Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:49, 12 January 2018

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Hannah Holborn Gray

In the body of the article about Hannah you mention that she was at Northwestern University, Evanston campus, however in the chronological listing you don't mention Northwestern Unversity!!!!!She was also Dean of Woman at NU. Please contact her office or Northwestern University and correct this omission. Much appreciated.......Quecumquae sunt veritas!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b02b:848e:f936:e48c:c029:4e95 (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017‎

'cosmo jarvis' wiki page

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

Hello,

The information presented here on Cosmo Jarvis is not up to date and ignores many developments in recent years. Especially in '2010 to present' section - here there are many informations which are lacking or which, if included while others are not, creates an article which requires more detail and overall context to shed light on his recent works (especially as an actor in theatre, TV and FILM)

(see here) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4008605/

His involvement with 'Hawke the movie' while correct information should not be featured at the expense of other, more notable, widely distributed and arguable more significant works.

I am suggesting the need for a revision/update on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.215.89 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

J Roberto Trujillo

Self published inaccurate sources and information (verification?). No citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.81.183 (talk) 19:09, December 24, 2017‎

Alice Walton

Alice Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I invite editors to join this discussion at Talk:Alice Walton. Another editor and I have been discussing the appropriateness of including car accidents that never resulted in charges, as well as an arrest that never resulted in charges and was, in fact, expunged from the record. I'm bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard again as I believe this issue may fall under BLP guidelines, and my original message here from when I initially requested the edit has been archived. I welcome any input from editors who are experienced in this area.

I will not directly edit the article because I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; I work with the Walton family office, as I disclosed on my user page and Talk:Alice Walton. Thanks, Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 21:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Acapulco incident should be kept. It never resulted in charges, but there is no implication it was criminal. What it did result in was severe damage to the article subject, a leg broken in multiple places, leaving it shorter than the other,[1] and she still walks with a limp, 40 years later. That's a rather important part of her life, there would be a lot missing if we left it out. I do think we should remove the 2011 incident - as you write, it did not result in any charges, and there is no evidence it made much of a difference in the subject's life. Lots of people have DWI arrests, it's not particularly notable. It's slightly more notable since it's possibly part of a series, as noted in the Forbes article, and again since she did release a public statement, but only slightly; on the whole I think we should leave it out. (I made a few hopefully uncontentious edits to the relevant article section, but didn't remove this part since there is room for debate for a bit.) --GRuban (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GRuban! Thank you for the insight, and your constructive edits to the Alice Walton article. I welcome more input from other editors who are also experienced in this area. Thanks, Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 20:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angana P. Chatterji

Hello, I'm requesting some help. I am wondering if Medium is sufficient as a source for a BLP on this page and am concerned about the precedent that this creates for other BLPs. Also, it seems like this is a case of someone whose own experiences and process ended 10 years ago, now commenting on a termination that took place 6 years ago... does this belong in a BLP article? Again, concerned about the precedent this may set for BLPs in general. Thank you! Torren (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. That's a blog, not a news outlet or other source providing editorial oversight. It's basically an (incredibly long) rant giving the viewpoint of one single student. Everything they say may or may not be true; who knows, but there are way too many adjectives and conclusions without any real information. (ie: lots words like "cult-like environment" or "intimidation" but no description of acts that would allow me, the reader, to make the same conclusions.) It tells us a lot about the author's feelings but shows little in the way of facts. For all we know this former student may simply be overly sensitive or even misconstruing the situation to fit their own perspective. Maybe not, but that's why we can't accept a blog, especially by a person who obviously has a personal bias in the situation. Zaereth (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Torren (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaereth: Well put, but there is more problem. Article has used "blog" having "personal bias in the situation". For example, sacw.net (an unreliable source) and other one is kashmirprocess.org. Should we remove every information associated with them as well? Raymond3023 (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only looked at the one source, but didn't have time to check the whole article. In fact, I still don't, but today I did take a better look. The prose is a bit disjointed and difficult to parse through. However the verb usage, tense, spatial perspective, temporal perspective, etc., all seem to suggest an article that was written mostly by the subject herself. (Even aside from the less obvious clues, many writers don't realize that a person's writing style is as unique as a fingerprint.) Most sources (as in more than half) are sources that were written by the subject or by organizations she is affiliated with. Even many of the news articles are ones that she wrote herself. While she definitely seems like a notable person, there is a serous lack of reliable --independent-- secondary sources.

For example, sources 1.) The source is the website of an organization she founded, used for most of her biographical information. 2.) Nonexistent. 3.) Nonexistent. 4.) Nonexistent 5.) Her own book. 6.) News article written by the subject, used as a ref for biographical information, yet none of that info is found in the source. 7.) Her personal website 8.) Her personal website. 9.) Her personal website. (Does anyone see a pattern forming?) Skip ahead, Source 12.) The first reliable, secondary source, which details the reason she was fired (from the organizations records, not some student's blog) yet our article glosses over most of that pertinent information. I could go on, but most of what I've seen follows this same pattern. Overall, there is a serious lack of reliable, independent, secondary sources.

Most of the rest of the article is not so much about her but rather detailing the causes or movements she supports. While some description of her causes in necessary in understanding her, the article should be about the subject and not focus on nor push those causes. The style of the article is not so much expository or encyclopedic as it is a mix of academic and persuasive writing (an odd mix, reading something like a resume daftly disguised as a field report). I think it should be trimmed a lot to focus on the subject, and tone down a lot of the personal perspective. Keep in mind that BLP works in accordance with, but ultimately trumps all other policies. Sources published by the subject can be used for certain types of information --under very specific conditions-- but I would suggest studying the policies closely to determine what can stay and what should go. (I suspect most of the article can be gutted.) Zaereth (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Scaramella

Dear Sirs, this page was created in the year 2006 by different authors and substantially was not modified since that period, I only made little contributions to clarify details. on December 2017 a new unknown author Mrtno made a total change of the basic information (lawyer, academic and nuclear expert) quoting Mario Scaramella is NOT but he claims to be a lawyer etc. this means he is a fabricator and committed a fraud, the new author also stated Mario Scaramella wrote the article on his own. This change is very dangerous for the reputation of Professor Scaramella and is a defamation. The entire carreer of Professor Scaramella is reported on the www.litvinienkoenquiry.org (now at webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk) and the source quoted by the new author Mrtno (the Independent, article by Peter Popham) is declared by Judge Robert Owen of the High Court as fake and fabricated. It is important to remove the changes by the author MRTNO because this represent a clear and well documented libel. Please restore the original text wich represent the neutral contribution of dozens of different author and was well managed by administrators for more than 10 years. Thank you Mario Scaramella — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.29.204 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have already removed the problematic content from that article but I will add it to my watchlist and I have warned Mrtno about proper sourcing for biographical subject articles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eggishorn, Mario Scaramella claims to be "a lawyer, security consultant and academic nuclear expert", and indeed it sounds pretty bombastic, but as reported by the article of Peter Popham in 2015 - so, years later after the facts - many of those claims were unsubstantiated. The other source cited is too old, and doesn't give a full picture. The precedent contribution says that "page was created in the year 2006 by different authors and substantially was not modified since that period" and that's correct, but in 2012 Mario Scaramella was condemned to jail for 3 years and 6 months (source in Italian: http://giornalesm.com/mario-scaramella-condannato-dal-tribunale-di-rimini-per-calunnia-a-3-anni-e-6-mesi-30933/ & https://www.altarimini.it/News52309-rimini-condannato-a-tre-anni-e-sei-mesi-mario-scaramella.php among many others) for "calunnia" (slander). In my opinion the page should reflect those developments. I don't see why the article of "the Independent" by Peter Popham is problematic. Please also note that "www.litvinienkoenquiry.org" doesn't exists at all, and it seems it never existed. So, it can't be used as a source. In particular, it should made clear where the article by Peter Popham "is declared by Judge Robert Owen of the High Court as fake and fabricated". I suggest to revert the page to reflect my modifications. That said, I won't modify the page further. Happy new year! Mrtno (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrtno:, as I said in replying on my talk page, while the Independent is a generally reliable source commentaries, editorials, and other opinion pieces are generally not considered reliable for BLP purposes. The article by Popham is clearly identified as a commentary and this type of article is a reliable sources only for the opinion of those taking responsibility for them (i.e., the author or organization whose byline appears or the editorial board for unsigned editorials). We cannot base factual claims in BLP articles on them. The Italian convictions for slander are not evidence that he is not who he claims to be, as your earlier edits were trying to establish. A conviction for slander is simply that, not a general refutation of every statement Scaramella has made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Radcliffe

Hi, If you look at the edit histoy you will see that user Boomer Vial (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) constantly reinstate malicious content on this user. I've reported the user and undid the last changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yon dee (talk • contribs)

Bit of a mess there - he's obviously a controversial figure, which at present the article does not really address, but the material removed here is for the most part not neutrally worded or properly sourced. This article might be a good place to start for incorporating a more neutral discussion of the controversies. Fyddlestix (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Gratton

Anonymous user appears to be adding unsourced and frankly bizarre claims to article such as that the individual was an advisor to a non-existent politican, hosted their own game show on commercial TV and is friends with a particular people. I will revert the article but I suspect this individual will keep editing the page. GuyIncognito (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have watchlisted the article. At the moment the level of vandalism is annoying but manageable. If it gets worse you might request semi-protection at WP:RFPP, but a request made now would probably be declined. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a welcome/warning to the IP user's page, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. GuyIncognito (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: James Douglas-Hamilton, Earl of Arran and Cambridge

This draft page is almost entirely fictitious, creating a child born in 2000 to a real man born in 1978. Almost everything about the article is spurious. I have deleted it, amended it but the author immediately reverts changes.Sebmelmoth (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by PhilKnight as CSD#G10 attack page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Jones (educator)

Over the course of a number of years, concerns have been expressed at Talk:James F. Jones (educator) that this page has some significant BLP issues, including claims that it is an attack page and uses primary sources inappropriately. Any help with trying to resolve problems with the article would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krishi Thapanda article

Seems that the article should be deleted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the article. All of Naol Rac's (Naol Rac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 150.129.89.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) articles could use some extra eyes.

Rishi (Kannada actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahesh Babu (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hitha Chandrashekar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Judah Sandhy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jayanna Combines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rockline Entertainments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Krishi Thapanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

— JJMC89 (T·C) 09:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JJMC89, thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaunti Feldhahn

This BLP article is based solely on primary sources. I'm not familiar with Christian Evangelical/self-help book writers and which US news sources are considered trustworthy when it comes to this topic. Can someone take a look at this? NoCringe (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've stubbed it completely. Whether she's notable or not, there are no inline sources and it (was) written like an advertisement - which is unsurprising as most of it was a copyright violation from the subject's own site and related web pages. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for looking into it. NoCringe (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Beeley

Needs help from the BLP-perspective. Sources include her blog, twitter, linkedin, 21st Century Wire etc. She "calls for violence" and "People who oppose Vanessa Beeley can become victims of threats and harassment from her supporters" in WP:s voice. Probably meets WP:GNG though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "article" was a hit piece, "sourced" to rumor and conspiracy sites and primary sources. It may be that this individual is notable and an appropriate article can be written about them, but that one sure wasn't it. I've deleted it under G10. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Having said that, judging by the parts that were sourced to reliable sources, I suspect any article on this person would focus more on the negative than the positive. Black Kite (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Molyneux

I've made this edit. Is it problematic in any way? Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended folks check out the very extensive talk page discussions on Molyneux's heritage before commenting. In short, some people are very determined to work mention of Molyneux's Jewish heritage into the article, despite the fact that he has directly stated that he doesn't consider himself Jewish. Personally I would say this needs a secondary, published source before I'd even think about including it. Molyneux has said a lot of things about his background & his mother, there's zero reason for us to highlight this one item unless published RS treat it as noteworthy (they don't). A lot of unsavory types (stormfront, etc) have made a big deal about Molyneux "hiding" the fact that he's "Jewish" - we need to be very careful not to lend credence to a view that is plainly inaccurate. If people disagree and it is mentioned, then it should be paired with Molyneux's other statements about how he does not see himself as Jewish, was raised a Christian, etc. But I think that's going way too far down the WP:PRIMARY rabbit hole and the whole thing is best left out. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no one is trying "to work mention of Molyneux's Jewish heritage into the article". I don't know if Fyddlestix noticed, but there is no mention of anything pertaining to "Molyneux's Jewish heritage" in this edit. And there is no "highlighting" this fact, as Fyddlestix puts it, because there is no source whatsoever implying that the mother of Molyneux might not be a Holocaust survivor. Molyneux never says anything that casts doubt on this. On the contrary Molyneux states or implies numerous times (6 times, according to the article Talk page) that his mother lived through the Holocaust under very difficult circumstances in Germany. We know that according to Molyneux his mother was a Holocaust survivor and that is all that my edit says: "According to Molyneux his mother is a Holocaust survivor." I believe the sourcing is adequate for that limited assertion. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Fyddlestix here, that unless secondary sources start covering the claim, it doesn't belong. Regardless of how the TP discussions are characterized, Molyneux is part of the alt-right, a movement associated with anti-semitism, despite having distinct pro-Israel arms. It seriously muddies up the issue of Jewish heritage, making any such primary claims suspect. While the edit in question was perfectly acceptable on WP:V grounds, as it properly used attribution, the opacity of the issue of Jewishness in this context makes the question of including Molyneux's claim one of WP:WEIGHT. I don't think that due weight has been established without coverage by reliable secondary sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We standardly include information on the mother and father of the subject of the biography, if this information is known, and the source of this information is often the subject themselves, and in this case I am inserting an edit that spells out that the source of the assertion is Molyneux. This of course presupposes that there are not other sources casting doubt on the assertion in question, and there is nothing suggesting Molyneux's mother might not be a Holocaust survivor. Therefore why can't we pass along to the reader that the subject of the article publicizes that his mother is a Holocaust survivor? By the way I don't consider Molyneux an antisemite, not that it would matter in the context of the discussion of this edit. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You speak of "the opacity of the issue of Jewishness". What does that mean? My edit states that "According to Molyneux his mother is a Holocaust survivor." I'm failing to grasp how my edit involves any perceived "opacity of the issue of Jewishness". Are you sure you are not reading into my edit to find implications that are not there? Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to the opacity of the issue of Jewishness was an (admittedly over-the-top) metaphorical reference to the complex relationship between Jews and the alt-right, as I mentioned earlier in my comment. The writing of your edit was not problematic at all, it simply seems to me that, without corroborating secondary sources, this may have been just a throw-away line by Molyneux to respond to what he sees as accusations of anti-semitism. Hence my reference to WP:WEIGHT. If you can find where Molyneux has referenced this fact multiple times, then your edit as it was written would probably be acceptable, as it would represent (at the least) a consistent part of Molyneux's public image. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the article Talk page, in this edit, another editor lists 6 instances of Molyneux making assertions of this nature. You say that there are "accusations of anti-semitism" to which Molyneux may be responding. That may be farfetched. I have not watched or listened to the majority of Molyneux's podcasts but I detect nothing anti-semitic about Molyneux. I doubt he is fabricating family history to counter unfounded claims of anti-semitism. Where are these accusations of anti-semitism? But more to the point, where do we see him responding to any such claims? If we see him invoking Jewish heritage in response to accusations of anti-semitism, that could be a sort of smoking gun. But I have not seen this sort of dialogue between him and any hypothetical accusers or people trying to bash him and badmouth him. Perhaps others could bring to my attention instances of this sort of dialogue. I see things more simply. The man makes a statement multiple times and that statement is of a standard biographical nature and we pass it along to the reader in language that is limited to just that which is supported by the sources, in this case his own assertions. Bus stop (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would again ask you to review WP:SELFPUB, which I would argue is not met here. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That may be farfetched. Hell, it may be complete bullshit, or The Truth as Spoken by Almighty God Himself. It may be song lyrics, or a line from a forgotten poem by John Keats. See my response to the next quote if you want to understand why it isn't farfetched at all.

Where are these accusations of anti-semitism? Many of them are documented in the article, though I will admit, it requires a bit of thought to understand. Critics (and non-critics) consistently describe Molyneux as a member of the alt-right. The phrase "alt-right" was coined by a neo-nazi, and is closely associated with nazism, fascism white nationalism and white supremacy. If you follow this through, you will find that saying someone is part of the alt-right is -in many cases- tantamount to calling them a nazi. And calling someone a nazi is -of course- a way of calling them the absolute worst form of antisemite there is.

But (and I'm explaining this because I feel that the fact that I had to explain the previous bit means you don't have a good grasp of what the alt-right is) there are a number of people who were associated with the alt-right during the early and middle parts of the last presidential election who are not anti-semitic. People like Trump, whose son-in-law is Jewish, who has taken a (really rather mindless and unnecessary) position in support of Israel. People like Milo Yiannopolous, who apparently has his own Jewish heritage, and who was one of the most publicly visible supporters of the alt-right during the election.

So the issue of Jewishness, to someone who is associated with the alt-right, is a tricky one. Many of the most visible parts of the alt-right are Jewish or explicitly pro-Israel. But the alt-right has its roots in the neo-nazi movement and white nationalism. So while I wouldn't be particularly surprised to learn that Molyneux's mother was, in fact, a holocaust survivor, I would also not be the least bit surprised if Molyneux was just lying (a distressingly common practice of the alt-right) to dodge the question of his own beliefs, or to cast doubt on his associations with a group widely seen as antisemitic.

If you would, I suggest you read WP:1AM. It contains some advice that would seem to be appropriate to you. In this case, you seem to be in a position where you are making what -to you- seem to be decidedly reasonable arguments in support of a barely-controversial edit, but there are a large number of people resisting you with a level of passion that seems rather bizarre. But the problem is that you don't seem to have a good grasp of the political and racial nuances here. The question of whether or not Molyneux has Jewish heritage, and whether or not we present that information (or even the claim) can have a very, very large impact on the POV of the article. Now, I'm of the opinion that with good sourcing, it would be for the best. If we can be really certain that Molyneux claims Jewish heritage repeatedly and regularly, and that it's a part of his public persona (as in: he does more than just occasionally say it) then I'm okay with including the claim. The POV shift that ensues will be one that brings it back towards encyclopedic neutrality. If we can be really certain that Molyneux does have Jewish heritage, then again; I'm okay with including the statement that he does, for the same POV reasons.

But if we can't be really certain of either of those two things, then it's probably best to leave the information out. Yes, this has it's own impact on POV, but even if the POV of the article would be better reflective of reality with the claim included, we are bound by our policies not to include it. This is where WP:BLP comes in. To parts of our readership (most of the alt-right and other antisemites), suggesting that Molyneux is Jewish is a slur against him. To parts of our readership (the non-antisemitic parts of the alt-right and many non-alt-right fans of his), suggesting that Molyneux has Jewish Heritage is an immense vindication of him. In other words, with really good sourcing, this is a statement of fact that should probably be included. Without really good sourcing, this is an explosive and divisive claim that should probably be excluded. I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding material which states implicitly or explicitly "This person is JEWISH" appears contrary to BLP guidelines and policy. Using a sideways method to make a claim which would be disallowed otherwise is therefore also disallowed. This is pretty simple. If you want this sort of material, find an explicit declaration by the living person. Collect (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collect—offspring of Holocaust survivors need not be Jewish. In fact all Holocaust victims, including survivors, were not Jewish. You say "[u]sing a sideways method to make a claim which would be disallowed otherwise is therefore also disallowed." That is an argument which in essence says that all material must be supportive of the preconceptions of our editors. Bus stop (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"All Holocaust victims were not Jewish"? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Assuming good faith... Nobody said all Holocaust survivors are Jewish. You're ignoring the point and replacing it with your own preconceptions, which is exactly what you're accusing everyone else of doing. This dispute started with an attempt to say "he is Jewish" based on one very flimsy source which directly contradicted this person's statements about his own identity. The primary source for his mother's info is an extremely obscure passing mention being highlighted specifically because a small number of editors want to insert his supposed Jewishness into the article. No other context is being proposed, just the bare-minimum needed to imply Jewishness. Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of the Holocaust article lists ten other groups aside from Jews that were persecuted in the Holocaust. There are several sources in which Molyneux asserts that his mother is a Holocaust survivor. This is the one that I used to support my edit. You say that "a small number of editors want to insert his supposed Jewishness into the article". Please don't speak for me. I wish to do nothing of the sort. You are arguing that this is being "highlighted". It is not. It is quite commonplace for our biographies to contain information about various parameters of the parents. We should be quite clear that my edit reads: "According to Molyneux his mother is a Holocaust survivor."[2] This is not a discussion as to whether or not the subject of the article is Jewish. Please don't introduce extraneous questions and issues. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"According to Dumuzid, his parents were the King and Queen of Freedonia!" It seems to me to pretty clearly fail the bar of WP:SELFPUB, though reasonable minds may differ. I haven't seen any reliable secondary sources remarking on the claim, so I would say it's not particularly notable in that context, either. I would personally want more before including it in the article. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Highness! 👑 SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you have the right cite? I listened to what you cited and I did not hear him say "Holocaust survivor" I heard him talk about the bombing of Dresden and that the family was working there in 1944. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How would you paraphrase the source? Also consider the 6 other cites on the article Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he says several things, he says his mother was born in '37 to a Jewish clan in Germany. Then he says they were civilians in Dresden during the war and there in 1944 his mother and relations was able to flee the bombing but his grandmother could not because she had to go to her work in Dresden. So, it's all a bit muddled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are paraphrasing. That period and location are commonly known as "the Holocaust". Civilians were killed for the flimsiest reasons. There was no rhyme or reason to many things that would transpire in such an environment. Is your objection that there is a contradiction between a Jewish person working and not in a concentration camp? If she was Jewish, perhaps she hid her Jewishness. Does it matter? Perhaps she was only known to some as being Jewish. Perhaps she "slipped through the cracks". Perhaps the authorities had faulty information. Who knows and who cares? Wouldn't it have been an impulse of many to hide any implication of being Jewish? The son is providing us with certain information, perhaps misinformation, in another time and place, for perhaps new ulterior motives. To my way of thinking, the only question is whether or not, as well as how, to pass Molyneux's assertion along to the reader. He is developing this theme. We have not dug up some obscure record somewhere pertaining to the mother of Molyneux. Any reader can be assumed to want to know more about the subject of a biography. That is why they come to the biography. In my opinion a thorough biography of Molyneux alludes to Molyneux's well-developed theme of a mother who is possibly Jewish who survives war-torn Europe in Germany. I've chosen my wording for a responsible edit carefully but it was reverted. Bus stop (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't paraphrase him saying something he did not say - that's just not done, especially to BLP's. 'His mother survived WWII in Germany' is just not the same as 'His mother survived the Holocaust'.Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker—then you are suggesting that we say "His mother survived WWII in Germany"? If others agree, and you agree, I will go along with that. The source certainly supports that "his mother survived WWII in Germany". Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to go back to the talk page, to discuss that and other edits. You'll have to deal with other editors sourcing and weight issues there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Saying in the article that she "survived" would imply that there was some reason she was not expected to survive, which is another way of telegraphing his supposedly Jewish heritage. What percentage of people born in Europe in 1966 had parents who lived through the war? Most, I'm guessing. Why is that history noteworthy compared to every other 50-something European? It isn't, unless reliable sources say it is. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell—did you listen to the first 2.5 minutes of this talk? Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This "Jewish mother" stuff has been more than thoroughly examined and rejected at the article talk page over the course of 1-2 years. By a pretty diverse group of editors there, and including half a dozen weaselly wordings and formulations that attempt to evade policy-based scrutiny. If there were a shred of merit to this, there would be some RS basis for it. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO—you don't have to agree with the edit in question. But you should be addressing the topic at hand rather than the topic of your choice. We aren't discussing whether the mother, or Molyneux himself, are Jewish. Really. I specifically opened this thread to examine this edit.. Responding that "This 'Jewish mother' stuff has been more than thoroughly examined..." is not even presenting an on-topic argument. Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your link points us to a primary sourced dubious claim from a video full of dubious narrative about momma's "Jewish Clan" as Molyneux deftly characterizes them, living openly in Nazi Germany until the very last days of WW2. P.S. we know from his many other self-published videos that he *hates* momma. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OP has an extensive history of not hearing others and pushing some kind of "Jewish" agenda. Time for a ban, block or both. --Malerooster (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malerooster—I have a point of order. What is an "OP"? Why don't you speak plain English? Is Wikipedia only for a select group of Wikipedia devotees? It is important to create a welcoming environment for all good faith editors because a welcoming environment promotes collaborative editing, at least in my opinion. Wikipedia editing should only be poorly comparable to a jousting match. A little bit of respect shown for others goes a long way. This need not be a hostile environment. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could have asked that in half a sentence. OP=Original Poster, in this instnce that would be you. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop, yes, good faith editors should be welcomed, but I do not consider you a good faith editor, I consider you a plight to this project. --Malerooster (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Primary sources are generally reliable for uncontentious information about themselves. 2. Except where a claim would be self-serving. 3. For members of the alt-right the Jewish heritage issue can be self-serving when its used to deflect criticism. 4. While its a bit of a stretch to paraphrase I don't think its completely out of line that any Jew or person of close Jewish heritage living in Poland or Germany at the start of, or during WWII who managed to come out alive at the end survived the holocaust. 5. I don't think it should be included - its primary sourced, its contentious (for the reasons MPants has gone into above), its certainly possible its self-serving given the political problems with the alt-right and Jewishness. Absent better sourcing I would leave it out. Which appears to be the result of every other discussion in the archives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bahar Mustafa and Milo Yiannopoulos

Hey BLPN. A dispute has arisen on the page Bahar Mustafa race row incident about the inclusion of quotes/opinion from Milo Yiannopoulos sourced from Breitbart. The quotes pertain to a police investigation against Bahar Mustafa for tweeting "#killallwhitemen." Milo is quoted opposing the police investigation on free speech grounds and describing Mustafa as "a complete fucking lunatic" and "another ten-penny arsonist in a sea of pre-programmed feminist automatons." Is it appropriate to cite Breitbart in such a manner from a BLP perspective? --Brustopher (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents is leave in his support of free speech while summarizing the disparaging comments as disparging comments (without fully qupting them).Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never. Breitbart is absolutely an unacceptable source for anything about a living person. There is no evidence that the opinion of a fringe far-right commentator published in a non-RS far-right publication merits inclusion here. Why do we care what Milo thought about this? Answer: we don't. The mere existence of an opinion is insufficient to justify its inclusion, particularly given that no reliable source could be bothered to publish it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions cited and used as opinions are still allowed from almost any source imaginable. Collect (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost any source imaginable" - you're acknowledging there are exceptions, and one of those is Breitbart. If Milo can't get his garbage published in a source worthy of the name, there's no particular reason we should bother including it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a cursory BEFORE shows, this was actually reported elsewhere, e.g. vice.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milo's opinion is relevant only to Milo's actions, he is not a recognized or credentialed authority figure on any topic whatsoever. Does not belong in this or any article outside of his own and perhaps Breitbart. TheValeyard (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"he is not a recognized or credentialed authority figure on any topic whatsoever" - the same could be said of a great many socio-political media commentators, surely? They are just there to give their opinion to a readership or viewership who may be interested in it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include literally everything ever said about someone by anyone. We pick and choose - that is the very essence of editing. We can, and should, choose high-quality sources on all sides that make meaningful comments which enlighten and inform our readers. I would posit that literally nothing Milo has ever written about anything has ever enlightened anyone. The article is improved immensely by omitting his mindless invective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of Breitbart as a source, I looked through the archives and it seems that—although Breitbart is never considered a reliable source for news coverage—it is acceptable to use its op-eds for socio-political commentary. That is particularly the case when said op-eds are written by prominent commentators like Milo or Steve Bannon. From reading the comments here, I'm a little concerned that several editors are opposing the inclusion of the material simply because they dislike Milo Yiannopoulos and Breitbart. Now there's nothing wrong with disliking Yiannopoulos or Breitbart (hell, I'm not exactly a fan). But simply not liking him and thinking that his views are poppycock is not a reason for ruling him out as a significant political commentator. At the end of the day, he is probably one of the most widely recognisable political commentators of the past five years, in the U.S. and U.K. at least. (Can anyone name a single political commentator who has attracted greater press attention for their actions in recent years?). Remember, "I don't like it" is not a legitimate argument for removing material from Wikipedia, and I've yet to see a single argument other than that presented here. And as Icewhiz has shown, Milo's views on this incident have even been quoted on other media platforms like Vice, so it clearly meets notability guidelines. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does it add to this article to note that a *redacted* writing on a far-right website called her "a fucking lunatic"? What, from an encyclopedic standpoint, do our readers gain from that? Nothing, right? So why would we include it? We don't include in Donald Trump any leftist loudmouth lout calling him an "orange fascist" though it would be trivial to find such a quote somewhere. We are writing encyclopedia articles, not compendia of ad-hominem insults. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to removing the "fucking lunatic" quote per se. What I object to is the total removal of any mention of Milo's views from the article, which to my mind is purely being defended with the argument that 'he's a bigot and he's got far-right views and he's a loudmouth and no one needs to know what he's got to say'. That's just "I don't like it" and it's not a legitimate argument for removal. As I see it, Icewhiz made a perfectly reasonable suggestion that the prose be edited to remove the direct quotation while keeping to the general gist, i.e. that we describe how Milo supported Mustafa's right to free speech in the face of legal prosecution while also criticising her standpoint. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the comparison with the Donald Trump article is not really a particularly fair one. The Donald Trump article must give coverage to a vast selection of events and incidents, the Bahar Mustafa race row incident is far, far more restricted in scope. The former article should ideally rely on the work of biographers and professional academics; the latter will inevitably rely more on press sources and op-eds. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may simply be my own ignorance, but why should we accord Mr. Yiannopoulos' opinion any greater weight or notability than other commentators? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumuzid: We don't, at least not on the article in question. There, we record the views of various commentators. The problem here is that several editors believe that Yiannopoulos' views carry lesser weight and lesser notability than those of other commentators, which frankly I think stems purely from political bias against Yiannopolos and his right-wing libertarian (and often provocatively contrarian) views. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a site for the dissemination of "provocatively contrarian views" for their own sake. There is clearly no consensus that we should include Milo's views on this issue in any significant detail, much less that we should provide a link to his*redacted* rantings. If your only argument for inclusion is "it exists," we are not obligated to include it merely because it exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If your only argument for inclusion is "it exists,"" - that is most certainly not my argument! My argument is based on the fact that Yiannopoulos is probably the single most prominent public figure to have commented on the situation. His comments were covered by at least one other media outlet and even warranted a response from Mustafa herself; as the article currently stands, it includes Mustafa's response but not Yiannopoulos' original comment! A bizarre state of affairs, surely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a deletion discussion. We explicitly *do not include everything said by anyone about anything.* The essence of encyclopedia editing is deciding what to include in an article. The burden here is on you to explain and justify the inclusion of Milo's commentary. Why should we include these inane rantings? What do you think it adds to the article? If you cannot provide a better argument than "he said it," then the merits speak for themselves. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear here: Milo Yiannopoulos is one of several commentators to have publicly spoken out on the police investigation into Mustafa's comments. Of those, he is almost certainly the best known public figure. His comments have been referenced by another, independent news service and have warranted a response from Mustafa herself. Clearly, it is relevant. The only argument that you have produced in opposition to mentioning his comments in the article is the fact that you don't like him, you don't like Breitbart, and you don't think that they deserve any citation or reference in Wikipedia. Please, please take a step back and just look at your comments: "His views are irrelevant and Breitbart can get fucked", "a bigoted loudmouth lout writing on a far-right website", his "inane rantings", his vulgar, misogynistic ad-hominem rantings", "literally nothing Milo has ever written about anything has ever enlightened anyone". Every comment and edit that you have made is brimming with disdain for him and it is that which appears to be driving your views on including the information. That's contrary to Wikipedia's policy. I've said it before and I've said it again: "I don't like it" is not a legitimate argument for removing material from Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems perfectly fine to me now. The mention makes sense, but to accord Mr. Yiannopoulos an entire paragraph seems more than passing strange to me. If you'd like to create the article "Milo Yiannopoulos' Views of Bahar Mustafa" it would certainly belong there. I can't vouch for what might happen to said article, but anything is possible. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the idea that this is only about Milo is untrue - it would apply equally if someone suggested, say, including inane rants from The Borowitz Report in an article about Donald Trump. We are encyclopedia editors, not Google automatons, and our ability to discern what improves an article and what does not is what makes our efforts a worthy endeavour. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? You want to give someone's derogatory opinions about someone else on their BLP? You're going to need a much stronger argument than he's a known opininator, and an odd cite to a Wikipedia deletion discussion rationale. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed this discussion, I agree with Midnightblueowl, whose position seems completely reasonable to me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BLP, this unquestionably-unreliably-sourced material has been challenged by multiple editors and it should not be reinserted until and unless there's a clear consensus that it belongs in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Midnightblueowl, "Regarding the use of Breitbart as a source, I looked through the archives and it seems that—although Breitbart is never considered a reliable source for news coverage—it is acceptable to use its op-eds for socio-political commentary." We are going in circles here. There are no reasonable grounds for removing the material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "there is no consensus for inclusion of this questionably-sourced material" do you not understand? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the meaning of that sentence perfectly well, NorthBySouthBaranof. I am a native English speaker, after all. I was not actually arguing with what that sentence asserts. Even if there were a consensus against inclusion at this moment, consensus can change. As has been already noted, it is simply strange to include someone's response to Yiannopoulos without including the original comments from him they were responding to. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional comment, why were some of NorthBySouthBaranof's comments about Yiannopoulos removed by Malerooster when those same comments are still clearly visible in Midnightblueowl's quotations of them? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can only do so much :). They should ALL be removed, per BLP. I also have no opinion on what statements should be in the article, but would lean towards not including them especially if there isn't a clear consensus for inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you seriously think they should be removed per BLP, then you should have done just that. Removing only the original comments while keeping the quotations of those comments by Midnightblueowl may make you feel good, but it accomplishes nothing. Anyone interested in seeing what was said can still clearly see it on the page. Maybe take the issue to ANI, and see what the admin corps do? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i removed the portion in the quotes, better?. --Malerooster (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is more consistent. I will leave it others to decide whether it is better. The more relevant issue is that content has been removed from the article Bahar Mustafa race row incident for no good reason. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this diff is entirely reasonable. Milo's opinion is discussed by non-Breitbart sources and he is a quite notable commentator commenting on a not so notable person. There is no good reason to include Milo's highly disparaging remarks verbatim - and leaving them as "he criticised Mustafa's views and stated that he thought that she should be sacked" while pointing out that "but argued that it was an affront to free speech for the police to press charges against her for her comments." makes his, notable in this case, position on the matter clear while removing unnecessary invective language.Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a BLP issue as such. Milos opinion has been covered elsewhere, so even if we could argue his opinion piece in Brietbart fails reliability for a BLP, that other more reliable organisations have covered it circumvents that. This is an WP:UNDUE issue really. What makes Milo's opinion on this relevant to the article? Well the simple answer to that is that it has been covered elsewhere (other than where it originated). I don't *personally* think it should be included because I don't think his opinion is worth a sack of shit. Sadly that is not a policy-based reason to keep it out, and I cant find one given the coverage it received. Also Milo has spent too long in the US. We don't have 'free speech' as such in the UK as it is understood by many people, inciting violence and racial hatred is not something you can get away with. Which is why she was legitimately being investigated by the Met (Legitimate in the sense, the Met were required to investigate if people made a credible complaint). You don't get to say whatever you want in the UK with zero consequences. So I don't think any comments on 'its a violation of free speech' are really relevant there. If it has to be included, per Icewhiz above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kiwi Farms

I looked over this article carefully and it is almost entirely negative BLP content - the sourcing for it is not suitable for this type of BLP content, in my opinion, and parts of it (like comparisons to Nazis and Hitler) misrepresent the sources. I nominated it for speedy deletion as WP:ATP but that was turned down. I was going to nominate for MfD, but since the editor is so upset about the nomination and says he is a new editor acting in good faith, I think a community discussion somewhere more visible would be better.SeraphWiki (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before. @JzG: is this the same article you nuked before? Fyddlestix (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Different content, but undoubtedly the same person. Blocked for block evasion and draft nuked per WP:CSD#G5. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael DeLorenzo

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

Poorly sourced article about a rather prolific actor (Fame (1982 TV series), Head of the Class, New York Undercover, Resurrection Blvd.).

I recently stumbled upon this BLP, and have been searching for better sources, focusing on his early life to see if it's possible to pin down his date of birth (Talk:Michael_DeLorenzo#Year of birth. There's been a large amount of WP:SPA editing since June 2017, and the article relies heavily on his website, IMDB, and YouTube for sourcing.

Help would be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Beat article from 1985 cites him as 23 in 1985 so that would make his birth year 1962. copy available here: http://www.fameforever.com/series/interview55.php —Janelovely —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The single-purpose accounts focusing on this biography since 2010 are worrisome; I think they could be the same editor violating WP:MULTIPLE, or they could be paid editors. The latest one, Janelovely, provided a URL to a magazine article image that was uploaded to Google Groups, violating copyright laws. And above you can see Janelovely provided a URL to a website run by Pamela Rosensteel that is hosting a Tiger Beat article without permission – another copyright violation. The actor is certainly worthy of having a good biography, but these SPA accounts are not the answer. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pelosi Jr.

The initial section reads like promotional material, culled from his own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.204.135 (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stubbed it, as it was almost entirely unsourced. Might be best just to take to WP:AfD once again if no one can find better sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mawejje

Multiple sources, including FIFA and the Football Association of Iceland, list his year of birth as 1986. However, his year of birth is constantly being edited to 1990, with those who edit that providing a single source from a football statistics website. Dalitidlamadur (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any evidence that '86 may be incorrect, or that he's been trying to keep his age private, then it would probably be best to remove the year per WP:DOB.

Are there any detailed biographies about him? --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Sainsbury

An anon editor changed data (birth date and place), claiming to be the mother of the article's subject. I first removed the disputed data altogether (as it was unsourced either way). Searching around the internet there a numerous depictions of the person's passport, almost all of them with the DOB/POB/Passport number blanked. I have been able to find one image (here), which - if it is genuine as it appears to be - lists the date and place of birth in line with the claims of the anon editor. So there question is: can/should we use very likely illegitimately obtained pictures of the internet to source BLP data on Wikipedia?? Travelbird (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary documents (Of which a passport is one) cannot be used on a BLP. Its also a massive privacy invasion if we were to link to a passport. I don't see why this is even an article, its classic BLP1E. Subject is only notable for one event. Drug Smuggling. There is nothing surprising or unique about it, plenty of drug smugglers get caught all the time. The event itself is not notable, many countries with drug problems catch foreign mules on a daily basis. The subject clearly meets the definition of a low-profile individual - according to the article and the sources she was not a public figure with a record of little stable employment and no claim of significance. It could probably qualify for speedy, 'drugs mule' isn't really a claim of significance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it out - not needed, privacy, etc. Agree about WP:PERP concerns regarding notability. Seems like she's getting coverage for being a blonde drug mule - Missing white woman syndrome - with quite a bit of the coverage being tabloid based.Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The DOB is unnecessary. The whole article seems unnecessary, as it is all about one event. It doesn't tell us anything about the person, nor give any reason why the reader should care. I think it should be speedy deleted, or AFDed at the very least. Zaereth (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's a WP:BLP1E case. I think there's too much sourcing in the article to get a speedy delete through so I've sent it to AFD. Let's see what others think. I suspect we might get WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments with this one, though. Neiltonks (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen Southby tailyor

Ewen Southby-Tailyour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relevant sourced have been added including 4 press links that are repeatedly delated by a subject close to the Article. This are Relevant and active and as they are not in the glowing account that the Author would like to portray they are delated. It is against what Wikipedia stands for as it is not a Who's Who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyBridge27 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's about the poorest sourced autobiography I ever saw. There are six sources: Source 1.) The London Gazette (supplement) -- A wartime leaflet giving battlefield updates and special honors for troops. It lists only his name and an honor he received. 2.) A news pamphlet from the OP Society, giving a few lines of thanks to the subject. 3.) The London Gazette (supplement) Gives the name and promotion of a completely different person (Simon Southby Tailyour). 4.) Nonexistent. 5.) A link to his book on Google Books. 6.) A genealogy website (used for personal information).

He's apparently notable for authoring several books, at least one of which was a best seller. However, the lack of sources in troubling, as is the OR sourcing of personal information from some genealogy website. If not a single reliable source can be found I'd seriously consider this for AFD. Zaereth (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the personal life section as a BLP issue. It was sourced entirely to Freebmd - essentially a public database of births, marriages, death certificates etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did some checking, and he's definitely a notable person, so I take back my comment about AFD. Our article says his book was a Sunday Times best seller, so I thought that would be as good a source as any. I couldn't find that, but was able to locate a few others like the BBC, Country Life, or Sea History. These would likely be some good sources for the article. There may be more, but I don't have time to dig deeper. Zaereth (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Sosa Haitian ancestry

Sammy Sosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No content about Sammy Sosa Haitian ancestry should be included without providing WP:BLPSOURCES. The article's Early life include the statement "Sosa's paternal family, the Peraltas, are Dominican of Haitian descent" with a source that have been checked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as not reliable per WP:SPS. User Savvyjack23 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) has used that same source to include the same Haitian ancestry in other articles. We have discussed the matter in the article talk and he provided other poor discarded sources. I am requesting the Haitian ancestry content to be removed. --Osplace 16:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I referred Osplace here if they felt they needed another opinion - as Sammy Sosa is a living person and the information touches on his ancestry/ethnicity which can be a sensitive area. Short version - all the reliable sources say Dominican and I don't believe there is any self-identification from the subject that indicates he is of Haitian descent. The 'Haitian' info appears to be very weakly sourced (see the RSN discussion for details) - and ultimately appears to be sourced to a journalist who says he has/has seen evidence but has not disclosed or provided it (please correct me if I am wrong Osplace) - my opinion is for a BLP the sourcing requirements are not even close to being met for indicating someone is of X ancestry - even if attributing it. More opinions welcome. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. --Osplace 20:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source is "weak." Sosa has apparently made no self-identification in any place of Haitian ethnicity (including his autobiography), thus the BLP strictures on us assigning claims of ethnicity clearly apply. Collect (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. --Osplace 20:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Yoder

Stumbled across this in Pending Changes. An IP editor has been making large changes to this article, some of which are sourced and some of which are not or which fail WP:V. They are also removing negative but reliably-sourced information as "redundant". I'm now at 3 reverts and am therefore bowing out of watching the article so other eyes would be appreciated. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lisa nicole carson

The biography of Lisa Nicole Carson (the actress) uses a quote at the end of the Personal Life section that is actually attributable to Lisa Nichols (a motivational speaker), an entirely different woman. The quote is sourced from a video of Lisa Nichols which is referenced at the end of the biography. Obviously, this needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.37.206 (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done! A number of other problems with that QUOTEFARM besides being mis-attributed (bad enough by itself).Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Polk

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

There is a slow-moving edit war on this page to introduce controversial content that fails WP:BLPSOURCE. I have been trying to keep the content out until better sources are provided, but the other side of this war has not responded to any warnings or attempts to discuss.

I am seeking wider input and assistance in dealing with this because I am the only editor currently trying to remove this content and I'd like a sanity check that I'm in the right here before imposing any blocks or instituting page protection. Additionally, the bad edits are coming from multiple editors and IP addresses; I don't believe a simple block is going to resolve this.

For reference, the editors involved in adding the content:

Gudduahmed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The author of the content and the primary participant in the edit war.
192.119.165.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2405:204:9291:7e7b:2d24:73a0:1c9f:634e (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

If you are reading the article's history, you may notice that the following editor also reintroduced the content twice. However, it appears the editor misidentified removal of the offending content as vandalism, and so I don't believe this user deserves any scrutiny for their actions.

Beauty School Dropout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At this point, I'm not entirely sure how to proceed in resolving this matter. Advice is welcome. --Chris (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was why I didn’t attempt to edit the article again. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crazycomputers:, agreed that the material is non-compliant. The sources for the statements appear to be a blog and three YouTube videos. Obviously, none of these are WP:RS. That's not even mentioning the writing in the edit-warred section. (Does having a "contravisional" style mean he's blinding his opponents?) I suggest that pending changes or autoconfirmed protection may be warranted. Does this require a separate RFPP request? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn:: We don't need a separate request. I'm an admin and can enact any protections we deem necessary here. I just wanted to gather some input from the community to make sure that I was doing the right thing. (I'd rather second-guess myself than incorrectly issue sanctions.) --Chris (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a standard single purpose account with an agenda that doesn't understand of care about reliable sources. The links are primary sources of people just ragging on each other, so the content isn't just made up, but its also no encyclopedic or even particularly interesting. I don't see that there is anything to "do" except keep reverting it. 2005 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned on pending changes for now. --Chris (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Oppenheim

New sentences inserted into the article about NBC News President Noah Oppenheim are highly contentious and violate WP: BLP, in my opinion. A reviewer removed unsourced materials, but what they added in its place includes important inaccuracies and violates NPOV.

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but I am a paid consultant to NBC News, so as per WP: COI, I am seeking a independent reviewer to carefully assess and make the necessary edits, or instruct me as to how to improve my suggested changes. A full discussion of the issues can be found at Talk:Noah_Oppenheim. BC1278 (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Danielle Fong

I have been trying to remove a wildly disproportionate amount of fluff from this article, much of it unencycopedic opinions about how clever she is, a good deal of it name-dropping about other people associated with her projects, extensive quotations to show "fantastic support" and the like going to the extent of providing detail about the various grants that have been rejected. I dont just want to keep reverting the various spas and ip editors, but the only alternative is nominating this for deletion, so I have just done so. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 319: / Line 319: @@
 I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but I am a paid consultant to [[NBC News]], so as per [[WP: COI]], I am seeking a independent reviewer to carefully assess and make the necessary edits, or instruct me as to how to improve my suggested changes. A full discussion of the issues can be found at [[Talk:Noah_Oppenheim]].  [[User:BC1278|BC1278]] ([[User talk:BC1278|talk]]) 20:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278
+==[[Danielle Fong]]==
+I have been trying to remove a wildly disproportionate amount of fluff from this article, much of it unencycopedic opinions about how clever she is, a good deal of it name-dropping about  other people associated with her projects, extensive quotations to show "fantastic support" and the like going to the extent of providing detail about the various grants that have been <u>rejected</u>.
+I dont just want to keep reverting the various spas and ip editors, but the only alternative is nominating this for deletion, so I have just done so. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 05:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards