Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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

Centralized discussion

Reuven Bar-On[edit]

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

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talkcontribs)

Alan Grayson[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're attempting to construct a barrier to inclusion of content that does not exist in the WP:BLP policy. We don't "have to add ... exculpatory evidence" -- certainly not in a way that violates the privacy of his children (and by the way, no-one is proposing to mention them). It's apparent you want this issue to be very complicated -- possibly so that for other editors it's TLDR -- but it doesn't have to be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I honestly don't believe this whole divorce deserves more than a sentence or two, and in my opinion the removed text would be acceptable after a copy edit. The "extending over 20 years" line should go because it makes it sound as if she was regularly abused for a long time. But she claims "he hit her in the past four or five times". That's different. Also, I'd prefer to have the Politico report as a source for that instead of Fox. The section about Schumer's statement needs a similar cut. The "saying that Grayson has “shown himself not to be worthy of being a U.S. senator" part can go, leaving the rest. Cheers, Yintan  09:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I would approach the situation from a media standpoint, and not so much the divorced couple standpoint. That is, it is the fact that Politico published Lolita's account right in the middle of the election run, and Grayson fired back to deny the allegations and tell Politico to stop covering him. The claims Lolita made should remain claims cited to her via Politico. If their children (of adult age) are sourced to defend Grayson, that can be included in a counterargument statement too, eg "Grayson fervently denied her claims, and his position was supported by his children from that marriage." We don't need to attempt to describe anything in any more detail particularly these allegations of what Lolita did against Grayson if they are allegations as well. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

John McTernan[edit]

John McTernan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A lot of back-and-forth over whether to include material on McTernan's purportedly poor predictions, and related legal action over an alleged unpaid bet. I've blanked it for now, but in the interest of putting it to bed for the time being, invite further eyes/comment. --Hillbillyholiday talk 23:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I'd suggest anyone commenting here looks at the whole talkpage. The issue boils down to the fact that a political blog (written by a single blogger) with an opposing political view to McTernan has mocked him by repeatedly posting when his predictions turn out to be wrong. The problem is that, of course, they are cherry-picking their data. I and many other editors have repeatedly pointed out that if we could have a reliable, neutral source that has commented on McTernan's alleged incompetence, then we would have the basis for a negative section in a BLP. The SPA editor who has kept inserting the section (seventeen times now, by my count) has found a reliable source commenting on the fact that the blogger has taken McTernan to court for repayment of a bet he supposedly welched on. Personally I would be willing to let that section in now (as you can see from the history, others disagree) but there is still no sourcing for their main BLP-violating section, which they keep piggy-backing on top of it. IMO User:Anna_Lertreader is WP:NOTHERE except to disparage McTernan, and a number of others agree. Black Kite (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hillbillyholiday:@Black Kite: From what I've seen Anna_Lertreader's main sources are a tabloid, Twitter, and a blog. Far from reliable sources. I too would have removed the whole predictions/betting thing as irrelevant trivia. So the guy hasn't paid his lost bet (yet). Big deal. It's not like he is investigated by Operation Yewtree. And he gets some predictions wrong. O dear, as if that's big news (Wrong predictions? Hello, American pollers?). It's tabloid trivia, badly sourced, unencylopedic, and it doesn't belong in a biography. All in my humble opinion, of course. If the court case becomes notable for some reason, then yes, it should be included. But so far... No. We might as well be listing his parking tickets. Yintan  16:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, though to be fair she has now found a reliable source (The Scotsman) mentioning the betting thing, but there's still no reliable sourcing of the "terrible predictions" bit. Which means it must stay out. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Even with The Scotsman as a source I find it irrelevant. Unless it somehow blows up into something bigger. I'm sure I can find a reliable source showing that celebrity X has failed to pay a fine on time. That still doesn't make it notable. Again, in my humble opinion. Yintan  18:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the point I was making is that the Scotsman commenting on the betting thing is irrelevant, the editor is inserting the whole negative section based on that. If they were simply inserting the section about the betting that would be something to argue about as to whether it was notable or UNDUE - inserting the rest is simply a BLP violation. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────All the same people commenting here as have been frantically trying to prevent the section being included, rather than "new eyes", I see. The case in favour is straightforward:

- The facts are sourced, undisputed and relevant. McTernan is a political analyst and the fact that his political analysis is invariably wrong is a matter of record, not opinion. The idea that there are no proper sources is absolutely farcical - McTernan's own tweets and newspaper articles are obviously a reliable source of what he predicted, and it is not, as far as I'm aware, disputed that (for example) Labour did not win the 2015 election.

- Nobody has provided a shred of evidence to support any allegation of "cherry-picking" (ie some predictions that McTernan got right). Not a single correct one has been cited, despite repeated requests. Until such times as they are, "cherry-picking" is a totally baseless allegation.

- Wiki is absolutely clear that a source does NOT have to be neutral, so long as its content is reliable. In the case of Wings Over Scotland's articles on McTernan, every claim is properly and verifiably sourced. Wings Over Scotland on its own is a perfectly acceptable source to have the section included under Wiki rules. The fact that some people here may not like it is neither here nor there. Wiki does not disqualify blogs, nor does it disqualify partisan sources.

- Nevertheless, the "bet" story has now been featured in at least FIVE newspapers (the Sun, the Times, the Scotsman, the Herald and the Aberdeen Evening Express). All of those sources pointed out - in their own words, not quotes - that it came about as a direct result of Wings Over Scotland's documentation of McTernan's track record.

- The amount of coverage is not "undue". McTernan's career as an analyst is his primary reason for notability (he last walked the corridors of power a decade ago as an inconsequential SpAd), and three or four sentences mentioning the empirically sub-par quality of his analysis, and nationally-reported events arising from it, is plainly not excessive.

- The claim that "IMO User:Anna_Lertreader is WP:NOTHERE except to disparage McTernan" is palpably not true, and indicates nothing except that "Black Kite" hasn't bothered to check properly. I've edited numerous other pages, at considerable length, before I went anywhere near McTernan's.

- So we have unarguably true and sourced facts, discussed in a reliable source, and with events arising directly and solely from those facts reported in multiple national newspapers, all covered in a brief section just a few sentences long. It's frankly absurd that there's even a debate here. Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Lertreader: FYI, I have not been "frantically trying to prevent the section being included", I never touched that article. I'm the pair of "new eyes" you wanted. If you don't like what I see, that's another story. Thanks. Yintan  13:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The claim that McTernan's frequently wrong political analysis is as irrelevant as unpaid parking tickets is simply wrong. If McTernan was a parking attendant, then unpaid parking tickets would indeed be relevant to his biography page. However, he claims to be a political analyst, so the quality of his analysis is obviously relevant. It's therefore pretty difficult to see why there is such a determination to prevent proof of his poor analysis being listed on his page, unless there is some ulterior motive. Perhaps one of McTernan's friends is keeping watch on his page? Attacking the sources does nothing to change the facts, and I've seen far more trivial things listed on biographies than someone being taken to court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Better reading required. The unpaid parking tickets example was linked to the unpaid bet, not to his predictions. Thanks, Yintan  14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The unpaid bet is over one of his predictions. So yes, it is linked to his predictions. Thanks! (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Wow, I must have misunderstood myself completely. Yintan  14:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with this. The bet is related to his ability to make accurate predictions, something which he has a poor reputation for. That reputation is well-documented on McTernan's own Twitter feed for anyone who wants to go and look. The bet is even more notable as he has refused to pay up on it. If you recall Paddy Ashdown promising to "eat his hat" during the 2015 General Election when the Lib Dems were predicted to be all but wiped out, there was intense press interest in that story long after the GE results were known. Politicians love to give us their opinions, so it's not surprising that there should be intense public interest in asking them to explain themselves when they have been proven wrong. We could argue over the wording of how the bet is referenced, but I think as it goes to credibility it's a worthwhile entry.RogueCoder250 (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I just checked and, wonderfully, Ashdown's "eat my hat" DOES get included on his Wiki page, here: So him getting ONE prediction wrong is worthy of mention, but McTernan getting just about EVERY prediction wrong apparently isn't :D Anna Lertreader (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I usually stay away from politics pages, and indeed from anything controversial, but this one caught my eye. Look, McTernan is consistently, repeatedly, laughably wrong in his predictions. It has become a standing joke. People who talk about cherry-picking need to come up with some correct predictions he's made - preferably at least as many as the wrong outcomes being highlighted. I'm only aware of one, in that he correctly predicted a No majority in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. The material on Wings is all impeccably sourced and summarises it pretty well. You can't just reject a fully-referenced source because you don't happen to like the author or something. I'm astonished this is even an issue. Morag Kerr (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  • None of the mysterious accounts (RogueCoder250's first ever edit, the previous account GeorgeLL V2 was similar ; Morag Kerr's first edit for 14 months, and an IP that last appeared on McTernan's talk page as - how interesting), have shed any light on the actual issue. Merely parroting the claim that McTernan's prediction skills are terrible are, as we've already seen, not going to get the article changed. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Am I not mysterious enough for you? I said I usually stay away from anything controversial, which is why I don't edit very often. This one is just so bloody stupid that I thought I'd join the fray. The Wings page is meticulously referenced, please explain why it's not a reliable source. Or why a history of infrequent editing is grounds for dismissing my contribution. Morag Kerr (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite Perhaps you could address the subject of the comments, rather than casting aspersions on those who have posted them? I raised a perfectly valid point; why is the reference to Paddy Ashdown eating his hat acceptable on his page, but reference to a bet here - which relates specifically to the individual's political predictions - is not? Thanks. RogueCoder250 (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
This is usual. I expect I'll get accused of creating you and banned any minute now. It's the normal approach when anyone supports me and they can't refute the arguments. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, three mysterious account coming to your aid in the space of an hour is fairly remarkable, no? I could file an SPI, but since none of them have added anything useful to the debate it seems a bit pointless. And of course there's always the probability that they aren't the same people and have been canvassed offline. But regardless, the issue hasn't been advanced - source the fact that McTernan's predictions are always wrong via a reliable source and this will all end. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
"Well, to be fair, three mysterious account coming to your aid in the space of an hour is fairly remarkable, no?" Yes, astonishing. A request is posted for opinions, and some opinions arrive. What could possibly be more suspicious? But how telling that your first reaction isn't to consider any arguments but immediately cry "conspiracy!" and start trying to discredit the messengers rather than deal with the message. And if people are repeating points, perhaps it's because you keep dodging them. A dozen times I've asked you why Wings Over Scotland does not meet Wiki's stated criteria for an allowable non-neutral source. A dozen times you've failed to answer, because if you admit the truth on that one point your entire argument collapses. Anna Lertreader (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Am I a "mysterious account"? I've been registered as an editor for years. I do not have the foggiest idea who Anna wotsit is, I have never heard of her until today. She has however made the reasonable point that people talk to each other elsewhere and this may prompt interventions. Is this illegitimate all of a sudden? Now please explain why Wings Over Scotland is not a reliable source, given that the article in question links back to original sources all over the bloody place. Morag Kerr (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that Black Kite is making two logical errors here. One is to demand that others somehow prove a negative for him - specifically, prove that McTernan has not made an equally impressive number of correct predictions. How does one do that, other than saying that one has looked, and found almost nothing (I know of only one)? But it seems that's unacceptable to Black Kite. This is not reasonable. If Black Kite knows of any other correct predictions, let him produce them. The other error is in apparently rejecting a fully-referenced source because the author has an opinion on the subject, an opinion based on being familiar with the evidence. Go down this road and only the utterly ignorant or the terminally indecisive will be acceptable as sources, even of fully-referenced fact. This is ridiculous. Morag Kerr (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Talking of having an opinion, I think John McTernan is a complete plonker, based on having witnessed his media performances for a number of years. Does that then make any facts I advance on the matter inadmissible? This is so preposterous I'm thinking about the other side of the coin. Why is Black Kite so inordinately keen to keep critical or embarrassing material off McTernan's page? Morag Kerr (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Because, as you would know if you were indeed such an experienced editor, negative claims in BLPs need to be sourced properly, and as yet none of the anti-McTernan brigade have managed to do that, regardless of whether they're editors in good standing, canvassed offline, or sockpuppets. I am asking no-one to prove a negative, I (and pretty much every other experienced editor that has commented here and on the talk page) are asking for proper coverage of McTernan's alleged failures. This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for people's petty grudges against people. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Morag, that's below the belt. One could equally, and justifiably ask why you are so keen on keeping critical or embarrassing material on the page. --Hillbillyholiday talk 00:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for Moragm but at a guess - because it's true? Because it's factual and properly sourced, and Wiki is supposed to be a repository of sourced facts about its subjects? Anna Lertreader (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't really care one way or the other, except for the truth. The article on Wings Over Scotland (here, if you've forgotten [1]) lists something like 13 predictions he got spectacularly wrong, all sourced. I have asked Black Kite about four times why this isn't an acceptable reference, and received no reply, just repeated requests for an acceptable reference! If the quibble is "but there might be another 20 predictions where he was bang on the money" then I ask that someone produce these. As I said, I can find only one. That is not an impressive track record. Allegations of cherry-picking have been made but absolutely not substantiated. Morag Kerr (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The Wings article, indeed the whole blog, is reliable in that it's (AFAICT) always factually correct, but, love-him-or-hate-him, Campbell is a skilled propagandist who clearly has an axe to grind here; it is wholly reasonable to question whether he has been cherry-picking. McTernan's fallibilty is Campbell's opinion. Yes, Campbell has shown instances of mistaken predictions, but to judge whether this is something McTernan is well-known for, something worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, we need sources from someone out of the fray, not someone battling McTernan in court over this very subject. I would not object to inclusion of the material with a link to Wings should it be demonstrated elsewhere that McTernan is well-known for his wrong predictions, but that has not been demonstrated yet. --Hillbillyholiday talk 02:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You may ask yourself whether he's been cherry-picking, but unless you can provide some evidence of correct predictions he has left out, you must answer yourself in the negative. Asking others to prove the non-existence of correct predictions is the very definition of asking someone to prove a negative. If you think he's been cherry-picking, please provide some evidence. Otherwise you're rejecting a perfectly well-sourced article merely because the author has an opinion - an opinion based on the evidence he has amassed! Is "you can prove anything with facts!" now a genuine criticism of such proof, merely on the basis that you surmise other facts might exist that contradict the actual ones presented? This is ludicrous. Morag Kerr (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It is not up to anyone here to examine every prediction McTernan has made. The WP article did not say "it is the opinion of Campbell that McTernan is wrong in his predictions", it just said he was wrong full stop. There is an animosity between the two, it is not unreasonable to ask for an impartial source. Before including a claim of wrongness on McTernan's part, we need evidence that it is a widely held opinion. That said, since the betting lawsuit there may now be enough secondary material out there to justify adding that it is Campbell's opinion, or that it is something he has covered, though I would prefer to await the outcome before adding anything. --Hillbillyholiday talk 02:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hillbillyholiday:Couldn't put it better myself. Thanks. Yintan  07:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
"McTernan's fallibilty is Campbell's opinion"? This is Kafkaesque madness. It is categorically NOT opinion. It is a matter of the most *empirical observable demonstrable fact* that out of 13 known predictions, he got 12 wrong. Since a drunk chimpanzee would get six or seven picking at random, that is a striking, even staggering, rate of fallibility for a professional analyst.
But to then say "Before including a claim of wrongness on McTernan's part, we need evidence that it is a widely held opinion" is just mind-boggling. One moment something being just opinion (even though it isn't) disqualifies it from inclusion, the next moment it apparently HAS to be opinion to be included. Can you honestly not see the insanity here? Paddy Ashdown's entry highlights him getting just ONE prediction wrong, in lines apparently included without an agonising months-long argument about it from people screaming for a list of impartial sources proving that the Tories really won the 2015 election.
And yes, it IS "wholly reasonable to question whether he [Campbell] has been cherry-picking". The problem is that having raised the question, one finds that the answer is "No, he hasn't". You say the question must be asked, but then in the next breath you say that you have no responsibility to answer, and that the mere fact a question can be asked is justification to exclude. Once again, if those were the rules there would be no Wikipedia, because I can question anything, no matter how strong the evidence for it. If you allege cherry-picking, it is incumbent upon you to provide the proof of the discarded cherries.
Finally, you say "it is not unreasonable to ask for an impartial source". True enough in itself, although in politics there's no such thing - which newspaper could be truly said to be politically impartial? - so on that rule we'd never have any entries about politicians or political figures, because no source could ever be neutral enough to support any statement. But more to the point, Wiki's rules are absolutely clear that WHERE AN IMPARTIAL SOURCE IS NOT AVAILABLE, A NON-NEUTRAL ONE IS PERMITTED, so long as its facts are properly sourced. Which in this case they unarguably are - you yourself note that Wings is "(AFAICT) always factually correct". And by Wiki's rules, that makes it a reliable source, at which point the argument is over because Wiki has no rules demanding a set number of reliable sources. More is better but one is enough, if it's reliable. That's rather the definition of "reliable". This point has been avoided about a hundred times. I am unable to explain why. Anna Lertreader (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Love the mutual support network. I honestly don't care what is or isn't in this unpleasant little man's biography. I do care about the bias and prejudice being shown in the editing process here. Campbell has provided a ton of evidence, and it's hardly surprising that there's animosity there given that precise fact. It doesn't negate the evidence. "It is not up to anyone here to examine every prediction McTernan has made." But that seems to be what is being asked of those who support this paragraph's inclusion. And then when a reasonable attempt is made, with the outcome that only one correct prediction is identified, somehow that is hand-waved away as irrelevant. Simply asserting that a factually-referenced source might have cherry-picked, without being able to produce a shred of evidence that that has happened, is a ludicrous justification for dismissing the source. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Calling someone an "unpleasant little man" and then worrying about Wikipedia's bias. Excuse me for laughing. Yintan  10:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
"I honestly don't care what is or isn't in this unpleasant little man's biography." Well clearly you do, but well done for revealing your bias. The "mutual support network" is also quite amusing considering how amazingly similar your viewpoint is to the others that have chimed in around the same time. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You love to cite Wiki regs. Apparently you haven't heard of WP:AGF. Anna Lertreader (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
This gets better by the hour. You call the subject of an article you edit an "unpleasant little man" and then you accuse us of not assuming good faith? I mean, seriously... Yintan  13:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, it was Morag Kerr that said that, not Anna. The point about AGF does apply, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I stand corrected, my apologies. Yintan  13:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes that was me. I was trying to make the point that it doesn't matter whether I think he's an unpleasant little man or the next Dalai Lama, the facts should stand on their own. But Black Kite still argues personalities rather than facts. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The fact that someone who's just called the subject of a BLP an "unpleasant little man" but accuses me of arguing personalities may be the funniest thing I've read on Wikipedia for quite a while. Still, nothing surprises me any more. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

There you go again. Attacking what another editor has given as their opinion rather than focussing on facts and evidence. It doesn't matter what my opinion of McTernan is, or what Stuart Campbell's is, or anyone else's. All that matters is whether the material for the biography is correct, true, well-sourced and referenced, ans relevant. It is all those things. Morag Kerr (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, since you're so poorly informed about BLP that you don't seem to have the slightest idea that you've committed a BLP violation calling McTernan an "unpleasant little man" on this page, it's hardly surprising you want to put one in his article as well. I suspect we're probably done here. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Wings over Scotland has debunked and ridiculed McTernan's 'predictions' for very sound and verifiable reasons. They are consistently wrong, laughably so. If you care to go back through his written predictions via the press or just his twitter feed you will accrue ample evidence of this.[2] Over the past several years his political pronouncements on Scottish independence, local elections, national elections and most recently, the US presidential elections, have been so far off the mark in accuracy that one might wonder why he is ever asked for an opinion on anything? On the subject of the man himself and his attitudes to fairness one need only look at the laughable reaction to being asked to pay up on a bet he made with Campbell.[3] 'Goes to character your honour' Rab Dickson (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Rab Dickson

Ronnie Madra[edit]

Ronnie Madra is not a notable person for a biography according to the categories that qualify. Perpetual808 (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I've listed the article for deletion. Yintan  16:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Most of the biography was pulled work for work from before it was further edited. Perpetual808 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:James Dale Ritchie[edit]

James Dale Ritchie is a probable serial killer, as evidence places him directly at one murder and links him to four others, as well as one attempted murder, (which resulted in his death). I created this draft soon after the announcement of his death and the police stating the strong probability that he is not only behind these murders in Anchorage, Alaska, but perhaps more in other states. However, the investigation is still fresh and we can't know yet, so we can't precisely call him a serial killer. As a show of good faith and cooperation, I'm bringing this draft here, so the page could be vetted for BLP standards. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 04:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I would say that it is good, it says that he is known as the serial killer, which he is (regardless of whether he is guilty), and then elaborates that he is a suspected serial killer, so it all falls in line, until he is convicted it is good, at which point it should be "convicted serial killer". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I will admit I am not very knowledgeable with the laws in Alaska, do they still try him as if he is alive in order to establish guilt? Or is the matter dropped because he is dead? The answer will obviously change my response. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If the evidence prompts them to conclude that he is responsible for the four other deaths, (and possibly more), the case will be marked as closed and he will be declared the guilty party. I like your appreciation of me designating what he is known as, rather than flatly calling him a serial killer, as he is merely a suspected serial killer, though the media is calling him the "Anchorage Serial Killer". If he isn't confirmed to be pinned to at least two more homicides, he won't be declared a serial killer and the page won't go in the main space. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 06:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I added some recent information that states that Ritchie did in fact leave for college and that he was close friends with the family of his (third suspected and only confirmed) victim. The plot thickens with this figure. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User Crossswords at BLP page for five-year-old boy Omran Daqneesh[edit]

Please see page for five-year-old boy Omran Daqneesh.

Edits include [4].

He's been adding this over and over again and again.

Citing propaganda link from YouTube.

Citing another Wikipedia language cite in direct violation of WP:CIRCULAR.

A little help please?

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the offending material (completely inadequate sources, mostly well-known Russian propaganda/disinformation outlets and fake news websites). This article needs more eyes, and if Crossswords keeps this up, this should head over to WP:AE or WP:ANI for swift action. Neutralitytalk 05:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
More recent history at Talk:Omran Daqneesh. Isn't it quite troubling to have this article with the real name of a five-year-old boy anyways? Sagecandor (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree it feels odd - but maybe this is like a Kim Phuc kind of situation, where the photograph/video is famous enough that it's kind of pointless to try to keep them anonymous? We have Death of Alan Kurdi too. The alternative would be to make it a redirect to the relevant "seige of Aleppo" article (there are a few of those so I'm not sure which one would be best) and to have a discussion of it there. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix:Good points, and yet going back to original topic of thread more eyes are needed at incoming Russia propaganda sources on article Omran Daqneesh that fail WP:RS, fail WP:NPOV, and fail WP:BLP. Sagecandor (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate, BLP in draftspace[edit]

Draft:Pizzagate exists and links several identifiable individuals to several unsavoury claims. I'm not familiar enough with BLP or the topic to know if it needs revising but It could probably do with some extra eyes. SPACKlick (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Due to the definite WP:BLP issues and the fact that this is WP:FRINGE and conspiracy theory only, maybe it's best to keep it to the brief mention at Pizzagate and Comet Ping Pong and get rid of that draft page altogether. Sagecandor (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The connection of a conspiracy theory to living persons is definitely a WP:BLP issue. Not allowable even as a "brief mention". Not remotely a close call. ‘Pizzagate’ shows how fake news hurts real people They took root in the dark crevices of the Web and took flight thanks to social media platforms, whose witless “who, us?” posture in the face of misinformation and outright lunacy is a civic embarrassment. Collect (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Now moved to Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Sagecandor (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with Collect on this matter. There should not be a standalone article on this matter, and any brief mention anywhere else (such as Controversial Reddit communities) must explicitly state that the claims are false and wholly unfounded. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, agree with Collect and NorthBySouthBaranof on this issue. The draft should be deleted as WP:BLP violation. Sagecandor (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Another editor re-inserted the offending material with the view that "bad claims", proven to be wertlos, should be presented as long as "good" material is used as well. I demurred on that interesting view, as I find the "mud was slung at the person therefore some of it is probably true" view is all too prevalent in reality. Collect (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Can someone start the XfD process? I also agree that this should be deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion now at: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Sagecandor (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen and BLP[edit]

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

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

Dan Antopolski[edit]

Vanity page, filled with unsourced lists of comedy appearances, many of which aren't notable. WP:OWNERSHIP looks strong, so removal of content will likely meet resistance. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

High suspicion should always be taken into account when a subject names themselves in their very own username for the sole use of editing their subject page. Especially when the history clearly shows that multiple attempts under various IP addresses solely used to edit this page alone have been exhausted and abandoned. It would seem that this subject (user) knows exactly what they are doing and the violations they are committing under the guise: "if others do it, I should be able to as well". It seems at best that the page is just one big resume copy stuffed with non-notable inclusions by the subject with absolutely no reliable sources and needs a good cleaning. IMHO. Maineartists (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I.. I don't know how to react to this tone and the cynicism that informs it. I have precisely been cleaning up the wikipedia page about my work - fixing its inaccuracies and providing contextualising links and citations to improve it as an accurate representation - turning red links blue. The skullduggery you suspect in my editing it with different IP addresses is just me stumbling through learning how to edit on wikipedia - it's harder than it looks - I logged in as myself so that the community might trust my authority on my own work! And as for the 'non-notable inclusion' of what - my month long theatrical runs at major arts festivals? - I am trying to standardise the format of my page in line with comparables from my industry to make it a solid reference resource. High suspicion indeed. Best Dan Antopolski

  • There's very little suspicion and no interpretation of skullduggery. There is a familiarity with our guidelines at WP:COI, and the experience that subjects rarely edit their own biographies with neutrality. Month long theatrical runs--and the same is true for radio, tv and movie appearances--don't merit uncyclopedic mention unless they're accompanied by WP:RELIABLE sources. It's preferable that editors who have no affiliation with the subject remove resume material. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If you are indeed just learning and all of this is naivety, then you need to listen to the experienced editors on WP who are trying to help you in this situation. Danantopolski what you are doing is highly discouraged and a clear conflict-of-interest on WP. You are seriously in danger of being blocked on your page (or even worse) from even editing at all on WP. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 has been very kind so far. If it had been any other editor, far more drastic measures could have been implimented without discussion. You need to read fully: WP:COI and understand why what you are doing is seen as being disruptive WP:DISRUPT and proactive to the process. It is very difficult to be a subject on WP; but if you are notable, allow the process of what WP does best to happen. I see that you have been politely warned on the talk page of your article to not make any more edits. I would kindly suggest you do so. There is no need to try and further justify your reasoning. Best. Maineartists (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
re: high suspicion -- this was not directed toward you, per say. However, there are many users on WP of those claiming to be "subjects" of articles. There is no definite way of knowing this to be 100% true simply by way of talk page or noticeboard conversations. Taking one's word is not enough; thus my wording: "high suspicion". However, your determination certainly leans toward subject reliability. IMHO. But who is to say. Best. Maineartists (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I've left Danantopolski a message offering my help. Don't bite the newbies, and all that. He entered Wikipedia the worst possible way, editing about himself, so let's see if we can fix that. Yintan  16:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
You restored unreferenced material with a summary that implies you thought it was well-referenced. I suggest you undo your restoration of the massive fluff which actually harms the article. Note also that "Chuckles" is unlikely to meet WP:RS nor are any of the user-generated databases online likely to meet Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay - I think we're moving towards a less trigger-happy response - thank you. If you take 7 seconds and look at what is on my page it isn't promotional, it's archive - it resembles similar pages. And if you take 30 more seconds and look at the history of my edits of the last two days you'll see I haven't changed much at all. I've been saving my little visual edits as I go along, learning how to do a table etc, so perhaps it looks like manic activity. I will be glad of advice from experienced editors and delighted to be invigilated over the next few days as I add citations to support the facts on the page, enriching and authenticating the long-existing page as a research resource. I mean if you actually look, isn't the information on the page simply too bland to be construed as a 'conflict of interest'? I'm finding it hard not to be arch - Yintan is the first person here to address me without this entitled tone, which considering that in the course of a thread ticking me off about journalistic integrity one of you misspelt my name, is a little galling! Genuinely - I'm sure you deal with rogues all the time and have learned to talk tough, but I'm a geeky archivist and I'd appreciate a little patience while I learn your customs! Look I've got the tildes down now. Best wishes to all - Dan Antopolski Danantopolski (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please - use only specifically noteworthy "appearances" - ones which get more than a single line in the Guardian. Trust me - fluff actually hurts you. Collect (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Broussard[edit]

Aaron Broussard is a politician who has been convicted of corruption and accused of incompetence. Even so, he deserves fair treatment. I ran across his biography and noticed that it's more of an indictment than an even-handed summary. The bulk of the article is taken up by verbatim quotes from news appearances, and the case in favor of a failed recall effort against him. His actual corruption charges get comparatively little space. Could any BLP experts take a look at the article and see if it can be improved? Felsic2 (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos[edit]

Milo Yiannopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page keeps getting edited with comments that are not neutral and have no factual basis. Under religion it states "Milo is God"Headnogood (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks to have been fixed, but more people watching the page wouldn't hurt. Feel free to go ahead and fix obvious vandalism like that yourself! Fyddlestix (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wendy Long[edit]

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

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

This material does not belong in the article, and I have removed it. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Another ip editor has reinserted the material. I have started a discussion on talk to measure consensus. BusterD (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Kelly Moneymaker[edit]

Kelly Moneymaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article reals like a promotional item for the subject, with many dubious references. I'm not even sure HOW to go about correcting or fixing it. The person seems reasonably notable, but the article is a mess. CouplandForever (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Hey there. MomHen (talk · contribs), who works for the subject in question, argues that Freebo's real name Daniel Friedberg, which is already covered by reliable sources ([5], [6], [7], [8]) should be removed from the article. According to the user in question, "all promotional articles use wikipedia as their source and as such, there are articles out there which list him by a name he does not want [to be] used". Examples of this can be found in the edit summaries of these edits, in which his real name was removed. As such, I started a discussion on the talk page. I am a little concerned that this article has a limited amount of reliable sources and possible promotional issues for the article and more eyes on the article would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Badr Jafar[edit]

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

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

The contested text is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Well this is fun. We have a source saying one thing, and an OTRS ticket saying another. The National is state-owned, if our article is correct, but that is in itself not yet a reason to doubt this information; on the other hand, I can't see (nor could Mdann, I imagine) what the credibility of the ticket is. Given that source, I am inclined to lean toward inclusion. Of course, if Mawlidman wasn't so eager to press the point in article space, this might have been handled earlier already. Johnuniq, what make you of this source now, after Nomodekasticity's comments? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I noted what the sources say on the article talk page.
  • The source concerns Jafar Jafar and does not mention Badr Jafar or his father.
  • The source does not comment on the relationship between Jafar Jafar and Badr Jafar.
  • The only publication that has commented on that relationship is Wikipedia—that raises WP:DUE concerns.
  • The claimed relationship has been denied by an OTRS ticket.
The source can be expected to have checked claims like who is a general manager of what as that is what the article is about. However, there is no reason to believe such a source would carefully check family relationship details, so the OTRS denial is plausible. The text has been edited a lot, yet it still contains the typo "lead"—how much thought has gone into it? Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

David Hamilton (again)[edit]

Despite my attempts to explain that I haven't seen any firm, reliable proof that Hamilton killed himself (it's very likely, sure, but no confirmation yet as far as I know) French editors keep inserting this. One of the sources (France24) actually says "the death of British photographer David Hamilton could be ruled a suicide" and the other is a magazine,, that doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Could somebody take a look at this, please? Yintan  14:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies:Thanks for that. Yintan  18:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW, Yintan, it may seem like I disagreed with you etc., and I suppose I did to some extent, but the point is that you brought it up here, which is exactly the right thing to do--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
No worries, Drmies, I can take disagreement Face-wink.svg Yintan  18:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Has there been or will there be a formal inquest? Collect (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Zara Larsson[edit]

Zara Larsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The "Personal life" section was recently retitled with a heavy handed POV title, and what looks to me like undue weight about personal opinions. Any of this section worth maintaining in a toned-down version or just junking? "Sexist views" seems over the top, but maybe others have another view. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Changes from 08:12, 28 November 2016 to 00:11, 3 December 2016: diff.
That changes the "Personal life" section to "Sexist views towards men"—ridiculous. The "Men's Rights" sanctions might be available. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Opened a discussion regarding the section as a whole on the talk page. Seems NOTNEWS trivia; rather than personal life biographical prose. IMHO. Maineartists (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
no. this is not men's rights. this is her views. she admitted of being a happy man hater. plain and simple. I changed the title simply because there was nothing about her personal life, only her views about men.NFLjunkie22 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • NFLjunkie22, "On separate occasions she went on a 'Men are swines' tirade after being insulted online" isn't even remotely encyclopedic language (and did you notice that you seem to be placing blame on a person who was victimized?). I have reverted your edit. You can propose and discuss on the article talk page. If you continue, you may well be blocked for BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
i just realized that was a badly written line, wasn't what i was aiming for. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Kate Bush[edit]

IP continues to add what I believe to be NOTNEWS trivia (e.g., [9]). Editor has a poor history, including blocks for edit warring, and several recent warnings for other policy violations from other editors. Refuses to take it to Talk. All of which makes it hard for me to AGF. Seeking others' opinions, please ... richi (hello) 22:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

mentioning a few editors who recently engaged with the page, in case they're interested: @GentleCollapse16, Ilovetopaint, Ss112, and Rodericksilly: love to know your thoughts
  • Now blocked for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)