporary musician or actor by listing every single job they’ve done in their time, however non-notable or downright trivial. The focus in the lead should be on the one thing (it is rarely more than one) for which they are notable. Anything else can come later in the article.

I've pared a couple of these lists back, but fans instantly revert them and keep extending them. A lost cause? 217.38.159.138 (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am fully in agreement that such lists do not belong in the lead. Not as firm on whether trivial jobs should be excised from the main text - it may be appropriate, for example, to mention that a CEO started in the mailroom, to use the canonical example. I can imagine that this could be overdone, but feel uncomfortable providing generic rules, except for the lead, which should summarize the important aspects of the article.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Vivian Ho (artist)

At the risk of dropping this like a stone into a deep well, I'd appreciate some assistance here today. A group of new and well-intentioned WP:SPA editors have turned a young artist's bio into an extensive press release, complete with resume of largely non-significant shows and promotional descriptions of work and solo exhibitions. At this point I've tired of discussing it at the article talk page, and get the sense that any copy editing I venture will be an uphill battle. Thoughts and help welcome. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There's another concern worth mentioning--many of the sources are Chinese, and fluency with the language is really necessary. It would be helpful to establish that they're all WP:RELIABLE sources. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It look as though others have waded in and helped out here. The page has been semi-protected for a few days too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

MfD dealing with a potential BLP issue in the project space

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes. Given the nature of the discussion, I thought a posting here was appropriate, since the editors at this noticeboard will be most knowledgeable in what is and is not an actual BLP issue. ~ Rob^Talk 00:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment Body shaming a living person is generally not allowed. The concern is the method of weaving it into the history. Even if the 4/1 Signpost articles are deleted, these backdated orphans still exist. As you pointed out, it's very similar to a joke about "Hillary" and "cankles" - it generates a juvenile snicker but it's still shaming. I don't know why we need to shame people in any spaces, particularly living people. --DHeyward (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Page in question has been deleted.

Resolved

~ Rob^Talk 15:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Carola Dunn

Gilliam schoolblocked user:195.195.152.11, a serial vandal, back in 2014. I just discovered that someone at that IP changed the birthdate at Carola Dunn way back in 2005. Looking at their contribs, it appears that changing birthdates was a favourite passtime back then. I fear that other BLPs may still be damaged. Worse, it appears that the data has promulgated out through this Wikidata to corrupt this ISNI record and this VIAF record]. I suppose it is just possible that the LCAuth record is wrong, but I've adopted and cited its date anyway, in preference to the IP's edit. I hate to say it, but someone's going to have to go through all those contribs and check each of the affected articles. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've worked my way through the 2004 edits, up through Feb 2005. Lots left to do. About 20% of the pseudodates still persisted, most had been cleaned up. In the meanwhile, certainly suspect any celebrity birthdays from early January. Shocking how many articles are still relying on IMDB or even Playboy. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Panama Papers

Could people experienced in BLP issues keep an eye on this? I don't have much time to look into it, but there are a lot of people being "named", "implicated", or in an "accusations were made" paragraph. As far as I can tell, right now, sources are still in the "just list all the famous names found in the data dump" phase. I wonder if our article should start out with zero names for a while, and only add them when reliable sources have calmly assessed whether there are specific allegations made, and/or they quit/retire/get removed from whatever position they're in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Theres also an issue at Vladimir Putin being discussed hotly. Putin is not mentioned in the Panama dump, but 3000 + bytes have been added to the article under 'Personal Wealth. A few of us think this is wrong SaintAviator lets talk 08:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Second section added specifically on such grounds. I find the flouting of WP:BLP to be abhorrent, and the nature of some of the accusations appears to be possibly a matter of politics as much as "real investigation". Collect (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Both of you have been specifically asked to specify which part of WP:BLP policy is being violated. Both of you have failed to do so. The info is covered in literally dozens of reliable sources, it is well sourced and essentially non-controversial. So if there's "flouting of WP:BLP" going on here, it's by you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Panama Papers redux

Edits there name a slew of living persons, where allegations of criminal activity are directly imputed by the article, but where no other sources are found for such charges other than from the organization releasing the information.

I find edit summaries such as "Reinstate some info. ABSURDLY, as it was, WE HAD REBUTTALS BUT NOTHING BEING REBUTTED. Excuse me saying this, but the article has been hacked to pieces by some editors who completely ignore WP:NPOV and frankly should know better"

Alas - I find WP:BLP says we should not imply criminal acts to people without strong reliable sourcing (some of those named are not "notable" to the extent that such claims are proper IMO) and NPOV being used as a reason to accuse people named in that article of criminal acts seems worse than craven.

Hence the queries - is this article subject to WP:BLP? Is the naming of "not very notable persons" in this article improper under WP:BLP? Collect (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The article, as with the reporting on this issue in the press, notes that the activities in question were not illegal. So it's incorrect to say that criminal acts are being implied. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Eyes covered?

" found that some of the shell companies may have been used for illegal purposes, including fraud, drug trafficking, and tax evasion"

"The country is filled with dishonest lawyers, dishonest bankers, dishonest company formation agents and dishonest companies registered there by those dishonest lawyers so that they can deposit dirty money into their dishonest banks. The Free Trade Zone is the black hole through which Panama has become one of the filthiest money laundering sinks in the world"

"it continues to provide full service – wash, rinse and dry – to crooks and money launderers from around the world."

"Vladimir Putin does not appear in any of the records but the names of some of his associates do" (um - if his name is not in the documents, why the hell stress that he has friends who are in the documents? Really? That disingenuous? )

The article is chock full of such innuendo and inference - but some editors think that such use is proper - and I demur that WP:BLP should be abused in this way. Anyone who does not view the listing of living persons in this manner as implying "illegal, immoral and fattening" acts is willfully covering their eyes - as my first line states. Collect (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And what Wikipedia article is that text from? Oh. None of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Every blessed word above is from the Panama Papers article - which is why that article is in the section title here. Did you elide the fact that the article name is clearly mentioned right at the top of this section? Your puerile "none of them" is, alas, so easily contradicted as to be "joci causa" as far as any outside observer would describe it. Collect (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what a "juicy cause" is [25] nor do I care, nor am I impressed by gratuitous and unnecessary use of legal or Latin terms (unless it's done for the sake of a funny joke). But ok, you're right, I thought they were from an outside source. And in fact they are. These are direct quotes from sources. The two that are blockquotes, probably should be removed although paraphrased. The third one is perfectly fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also unclear on how these are suppose to be BLP violations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"

Its clear to accuse or smear Putin who is not in the leaks, but to do so because he knows some people who were is ridiculous. It is a BLP violation. Poroshenko? Sure, he acted illegally and is named in the leaks. Putin? No SaintAviator lets talk 23:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The answer is simple: just stick closely to what reliable sources say. If you find something that is not based on reliable sources, by all means, please report it here. But please actually read WP:BLP and stick to it, rather than just making vague, ambigous and unsubstantiated claims that "BLP is violated". The B, L and P, do not actually stand for "I Do What I Want".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And since we're on the BLP page, SaintAviator, you might actually want to observe BLP. Do you have a source that Poroshenko "acted illegally"? A reliable source, not conspiracy websites or other crap? No? Then don't make such accusations. BLP applies to the BLP page too (nevermind the irony of you willfully violating BLP while at the same time complaining about imaginary BLP violations).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not think we can discuss people who appears in papers all together. If there are concerns about any specific person, please start new thread. It appears that we now have de facto consensus to include a number of notable people, including Putin in page "Panama papers", and this is not a BLP violations per se (if properly included, described and attributed). Hence this info can be also briefly included in their BLP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Davis (saxophonist)

Nathan Davis (saxophonist) Nathan Davis did start a band called Roots in 1991. However, this is not the same band that is in the link on his Wikipedia page. That is a different band with a nearly-identical name. (personal interview) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.80.14 (talk • contribs) 22:07, April 7, 2016‎

I've removed the link (which was to The Roots, a hip-hop band created in 1987). Thanks for the heads-up. clpo13_(talk) 05:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sonny Rollins

Contrary to the line that says a concert by Frank Sinatra at Rollins' high school, accompanied by a plea for racial harmony, changed his life, Rollins never said the concert changed his life, as borne out by the video source cited [26]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidbill60 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Gideon Greif

The entire article is clearly just a resume.

Violation of WP:NPF end WP:BLP1E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.222.148.181 (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly needs a major trim; I have started on it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Shyla Foxxx

I've reverted unsourced information about a porn actress' purported birthdate twice and purported birth name once. Please see my second edit here. (You can find my first revert an hour or two before that.) I don't want to edit war. Suggestions? Assistance? David in DC (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Jenny Lim

Could someone take a look at this page please? It is an article by a new editor which is badly written, lacks references and notability could be an issue. I tagged it for refs. and the tag was removed three times by the creator who had been warned. The page was then 'reviewed' by another editor and I added a copy-edit tag. The creator has very recently added 2 refs citing Facebook and again removed the refs and copy-edit tags. I think I've run up against 3RR here so would appreciate it if someone else could take a look. It is entirely possible that it could be a candidate for CSD due to notability issues & possible COI also. Thanks Eagleash (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. I've restored the tags. David in DC (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Made some prose only copy edits; added citation needed tags; removed the Facebook links, which do not contain any information, do not verify the article contents. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Kristina Svechinskaya

Sexy hacker?[edit] She was with 36 other people in the hacking scheme that stole millions and she was singled out because she was the really pretty one in the whole scheme and her revealing photo on the internet. I think that this article should be merged with another article about the other Eastern European hackers that were involved in the crime.

(Redacted) Patchman123 (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2016

Hi Patchman123, Your post above does not raise any concerns of compliance with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Please feel free to raise the merge question on the respective article Talk pages. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ned Miller

Ned Miller passed away March 18th, 2016 in White City/Medford Oregon. Please update your article. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearnee (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 April 2016‎

Source? I'm not seeing anything online.--Auric talk 12:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Tyler Henry

Tyler Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gizza2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brando628 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are a couple of editors on this page (linked above) who seem intent on whitewashing the article, specifically removing any criticism of the subject, claiming such criticism is libelous. Now, maybe they're right and there are libel issues (in other words, unreliable sources, false claims, etc.) or these editors might have some sort of WP:COI. Either way, I think some more eyes on this article would be helpful. clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael Greger - claims of BLPSPS violation

withdrawn as User:Sammy1339 has launched an RfC and will not withdraw it, and there is no point duplicating the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 1 September 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.

Notice cross-posted at WP:RSN, WT:MED, and WP:FRINGEN Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Greger is a Celebrity doctor (i have got to write that article) who ~~owns~~ founded and runs nutritionfacts.org and writes books like, "How Not to Die". Most broadly he advocates that people move away from the Western diet and instead to eat a healthy diet; he also urges people to go vegan and criticizes the medical establishment for being afraid to do that. All of that is great. The problem is that he makes often makes exaggerated (or what some call "rhetorical") claims like -- "How not to die" - as part of his efforts to persuade people to reduce the amount of animal products they eat. (The consensus healthy diet does call for people to eat mostly whole foods and less processed food; more fruit and veg and less meat, etc. The problem is not the diet he recommends but rather the claims he makes about the benefits of eating better and the dangers of eating animal products. Which are extreme. Like ... "How Not to Die")

These exaggerated claims are pretty much WP:PSCI (we are talking about the claims, not about him); there are of course some editors who find all his claims to be true and are unhappy that the WP article about him calls out these exaggerated claims.

We have content/sourcing currently in the article as follows:

Physician and skeptic Harriet A. Hall analyzed one of Greger's videos in which he claimed that death was largely a "food-borne illness" and wrote that while it was already generally accepted that plant-based diets with less red meat conferred health benefits, in the video she found "sweeping statements that go beyond the evidence," "unwarranted assumptions about the meaning of studies," and omission of "any reference to contradictory evidence".^[1]

References

^ Hall HA (February 12, 2013). "Death as a Foodborne Illness Curable by Veganism". Science-based Medicine. Retrieved December 13, 2015.

Those who find his claims true are objecting under WP:BLPSPS. The source here is Science-Based Medicine (see our article for a description of it).

There are three main responses to this objection:

The content is not about Greger but about his claims (probably the most important rebuttal)
Science-based Medicine is not an SPS but rather a web-based publication with an editorial staff and a strong reputation in its field (which is debunking bad science); it is allowed here in any case under WP:PARITY because standard scientific publications don't deal with this kind of popular pseudoscience
This is as attributed and specific as possible (almost to the point of absurdity but we are trying to accommodate the objections)

The objections have been dragging on for a few months now, so it is time to get community input on the question. So - do we have a problem with WP:BLPSPS here or not? Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC) amended - Greger founded nutritionfacts.org per this and this and this it is owned by a nonprofit Nutritionfacts Org Inc per this again. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all. Harriet A. Hall is a noted authority on bogus medical claims, and the source is not "self-published", it's the Science Based Medicine website, a project of the Society for Science Based Medicine, which has a strong editorial team with a reputaiton for accuracy and dependability. Obviously it owuld be better if the article were in a prestigious journal but most journals don't dignify nonsensiscal claims with any kind of response. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Transparently, the content is about Greger. It is not included to correct any specific questionable claim of Greger's - no such claim appears in the article except here - but rather to warn readers that he is not reliable.

2. What determines whether something is SPS is whether it is subject to editorial oversight - i.e. whether there is something between the author and the column. The Hall source lacks such oversight and no one has disputed this. No matter how respected a blog it may be, it is still a blog. Its use can be justified by the "exceptions" allowed in WP:RS, but not in a BLP, as explicitly noted there.

3. The attribution has not been part of the dispute.

I dispute Jtydog's characterization of Greger as a "celebrity doctor". He also does not own Nutrition Facts as far as I'm aware. I certainly dispute that WP:PSCI applies or that his claims are "nonsensical", but I also object to being characterized as "those who find his claims true", as he has produced a lot of material and some of his work is indeed problematic - a good summary of the reasons why is given by Joe Schwarcz, another prominent skeptic, here. Unfortunately it's also a blog. There are also a few other respectable blog sources on him, such as one from Psychology Today, and other than the Hall source, there is no one who treats him as if he were a quack. Many editors on the talk page, however, clearly feel that he is one, and that strong conviction is at the root of this dispute. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the misperception that SBM applies editorial oversight comes from its Submission Guidelines, which concern submissions solicited from the public. There is no oversight of Hall's posts. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

redacted on the "owns" thing. It is owned by a nonprofit that Greger established and operates. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The material was given what is likely to be undue weight with quotes where the tenor of the criticism can be handled quite succinctly, as far as I can tell. Which I have done. It is not our task to label anyone as a quack or whatever per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Collect just made this edit changing the subject content to:

Physician and skeptic Harriet A. Hall has written that Greger overstates the advantages of plant-based diets, and that he does not discuss evidence which contradicts his stated beliefs.

Which I amended in this dif to:

Physician and skeptic Harriet A. Hall has written that Greger overstates the advantages of plant-based diets and the harm caused by eating animal products, and that he does not discuss evidence which contradicts his stated beliefs

I can live with that. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This does not address the fact that it is a self-published source, which doesn't belong in a BLP at all. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Sammy this is going to be a tangled nightmare if you keep repeating your position. Folks are aware of the question and will weigh in on whether they agree that BLPSPS applies here. So far no one does, but we will see how things evolve. Collect is one of the fiercest protectors of BLP around here (as is Guy - he helped write BLP and to create the WP:OTRS system) - so please just settle in and see what folks have to say. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It is already a tangled nightmare, clearly, but I do feel the need to point out that we have been discussing everything except the only thing that matters, which is that the source is a blog post. Your repetition of irrelevant facts and opinions is also getting tedious, but I would never tell you to "just settle in." --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe there's rather strong consensus that the source is reliable and the author is a noted authority for the subject matter. Given the amount of related content in the article, it seems a bit lengthy. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, as an avid carnivore (who believes in a high meat/animal fat, low sugar/vegetable fat diet), and as much as I agree with her on many of her statements, I have to wonder what the relevance is to the subject. Our article describes none of these beliefs of Greger's, so what is the point in refuting them? Knowing nothing about the subject, these statements in the article struck me as very one-sided, and left me wondering what in the world it was even talking about. It would make more sense if we described his views before refuting them. From just reading the article, it says he eats a plant-based diet, and then we have someone criticize him for what he eats.

Then I also have to wonder why the source is actually an op/ed piece posted as a blog. The person may be a high authority on the subject, yet I don't know that from the source, so the style and lack of editorial oversight make me nervous. As an outsider to this article, it seems very out of place. Zaereth (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I added an RfC on this subject because after so many months it's clearly necessary to get an enforceable decision on this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:43, 1 September 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.

[BMJ-1] Koronyk, C.; et al. (December 17, 2014). "Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study". The British Medical Journal. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7346. Retrieved December 17, 2014.

[2] ttp://www.un.org/en/oaj/files/undt/orders/gva-2015-139.pdf

[3] ttp://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/03/11/watch-sarah-silverman-appears-hitler-conan-talk-trump-comparisons/

[4] ttp://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/sarah-silverman-as-hitler-trump-comparisons-bum-me-out-20160311

[hall-5] Hall HA (February 12, 2013). "Death as a Foodborne Illness Curable by Veganism". Science-based Medicine. Retrieved December 13, 2015.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]